- -------------

THE ANALYSIS OF CULTURE

HALL and TRAGER
, . ---- ---- - - -- - - ~ ~ ~
THE ANALYSIS OF CULTURE
HALL and TRAGER
Edward T. , Hall, Jr., and George L. Trager
(ForeignService Institute, Department of State)
THE ANALYSIS OF CULTURE
[Pre-publication editionfor criticismand discussion;
reproducedfor the authors withthe assistance of
the American Council of LearnedSocieties]
Washington, D.C.
1953
Edward T . , Hall, Jr., and George L. Trager
(Foreign Service Institute, Department of State)
THE ANALYSIS OF -CULTURE
[Pre-publication edition for criticism and discussion;
reproduced for the authors with the assistance of
the American Council of Learned Societies]
Washington, D.C.
1953
Prefatory Note
This paper was completed in nearly its present form in October,
1952. A brief outline of it was presented as a double talk by the authors
at the meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Philadel-
phia in December. Since then considerable additional work has been done,
and section 5 of the present version incorporates some statements about
these new developments.
We are working continuously on the various leads that a program-
matic paper of this kind suggests. One of these is the discovery of the
basic components of various kinds of cultural activities. Thus there is
one component each for space and time. For the sexes there are two. In
terms of the theoretical elaborations and relationships presented here it
appears that there may then be similarly two, or four, or some other
number of components for other cultural systems. In so far as we have
tested these ideas, they seem to work, but obviously the presentation of
them is a separate task. Again, the real basis of definition of formal, in-
formal,and technical systems has been an object of inquiry . Here we have
had considerable success, leading to the possibility of a very thorough
analysis of each basic focal system into sub-systems having different
kinds of basic units and connected with each other in sy st ematic ways.
This too will have to be the subj ect of separ a te pape rs.
Pressure of time has m ade it impossible to d o a complete editorial
checking job on the paper as a whole, so that there must still be m any
inconsistencies. This is especially true of section 6 and the conclusion.
It has seem ed desirabl e, nonetheless, to reproduce the material for dis-
cus sion at thi s time.
We have benefited throughout our work from discussions with col-
leagues, especially Henry Lee Smith, J r., and Edward A . Kennard, and
since the original version a;J.so with Donald H. Hunt.
Washington, D .C. Edward T. Hall, Jr.
May 1,1953 George L. Trager
I
. "1-
Prefatory Note
This paper was completed in nearly its present form in October,
1952. A brief outline of it was presented as a double talk by the authors
at the meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Philadel-
phia in December. Since then considerable additional work has been done,
and section 5 of the present version incorporates some statements about
these new developments.
We are working continuously on the various leads that a program-
matic paper of this kind suggests. One of these is the discovery of the
basic components of various kinds of cultural activities. Thus there is
one component each for space and time . For the sexes there are two. In
terms of the theoretical elaborations and relationships presented here it
appears that there may then be similarly two, or four, or some other
number of components for other cultural s y stems . In so far as we have
tested these ideas, they seem to work, but obviously the presentation of
them is a separate task. Again, the real basis of definition of formal, in-
formal, -and technical systems has been an object of inquiry. Here we have
had considerable success, leading to the possibility of a very thorough
analysis of each basic focal system into sub-systems having different
kinds of basic units and connected with each other in syst ematic ways.
This too will have to be t h e subject of separate papers.
Pressure of time has m ade it impossible t o d o a complete editorial
checking job on the paper as a whole, so that there must still be m any
inconsistencies. This is especially true of section 6 and the conclusion .
It has seemed desirabl e, nonetheless, to reproduce the material for dis-
cussion at thi s time .
We have benefited throughout our work from discussions with col-
leagues, especially Henry Lee Smi th, Jr ., and Edward A . Keilnard, and
since the original version also with Donald H. Hunt .
Washington, D .C.
May 1, 1953
Edward T. Hall, Jr.
George L. Trager
CONTENTS
l. Introduction.
1
2. The content of culture. 5
2.l. [Previous d.!la1yses.]
5
2.2. [The biological base.]
7
2.3. [The focal activities.] 8
3. The structuring of culture. 12
3.l. [The analytical scheme.] 12
3.2. [The tertiary elaborations.] 15
4. The integration of culture. 19
4.l. [Formal aspects.] 21
.4.2. [Informal aspects.] 23
4.3. [Technical aspects.] 28
5. Syntheses of cultural systems. 33
5.l. [Integrational groupings.] 34
5.2. [Functional groupings.] 37
6. The configurations of culture. 4 6
6.l. [Groupings, sets, configurations.] 48
/
0._.
[Cultural profiles.] 53
6.3. [Values, personality.] 55
7. Summary and conclusions. 57
References 59
1. Introduction.
2. The content of culture.
2.1. [Previ ous d1l.al y s es.]
2.2. [The biological base.]
2.3. [The focal activities.]
3 . The structuring of culture.
CONTENTS
3.1. [The analytical scheme.]
3.2. [The tertiary elaborations.]
4. The integration of culture .
4.1. [Formal aspect s.]
4.2. [Informal aspects.]
4.3. [Technical aspects.]
5. Syntheses of cultural systems.
5.1. [Integrational groupings.]
5.2. [Functional groupings.]
6. The configurations of culture.
6.1. [Groupings, sets, configurations.]
6.:'. [Cultural profiles.]
6.3. [Values, personality.]
7. Summary and conclusions.
References
1
5
5
7
8
12
12
15
19
21
23
28
3 3
3 4
37
46
48
53
55
57
59
1. INTRODUCTION
Improvements in communication networks in their broadest sense,
and the creation of weapons for destruction which can, by means of our
improved communication, be delivered anywhere on this globe in a matter
of hours, have so shrunk the world that most thinking men are by now
genuinely concerned with that complex series of events known as culture.
The pressure for an increased knowledge of cultures was a concomi-
tant of the global character of World War II, and it. was at this time that
anthropologists and linguists were employe d on an unpr e ceden ted scale
to equip us better to deal with cultur es as ali en to ou r own as the J a p a ne s e.
This m e ant that lingui sts a nd ot h er anthropologists sud denly found t hem-
selves p r eci p ita ted from t he worl d of the exotic to t he very practical
world of modern warfare, where l ives depended upon the de g r ee to which
they were a bl e to i n te rpret c o rrectly the rel ati onships between culture s .
The showing of the linguist, f o r r e asons which will be i n dic a ted below,
was more tangi bl e than t hat of the cultural anthropologist, who of n eces-
sity dealt in gene ralities and oft e n experienced diffi culty i n communicating
his insights to t hose who wer e suppo sed to act upon the m
l
.* These diffi-
culti es can be att ributed in p art to the n ewness of our d i scipl ine, the com-
pl e xit y of the data with wh i ch w e deal, and certai n hi st o ric al developments
havin g to d o with the rel ationship of t h e s ocial. t o t he p hysic al sciences.
The extre me presti g e of t h e phy sic al s c i ence s was suffi c ientl y alluri n g to
cause a good m any soci al scientists to b orr ow, i n s o fa r as t h e y were able,
the techniques and m eth od ol ogi e s of t h e m o re e st a blished di s ciplin e s . T he r e
was of course a certain e thni c det errninism. in nIis, in that \V- est ern E u r o -
pean c ulture generally is on e that e mphasizes quantification in t he wh ol e
matter of everyday living. F or instance, recent experiments with Ameri-
cans scheduled for serv ice overseas indicate that in such diverse fields
as housing and animal husbandry the first things the American is wont to
ask about have to do with quantities and distribution.
There have been those who have questioned the validity of preoccu-
pation with measurement in the field of human and intercultural relations.
Wharf (a chemical engineer and a scientific linguist) pointed up cogently
some of the differences in this regard between events in chemistry and
*See References, p. 59.
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Improvements in communication networks in their broadest sense,
and the creation of weapons for destruction which can, by means of our
improved communication, be delivered anywhere on this globe in a matter
of hours, have so shrunk the world that most thinking men are by now
genuinely concerned with that complex series of events known as culture.
The pressure for an increased knowledge of cultures was a concomi-
tant of the global character of World War II, and it. was at this time that
anthropologists and linguists were employe d on an unpr e ced e n t e d scale
to equip us better to deal with cultu r es as ali en to ou r own as the J a p a ne s e.
This m e ant that lingui sts a nd ot h er anthr opologist s sud denly found t hem-
selve s p r eci p ita ted from t he world of the exotic t o t he very practical
world of modern warfa re, where l ives depended upon the deg r ee to which
they were a bl e to i n terpret c o rrectly the rel ati onships between culture s .
The showing of the l inguist , f o r r e asons which will be i n dic a ted below,
was more tangi bl e than t hat of the cultural anthropologist, who of n eces-
sity dealt in gene ralities and oft e n experienced diffi c ulty i n communicating
his insights to t hose who wer e suppo sed to act upOn the m
1
.* Th ese diffi-
culti es can be att ributed in p art to the n ewness of our d i scipline, the com-
ple xit y of the data with wh i ch w e deal, and certa i n hi st oric al developments
havin g to d o with the rel ationship of t h e s ocial t o t he p hysic al sciences.
The extre m e presti g e of t h e phy sic al sciences was s uffi c ien tl y allu rin g to
cause a good m any soci al s cien ti sts to b o rrow, i n s o far a s t h e y we re able,
the techniques and m eth od ol ogi es of t h e m o r e e st a blis hed di s ciplin e s . T h er e
was of course a certain e thni c d et errninisITl in nIis, in that '.'{est ern E u r o -
pean c ulture generally is on e that e mphasizes quantification in t he whole
matter of everyday living . F or instance, recent experiments with Ameri-
cans scheduled for serv ice overseas indicate that in such diverse fields
as housing and animal husbandry the first things the American is wont to
ask about have to do with quantities and distribution.
There have been those who have questioned the validity of preoccu-
pation with measurement in the field of human and intercultural relations.
Whorf (a chemical engineer and a scientific linguist) pointed up cogently
some of the differences in this regard between events in chemistry and
*See References, p. 59.
1
2
physics and events in culture (in this case linguistics)2.
Turning now to cultural anthropology, it can be said that its most
important theoretical contribution to the field of intercultural relations
has been what is generally known as 'cultural relativism', which means
in effect that man is capable of satisfying his biological and culturally de-
rived needs in a variety of ways. The anthropologist makes no value judg-
ments as to which of a number of ways is better, and only goes so far as
to say that cultures are different and that the differences should be re-
spected. He has not, up to this time, been able to demonstrate in other
than rather inadequately descriptive terms the basis for the different
el aborations of culture. That is, he has been unable to reduce to a physi-
c alor b i ological base the difference between cultural events . He has lacked
the basic units or building blocks of culture and a frame of reference which
would provide such a physical basis. His historically developed frames of
r e f erence had the added disadvantage of restricting the description of the
da t a to what seemed to be a single oruer of events. However, cultural be-
h a v ior clearly involves more than one level, a point, as will be seen,
w hi ch is basic to the analysis of culture.
Our first insights in regard to levels did not corne from the social
scienc e s as they are usually defined, but from a b r anch of medicine. It
rema ine d for Freud to establish that human behavior included areas which
were rnanifest through slips and dreams but were not in awareness. He
relegated such activities to the unconscious, a proposition which is still
generally accepted even in analytic circles.
Paralleling, but much later than Freud, Kluckhohn
3
, elaborating an
original insight of Linton, postulated the culturally analogous aspects of
the unconscious which he called cov ert c ulture , or t hat which is hidden,
and to which he relegated by far the largest po r ti on of h u m an behavior.
The concepts of the unconscious on the indi vidual level and the co-
vert on the cultural level have certain serious d r awbacks for the scien-
tist, if for no other reason than the seman tic implications of these terms,
signalling that neither can be directly analy zed but can only be inferred.
Harry Stack Sullivan
4
provided the m uch needed re-definition of the un-
conscious into what he termed dissociated b ehavior , thereby taking the
hocus pocus out of a tremendous chunk of human behavior on the indivi-
dual level. Later Hall suggested
5
that dissociated behavi or could be demon-
strated on the level of culture, that dissociated acts w ere to a large de-
gree culturally patterned, and that there was a difference between cultur-
ally patterned dissociated behavior and what Kluc khohn had termed the
covert in culture. (A term which better fits the situation than c ov ert is
implicit, i.e., that which is so well learned and so universally shared that
2
physics and events in culture (in this case linguistics)2.
Turning now to cultural anthropology, it can be said that its most
important theoretical contribution to the field of intercultural relations
has been what is generally known as 'cultural relativism', which means
in effect that man is capable of satisfying his biological and culturally de-
ri v ed needs in a variety of ways. The anthropologist make s no v alue judg-
ments as to which of a number of ways is better, and only goes so far as
to say that cultures are different and that the differences should be re-
spected. He has not, up to this time, been able to demonstrate in other
than rather inadequately descriptive terms the basis for the different
el aborations of culture. That is, he has been unable to reduce to a physi-
calor b i ological base the difference between cultural events . He has lacked
the basic units or building blocks of culture and a frame of reference which
wuuld provide such a physical basis. His historically developed frames of
r e f erence had the added disadvantage of restricting the description of the
da t a t o what seemed to be a single ortler of events. However, cultural be-
havi o r clearly involves more than one level, a point, as will be seen,
whi ch i s basic to the analysis of culture.
Our first insights in regard to levels did not corne from the social
scienc e s as they are usually defined, but from a b r anch of medicine. It
remaine d for Freud to establish that human behavior included areas which
were rnanifest through slips and dreams but were not in awareness. He
releg ated such activities to the unconscious, a proposition which is still
generally accepted even in analytic circles.
Paralleling, but much later than Freud, Kluckhohn
3
, elaborating an
o r iginal insight of Linton, postulated the culturally analogous aspects of
the unconscious which he called cov ert c ulture, or t hat which is hidden,
and to which he relegated by far the largest po r ti on of h u m an behavior.
The concepts of the unconscious on the indi vidual level and the co-
vert on the cultural level have certain serious d r awbacks for the scien-
tist, if for no other reason than the seman tic implications of these terms,
signalling that neither can be directly analy zed but can only be inferred.
Harry Stack Sullivan
4
provided the m uch needed re-definition of the un-
conscious into what he termed dissociated b ehavior , thereby taking the
hocus pocus out of a tremendous chunk of human beh avior on the indivi-
dual level. Later Hall suggested
5
that dissociated behavi or could be demon-
strated on the level of culture, that dissociated acts were to a large de-
gree culturally patterned, and that there was a difference between cultur-
ally patterned dissociated behavior and what Kluckhohn had termed the
covert in culture. (A term which better fits the situation than cov ert is
implicit, i.e., that which is so well learned and so universally shared that
3
it is taken for granted.) All of which added up (until a year ago) to events
in culture which occurred on three levels, i . e., overt (1n aw::.reness and
readily verbalized); implicit (shared and taken for granted but not readily
verbalized); dissociated (out of awareness but readily observable by others,
and having a 'not me' quality, and hence difficult to change).
While the cultural anthropologist was slowly learning that it was ne-
cessary to distinguish between events occurring on different levels, paral-
lel developITlents were taking place in the field of linguistics, developments
which ultimately shed more light on how the scientist goes about dealing
with cultural data than anything which has been achieved in the rest of the
social sciences. The linguist had the advantage of dealing with data about
which it was possible to be highly precise. He was, also able to isolate out
his building blocks, the basic units of the cultural systeITls with which he
deal s (phoneITles and morphemes).
Modern linguistic science in America owes most of its exactness to
the foundations laid by Boas
6
, Sapir?, and BlooITlfield
8
-all three of whom
work ed in other fields of anthropology as well. Their students, c.long with
others out of the older European philologi c al t radition, el a borated
both theory and practice. Centra l to t h is dev elopment was the firm a nchoring
of linguistic anal y sis in the p hysical and biological d et ermining data.
Phonetics for most Americ a n linguists is not an end in itself, but a
base for further a nalysis
9
. Phonew_lcs becomes the nex t level, and is not
a philosophical exe rcise, but i s f ir=ly based on the phonetic ev en t s that
are observable
9
, 10. rv10rp hemics follows, c ompleting the analys i s of lin-
guist{c structur e as such
lO
. Only then does i t becon-le possible to examine
the relation of the languag e to ot her cultural events, as Whorf h as d on e
ll
.
12
The levels of prelinguistics, microlinguistics, and ITletalinguistic s a re
seen as clear and necessary delilnitations of the tot a l field, and a s t he
basic starting places for furthe r observ ation and ana l ys is.
It was from these b ases t hc_t the p res e nt authors started their c om-
bined efforts to create a frarne work by means of which it would be possi-
ble not only to keep the various levels of culture separate, but whi c h would
show cultural events in their proper relationship to each other and in such
a way that behavior across cultural boundaries could be equated. Vi e pro-
ceeded on the followi ng as sUITlption:
A. Language is a self-contained s ystem of culture (ITlicrolinguistics),
firmly anchored in the biological organisITl (prelinguistics), yet reflecting
and reflected in the rest of culture (ITletalingui stic s).
B. Culture cOITlprises ITlany sy steITls, subject to analysis in terITlS
analogous to those used for language. This iITlplies that once the systeITls
have been identified, it becoITles possible to isolate out the smallest sig-
3
it is taken for granted.) All of which added up (until a year ago) to events
in culture which occurred on three levels, i.e., overt (i.ll aW3.reness a nd
readily verbalized); implicit (shared and taken for but not readily
verbalized); dissociated (out of awareness but readily observable by otllers,
and having a 'not me' quality, and hence difficult to change).
While the cultural anthropologist was slowly learning that it was ne-
cess a ry to distinguish between events occurring on different levels, paral-
lel developments were taking place in the field of linguistics, dev elopments
which ultimately shed more light on how the scientist goes about dealing
with cultural data than anything which has been achieved in the rest of the
social sciences. The linguist had the advantage of dealing with data about
which it was possible to be highly precise . He was, also able to isolate out
his building blocks, the basic units of the cultural systems with which he
deal s (phonemes and morphemes).
Modern linguistic science in America owes most of its exactness to
the foundations laid by Boas
6
, Sapir?, and Bloornfield
8
-all three of whom
worked in other fields of anthropology as well. Their students, ;?l ong wi th
others out of the older European philological tradition, elaborated
both theory and practice. Central to this de;"'elopment was the firm a nchoring
of linguistic analysis in t he p hysical and biological determining d ata .
Phonetics for most American linguists is not an end in itself, but a
base for further analysis
9
. PhonerY'-lcs becoITles the next level, and is not
a philosophical exercise, but is fi rmly b ased on the phonetic events that
are obs ervable
9
, 10. Mor p hemic s follows, c ompleting the analysis of lin-
guis t{c structure as such
lO
. Only then does it beconle possible to examine
the relation of the l a nguage to other cultural events, as Whorf h as done
ll
.
The levels of prelinguistics, ITlicrolinguistics, and ITletalinguistic s
l2
a re
seen as clear and necessary delilnitations of the total field, and as the
basic starting places f or further observation and analys is.
It was from these b ases th2.t the present authors started their co m-
bined efforts to c reat e a fralnework by means of which it would be pos si-
ble not only to keep the various levels of culture separate, but which would
show cultural events in thei ,r proper relationship to each other and in such
a way that behavior across cultural boundaries could be equated. We pro-
ceeded on the following assumption:
A. Language is a self-contained systeITl of culture (ITlicrolinguistics),
firmly anchored in the biologic a l organi s ITl (prelinguistics), yet reflecting
and reflected in the res t of culture (metalingui stic s).
B. Culture comprises many systems, subject to analysis in terms
analogous to those used for language. This implies that once the systems
have been identified, it becomes possible to isolate out the smallest sig-
4
nificant units of any given system., and that until this has been done very
little of ultim.ate significance can result from. the social sciences. A case
in point is the recent experience of linguists in working with so-called
'vocal qualifiers' (loudness, rasp, whispering, and others). It appeared at
12
first that these were part of the m.acrolinguistic system. . As such they
were hard to handle, and it was difficult to isolate them., to describe them.,
and to delim.it their functioning; they were clearly not m.icrolinguistic
(thus differing from. stress and pitch), but they also did not fit well into
ITletalinguistics (where style, connected discourse, and m.eaning are dealt
with). It finally becam.e clear that these noises constituted a com.m.unica-
tion system. in their own right (see 2.3), and once this was recognized it
beca.me possible to analyze them. and study their functioning.
C. Like language, the other system.s would have to be firm.ly an-
chored in the biological organism.
D. \Vhat the anthropologist and other social scientists had been de-
scribing were com.plex events that contained m.any system.s. That is, such
things a s kinship, war, religion, and the sociologists' rubrics of social
di s organization, the fam.ily, rural and urban sociology, etc., did not con-
stitute valid starting points for cultural analysis.
In addition to language, it was possible quite readily to identify four
other system.s firm.ly based on m.am.m.alian behavior. These were:
(1) s oci al systems (with the peck order and its equivalents as a base)
(2) and (3) tim.e and space system.s (derived fr om. the cyclic and territorial
activities of life form.s)
(4) material system.s (highly elaborated by m an but expressed for lower
form.s by such m.aterial extensions as b irds ' ne sts, lairs , burrows, bee-
hives, spider webs, and the incipient artifac tion of anthropoi d apes).
Research on the tim.e-sp?-ce systems of our o wn culture showed not
only that we were correct in our original premise that these constituted
valid system.s, but that one could be highly specific, could isolate out the
basic units for a given culture and equate them. across cultural lines. It
also brought out additional points which we had not at first suspected: that
is, that there were form.al, inform.al and technical elaborations of each
13
.
This will be developed below; it has already proved exceedingly helpful
in enabling us to verbalize events which had until now been felt or experi-
enced but not expressly stated.
4
nificant units of any given system., and that until this has been done very
little of ultim.ate significance can result from. the social sciences. A case
in point is the recent experience of linguists in working with so-called
'vocal qualifiers' (loudne ss, rasp, whispering, and others). It appeared at
first that these were part of the m.acrolinguistic system.
12
. As such they
were hard to handle, and it was difficult to isolate them., to describe them,
and to delim.it their functioning ; they were clearly not m.icrolinguistic
(thus differing from. stress and pitch), but they also did not fit well into
metalinguistics (where style, connected discourse, and m.eaning are dealt
with). It finally becam.e clear that these noises constituted a com.munica-
tion system. in their own right (see 2.3), and once this was recognized it
became possible to analyze them. and study their functioning.
C . Like language, the other system.s would have to be firm.ly an-
chored in the biological organism..
D . V{hat the anthropologist and other social scientists had been de-
scribing were com.plex events that contained m.any system.s. That is, such
things as kinship, war, religion, and the sociologists' rubrics of social
di sorganization, the fam.ily, rural and urban sociology, etc., did not con-
stit.ute valid starting points for cultural analysis.
In addition to language, it was possible quite readily to identify four
other system.s firm.ly based on m.am.m.alian behavior. These were:
(1) s oci al system.s (with the peck order and its equivalents as a base)
(2) and (3) tim.e and space system.s (derived fr om. the cyclic and territorial
activities of life form.s)
(4) m.aterial system.s (highly elaborated by m an but expressed for lower
forrns by such m.aterial extensions as b irds' nests, lairs , burrows, bee-
hives, spider webs, and the incipient artifac tion of anthropoi d apes).
Research on the time-sp?-ce systems of our o wn culture showed not
only that we were correct in our original premise that these constituted
valid system.s, but that one could be highly specific, could isolate out the
basic units for a given culture and equate them. across cultural lines. It
also brought out additional points which we had not at first suspected: that
is, that there were form.al, informal and technical elaborations of each
13
.
This will be developed below; it has already proved exceedingly helpful
in enabling us to verbalize events which had until now been felt or experi-
enced but not expressly stated.
2.. THE CONTENT OF CULTURE
The probiem of analyzing the levels of culture having been set, it
becomes necessary to examine the ways in which answers can or may
be found. It will be desirable to get as full a description as possible, in
order to determine what levels there are, how they relate to each other,
and how they are developmentally realized.
Since the beginning of any kind of anthropological studies, obser-
vers h ave grouped their materials under rubrics of various kinds, and
have classified the rubrics in some sort of order. Lay observers and
reporters, explorers, travellers, and the like, have given accounts of
the materi al culture of peoples, of religious activities, of ethical con-
cepts, of marriag e customs a nd family life, of economic activities, of
child training, and so on. Later, professionals have compiled trait lists
or have written monographs, with chapter headings on kinship, social
organization, subsistence activities, etc.
All the repo rts (almost exclusively by observers who were mem-
bers of Vlestern cultures)-lay and professional-show a basic same-
ness. People seem to have observed much the same thing s everywhere,
and peoples seem to engage in much the s a me activities. But the analyst
of culture is always suspicious: perhaps the sameness is bec a use of the
preconceptions of the observers. The only way to check is to discover a
base firmly rooted in biology, in accordance with the general principle
of reduction in science, and to see what results c a n be obtained.
We shall examine briefly prev ious attempts to state the content of
culture, and then present the biological base from which we derive our
own analy sis. After that, we shall elaborate the cultural activities that
stem directly from the biological base.
2. .1. Accou."'lts of travellers and explorers-from Herodotus on-can
be characterized by saying that the observer nearly always limited his
reports to things that were striking in one way or another: such and such
a group had such and such strange customs, or else-marvel of mar-
vels -such and such s a vages had customs just like the civilized group
the reporter belonged to.
When we get to modern systema tic accounts we find, on close
examination, that they are not basically very different from the ones
just alluded to. True, every anthropologist, if asked to give a list of the
5
2.. THE CONTENT OF CULTURE
The probiem of analyzing the levels of culture having been set, it
becomes necessary to examine the ways in which answ ers can or may
be found. It will be desirable to get as full a description as possible, in
order to determine what levels there are, how they relate to each other,
and how they are developmentally realized.
Since the beginning of any kind of anthropological studies, obser-
vers h ave grouped their materials under rubrics of various kinds, and
have classified the rubrics in some sort of order. Lay observers and
reporters, explorers, trav ellers, and the like, have given accounts of
the materi al culture of peoples, of religious acti vities, of ethical con-
cepts, of m a rriag e customs a nd family life, of economic activities, of
child training, and so on. L a ter, professionals have compiled trait lists
or have written monographs, with chapter headings on kinship, social
or ganization, subsistence activities, etc.
All the repo rts (almost exclusiv ely by observers who were mem-
bers of ) lestern cultures)-lay and professional-show a basic same-
ness. People seem to h a ve observ ed much the same thing s everywhere,
and peoples seem to engage in much the s a me activities. But the analyst
of culture is always suspici ous: p e rhaps the sameness is bec a use of the
preconceptions of the observers. The only way to check is to discov er a
base firmly rooted in biology, in accordance with the general principle
of reduction in science, and to see what results c a n be obtained.
We shall examine briefly previous attempts to state the content of
culture, and then present the biological base from which we derive our
own analy sis. After that, we shall elaborate the cultural activities that
ste m directly from the biological base.
2.!. Accou."'lts of travellers and ex plorers-from Herodotus on-can
be characterized by saying that the observ er n e arly always limited his
reports to things that were striking in one way or another: such and such
a g roup had such and such strange customs, or else-marv el of mar-
vels -such and such s a vages had customs just like the civilized group
the reporter belonged to.
When we get to modern systema tic accounts we find, on close
examination, tha t they are not basically very different from the ones
just alluded to. True, every anthropologist, if asked to give a list of the
5
6
topics that need to be included, will corne up with something like the fol-
lowing: the people and their location (or, the history of man-in a gene-
r al work), language, economic life, social organization, subsistence ac-
tivities' material culture, religion, the life cycle. On looking into a
g ener;?>l work on anthropology, or a specific monograph, we find such
items used as chapter headings; but we also find lar ge variation in the
kinds of things under each heading, the order of presentation varies,
and the subjects selected for elaboration are those the author was pri-
m a rily interested in or was struck by (numerous references could be
cited to substantiate this comment; any general reading list for graduate
s tudents, however, will contain enough works to validate these asser-
tions ) .
T he classification and arrangement of the subject matter of cul-
t ure bec omes p r e ssing when a project like t h e C ross -Cultural Su rvey is
und ert ake n. The syste matic l s t n ~ worked ou t t he r e inclu d es t he fol-
lowing i n its list of m a in hea dings-4: geography, human biology, behavior
processe s and personali ty, history and culture change, l angua ge, corn-
n"lWli c ation, food que st, ani m al husbandry , agricultur e , f o od processing
and consum p ti on, c l othin g, adornme nt , expl oitative ac ti vities , building
and const ructi on , e n e r gy and powe r, (various) i ndust rie s , m achines,
t ool s , prope rty, exchange (and m arke ting and finance), labor, t r avel and
transpor t , living standards , rec reation, arts, social stra t ifi cation, mar-
r i age, f a mily, ki n s hi p, community, te r rit orial organization, law, war,
s oci al prob lems , health, death, r eligi on (seve r al divisions) , num bers
and m e asurin g, exact k n owl edge , s ex, c hildhood, education, etc. It is
not ou r pur pos e t o criticiz e thi s list ing or any othe r speci f ic work. Bu t
it is cl e a r, we b eli e ve, that in such a lis t t he r e ar e m any level s of com-
pl exity treated as if they were analogous or equivalent, and that t h e
orde r of arrangement has lit tl e logic exc ept in a most general sense .
There are also, as one soon finds out, large gaps in the elaboration of
subheads.
In our own work, we began with the principle that a physical (bio-
logical) base must be found for all cultural systems. Our first set of
lar ge systems was this: creation of patternment, material culture,
langu age, relations between persons, institutionalization, motion, terri-
toriality, tropisms and needs . Of these, we felt considerable confidence
about language, material culture, and territoriality. Linguistics has
developed to the point where the nature of language as a cultural sys-
tern-learned and shared behavior par excellence -is beyond doubt.
Systems of m a terial culture also come out clearly (such rubrics as
housing, tools, weapons, clothing may serve as reminders); but these
6
topics that need to be included, will corne up with something like the fol-
lowing: the people and their location (or, the hi s tory of rnan-in a gene-
r al work), language, economic life, social organization, s ubsist ence ac-
tivities' material culture, religion, the hfe cycle . On looking into a
genera.l work on anthropology, or a specific rnonograph, we find such
iterns used as chapter headings; but we also find lar ge variation in the
kinds of things under each heading, the order of presentation varies,
and the subjects selected for elaboration are those the author was pri-
ma rily interested in or was struck by (numerous references c ould be
cited to substantiate this comrnent; any general reading list for graduate
s tudents, however, will contain enough works to validate these asser-
tions ) .
The classification and arrangement of the subject matter of cul-
ture bec omes p re ssing when a project like t h e C ross -Cultural Su rvey is
unde r taken. The syste matic l s t n ~ worked out t he r e inclu d es the fol-
lowing in its list of main hea dings-4: geography, human biology, behavi or
processe s and personality, history and culture change , language, corn-
n"lunication, fo od quest, ani mal husbandry, agricultur e , f ood processing
and consumpti on, cl othing, adornment , exploitative activiti es , building
and cons t ructi on, e nergy and powe r, (various ) i ndustri e s , m achines,
tools , property, exchange (and m arke ting and finance), lab or, travel and
transport , living standards, rec reation, arts, social stratifi cation, mar-
r i age, f a IIrily, ki nship. community, te r ritorial organi zation, law, war,
s oci al prob lems, health, death, r eligi on (several divisi ons), n umbers
and m e asuri n g. exact knowl edge . s ex, c hildhood, education, etc. It is
not ou r pur pose to criticiz e thi s list ing or any othe r specific work. Bu t
it is clear, we believe, that in such a lis t there ar e many lev el s of com--
plexity treated as if they were analogous or equivalent, and that the
order of arrangement has littl e logic exc ept in a most general sense.
There are also, as one soon finds out, large gaps in the elaboration of
subheads.
In our own work, we began with the principle that a physical (bio-
logical) base must be found for all cultural systems. Our first set of
l arge systems was this: creation of patternment, material culture,
language, relations between persons, institutionalization, motion, terri-
toriality, tropisms and needs . Of these, we felt considerable confidence
about language, material culture, and territoriality. Linguistics has
developed to the point where the nature of language as a cultural sys-
tern-learned and shared behavior par excellence-is beyond doubt.
Systems of m a terial culture also come out clearly (such rubrics as
housing, tools, weapons, clothing may serve as reminders); but these
7
systems seemed somehow to be conglomerate and much less neatly or-
dered than is language. Territoriality is evident in many organisms, and
it seemed proper to consider it as a base for fundamental cultural de-
velopment. Experimenting with it, we saw that many motion activities,
and many tropisms, were part and parcel of the overall matter of terri-
toriality, but also of other-as yet unidentified-activities. We also be-
came aware that at least in Western cultures temporal or cyclical acti-
vities are intimately tied in with territorial ones; cross -cultural infor-
mation is at hand, however, to show that this is not so everywhere, so
that time-limited activities seemed to be appropriately separated as
basic cultural systems. Examination of motion activities further showed
that there exist communicative patterns-kinesics
I5
_which accompany
and are tied in with language into an overall communication system. At
this point we saw that the other sets we had named were not all of the
same order as those so far examined; some were more complex, others
less so and on different levels of organization. Patternment seemed to
permeate everything, interpersonal relations were partly aspects of
communication, partly reflections of other things. Institutionalization
was evidently too broad a term to mean anything. Tropisms and needs
vary too widely in different societies to be a useful guide to analysis at
this point; one of the authors had been working with such a rubric for
some time, but the only productive systematization that resulted was in
the area of defense activities.
It also developed that a basic system should be characterized by
relatively easy recognition of primary units in its organization, and
should involve areas of deep feeling. Taking space and time as subjects
for experimentation with several g rou p s of persons (Americans) being
trained for technical service a b r o ad, we w e r e soon able to discover
measurable items, and t o characte r i z e a c tivities and reactions by such
terms as traditional or formal, as against and technical as
against both. Various depths of emotional reaction were discovered to
be associated with these three types of activities.
The successes and difficulties with the general list suggested that
we were on the right track. After some further attempts at ordering
the systems and elaborating them, we arrived at the basis presented
below.
2.2. The activities of living matter are functions neither of chance
nor of design, but of direct and dynamic interaction of the organism
with its environment
l6
. This interaction is specialized or limited by the
presence of other organisms of the same kind, in association. The total
complex of organisms engages in a search for the means of subsistence.,
/
l
,
!
7
systems seemed somehow to be conglomerate and much less neatly or-
dered than is language. Territoriality is evident in many organisms, and
it seemed proper to consider it as a base for fundamental cultural de-
velopment. Experimenting with it, we saw that many motion activities,
and many tropisms, were part and parcel of the overall matter of terri-
toriality, but also of other-as yet unidentified-activities. We also be-
came aware that at least in Western cultures temporal or cyclical acti-
vities are intimately tied in with territorial ones; cross -cultural infor-
mation is at hand, however, to show that this is not so everywhere, so
that time-limited activities seemed to be appropriately separated as
basic cultural systems. Examination of motion activities further showed
that there exist communicative patterns-kinesics
I5
_which accompany
and are tied in with language into an overall commUnication system. At
this point we saw that the other sets we had named were not all of the
same order as those so far examined; some were more complex, others
less so and on different levels of organization. Patternment seemed to
permeate everything, interpersonal relations were partly aspects of
communication, partly reflections of other things. Institutionalization
was evidently too broad a term to mean anything. Tropisms and needs
vary too widely in different societies to be a useful guide to analysis at
this point; one of the authors had been working with such a rubric for
some time, but the only productive systematization that resulted was in
the area of defense activities.
It also developed that a basic system should be characterized by
relatively easy recognition of primary units in its organization, and
should involve areas of deep feeling. Taking space and time as subjects
for experimentation with several g rou p s of persons (Americans) being
trained for technical service a b r oad, we w e r e soon able to discover
measurable items, and t o characte r i z e a c tivities and reactions by such
terms as traditional or formal, as against and technical as
against both. Various depths of emotional reaction were discovered to
be associated with these three types of activities.
The successes and difficulties with the general list suggested that
we were on the right track. After some further attempts at ordering
the systems and elaborating them, we arrived at the basis presented
below.
2.2. The activities of living matter are functions neither of chance
nor of design, but of direct and dynamic interaction of the organism
with its environment
l6
. This interaction is specialized or limited by the
presence of other organisms of the same kind, in association. The total
complex of organisms engages in a search for the means of subsistence.,
/
8
Subsistence produces growth, and the perpetuation of the species is then
carried on by means of the various types of reproductive activity. All
these interactions and their specializations take place in terms of de-
limited territories and at cyclically determined times. Up to this point
what we have said is true for all living organisms on earth, plant or
aninl<'_l. For animal organisms there are further kinds of specialization.
At the lower levels, these may be summed up as a general kind of pro-
te ctive adaptation. With the development of the neocortex in the verte-
b rates, ~ e ~ becomes increasingly important as an adaptive mecha-
n ism, primary to perpetuation. (Learning, for our purposes, is subsumed
under the terms durable change, modifiability, and the like, as used by
the speciali st working on a pre-cultural l evel.) Among mammals and
birds perpetuation activities are further broken down to give a series
of activities that may be called ~ w ith perpetuation specialized into
what m a y be called defense (of the individual and the group). These
higher a nimals also practise exploitation (u s e of materials) in con-
structing lairs, nests, and the like. The primates, especially the anthro-
poid s, be gin to elaborate the latter into something app r oaching artifac-
tion.
The list of specializations of the life activity of an organism seems
exhaustive. Any more specific activity can be s u bsumed under one of
t h ese headings. Furthermore , the order in w hi ch we have presen t ed
them. seems logical and n ec essary, in short, n atural. Th e essenc e of
the phenomenon w e call lif e is i nterac tion-in the widest s e nse of the
t e r m; the higher the organi s m, t he m or e c ompl ex t h e interacti on is . It
becom e s physi ologicall y elab orated by means of t he development of a
nervou s system, and the re arise the s p ecial move ments an.d cries of
a n i mals by means of which they comrrlunicate . C ommuni c ation results
in assoc iation, thE' cons equenc e of the presence of ot her or ganis ms .
Subsist enc e i s clear ly subs equent to the presence of a group, and li mits
t h e s ize and kind of g roup. In t he phyl o g e ny a s w ell a s ont o geny of livi n g
beings, bis e xuali!Y devel o ps as a specialized a d aptiv e m e chani s m. Sp a c e
a n d ti m e lin-utations a re p res ent c on stantly, of cours e , but ar e signifi ,
cant in this context only a fter the preceding a ctiviti e s a re established.
For t h e higher animals, learning precedes play. And play takes place
before the organism learns to defend i tself - p laying continues 1Ultil
someone gets hurt.
2.3. Taking our list of basic behavior patterns and going to the level
of human culture, we began to look upon them as foci for the develop-
ment of cultural activities, or, put in another way, for the elaboration
of cultural systems. The process of analysis involved consideration of
8
Subsistence produces growth, and the perpetuation of the species is then
carried on by means of the various types of reproductive activity. All
these interactions and their specializations take place in terms of de-
limited territories and at cyclically determined times. Up to this point
what we have said is true for all living organisms on earth, plant or
anin"lal. For animal organisms there are further kinds of specialization.
At the lower levels, these may be summed up as a general kind of pro-
te ctive adaptation. With the development of the neocortex in the verte-
brates, ~ e ~ becomes increasingly important as an adaptive mecha-
n ism, primary to perpetuation. (Learning, for our purposes, is subsumed
under the terms durable change, modifiability, and the like, as used by
the specialist working on a pre-cultural l evel.) Among mammals and
birds perpetuation activities are further broken down to give a series
of activ i ties that may be called ~ w ith perpetuation specialized into
what m ay be called defense (of the individual and the group). These
higher a nimals also practise exploitation (u s e of materials) in con-
structing lairs, nests, and the like. The primates, especially the anthro-
p oi d s, b e gin to elaborate the latter into something app r oaching artifac-
tion.
The list of specializations of the life activity of an organism seems
exhaus tive. Any more specific activity can be s u bsumed under one of
t h ese headings. Furthermore , the order in whi ch we have presen t ed
t h en"l seems logical and n e c essary, in short, n atural . Th e essenc e of
the phen omenon w e call lif e is i nterac ti on-in t h e widest s e nse of the
term; t he higher the o rganism, the !nore c ompl ex t he interaction is. It
becomes physiologicall y elaborated by means of the development of a
nervous system, and there arise the special movern.ents an.d C Ties of
animals by means of which they communicate. Communicahon results
in assoc iation, thEe cons equence of the presence of other or gB.nisms .
Subsistence i s clearly subsequent to the presence of a group and li mits
t he s ize and kind of g roup. In t he phyl o g eny a s w ell a s ontogeny of livi n g
bei n g s , bis e xuali!Y develops as a s pecial ized adaptiv e mechani s m. Spac e
and ti m e linut ations are p res ent c onstantly, of cours e , but ar e signifi -
cant in this context only after the preceding a ctiviti e s a re established.
For t h e higher ani=als, learning precedes play. And play takes place
before the organism learns to defend itself - p laying continues 1Ultil
someone gets hurt.
2.3. Taking our list of basic behavior patterns and going to the level
of human culture, we began to look upon them as foci for the develop-
ment of cultural activities, or, put in another way, for the elaboration
of cultural systems. The process of analysis involved consideration of
9
the general nature of the focus, characterization of the specifically hu-
man realizations of it, and listing, at first haphazardly and as mnemonic
devices only, of various systematic behavior sets grouping around the
focus. The theoretical basis for the kinds of elaborations suggested be-
low is discussed in 4 and its subsections .
As already suggested, interaction as such, on the human level,
involves the communication systems. Of these, language, a specifically
human development, is at the base of all culture, and occupies the posi- 1\
tion of most importance. It is accompanied everywhere by a kinesic sys-
tern that is itself highly elaborated, on levels of organization analogous
to those in linguistics. Recent evidence (as mentioned) indicates that the
use of what has been called 'vocal gualifiers'-laug.hing, crying, over-
loudness, drawling, whispering, and others-constitutes a third kind of
communication system. In this connection it should be noted that the or-
der of development and primacy of the three systems is almost certainly
the opposite of the order of presentation just given. Of course, the ac-
tual development was and is intertwined throughout, historically and in
the individual. The communication systems involving writing, pictures,
and other kinds of material symbols are all on subsidiary levels of de-
velopment' as will be seen later.
Association is the focus arolL'1.d which develop the activ ities and
systems that can be labelled society. The term must be understood in a
wide sense, embodying such special elaborati:ons as clas_s systems (in-
cluding classlessness)' kin and caste, and s y stems (including
government). These must be distinguished from those b a sed on
marriage and family arrangements, which, as will be seen below, arise
at other points in the configurati on. The number of elaborations tha t may
exist for social structure has not been determined by us, but w e postu-
late t h at they will clu s t er a r ou nd the thr e e kinds of sys tematic e l a b ora-
tions m entioned.
Subsistence as a foc us of acti v ity, taken by itself, gi v es rise to the
elaborati on s that m ay be summe d up under the term work. The systema
tic elaborations under this heading will be found to clust e r as follows:
there is the f o rme] work done by the members of the group in connection
with the primary economic organization - 'earning a living ' ; then there
are the routine day-to-day maintenance activities (housework, mowing
the lawn, etc.); and finally there are the occupations and professions
(which involve varying degrees of technical proficiency).
Bisexuality is the focus for the whole acti v ity of human beings as
men and women-the sexes. Systematic elaborations deal first of all
with cultural patterning of bisexuality as an unstated ideal-the notions
9
the general nature of the focus, characterization of the specifically hu-
man realizations of it, and listing, at first haphazardly and as mnemonic
devices only, of various systematic behavior sets grouping around the
focus. The theoretical basis for the kinds of elaborations suggested be-
low is discussed in 4 and its subsections.
As already suggested, interaction as such, on the human level,
involves the communication systems. Of these, language, a specifically
human development, is at the base of all culture, and occupies the posi- II
tion of most importance. It is accompanied everywhere by a kinesic sys-
tern that is itself highly elaborated, on levels of organization analogous
to those in linguistics. Recent evidence (as mentioned) indicates that the
use of what has been called 'vocal gualifiers'-laug.hing, crying, over-
loudness, drawling, whispering, and others-constitutes a third kind of
communication system. In this connection it should be noted that the or-
der of development and primacy of the three systems is almost certainly
the opposite of the order of presentation just given. Of course, the ac-
tual development was and is intertwined throughout, historically and in
the individual. The communication systems involving writing, pictures,
and other kinds of material symbols are all on subsidiary levels of de-
velopment' as will be seen later.
Association is the focus aro1L'1d which develop the activities and
systems that can be l abelled society. The te rm must be understood in a
wide sense, embodying such special elaborati:ons as systems (in-
cluding classlessness), kin and caste, and systems (including
government). These must be distinguished from those based on
marriage and family arrangements, which, as will be seen below, arise
at other points in the configurati on. The number of elaborations that may
exist for social structure has not been determined by us, but we postu-
late that they will clust e r a r ound the thr e e kinds of sys tematic elab ora-
tions menti oned.
Subsistence as a foc us of activity, taken by itself, gi v es rise to the
elaborati ons that m ay be summed up under the term work. The systema .
tic elaborations under this heading will be found to cluster as follows:
there is the form"l work done by the members of the group in connection
with the primary economic organization-'earning a living' ; then there
are the routine day-to-day maintenance activities (hou sework, mowing
the lawn, etc.); and finally there are the occup.ations and professions
(which involve varying degrees of technical proficiency).
Bisexuality is the focus for the whole activity of },uman beings as
men and women-the sexes. Systematic elaborations deal first of all
with cultural patterning of bisexuality as an unstated ideal-the notions
10
of masculinity and femininity . Then there are the activities in terms of
the biological facts of sex. Lastly we have the elaborations that spell out
or prescribe norms and technical limitations on what men and women do.
Around territoriality cluster elaborations of space which involve
the necessary adaptations to given, and, as it were, unchangeable spa-
tial situations (such as mountains, deserts, rivers, and the like). There
are in addition the elaborations that deal with defining such notions as
near and far, crowded and uncrowded, large and small, and so on-the
feelings that the group and the individuals in it have about necessary
spatial arrangements. Besides these, there are also the elaborations
that involve the actual measurement and marking off of various types of
boundaries .
.::=====:
Temporality as a focus of activity is the starting point for elabora-
tione, of tirne. There are the reactions to the passage of time-how the
se.'l!lence of events is conceived, the signifi cance of t he fact of becoming
late r, the awareness of recurrence. T hen the r e ar e the elaborations of
natural and d erived cycles -the daily cycle, the lun ar, the seasonal, and
so on. And finally t h ere are the systema t i c elabor ations c oncerned with
t he measurement of time-calendar s y s t e m s, t i m e -telling systems.
L earning is the focus of activity which, in a n d of its e lf, is elabo-
rat e d as the syst ems of enculturation. T hese may be pu t int o three
groups: first, thos e that have to do with direct imitation of a n d correc-
tion by the model s provided by the culture- ' rea ring'. Second are t h ose
learning activiti e s which involve the selective study a nd ob s ervation by
the indi vidual of t he behavior of ot hers and result in his unique adjus t-
m ent to the culture. Thi rd are t h e institutionalized system s that c an be
called educ ation.
T he focus of activity that w e have called play is elaborated as sys-
t ems of r ecre a tion. T h e se invol v e t h e characterizat ion of what is and is
not suppos e d to b e f u n ; d eal with pl ayi ng , and result in games.
The defense a c tivities are , i n a nd of thems elve s, r i z e d by
the term protection systems . There a re elaborations de aling with the
delimitations of what is or is not appropriat ely done f or t he p reserva-
tion and defense of the individual or the g roup; h ere are included taboos,
religious attitudes, traditional health measures, attitudes of prudence
and caution. Then there are elaborations involving the individual's or
group's preservative adaptations to potentially hostile forces in the
given environment. In addition, there are the systems of fighting, ritual,
and healing that deal with and fend off the hostile forces.
Exploitation results in the systematic elaboration of many mate-
rial systems. There are those that involve the contact with the environ-
10
of and femininity . Then there are the activities in terms of
the biological facts of sex. Lastly we have the elaborations that spell out
or prescribe norms and technical limitations on what men and women do.
Around territoriality duster elaborations of space which involve
the necessary adaptations to given, and, as it were, unchangeable spa-
tial situations (such as mountains, deserts, rivers, and the like). There
are in addition the elaborations that deal with defining such notions as
near and far, crowded and uncrowded, large and small, and so on-the
feelings that the group and the individuals in it have about necessary
spati al arrangements. Besides these, there are also the elaborations
that involve the actual measurement and marking off of various types of
boundaries.
Temporality as a focus of activity is the starting point for elabora-
tione of tirne. There are the reactions to the passage of time-how the
s e.<l!l e nce of events is conceived, the signifi cance of t he fact of becoming
later, the awareness of recurrence. T hen the re ar e the elaborations of
natural and d rived cycles -the daily cycle, the lun ar, the seasonal, and
so on. And finally t h ere are the systema t i c elaborat ions concerned with
t he measur eITlent of tiITle-calendar s y s t e m s, t i m e -telling systems.
L earning is the focus of activity which, in a n d of it s elf , is elabo-
rat ed as the syst ems of enculturation. T hese may be pu t int o three
groups: first, thos e that have to do with direct imit a t ion of a n d corr e c-
tion by the model s provided by the culture- ' rearing'. Second are t hose
learning activities which i n v olve the selective study and ob s ervation by
the individual of t he behavior of ot hers and result in his unique adjust-
ment to the culture. Thi rd are the institutionalized systeITls that c an be
called educ ation.
T he focus of activity that we have called play is elaborated as sys-
t ems of r ecre a tion. T h e se i nvol v e the characterization of what is and is
not supposed to b e i....!!.; d eal with pl ayi ng , and result in g ames .
The defense a ctivities are, in a nd of theITlsel ve s, by
the term protection systeITls. There a re elaborations de aling with the
deliITlitations of what is or is not appropriat ely done f or t he p reserva-
tion and defense of the individual or the g r oup; he r e are included taboos,
religious attitudes, traditional health measures, attitudes of prudence
and caution. Then there are elaborations involving the individual's or
group's preservative adaptations to potentially hostile forces in the
given environITlent. In addition, there are the systeITls of fighting, ritual,
and healing that deal with and fend off the hostile forces.
Exploitation res'ults in the systeITlatic elaboration of ITlany mate-
rial systeITls. There are those that involve the contact with the environ-
11
ment (leading t o comfort, fitness, and t he like). T h en we have the sys-
t ems of habits involved in crea t ing and using materials . Finally
t here are the systems tha t may be called te chnics .
11
ment (leading t o comfort, f i tness, and t he like). T hen we have the sys-
t ems of habits involved in creat ing and using materials. Finally
there are the systems tha t may be called technics.
3. THE STRUCTURING OF CULTURE
It has been shown how we arrived at what we now designate as the
ten basic focal systeITls of culture (coITlITlunication, social structure,
labor, etc.). It will be reITleITlbered that unless a given systeITl is anchored
in or based on the activities of the biological organisITl it has n o primary
vali di ty. The basic focal systeITls have been described as the result of a
focus of activity reflected in o r seen through itself. This led to the con-
clusion that further elaborati on of the analysis would be achieved by con-
sidering each focus as reflected in each of the others; the cue was pro-
vided by earlier work in deliITliting ITletalinguistics, which was done by
examining a cOITlITlunication systeITl-language-in the li ght of all other
culb:..ral systeITls.
With these assuITlptions as a base, the next step was the creation
of a twc -diITlenslonal scheITlatic representation in which it was possible
to show each focus played through , as it were, all the other foci.
3.1. A chart was now creat e d (Table 1), d e signating each focus of ac-
tivity adjectivally across the top, these being called secondary foci, and
nOITli nally down ihe left ITlar gin as priITlary foci. The priITlary foci are:
i nteraction, association, subsistence, bisexuality, territoriality, te!!lDO-
r ali.{ , learning, defen se., exploitati on. The secondary foci are: in-
organizational, econoITlic, sexual, territorial, teITlporal, in-
stru ctional, recreational, nrotective , and ex ploitational. These a re nUITl-
bered to 9, the priITlary ones as 0 -, 1-, 2-, etc., the secondary as -0,
-1, -2 , e tc . The intersection of each focus of activity with itself (00, 11,
22, etc.) is a basic focal systeITl (already presented above in section
2.3); all other intersections designate systemic foci .
Next caITle the consideration of the types of activities which fall
into the 90 squares which are the systeITlic foci (see Table 2). For exaITl-
pIe, organizational extensions of interaction (01) constitute status and
rOle
17
, econoITlic extensions of interaction (02) are exchange. TeITlporal
patterns of association (15) include such iteITls as age groups; organiza-
tional patterns of bisexuality (31) include the various systeITls of ITlar-
riage, whereas the econoITlic results of temporality (52) are the different
types of econoITlic cyc1es. and so on.
lt did not take long to ITlake the first designation of activities indi-
cated by the 90 points of intersection. lt was at this point that we realized
12
3. THE STRUCTURING OF CULTURE
It has been shown how we arrived at what we now designate as the
ten basic focal systeITls of culture (coITlITlunication, social structure,
labor, etc.). It will be reITleITlbered that unless a given systeITl is anchored
in or based on the activities of the biological organisITl it has no primary
validity. The basic focal systeITls have been described as the result of a
focus of acti v ity reflected in or seen through itself. This led to the con-
elusion that further elaboration of the analysis would be achieve d by con-
sidering each focus as reflected in each of the others; the cue was pro-
vided by earlier work in delimiting ITletalinguistics, which was done by
examining a cOITlITlunication systeITl-language-in the light of all other
cui blral systeITls.
With these assuITlptions as a base, the next step was the creation
of a two -dimensional scheITlatic representation in which it was possibl e
to show each focus played through, as it were, all the other foci.
3 .1. A chart was now creat e d (Table 1), designating each focus of ac-
hvity adjectivally across the top, these being called secondary foci, and
nominally d own the left ITlar gin as priITlary foci. The priITlary foci are :
i nteraction, associ ation, subsistence, bisexuality, territoriality , te=po-
r a1i!Y, learn ing, defens ", exploitation. The secondary foci are: in-
ter_a cti onal, organizational, econ oITlic, sex a l , territorial, in-
stru cti onal, recreational, urotective , and e ploitational. Thes e a re num-
b er e d 0 to 9, the priITlary ones a s 0 -, 1 -, 2-, etc., the secondary as -0,
-1, -2, etc. The intersection of each focus of activity with itself (00, 11,
2.2., etc.) is a basic focal systeITl (already presented above in section
2.3); all other intersections designate systemic foci.
Next caITle the consideration of the types of activities which fall
into the 90 squares which are the systemic foci (see Table 2) . For exaITl-
ple, organizational extensions of interaction (01) constitute status and
r81e
17
, econoITlic extensions of interaction (02) are exchange. TeITlporal
patterns of association (15) include such iteITls as age groups; organiza-
tional patterns of bisexuality (31) include the various systeITls of ITlar-
riage, whereas the econoITlic results of temporality (52) are the different
types of econoITlic cycles, and so on.
lt did not long to ITlake the first designation of activities indi-
cated by the 90 points of intersection. lt was at this point that we realized
12
13
a fact which is crucial to the rest of our discussion, namely that this is
more than an organizational scheme of the ordinary sort. Although acti-
vities in each systemic focus were not always at first uniformly and cor-
rectly assessed (in part due to the influence of the English language and
American culture on the writers, and in part to the newness of the de-
vice), two things were noticed.
First, systemic foci with identifying numerals in which the first
number was smaller than the second tended to deal with activity applying
to the individual, while those with the first number larger dealt with the
group. For example, the instructional patterns of association (16) are
~ r s and learners. Their reciprocal, organizational patterns of
learning (61), is le a rning groups and educational. institutions. Stated dif-
ferently, those systemic foci which occurred above the diagonal formed
by the progression of basic focal systems, dealt with individual activities,
those below this line with g roup a ctivities (Table 2).
Second, relat ed a ctiviti es t e nded t o appear n ext to e ach other in
the table. It shoul d b e emphasized that the table was not desi gn e d with
this in mind; there was no pr e c onceived idea that things would wo rk out
as they did. It became a ppar ent that here was a mechanism whic h che cked
itself, i. e . in which errors could be detected and eliminated. As the work
progressed a nd insights inc reased the self-checking nature bec ame more
evident .
In order to test this, the o r der of activities in the p r i m a r y and se-
conda ry foci was cha n ged a nd it wa s disc ove r ed t hat the origin al order
wa s b asi c and criti cal ; without i t, t he device los t its self-ch eck ing charac-
t eri s ti cs and i t e ms which were r e ally related no lon g e r appeared to-
gether . All possible rearrangements were tried. T h e basic order, de-
rive d b oth phyl ogenetically and ontogen tica lly, was t h e onl y one which
prov e d workable. We a re aware, of cour s e , that in the elaborati on of
specific cultures, the basic focal systems have b een differently weighted
and ranked, s o t hat the impres si on of a di fferent order is often given. A
las t point i n regard to ord er bring s out the limitati ons of a two-dimen-
s ional scheme ; the i t e m l abell ed 'expl oitational extensi ons of interact i on'
(09), which includ es the ::.:..:. of telephones , radios, auto mobiles , b o ok s,
etc., appears at the uppe r right corner of the tabl e; it is, h owev er , ob-
viously quite close to 'interactional extensions of exploitation' (90).
which is its reciprocal, appearing at the lower left. This matching of
reciprocals constitut e s a further check. It also indicates that the pri-
mary foci might well be plotted on a sphere or some other thre-e-dimen-
sional model. When this is done, 09 may actually be made to fall next to
90, 01 next to 10, and so on. The transition from a series of relationships
13
a fact which is crucial to the rest of our discussion, namely that this is
more than an organizational scheme of the ordinary sort. Although acti-
vities in each systemic focus were not always at first uniformly and cor-
rectly assessed (in part due to the influence of the English language and
American culture on the writers, and in part to the newness of the de-
vice), two things were noticed.
First, systemic foci with identifying numerals in which the first
number was smaller than the second tended to deal with activity applying
to the indi vidual, while those with the first number larger dealt with the
gr oup. For example, the instructional patterns of association (16) are
and learners. Their reciprocal, organizational patterns of
learning (61), is lea rning groups and educational. Stated dif-
ferently, those systemic foci which occurred a bove the diagonal formed
by the prog ression of basic focal systems, dealt with indiv idual acti vities,
those below this line with g roup a ctivities (Table 2).
Second, relat ed a ctiviti es t e nded t o appear n ex t to e ach othe r in
the tabl e. It shoul d b e emphasized that the table was not desi gn e d with
this in mind; there was no prec onceived idea tha t things would wo rk out
as they did. It became a ppar ent that here was a mechanism whic h c hecked
i t self, i. e ., in which errors could be detected a nd eliminated. As the work
progressed a nd insights inc r eased the self-checking nature b ec ame more
e vident .
In order to test this, the o r der of activities in the p r i m a r y and se-
conda ry foci was cha n ged a nd it wa s disc ove r ed t h at the origin al order
was b asi c and criti cal ; wi thout i t, t he device los t i t s self-ch eck ing cha rac-
t e ri s ti cs and items which were r e ally relat ed no lon g e r appeared to-
gethe r . All possible r e ar rangemen t s were tri ed. T h e basic order, de-
rive d b oth phy l ogenetically and ontogen tica lly, was t h e onl y one which
prov e d workable . We a re a are, of cour s e , that in the el a b oration of
specific cultur es, the basi c focal s ysteIns have b een differently weighted
and r anked, s o that the impres si on of a different order is often gi ven. A
las t point i n regard to ord er brings out t h e l imitations of a two- di men-
s ional scheme ; the i t e m l abeJl e d 'ex pl oitational extensi ons of inte rac t i on'
(0 9 ), which includ es the of telephones , radios, auto m obiles, b ooks,
etc., appears at the uppe r right corner of the tabl e; it is, h owev er , ob-
viously quite close to 'interactional extensions of exploitation' (90),
which is its reciproca l, appearing at the lower left. This matching of
r e ciprocals constitut e s a further check. It also indicates that the pri-
mary foci might well be plotted on a sphere or some other thre-e-dimen-
sional model. When this is done, 09 may actually be made to fall next to
90, 01 next to 10, and so on. The transition from a series of relationships
14
indicated two-dimensionally to those indicated when the same data are
worked out in three dimensions is a basic shift in the level of analysis.
This would have to be treated separately.
A rapid glance at Table 2 shows several things:
A. The labels assigned to systemic foci are worded in various ways;
there are (1) one-word characterizations such as exchange (02), commu-
nity (10), privacy (48), etc.; (2) phrasal characterizations such as How
U;:;-s exes interact (03), Local group roles (14)17, Sexual division
(23}, Men's and women's territories (43), Community lore (60), Economic
of defenses (82), etc.
B . In different areas of Table 1 (see also 5 below) the characterizations
of the nature of the relationship of the secondary to the primary foci are
variou sly stated; using X for the secondary and Y for the primary, the
for m ul as are: X extensions of Y, X patterns of Y, X results of Y, X con-
ditions of Y, X'ly determined Y.
In regard to A above, the label in the box is in many cases a mne-
m onic device to remind the user of the type of activity encompassed by
the i n te r section of two foci. This applies par t icularly to those labels
which ar e phrases. In these instances the following is usually the case:
1. Our language does not have a single word which describes the
particul ar focus of activity in question.
2. There may be a word, but the writers, either because of insuf-
f i cient expe ri enc e with this frame of referenc e or with the particular
category in question, have not yet been able to find an appropriate
one -word reminder. For instance, Men's a nd women ' s t errit ories (43)
may be designated by a single term in other l angu a ge s .
In c ases where ' one or two word s appear these will b e of t h ree
type s:
1. A word or p h rase p rovided by the language a n d understood b y
a ll, such a s: e x change (0 2) , family (32), privacy (4 8 ), etc.
2. Technical words coined by colleagues to d e sc r ibe ac tivi ties they
have ob s erv ed and have been a b l e t o abstr act as a r e s ult of obs ervation
of diff e r en t cultures, such as: status and rol e (01) and sexual roles (13 ).
3. Words and phrases which are in comm on us age b y anthropolo-
gists and other social scientists, such as: communi ty (10 ), age group
roles (15) and sex community (clans, sibs) (30), etc.
--- The correct (i.e., least culturally determined) method of reading
the tables is indicated by B above. Thus Organizational extensions of
interaction is the correct reading for 01, Status and Role, Economic re-
sults of bisexuality for 32, the family. Similarly Economic aspects of
learning activities is 62, teaching and lea,rning, while Pro-
14
indicated two-dimensionally to those indicated when the same data are
worked out in three dimensions is a basic shift in the level of analysis.
This would have to be treated separately.
A rapid glance at Table Z shows several things:
A. The labels a.ssigned to systemic foci are worded in various ways;
there are (1) one-word characterizations such as exchange (OZ), commu-
nity (10), privacy (48), etc.; (Z) phrasal characterizations such as How
u;:;- s exes interact (03), Local group roles (14)17, Sexual division
(23}, Men's and women's territories (43), Community lore (60), Economic
of defenses (82), etc.
B. In different areas of Table 1 (see also 5 below) the characterizations
of t he nature of the relationship of the secondary to the primary foci are
variou sly stated; using X for the secondary and Y for the primary, the
for m ul as are : X extensions of Y, X patterns of Y, X results of Y, X con-
ditions of Y, X'ly determined Y.
In regard to A above, the label in the box is in many cases a mne-
m onic device to remind the user of the type of activity encompassed by
the i n te r section of two foci. This applies par t icularly to those labels
which are phrases. In these instances the following is usually the case:
1. Our language does not have a single word which describes the
particul ar focus of activity in question.
Z. There may be a word, but the writers, either because of insuf-
ficient expe ri enc e with this frame of referenc e or with the particular
category in question, have not yet been able to find an appropriate
one -word reminder. For instance, Men's and women ' s t errit ories (43)
may be designated by a single term in other l angu ages .
In c ases where ' one or two word s appear these will b e of t h ree
type s:
1. A word or p h rase p rovided by the language a n d unde r stood b y
a ll, such a s: e x change (0 2) . family (32) . privac y (4 8), etc.
2. T echnical words coined by collea gues to d e sc r ib e a ctivities they
have ob s erv ed and have been a b l e t o abstr act as a result of obs ervation
of diff e r en t cultur es, such as: status and r ol e (01) and sexual rol e s (13 ).
3. Words and phrases which are in comm on us a ge b y anthropol o-
gists and other social scientists, such as: communi ty (10 ). age group
roles (15) and sex community (clans, sibs) (30), etc.
--- The correct (i.e., least culturally determined) method of reading
the tables is indicated by B above. Thus Organizational extensions of
interaction is the correct reading for 01, Status and Role. Economic re-
sults of bisexuality for 3Z, the family. Similarly Economic aspects of
learning activities is 6Z, teaching and learning, while Pro-
15
tecti ve patterns of temporality is 58, Rest.
It may be noted that during the first stages of cons tructing the ta -
bles a uniform system of reading wa s used through out, and we distin-
guished only between primary foci modifying secondary ones and vice
versa. Thus 02 was 'Interaction considered economically', and 20 'Sub-
sistence considered i nteractionally. Similarly 35 was 'Bisexuality con-
sidered temporally' and 53 ' Sexually cons idere d temporality'. It is clear
that even for these exampl es, and with only the individual and group as-
pects of the reciprocals a s checks, difficulti es were bound to arise in
r eadin g the cha r t in this way. It was als o discove red t h at try as we mi ght,
it was impossible to avoi d readi ng the tables differ e ntly when moving
fr om on e maj or a rea of t he tabl e t o another. T his had t o do wi th the
t ran siti on bet ween lev el s in terms of t he phyl og enetic n ature of the tables.
Precisely what we m ean b y thi s will b e elaborated in 5 below. Before
going on t o how s y stems ten d to g roup t h emselves, i t is appropriate to
take up a gain the smalle st unit on the table, the systemic focus, and fur-
ther elaborate it.
3.2. The sys t e mic foci (of which there are 90) include, in most cul -
t ures, more content t han is indicated by the characterization of the re-
lationship of a primary to a secondary focus, o r by the mnemonic labels
we have affixed to each. Whole course s are taught in sociology classes
on ' The F amily' (32). Linton
l7
devoted a chapter to what he meant by
st atus and role (Ol), another to the local group (14), while volumes have
been written on the various aspects of the economic patterns of defense
(82) of a complex culture like our own.
Perhaps the reader has already taken the next step, that of running
each systemic focus through the ten foci of activity again. This is pre-
cisely what we found to be necessary before the self-checking aspects
of the scheme could become completely apparent, and before it was felt
that we had reached a point where this fram e of reference could serve
as a useful guide or c heck list for the field worker i n establishing the
basic unit s of a gi ven activity in a given culture. If each of the 90 sys-
temic foci has 10 possible ehlboration s on a tertiary level, t he minimum
number of focused groups of a ctivities the social s cientist has to work
with will b e as follows: 900 t ertiary systems, 90 systemic foci , 10 basic
foc al s ystem s and thei r systematic elaborati ons. That these a dd up to
100 0 is purely fortui tous and is a f unction of the ten pri mary and secon-
dary focal systems . The n u mber 1000 does not exhaust , however, the
extent to whi c h it is pos s i ble to elaborate a cultur o10gi cal analysi s.* As
*Our latest r es ea r che s indicate that besides t he elaborations a bout t o b e
15
tectiv e patterns of temporality is 58, Rest.
It may be noted t hat during the first stages of cons tructing the ta -
bles a uniform syst e m of readin g was used t hroughout, and we distin-
guished only between primary f oci modifying secondary ones and vice
versa. Thus 02 wa s 'Interaction considered economically' , and 20 'Sub-
s i stence cons idered interactionally' . Similarly 35 was 'Bi sexuality con-
sidered temporally' and 53 ' Sexually cons i der e d temporality'. It is clear
that even for these exampl es, and with only the individual and group as-
pects of the rec iprocals a s checks, difficulti es were bound to arise in
r eading the cha r t in this way . It was als o discove red t h at try as we might,
it was impossible to avoi d readi ng the tables difiere ntly when moving
fr om on e maj or a rea of t he table t o another. This had t o do wi th the
transition bet ween lev els in terms of t he phyl ogenetic n ature of the tables.
Precisely what we mean by thi s will be elab orated in 5 below. Before
going on t o how s y stems ten d to g roup t h emselves, it is appropriate to
take up a gain the smallest unit on the table, the systemic focus, and fur-
ther elaborate it.
3.2. The syste mi c f oci (of which there are 90) include, in most cul -
t ures, more content t han is indicated by the characterizati on of the r e -
lationship of a primar y to a secondary focus, o r by the mne monic labels
we have affixed to each. Whole courses are taught in sociology classes
on ' The F amily' (32). Linton
17
devoted a chapter to what he meant by
status and role (01), another to the local group (14 ), while volumes have
been written on the various aspects of the economic patterns of defense
(82) of a complex culture like our own.
Perhaps t he reader has already taken the next step, that of running
each systemic focus through the ten foci of activity again.. This is pre-
cisely what we found to be necessary before the self-checking aspects
of the scheme could become completely apparent, and before it was felt
that we had reached a point where this frame of reference could serve
as a useful guide or c heck list for the field worker i n establishing the
basic unit s of a gi ven activity in. a given culture. If each of the 90 sys-
temic foci has 10 possible el aboration s on a tertiary level, the minimum
number of focused groups of activities the social scientist has to work
with will b e as follows: 900 t ertiary systems, 90 systemic foci, 10 basic
focal systems and their systematic elaborations. That these add u p to
1000 is purely fortuitous and is a function of the ten pri mary and secon-
dary f oc al systems . The n umber 1000 does not exhaust, however, the
extent to whic h it is possi ble to elaborate a cultur ologi cal analysi s.* As
*Our latest resea r ches indicate that besides t he elaborations a bout t o b e
16
we will see below (4, The integration of culture) each of the elaborations
of systems on different levels. has in addition formal, informal, and tech-
nical aspects, which must be kept in mind and described. The number
3000 is not high when one considers the extreme complexity of some of
the systems with which we are dealing (the communication systems, for
example).
It is quite obvious that in the present preliminary statement it is
not feasible to list explicitly the 3000 categories indicated so far. It is
possible, however, to indicate what is meant by the tertiary elaborations
of a systemic focus by tracing one of the 90 systemic foci through the
third step.
Economic extensions of interaction (02) provides us with an excel-
lent example. As often happens when there is one word, such as exchange,
which describes or encompasses an entire activity, it is comparatively
easy to trace it through its tertiary elaborations. This is accomplished
by reading the table as follows:
02 . 0. Exchange interactionally considered. These are the communicative
aspects of exchange, such activities as advertising, the specialized vo-
cabularies of exchange activities (when they exist) as in the case of auc-
tions, and the South Seas kula r i n ~ 8 Note: the units of exchange are
always present in the vocabulary and may be represented also as Inate-
rial in 02.9 below.
02.1. Organizationally considered: traders, auctioneers, the stock ex-
change (as an institution), stores and banks in their organizational as-
pects; on the non-European level, such activities as the kula
18
.
02.2. Economically considered: While exchange with Western Europeans
often includes large doses of this elaboration, t h ere are cultures where
exchange is elaborated alInost to the exclusion of economic gain(cf. Tro-
briands
18
). Exchange in its econotnic aspects includes all those activities
wherein the priInary objective is for the parties to contribute to their
livelihood.
02.3. Sexually considered: reciprocal sexual privileges, prostitution,
wedding presents, bride price, etc.
mentioned there is actually a basis for breaking down each of the COIn-
partments of the table into nine cOInponents before any further elabora-
tions take place; the nine components are arrived at by intersections of
the formal. informal. and technical aspects of the original foci of acti-
vity.
16
we will see below (4, The integration of culture) each of the elaborations
of systems on different levels. has in addition formal, informal, and tech-
nical aspects, which must be kept in mind and described. The number
3000 is not high when one considers the extreme complexity of some of
the systems with which we are dealing (the communication systems, for
example).
It is quite obvious that in the present prel iminary statement it is
n ot feasible to list explicitly the 3000 categories indicated so far. It is
possible, however, to indicate what is meant by the tertiary elaborations
of a systemic focus by tracing one of the 90 systemic foci through the
third step.
Economic extensions of interaction (02) provides us with an excel-
lent example. As often happens when there is one word, such as exchange,
which describes or encompasses an entire activity, it is comparatively
easy to trace it through its tertiary elaborations. This is accomplished
by reading the table as follows:
02 . 0. Exchange interactionally considered. These are the communicative
aspects of exchange, such activities as advertisi ng, the specialized vo-
cabularies of exchange activities (when they exist) as in the case of auc-
tions, and the South Seas kula r i n ~ 8 Note: the units of exchange are
always present in the vocabulary and may be represented also as Inate-
rial in 02.9 below.
02.1. Organizationally considered: traders, auctioneers, the stock ex-
change (as an institution), stores and banks in their organizational as-
pects; on the non-European level, such activities as the kula
18
.
02.2. Economically considered: While exchange with Western Europeans
often includes large doses of this elaboration, t h ere are cultures where
exchange is elaborated alInost to the exclusion of economic gain {cf. Tro-
briands
18
). Exchange in its econotnic aspects includes all those activities
wherein the priInary objective is for the parties to contribute to their
livelihood.
02.3. Sexually considered: reciprocal sexual privileges, prostitution,
wedding presents, bride price, etc.
mentioned there is actually a basis for breaking down each of the COIn-
partments of the table into nine cOInponents before any further elabora-
tions take place; the nine components are arrived at by intersections of
the formal. informal. andtechnical aspects of the original! foci of a<;ti-
vity.
17
02.4. Territorially considered: the where of exchange activities; in urban
Arneric2. this includes business and shopping centers. One can usually
discover that there are places where exchange does or does not take
place, places which can be explicitly and precisely described (cf. Christ
driving the money changers out of the temple).
02.5. Temporally considered: the when of exchange activities; store
h()urs, shopping days, such as Saturdays for the farmer; or at certain
seasons of the year for some groups. This also implies when exchange
does not take place. Note that the where and when of necessity includes
all the exchange activities in all of their ramifications in which a given
culture participates.
OZ.6. lnstructionally considered: the teaching and learning of exchange
activities (such as graduate schools of business and finance).
02.7. Re creationally considered: gambling, etc.
02.8. Protectively considered: the laws protecting commerce and ex-
change activities, magic for luck, some cases of divination, and gambling
as a ritual.
02.9. Exploitationally considered: the material items (or items considered
or treated as mate ri als -cf. FromIn's rna rketing orientation for a p s y -
chological interpr e tation
l9
-which are exchang e1 0r in which e xc h a nge
takes pl a ce. Banks, store s, mon y , shell, women (when the y a r e b ought
or traded or sol d ), slc.ves, m agi c spells a nd ritual s. It is at t his p oint
that it is usually possible to arriv e a t the b asic unit of exc h ange , a Wlit
in t erms of wh i ch all other u nit s can be e q uated.
The above elaboration of e xchange a cti vities on the tertiary l evel
is by n o m e ans e xhaustive. It s houl d b e not ed, h owe ver, t h at n ot all other
foci will yi eld c omparable degrees of elaboration. Also i t is in the ter-
tiary elaborations t hat the differences between c ul tures re all y begin t o
s tand ou t i n their most striking manner. In some cultu r e s s o me t ertiary
elaborati ons will not exist. From t hi s a nalysi s it should begin to b e ch:<! r
that the conventional rubrics , s uch as ec onomics, religion, war (see 6),
encompa ss so m any diffe rent systems and t y pes of acti v ities that a sys-
tematic analysiS becomes impos s ible in the absence of the type of brea k-
down which we a re presenting. Validation for this assumption can be
found in the number of different wa ys in which t hes e activities have been
described in the past, and the number of theories to explain what goes
on under each of these hea dings.
By way of analogy, the analysis of a speech or any linguistic text
~ ~ ______ ____ ~ _ a ___ ~ __ L _ _ --- ~ __ - ~ ~
17
02.4. Territorially considered: the where of exchange activities; in urban
Americ2. this includes business and shopping centers. One can usually
discover that there are places where exchange does or does not take
place, places which can be explicitly and precisely described (cf. Christ
driving the money changers out of the temple).
02.5. Temporally considered: the when of exchange activities; store
hours, shopping days, such as Saturdays for the farmer; or at certain
seasons of the year for some groups. This also implies when exchange
does not take place. Note that the where and when of necessity includes
all the exchange activities in all of their ramifications in which a given
culture participates.
0l..6. lnstructionally considered: the teaching and learning of exchange
activities (such as graduate schools of business and finance).
02.7. Re creationally considered: gambling, etc.
02.8. Protectively considered: the laws protecting commerce and ex-
change activities, magic for luck, some cases of divina tion, a nd gambling
as a ritual.
02.9. E xploitationally considered: the material items {or items considered
or treated as mate r ials-cf. Fromn,'s rna rketing orientation for a p sy-
chological interpr e tation
19
-which are or in which e xc hange
takes place. Banks, store s, money, s hell, wome n (when the y are b ought
or t raded or sol d ), slaves, m agi c spells a nd ritual s. It is at t hi s p oint
that it is usually possible to arri ve at the b asic unit of exc h ange, a Wlit
in t erms of whi ch all other unit s can be e q uated .
The above elaboration of exchange activities on the tertiary l evel
is by no m e ans e xhaustive. It b e n oted, h owev er , t h at n ot all other
foci. will yi eld c omparable degrees of elaboration. Also i t is in the ter-
tiary elaborati ons t h at the diHerences between c ul tures re all y begin t o
s tand ou t in their most striking manner. In some cultur e s s o me t ert iary
e aborations will not exist. Fro.m t hi s a nalysi s it should begin t o b e cl <::<! r
that the conventional rubrics , s uch as ec onomics, religion, war (see 6) ,
encompass' so m any differ ent systems and types of acti vities that a sys-
ternatic analysis becomes impossible in the abs e nc e of the type of brea k-
down which w e are presenting. Validation for this assumption can be
found in the number of different ways in which these activities have been
described in the past, and the number of theories to explain what goes
on under each of these hea dings.
By way of analogy, the analysis of a speech or any linguistic text
,.
M
'0'
">r1fY ....,1;l
18
can only be accomplished by keeping the various levels separate. The
linguist as microlinguist will record the sounds and the phonemes (pat-
terns) into which they fall, will determine the morphemes, and state the
constructions in which they occur (structure). Then as metalinguist he
ca.n discuss the style, including the choice of items of vocabulary and
their appropriateness to the total situation. Further analysis can also
be made of the accompanying voice-qualifier systems (if a tape or simi-
lar recording has been made) and of the accompanying kinesics if a mo-
tion picture has been taken. At this point the analysis goes into the realms
of other systems of culture, and the relevance of the text to a political
cam paign or a story-telling cycle or the like can be analyzed. The point
i s that to say tha t 'It was a good speech' or 'An interesting story' is not
a scientific analysis and doesn't tell us much except that people liked it.
Simil a rly, a chapter in an ethnography labelled Economics does not give
us an ana.lysis until the complex activities are broken down into their
appropriate systems.
In the past the social scientist has devoted considerable discussion
to the subject of whether the scientist can or cannot be involved in what
he is "tudying, i.e., the whole matter of subjectivity vs. objectivity. This
dile m rna can be resolved through the realization that there are two kinds
of 'rneaning' involved in cultural analysis on different levels. Referring
to the lingUistic example given above, we note that the linguist is con-
cerned only with differerttial meaning while conducting the microlinguis-
tic analysis, tha t he asks only whether these two events are the same or
different. However, when he moves to the metalinguistic level, that is,
when he begins relating the linguistic system to other cultural systems,
he becomes concerned with the second type of meaning, which we shall
call valued meaning. This distinction must be observed if the social
scientist is to succeed in identifying the basic units of cultural systems.
For exam.ple, in arriving at units in the time reference system of Ameri-
cans as it is used formally (see 4 below) we have noted that tenths and
hundredths of seconds or even blocks of seconds are not differentiated.
However, if the American moves to technical time, units as small as a
microsecond may be significant. The minute, however, is a significant
unit of formal time for Americans. As a contrast, we can note that to
the city Arab a quarter of an hour seems to be comparable to our five
minute period.
18
can only be accomplished by keeping the various levels separate. The
linguist as microlinguist will record the sounds and the phonemes (pat-
terns) into which they fall, will determine the morphemes, and state the
constructions in which they occur (structure). Then as metalinguist he
ca.n discuss the style, including the choice of items of vocabulary and
their appropriateness to the total situation. Further analysis can also
be made of the accompanying voice-qualifier systems (if a tape or simi-
lar recording has been made) and of the accompanying kinesics if a mo-
tion picture has been taken. At this point the analysis goes into the realms
of other systems of culture, and the relevance of the text to a political
cam paign or a stor y -telling cycle or the like can be analyzed. The point
i s tha t to say tha t 'It was a good speech' or 'An interesting story ' is not
a scientific analysis and doesn't tell us much ex cept that people liked it.
Simil arl y , a chapter in an ethnography labelled Economics does not give
, s an analysis until the complex activities are b r oken down into their
a.pp r opriate systems.
In the past the social scientist has devoted considerable discussion
to the subject of whether the scientist can or cannot be involved in what
he is studying, i.e., the whole matter of subjectivity vs. objectivity. This
dile rn rna can be resol v ed through the realization that there are two kinds
of ' rnear..ing' involved in cultural analysis on different levels . Referring
to the lingUistic example given above, we note that the linguist is con-
ce r ned only with differe:atial meaning while conducting the microlinguis-
tic analysis, that he asks only whether these two events are the same or
different. However, when he moves to the metalinguistic level, that is,
when he begins relating the linguistic system to other cultural systems,
he becomes concerned with the second type of meaning, which we shall
call ,valued r n e a n i n ~ This distinction must be observed if the social
scientist is to succeed in identifying the basic units of cultural systems.
For exam.;:>le, in arriving at units in the time reference syst e m of Ameri-
cans as it is used formally (see 4 below) we have noted that tenths and
hundredths of seconds or even blocks of seconds are not differentiated.
However, if the American moves to technical time, uni ts as small as a
microsecond may be significant. The minute, however, is a s i gnificant
unit of formal time for Americans . As a contrast, we can note that to
the city Arab a quarter of an hour seems to be comparable to our five
minute period.
4. THE INTEGRATION OF CULTURE
In section 2, under the heading 'The Content of Culture', it was
mentioned that a detailed study of references to e v ents in time demon-
strated that Americans handled and took account of three different sys-
terns of time: formal, informal, and technical; and that these were in
reality quite distinct and different from each other. Later in the same
section the reader will note th'at the 'systematic elaborations' of each of
the ten basic focal systems shows predominately a threefold di v ision
which, as will appear, c onforms to the threefold characteriza tion as for-
mal, informal, and technical. There are also sev eral references to the
formal, informal, and technical systems of culture in section 3 (The
Structuring of Culture).
While it h a s been our desire to present our data and how we arrived
at certain conclusions i n an orderly and systematic m a nner, we di s covered
that it was impossible to avoid refe rences of this sort , a s the theory we
a re now discussing is intrica tely interw ov en through, a nd basic to, a
dee per und e rstanding of our total scheme.
The characteriza tion of culture systems -principal or subsidi a r y -
a s formal, informal, or te chnical is based upon observa tion of the fol-
lowing facts. All cultur a l behavior embodies some activities which are
impa rted to the behaving participant by m e ans of tradition; t he se acti v i-
ties a re learned as basic to e v erything else, and a re acquired by i n t er-
action between younger and older m e mbers of the societ y. In t h e le a rning
of these a ctiv ities there a re inv ol v ed precept, e x ample, a dITl onition, and
corr e ction; such a ctivities we call f ormal; they h a ve to do with t h e estab-
li s h ing, learning, p rotection, a nd per p etuation of t h e unque sti oned way to
behave. It is in this way tha t ri ghts, duties , obliga tions, and l ' mi tations
are established and felt to be the only 'natural' and possible way of life.
Then there a re behavior a ctiv i ti es that result from sets of circumstances
that, as it were, ex ist all about one and concerning which nothing much
can be done; the behaving participant learns these by a one -sided pro-
cess -he observes what h a p p ens, and without exp licit s t atement or in-
struction, without admonition or correction, he begins to follow the ob-
served behavior ; these are the informal aspects of culture. Finally ,
there are whole systems of activity which are characterized by the trans-
mittal' in one direction, from teachers to learners {older sibling to
19
4. THE INTEGRATION OF CULTURE
In section 2, under the heading 'The Content of Culture' , it was
mentioned that a detailed study of references to events in time demon-
strated that Americans handled and took account of three different sys-
tems of time: formal, informal, and technical; and that these were in
reality quite distinct and different from each other. Later in the same
section the reader will note th'at the 'systematic elaborations' of each of
the ten basic focal systems shows predominately a threefold division
which, as will appear, conforms to the threefold characterization as for-
mal, informal, and technical. There are also several references to the
formal, informal, and technical systems of culture in section 3 (The
Structuring of Culture).
While it has been our desire to present our data and how we arrived
at certain conclusions in an orderly and systematic m a nner, we discovered
that it was impossible to avoid references of this sort, as the theory we
are now discussing is intricately interwoven through, and basic to, a
deeper understanding of our total scheme.
The characterization of culture systems -principal or subsidiary-
as formal, informal, or technical is based upon observation of the f ol-
lowing facts. iDl cultural behavior embodies some activities which are
imparted to the behaving participant by means of tradition; these activi-
ties are learned as basic to everything else, and are acquired by int er-
action between younger and older members of the society. In the learning
of these activities there a re invol v ed precept, example, admonition, and
correction; such activities we call f o r ~ ~ they have to do with the estab-
1i shing' learning, p rotection, and perpetuation of t he unque stione d way to
behave . It is in this way that rights, duties, obligations, and l ' mi tations
are established and felt to be the only 'natural' and possible way of life.
Then there are behavior activities that result from sets of circumstances
that, as it were, exist all about one and concerning which nothing much
can be done; the behaving participant learns these by a one-sided pro-
cess-he observes what happens, and without explicit statement or in-
struction, without admonition or correction, he begins to follow the ob-
served behavior; these are the informal aspects of culture. Finally,
there are whole systems of activity which are characterized by the trans-
mittal' in one directi on, from teachers to learners {older sibling to
19

SO,
oN ')fil)'.'s',lN
20
younger, parent to child, professor to student, etc.); the techniques and
methods here are explicitly stated and are subject to examination and
change; such systems are the technical ones.
This threefold characterization is applicable not only to the large
complexes of culture, but to each subsidiary elaboration down to the
smallest tertiary system, and again at each level of organization of any
system. There is evidence to suggest that the personality profile-both
individual and modal-is also organized in such a tripartite way; Freud's
ego, id, supereg0
20
appear to be an attempt to make the same kind of
classification, but without an adequate culturological frame of reference.
With this threefold analytical theory, we believe we have acquired
a basis for describing how cultures change, and for suggesting the pro-
cess of cultural evolution. The formal systems and formal aspects are
those that change most slowly: they are deeply imbedded in every cul-
ture, and are tied up with the strongest emotions. The informal systems
and aspects may be difficult to change in so far as they remain unstated
and are taken for granted; their emotional charge, moreover, is less,
er even absent. The technical aspects and systems change most quickly,
being most explicit. A formal system, to function, must be accompanied
by an informal adaptation to it; this latter is often expanded by means of
iech.."'licalization. For instance, in the United States classlessness and
equalitarianism a re part of the formal structure of society; it is never-
theless given and true that there exist individual differences which neces-
saril)' lead to informal differentiation in almost every aspect of behavior.
These informa l differentiations are often technicalized by means of re-
strictive covenants and the like. If technicalization goes far enough it
may lead to the setting up of subsidiary new formc.l systems, and even
to the shift of the original formal system to the informal level. This sug-
gests that the evolution of culture has proceeded in this order: the ori-
ginal circumstances of human existence-informal-becarrle, with acqui-
sition of greater skill and knowledge, technicalized, and gave rise to
proto-cultures; these carne to be accompanied by informc.l adaptations
and further technical elaborations; then arose new and special formal
systems, and the process continues over and over.
Before going on to discuss some cultural systems in detail in the
light of this threefold characterization, it may be well to examine rapidly
the anthropological work that has been done in the past in order to see
what kind of materials it has treated. It is not unfair to say that the bulk
of ethnographic description, as well as of sociological studies, has dealt
with the technical systems and technical aspects of culture: organization
of class structures, governmental machinery, marriage rules, kinship
20
younger, parent to child, professor to student, etc.); the techniques and
methods here are explicitly stated and are subject to examination and
change; such systems are the technical ones.
This threefold characterization is applicable not only to the large
complexes of culture, but to each subsidiary elaboration down to the
smallest tertiary system, and again at each level of organization of any
system. There is evidence to suggest that the personality profile-both
individual and modal-is also organized in such a tripartite way; Freud's
ego, id, supereg0
20
appear to be an attempt to make the same kind of
classification, but without an adequate culturological frame of reference.
With this threefold analytical theory, we believe we have acquired
a basis for describing how cultures change, and for suggesting the pro-
cess of cultural evolution. The formal systems and formal aspects are
those that change most slowly: they are deeply imbedded in every cul-
t ure, and are tied up with the strongest emotions. The informal systems
and aspects may be difficult to change in so far as they remain unstated
and are taken for granted; their emotional charge, moreover, is less,
or even absent. The technical aspects and systems change most quickly,
being most explicit. A formal system, to function, must be accompanied
by an informal adaptation to it; this latter is often expanded by means of
tech..'"licalization. For instance, in the United States classlessness and
equalitarianism a re part of the formal structure of society; it is never-
theless given a nd true that there exist individual differences which neces-
sarily lead to informal differentiation in almost every aspect of behavior.
These informa l differentiations are often technicalized by means of re-
strictive covenants and the like. If technicalization goes far enough it
may lead to the setting up of subsidiary new formal systems, and even
to the shift of the original formal system to the informal level. This sug-
gests that the evolution of culture has proceeded in this order: the ori-
ginal circumstances of human existence-informal-becarrle, with acqui-
sition of greater skill and knowledge, technicalized, and gave rise to
proto-cultures; these carne to be accompanied by informal adaptations
and further technical elaborations; then arose new and special formal
systems, and the process continues over and over.
Before going on to discuss some cultural systems in detail in the
light of this threefold characterization, it may be well to examine rapidly
the anthropological work that has been done in the past in order to see
what kind of materials it has treated. It is not unfair to say that the bulk
of ethnographic description, as well as of sociological studies, has dealt
with the technical systems and technical aspects of culture: organization
of class structures, governmental machinery, marriage rules, kinship
21
terms, calendars, weapons, technology, crime, delinquency, these are
among the principal topics covered. Again, in the field of political sci-
enc e, practi cally the whole of the Marxian approach to society is con-
cerned with the technical, and fails to handle the other aspects adequately.
The formal systeITls and aspects have been treated largely as the great
complex configurations sUITlITled up by such terITlS as religion, law , ~
and the like, but again chiefly in their traditional elaborations; we shall
discuss such configurations b elow in 5 and its subsections. Ruth Bene-
di c t's works
2l
,22 show an appreciation of the necessity of treating the
formal , but have been criticized for inadequacy of technical detail. The
inforITlal systeITls and aspect s of culture have received practically no
a ttention ; the rOle of the informal in the functioning of Unit ed States go -
vernment agenc ies, for instance, has b e e n ITl entioned, but has seldom
been described i n precise term s, while t he Soviet attempts to get tec h."li-
cal about every i nf orm al , non -Sovi et attitu d e are well -known examples
of lack of rec ognition of t he i mportance of t he informal in human rela-
ti on ships. Th e use of the personal docum ent by anthropologi sts, with t he
m or e r ecent i nterview techniques, show att empts to come to grips with
t h e nece ssi t y of treating the formal and inf ormal ; the da ta thus made
availabl e are highly useful, but are diffi cult bec a use of t he lack of the
fr a me of reference we sugges t.
We intend now to present a more precise discussion and descrip-
ti on o! the formal in culture, with a number of examples drawing upon
various parts of the scheme discussed i n 2 and 3 above. This will be fol-
lowed by analogous discussions of the informal and then of the technical.
At that point we shall be able to consider historical examples, showing
the progression from one aspect to another .
4 .1. The forITlal in culture was presented above (4) in terms of how it
is acquired. Let us now characterize it more precisely. As stated, the
formal systeITls and aspects are those based on tradition. They functi on
to ITlaintain and perpetuate the group, and are the most persistent. The
formal activities are taken for granted, representing the unstated assuITlp-
tions basic to the cultural sy.stem in question. As such, formal systems
are usually rec ognizable by t h e high emotional reaction against any de-
viation . The formal systems define the areas of behavior to which infor-
mal an d technical elab orations will be a ppli e d. The f orITlal is functioning
when it is s a id about something that it 'i s n' t d one' , or t hat i t doesn ' t
'sound right', or 'look right,l3. On both the individual and the group lev el s,
the forITlal provides the basis for the continuity of the culture, the tie of
the past wit.h the future; these are the things people fight and die for,
without 'really' knowing why. For human bei ngs the formal perforITls
21
terms, calendars, weapons, technology, crime, delinquency, these are
a mong t he principal topics covered. Again, in the field of political sci-
ence, practically the whole of the Marxian approach to society is con-
cerned with the technical, and fails to handle the other aspects adequately.
The forma l systems a nd aspects have been treated largely as the great
complex confi gurations sumITled up by such terITls as religion, law, ~
and the like, but a gain chiefly in their traditional elaborations; we shall
discuss such configurations b elow in 5 and its subsections . Ruth Bene-
di c t's works
2l
,22 show an appreciation of the necessity of treating the
formal , but have been criticized for inadequacy of technical detail. The
informal systeITls and aspec t s of culture have received practically no
attention; the role of the inforITlal in the functioning of United States go -
vernITlent a genc ies , for instance, has b e e n mentioned, but has seldom
been described i n precis e terITls, while t he Soviet attempts t o get tech.'"li-
cal about ev ery i nforITl al , non -Sovi et attitu de are well -known exaITlples
of lack of rec ognition of t he i mportance of the informal in human rela-
ti on ships. The use of the pe rsonal docum ent by anthropol ogi sts, with t he
mor e r ecent i nterview techniques, s how att eITlpts to come to g rips with
t h e nece ssi t y of t reating the forITlal and i nformal ; the data thus made
available are highly useful, but are diffi cult bec a use of t he lack of the
f r a ITle of reference we sugges t .
We intend now to present a ITlor e p recise discussion and descrip-
ti on ot the forITlal in culture, with a number of exaITlples drawing upon
various parts of the scheme discussed i n 2 and 3 above. This will be fol-
lowed by analogous discussions of t he inforITlal and then of the technical.
At that point we shall be able to consider historical examples, showing
the progression from one aspect to another.
4.1. The forITlal in culture was presented above (4) in terms of how it
is acquired. Let us now characterize it more precisely. As stated, the
formal systems and aspects are those based on tradition. They function
to ITlaintain and perpetuate the group, and are the most persistent. The
formal activities are taken for granted, representing the unstated assump-
tions basic to the cultural sy.stem in question. As such, formal systems
are usually recognizable by t h e high eITlotional reaction against any de-
viation . The f orITlal systeITls define t he areas of behavior to which infor-
mal an d technical elab orations will be appli e d. The f ormal is functioning
when it i s said a bout something that i t 'i s n' t d one' , or t hat i t doesn ' t
'sound right', o r 'look ri ght ,13 . On both the individual and the group level s,
the forITlal provi des the basi s for the continuity of the culture, the tie of
the past wit.h the future ; these are the things people fight and die for,
without 'really' knowing why. F o r hUITlan bei ngs the forITlal performs
22
functions COITlparable to innate behavior in lower organisITls.
It was suggested above (3 . 3) that the division of the areas of the
tabular scheITle into core, orientational, and expressional systeITls was
tied up with the forITlal, inforITlal, and technical characterization of the
systeITls . Having now a ITlore precise stateITlent of what the forITlal is,
let us look once ITlore at the core systeITls . COITlITlunication (00) is the
ITlost forITlal of all cultural systerns -the traditional base of culture it-
self, and, as it were, the heart of the core systeITls. Society (11) is the
f orITlal aspect of any group, work (22) is the forITlal basi s for the subsis-
tence of a society, and the sexes (33) are the forITlal situation perITlitting
continuation . The inte ractional systeITlic foci labelled c oITlITlunity (10),
ec ological c OITlITlunity (20), sex cOITlITlunity (30), are analogously forITlal
bases-with decreasing forITlalness-for the elaboration of inter a ctional
systeITls. Status and rOle (01), exchange (02), 'how the sexes interact'
(03) are the forITlal developITlents of interaction, again in order of de-
creasing f orITlalne s s. Oc cupati onal groups (21) and ITlarriage (31) are
fornla.! organizational elaborations of subsistence and bisexuality respec-
tively' and their reciprocals-econoITlic roles (12) and sexual roles (13),
are forITlal elaborations, econoITlically and sexually, of association . The
faITlily (32) and the sexual division of labor (23) are again reciprocal for-
mal elaborations of subsistence activity in terITlS of bisexuality . Taken
as a whole, the core systeITls are tha t portion of any culture which is
ITlost traditional, ITlost pe r sistent, ITlost re sistant to change, ITlost charged
with eITlotion . Each of theITl, of course, can itself be considered in formal,
inforITlal, and technical aspects, as will be seen.
Turning now to the basic focal systeITls as such, we note that in
each of theITl there is a systeITla tic elaboration that is forITlal. In the first
four, which are, by being in the core, form.al as totalities, the specially
forITlal aspects are, respectively, the vocal qualifier systeITl (in 00), class
systeITls (in 11), forITlal work (in 22), ITlasculinity and femininity as cul-
turally defined (in 33). Each of these is traditional, is taken for granted,
is inevitable and persistent, is intiITlately connected with the eITlotional
life. Vocal qualifiers go back to pre-,; ultural systeITls, are accepted as
'natural', and are transITlitted by, ane: absorbed froITl traditional activi-
ties by all surrounding ITleITlbers of U,e society, as basic to establishing
cDITlITlunication. Class systeITls are traditional and taken for granted. It
is necessary and inevitable that any society have a forITlal work core.
Being properly ITlasculine or feITlinine is obviously right and is accepted
without question. Outside of the core systeITls, we find under space (44)
the forITlal elaborations of systeITls of llsage of space; here are the tra-
ditional notions of what is crowded and what is not, of where to put people
2Z
functions cOITlparable to innate behavior in lower organisITls.
It was sugg ested above (3 . 3) that the division of the areas of the
t a bular scheITle into core, orientational, and expressional sy steITls was
tied up with the forITlal, inforITlal, and technical characterization of the
systeITls. Having now a ITlore precise statement of what the forITlal is,
let us look once ITlore at the core systeITls . COITlITlunication (00) is the
ITlost forITlal of all cultural systems -the traditional base of culture it-
self, and, as it were, the heart of the core systeITls. Society (11) is the
f orITlal aspect of any group, work (ZZ) is the forITlal basi s for the subsis-
tence of a society, and the sexes (33) are the forITlal situation permitting
continuation. The interactional systeITlic foci labelled comITlunity (10 ) ,
ecological COITlITlunity (ZO), sex cOITlITlunity (30), are analogously forITlal
bases-with decreasing forITlalness-for the elaboration of intera ctional
systeITls . Status and role (01), exchang e (OZ), 'how the sexes interact'
(03) are the formal developITlents of interaction, again in order of de-
crea sing f orITlalne s s. Oc cupati onal groups (Zl) and ITlarriage (31) are
fornlal or g anizational elaborations of subsistence and bisexuality respec-
tively' and their reciprocals-econoITlic roles (lZ) and sexual roles (13),
are forITlal elaborations, econoITlically and sexually, of association. The
faITlil y ( 3 2) and the sexual di vi sion of labor (23) are again reciprocal for-
rna.l elaborations of subsistence activity in terITlS of bisexuality. Taken
as a whole, the core systeITls are th a t portion of any culture which is
ITlost traditional, ITlost persistent , ITlo st resistant to change, ITlost charg ed
with eITlotion . Each of theITl, of cour s e, can itself be considered in formal,
inforITlal, and technical aspects, as will be seen.
Turning now to the basic focal systeITls as such, we note that in
each of theITl there is a systeITla tic elaboration that is forITlal. In the first
four, which are, by being in the core, form.al as totalities, the specially
fonna l aspects are, respectively, the vocal qualifier systeITl (in 00), class
systems (in 11), forITlal work (in 22 ) , ITlasculinity and femininity as cul-
turally defined (in 33). Each of these is traditional, is taken for granted,
is inevitable and persistent, is intiITlately connected with the eITlotional
life . Vocal qualifiers go back to pre-; ultural systeITls, are accepted as
'natural', and are transITlitted by, ane absorbed froITl traditional activi-
ties by all surrounding ITleITlbers of tl le society, as basic to establishing
cOITlITlunication. Class systeITls are traditional and taken for granted. It
is necessary and inevitable that any society have a forITlal work core.
Being properly ITlasculine or feITlinine is obviously right and is accepted
without question. Outside of the core systeITls, we find under space (44)
the forITlal elaborations of systeITls of llsage of space; here are the tra-
ditional notions of what is crowded and what is not, of where to put people
23
and things, of where to plant, of how to layout a town. Under time (55),
we have systems that deal with the accepted significant units of time, the
notions of promptness and diligence, the feelings about what time is and
how it is used. Going on to the expressional systems, we find that formal
enculturation (66) deals with the way a person is brought up (rearing)'
what one learns from family and kin and from other traditional and un-
questioned sources. Under recreation (77) the formal elaborations treat
of what is and is not fun, and what gives relaxation and what" doesn't. For
perpetuation systems (88) there are the elaborations dealing wit.h tradi-
tional notions of defense, with what is defended and how and why, and with
the identification of defenders and those defended. Under materials (99),
the elaborations stemming from contact perception are the formal ones:
shelter and housing, use of clothing and fire, what ten"lperatures are ade-
quate or bearable, how and when one washes, and the like.
In treating the core systems above, we described some of the sys-
temic foci in that area. Each of these has its threefold aspects of formal,
informal, and technical, as elaborated into tertiary systems. As an exam-
ple, let us take mar r i age (31). The formal tertiary systems he re are con-
cerned with how marriage is arranged and how the partners in marriage
communicate, who may marry whom, the economic contributi ons of the
partners and the means of establishing them, and the part that sex plays
in the marriage situation. An example outside of the core systems is that
of territorially determined s u bsistence or subsistence areas' (24) : the
formal tertiary systems de al with how work space is laid out to pe r mit
communication, to delimit and i d entify g r oup membership, to produc e
economically valued good s a nd s e rvices, to provi de for sexual diff e r e n c es .
The last example f or the p resen t is that of the u s e of mate r ial s f or p r o-
tection (89); here t her e is a mi n i m umof e labor a tion of formal terti ary
sy ste ms : t hey a re the on e s c oncerned wi t h defens e mat e rial s (clothing,
weapons, medicines, etc.) as they f oster or i m pede communication, en -
h ance or minimiz.e associational groups, provi d e for economic act ivities,
and are diff erentially empl oy ed b y the s exe s .
It c an b e poin ted out h ere t h at eac h te r tiary system can i ts elf be
l ook ed at fo rmally. For instanc e , t he sys t e m of l aying out. work s pace to
pr ovide c ommuni c ation has i ts f ormal as pect s defined by what is thought
t o be appropri a te to communication of this kind-amount and fr e quenc y
of interaction at work, a nd s imilar traditional attitudes.
4.2. Informal behavi or r e p r e s e nts the individual's or g roup's unique
adjustment to 'givens': thos e things which are, in the normal life span of
an individual, unalterable, fixed, or all around one, and a bout which one
can do little or nothing.
23
and things, of where to plant, of how to layout a town. Under time (55),
we have systems that deal with the accepted significant units of time, the
notions of promptness and diligence, the feelings about what time is and
how it is used. Going on to the expressional systems, we find that formal
enculturation (66) deals with the way a person is brought up (rearing)'
what one learns from family and kin and from other traditional and un-
questioned sources . Under recreation (77) the formal elaborations treat
of what is and is not fun, and what gives relaxation and what" doesn't. F or
perpetuation systems (8 8) there are the elaborations dealing wit.h tradi-
tional notions of defense, with what is defended and how and why , and with
the identification of defenders and those defended. Under materials (99),
the elaborations stemming from contact perception are the formal ones:
shelter and housing, use of clothing and fire, what ten"lperatures are ade-
quate or bearable, how and when one washes, and the like .
In treating the core systems above, we described some of the sys-
temic foci in that area. Each of these has its threefold aspects of formal,
informal, and technical, as elaborated into tertiary systems. As an exam-
ple, let us take mar r i age (31). The formal tertiary systems he re are con-
cerne d with how marriage is arranged and how the partners in marriage
communicate, who may marry whom, the economic contributi ons of the
partners and the means of establishing them, and the part that s ex plays
in t he marriage situation. An example outside of the core systems is that
of territorially determined s u bs i s ten c e or 'subsistence a r eas' (2 4 ): the
formal tertiary s y stems d e al with how work space is laid out to per mit
communicat ion, to delimit and i den tify g r ou p membership, t o pr oduc e
e conomically valued goods a nd s e rvices, to provi de for sex u al diff erenc es.
The last example f o r the p resent is that of the use of m ate rials for pr o -
t ection (89) ; her e t he re is a mi n imu m -of elabo r a t i on of for mal terti ary
s y stems : t hey a re the on e s c oncerned with defense mat e rial s (clothing,
weapons, medicines. etc . ) as they f oster or i m p ede communi cation, en -
hance or minimize associational groups, provide for economic act ivities,
and are diff erentially employed by the sexes.
It can be poin ted out h ere that each te r tiary system can itself be
looked at fo rmally. For instanc e, t he s yst em of laying out. work space t o
pr ovide communi c ation has i t s f ormal a s pect s defined by what is thought
to be appropria te to communic ation of t hi s kind-amount and fre quency
of interaction a t work, a n d s i m ilar traditional attitudes.
4.2. Informal behavi or r e p re s e nts the indiv idual's or g r ou p 's unique
adjus tment to ' givens': those thing s which are, in the normal life span of
an indiv idual, unalterable, fixe d, or all around one, and a bout which one
can do little or nothing.
,.
so,

24
For the individual, the inforITlal often performs the function of re-
conciling the differences between individual and group needs. Like the
forITlal, it is often unstated. Unlike the forITlal, it is not acquired through
conscious imitation and correction but is learned informally through
close, often studied, and s oITletiITle s unc ons cious observati on.
As has already been indicated (3.3), ITlan's response to the orien-
tational systeITls tends to be inforITlal. also appears in
every other segITlent of the table . It is not characterized by awareness
of the type associated with the forITlal (a thing is or is not done, is or is
not proper), but instead in ITlost cases by what amOU:1ts to an almost to-
tal absence of awareness.
Taking up the inforITlal systeITlatic elaborations of the basic focal
systeITls, one finds under cOITlITlunication (00) the inforITlal to be expressed
in kinesics (body ITlotions and gestures, one of the three cOITlITlunication
systeITls). It should be noted that gestures in the norITlal speech situation
go unnoticed; they are not taught, nor are people generally aware of their
own g estures, or even the gestures of others, for that ITlatter, unless
these deviate too ITluch or are absent (as a result of being derived froITl
a culture or subculture other than that of the observer). Bodily ITloveITlent
is e v en less generally in awareness (once it has been established) than
gestures, while calling attention to ITloods or to what ITl oveITlent comITlU-
nicates, can at times be highly eITlbarassing.
Under society (ll) one finds caste and kin as the principal informal
systeITlatic elaboration. Caste is, in terITlS of the participant, something
he can do very little about. AdjustITlents tend to be informal and are
worked out individually, usually as a result of observation . Diagnostic
traits about which the subject can do nothing tend to becoITle caste cri-
teria (for example, skin color, or the religion or occupation of one's pa-
rents) .
Work (22) is elaborated inforITlally as maintenance activities, such
as housework and care of buildings and equipITlent. Here again one finds
that ITlaintenance deals with givens: houses will get dirty and need plas-
ter or paint willy-nilly. SOITle of the confusion which has been noted
around activities of this sort in Western culture has to do with attempts
to technicalize them. For instance, the status of housewife has been in-
correctly equated both with that of professional worker and laborer .
In all cultures there are, as stated, established concepts of ITlascu-
linity and femininity (33). These are forITlal and often are at variance
with the biological fact of one's sex, which constitutes the inforITlal. Fail-
ure to treat biological sex as a 'given' would seem to result in unneces-
sary cOITlplications in the person's adjustITlent. When biological sex func-
24
For the individual, the informal often performs the function of re-
conciling the differences between individual and group needs. Like the
formal, it is often unstated. Unlike the formal, it is not acquired through
conscious imitation and correction but is learned informally through
close, often studied, and sometimes unconscious observation.
As has already been indicated (3.3), man's response to the orien-
tational systems tends to be informal. TheY also appears in
every other segment of the table. It is not characterized by awareness
of the type associated with the formal (a thing is or is not done, is or is
not proper), but instead in most cases by what amounts to an almost to-
tal absence of awareness.
Taking up the informal systematic elaborations of the basic focal
syst e ms, one finds under communication (00) the informal to be expressed
in kinesics (body motions and gestures, one of the three communication
systems). It should be noted that gestures in the normal speech situation
go unnoticed; they are not taught, nor are people generally aware of their
own gestures, or even the gestures of others, for that matter, unless
these deviate too much or are absent (as a result of being derived from
a culture or subculture other than that of the observer). Bodily movement
is e ven less generally in awareness (once it has been established) than
gestures, while calling attention to moods or to what movement commu-
nicates, can at times be highly embarassing .
Under society (ll) one finds caste and kin as the principal informal
systematic elaboration. Caste is, in terms of the participant, something
he can do very little about . Adjustments tend to be informal and are
worked out individually, usually as a result of observation. Diagnostic
traits about which the subject can do nothing tend to become caste cri-
teria {for example, skin color" or the religion or occupation of one's pa-
rents} .
Work (22) is elaborated informally as maintenance activities, such
as housework and care of buildings and equipment . Here again one finds
that maintenance deals with givens: houses will get dirty and need plas-
ter or paint willy-nilly. Some of the confusion which has been noted
around activities of this sort in Western culture has to do with attempts
to technicalize them. For instance, the status of housewife has been in-
correctly equated both with that of professional worker and laborer.
In all cultures there are, as stated, estabiished concepts of mascu-
linity and femininity (33). These are formal and often are at variance
with the biological fact of one's sex, which constitutes the informal. Fail-
ure to treat biological sex as a 'given' would seem to result in unneces-
sary complications in the person's adjustment. When biological sex func-
25
tions as a given, it is largely out of awareness, i.e., lacks any self-con-
scious characteristics of the type that says 'now I am acting as a man'
or 'as a woman'.
Space (44) and time (55) are largely 'given' and though also elabo-
rated formally (4.1) and technically (4.3), their informal elaborations are
exceedingly important. For space, this is delimited in terms of natural
boundaries, rivers, lakes, oceans, deserts, mountains, forests and plains.
For time, there are such things as the annual cycle, including the seasons
and man's adaptation to them, the lunar and diurnal cycles, complex wea-
ther cycles influenced by such things as sun spots, the cycles of high num-
bers of locusts, cycles of epidemics, and the like. It should be noted here
that these last have always until recently been treated as givens, and it
is only lately that man has started to do anything abou: (to treat techni-
cally) cycles other than those associated with the rotation of the earth
and its movement in its orbit around the sun, which have to be taken as
givens.
Enculturation (66) is elaborated informally as a system of lea rni ng
in which the subject does not interact directly with others in the lea rning
situation, as he does in formal learning (4.1) and technical learning (4.3).
Formally there are certain areas which a re left for the individual to
learn for himself, for which no technical provisions are made. Whenever
a mother says 'You'll find out about that later, dear', or when a parent,
older person, or super-ordina te says 'I don't care how y ou do it a s long
as you do it', they are saying in essence, though without awareness, 'Look
around and see how others are doing it, and work out your own unique
adjustment'. Informal learning is particularly highly developed in a c ul-
ture like our own . Informal learning is often not even exp erienced as
le a rning; that is, it often tak es place out of awareness.
Recreation (77) is elaborated informally as playing. This is a series
of activities which it is difficult to say much about because of thei r i nfor-
mal nature, our own limited observations, and because play is not highly
elaborated in the Western world.
The informal elaborations of the protection systems (88) have to do
with the preservative adaptations (which include attitudes) to such givens
as potentially hostile forces in nature, society, and man himself. These
include dealing with sickness and health, war and peace, lawlessness and
lawfulness, life and death, grief and happiness, shame and guilt, and an-
xiety. The range of permissible attitudes varies considerably from cul-
ture to culture, i . e., is culturally patterned, yet shows a high degree of
individuation even within the context of a given culture.
The informal elaborations of material systems (99) are all the sys-
25
tions as a given, it is largely out of awareness, i.e., lacks any self-con-
scious characteristics of the type that says 'now I am acting as a man'
or 'as a woman'.
Space (44) and time (55) are largely 'given' and though also elabo-
rated formally (4.1) and technically (4.3), their informal elaborations are
exceedingly important. For space, this is delimited in terms of natural
boundaries, rivers, lakes, oceans, deserts, mountains, forests and plains.
For time, there are such things as the annual cycle, including the seasons
and man's adaptation to them, the lunar and diurnal cycles, complex wea-
ther cycles influenced by such things as sun spots, the cycles of high num-
bers of locusts, cycles of epidemics, and the like. It should be noted here
that these last have always until recently been treated as givens, and it
is only lately that man has started to do anything abou: (to treat techni-
cally) cycles other than those associated with the rotation of the earth
and its movement in its orbit around the sun, which have to be taken as
givens.
Enculturation (66) is elaborated informally as a system of learning
in which the subject does not interact directly with others in the learning
situation, as he does in formal learning (4.1) and technical learning (4 .3 ).
Formally there are certain areas which are left for the individual to
learn for himself, for which no technical provisions are made. Whenever
a mother says 'You'll find out about that later, dear', or when a parent,
older person, or super-ordinate says 'I don't care how you do it as long
as you do it', they are saying in essence, though without awareness, 'Look
around and see how others are doing it, and work out your own unique
adjustment'. Informal learning is particularly highly developed in a c ul-
ture like our own. Informal learning is often not even experienced as
learning; that is, it often takes place out of awareness.
Recreation (77) is elaborated informally as playing. This is a series
of activities which it is difficult to say much about because of their inf or-
mal nature, our own limited observations, and because play is not highl y
elaborated in the Western world.
The informal elaborations of the protection systems (88) have to do
with the preservative adaptations (which include attitudes) to such givens
as potentially hostile forces in nature, society, and man himself . These
include dealing with sickness and health, war and peace, lawlessness and
lawfulness, life and death, grief and happiness, shame and guilt, and an-
xiety. The range of permissible attitudes varies considerably from cul-
ture to culture, i.e., is culturally patterned, yet shows a high degree of
individuation "even within the context of a given culture.
The informal elaborations of material systems (99) are all the sys-
,

SOl

26
terns dealing with the motor habits involved in the exploitation of the phy-
sical environment, the use of resources and the growth and gathering of
food, systems of lumbering, mining, hunting, fishing, and agriculture.
As was noted in the discussion of the formal systems, there are in-
formal elaborations of each of the systemic foci. The informal aspects of
marriage (31) have to do largely with space (somebody has to be present
to be married or to get a mate), and with time (there are seasons and of-
ten days when it is appropriate to marry). Courtship was indicated above
in the expression 'to get a mate'; both space and time playa prominent
rOle in courtship, i.e., there are places and times for courting. It is in
these areas that the young can do little to alter things; in many cases they
simply have to wait for it to get dark, or for the Christmas season, or
for spring time to arrive.
Subsistence areas (24) has been elaborated formally above. Infor-
millly one finds in almost all instances territorial limits or determinates
as to where work and subsistence activities can take place. An office, for
instance, will hold only so many people. Cooking can normally only be ac-
complished where the appropriate apparatus is situated, lumbering can
only be done where there are trees, fishing where there are fish, or agri-
culture where suitable soil is found (note: hydroponics has changed this
somewhat), etc. The times when work space can be utilized are also
lar::;ely given and in many cases are determined by the seasons.
It was noted above that 'use of materials for protection' (89) had
very little of the formal in it. The informal, however, is represented even
in activities as highly technical as these. There are places and times in
which defense materials can and cannot be used or are or are not appro-
priate. In the military sense, the terrain determines to a large degree
what equipment is used, just as does the season, weather, or climate. In
isolated areas during the winter time it is more difficult to provide health
facilities, or to fight an epidemic, than it is in places of easy access
during good weather. The materials of religious activities and ceremonies
are almost always determined territorially and temporally. On the highly
personal level, where material extensions of ego-defenses are involved,
these too are limited as to where and when they can be used. A fur coat,
for instance, should not be worn outside of certain neighborhoods, and
would be too uncomfortable in the summer.
The informal as it has been used and defined above represents an
addition to those activities which the social scientist should observe and
record. The presence of the informal in our own culture has been men-
tione.d and hinted at previously. It has not, however, to our knowledge,
been adequately described or properly placed in context along with other
26
terns dealing with the motor habits involved in the exploitation of the phy-
sical environment, the use of resources and the growth and gathering of
food, systems of lumbering, mining, hunting, fishing, and agriculture.
As was noted in the discussion of the formal systems, there are in-
formal elaborations of each of the systemic foci. The informal aspects of
marriage (31) have to do largely with space (somebody has to be present
to be married or to get a mate), and with time (there are seasons and of-
ten days when it is appropriate to marry). Courtship was indicated above
in the expression 'to get a mate'; both space and time playa prominent
role in courtship, i.e., there are places and times for courting. It is in
these areas that the young can do little to alter things; in many cases they
simply have to wait for it to get dark, or for the Christmas season, or
for spring time to arrive.
Subsistence areas (24) has been elaborated formally above. Infor-
m ally one finds in almost all instances territorial limits or determinates
as to where work and subsistence activities can take place. An office, for
instance, will hold only so many people. Cooking can normally only be ac-
complished where the appropriate apparatus is situated, lumbering can
only be done where there are trees, fishing where there are fish, or agri-
culture where suitable soil is found (note: hydroponics has changed this
somewhat), etc. The times when work space can be utilized are also
largely given and in many cases are determined by the seasons.
It was noted above that 'use of materials for protection' (89) had
very little of the formal in it. The informal, however, is represented even
in activities as highly technical as these. There are places and times in
which defense materials can and cannot be used or are or are not appro-
priate. In the military sense, the terrain determines to a large degree
what equipment is used, just as does the season, weather, or climate. In
isolated areas during the winter time it is more difficult to provide health
facilities, or to fight an epidemic, than it is in places of easy access
during good weather. The materials of religious activities and ceremonies
are almost always determined territorially and temporally. On the highly
personal level, where material extensions of ego-defenses are involved,
these too are limited as to where and when they can be used. A fur coat,
for instance, should not be worn outside of certain neighborhoods, and
would be too uncomfortable in the summer.
The informal as it has been used and defined above represents an
addition to those activities which the social scientist should observe and
record. The presence of the informal in our own culture has been men-
tione.d and hinted at previously. It has not, however, to our knowledge,
been adequately described or properly placed in context along with other
27
comparable activities. That it should have eluded us for so long is not dif-
ficult to ~ a s p when one considers that it occurs very often out of aware-
ness, and is a function of biological and other givens in the external en-
vironment. To become aware of the informal is a little like a fish becoming
aware of water. The process of isolating it out was also complicated by
out-of-awareness activities in other areas and the taken-for-granted na-
ture of the formal in culture in general. The 'other areas' above refer to
Freud's original attempts
20
, stemming from his observations of slips
and dreams, to desc ribe what he called the unc onscious. While H. S. Sulli-
van
4
did much to clarify Freud's original concept by bringing it out in the
open and focusing the attention of the scientist on events which could be
observed, the unconscious or dissociated events which the psychologist
studies are quite different from the informal as used here. The fact that
the psychologist was concerned with the interpretation of out-of - awareness
events may have had a good deal to do with the social scientist's restric-
tions of his own observations to those technical aspects of culture which
his informants could tell him about. On the other hand, even today consi-
derable resistance is encountered whenever the writers start descrihing
either the formal or the informal, as we have used it here, to psycholo-
gists. This is to be understood in the light of the psychologists' lack of
sophistication in dealing with cultural data, and the tremendous role that
both the formal and informal play in the lives of all of us.
To return to those activities with which the psychologists concern
themselves, it was mentioned in I above that dissociated acts had a cul-
tural dimension. They are not, however, informal, but would seem to re-
sult from reversals of, or deviations from, the natural hierarchy or order
of the basic focal systems. This will be elaborated in 5 below, and is only
mentioned here so that the different varieties of out-of -awareness and
taken-for-granted activities may be kept in their proper relationships.
The informal then becomes that which deals with givens in the en-
vironment (social, physical, and physiological) and represents man' unique
response to that which is viewed or looked upon as unalterable. On the
individual level, it serves to adjust individual and group needs when these
do not coincide; on the group level, it often serves to adjust the activities
of the group to other groups when there is a difference of interests . In
terms of the table, informal behavior tends to be more and more out of
awareness as it moves from the technical (99) towards the formal (0:0);
whereas as it approaches the technical, attitudes tend towards acceptance,
resignation, fatalism, and sometimes apathy, depending upon the situation.
In this connection, the phrases 'viewed' or 'looked upon as unalterable'
are of critical importance. Modern medicine, for instance, has proved
27
comparable activities. That it should have eluded us for so long is not dif-
Hcult to iFasp when one considers that it occurs very often out of aware-
ness, and is a function of biological and other givens in the external en-
vironment. To become aware of the informal is a little like a fi'sh becoming
aware of water. The process of isolating it out was also complicated by
out-of-awareness activities in other areas and the taken-for-granted na-
ture of the formal in culture in general. The 'other areas' above refer to
Freud's original attempts
20
, stemming from his observations of slips
and dreams, to describe what he called the unconscious. While H. S. Sulli-
van
4
did much to clarify Freud's original concept by bringing it out in the
open and focusing the attention of the scientist on events which could be
observed, the unconscious or dissociated events which the psychologist
studies are quite different from the informal as used here. The fact that
the psychologist was concerned with the interpretation of out-of - awareness
events may have had a good deal to do with the social scientist's restric-
tions of his own observations to those technical aspects of culture which
his informants could tell him about. On the other hand, even today consi-
derable resistance is encountered whenever the writers start descrihi n g
either the formal or the informal, as we have used it here, to psycholo-
gists. This is to be understood in the light of the psychologists' lack of
sophistication in dealing with cultural data, and the tremendous role tha.t
both the formal and informal play in the lives of all of us.
To return to those activities with which the psychologists conce rn
themselves, it was mentioned in 1 above that dissociated acts had a cul-
tural dimension. They are not, however, informal, but would seem to re-
sult from reversals of, or deviations from, the natural hierarchy or order
of the basic focal systems. This will be elaborated in 5 below, and is only
mentioned here so that the different varieties of out-of -awareness and
taken-for-granted activities may be kept in their proper relationships.
The informal then becomes that which deals with givens in the en-
vironment (social, physical, and physiological) and represents man' unique
response to that which is viewed or looked upon as unalterable. On the
individual level, it serves to adjust individual and group needs when these
do not coincide; on the group level, it often serves to adjust the activities
of the group to other groups when there is a difference of interests. In
terms of the table, informal behavior tends to be more and more out of
awareness as it moves from the technical (99) towards the formal (0:0);
whereas as it approaches the technical, attitudes tend towards acceptance,
resignation, fatalism, and sometimes apathy, depending upon the situation.
In this connection, the phrases 'viewed' or 'looked upon as unalterable'
are of critical importance. Modern medicine, for instance, has proved

'

..

M)
0'
illll....,3N
28
that cyclic epidemic s do not represent givens in the environment once
certain things are understood, or, stated differently, when the informal
has been dealt with technically in this particular context. In this light the
apathetic attitude of certain segments of our own voting population as de-
scribed by Riesman
23
should suggest an area of research and a re-defi-
nition on the part of the scientist of that which has been viewed informally.
The fatalism of the Near East is also presenting grave problems to
technical assistance teams. In this connection, preliminary investigation
on the part of the writers indicates that Near Eastern fatalism is a func-
tion' in part, of a shift of the order of the basic focal systems of perpetua-
iion (88). elaborated around religion, from ninth plac e (in the natural hier-
archy) to second place, where they are intricately intertwined with com-
munication, even to the extent that items of vocabulary and the script are
sacred and also formal. Situations of this sort present the social scientist
with particularly knotty problems. It is believed, however, that a better
understanding of how culture functions can be of considerable aid in mat-
ters of this sort. The attitude of the Mohammedan in these situations is
informal, with a variety of informality associated with the technical rather
than the formal part of our scale. It would be in the technical aspects of
ihe religion that one should look for opportunities to institute changes.
The informal, while new in our thinking, should make it possible to
delimit activities in such a way that man's adjustment to his environment
will be more appropriate. It also fills a long felt gap in regard to the analy
sis of change as a process (see 4.3).
4.3. The technical in culture is that part which is explicitly stated and
statable, which is learned from a teacher, as it were, which applies speci-
fic lore or knowledge to problems, especially in terms of alternatives in
the formal system, which delirp.its, refines, and makes precise the func-
tioning of originally informal activities, and which collects and organizes
the foundation materials for development of new formal systems.
In the tables the expres sional systems are those that are inherently
most technical and most apt for technical elaboration. Learning, play, and
defense activities from an original undifferentiated protective
adaptation (2 . 2 above)-represent successive specialization of activity on
a basis of explicit recognition of needs and response to them. Encultura-
tion (66) as a whole represents the specific response of a society to the
necessity for imparting its recognized ways of meeting needs to succeedin!
generations; it avails itself of all kinds of explicit statements-traditional
lore, scientific knowledge, presentation of choices, definitions, explana-
tions, commentaries. Recreation (77) again shows a specific set of re-
sponses to recognized and stated needs: the categorization of fun, the
2.8
that cyclic epidemic s do not represent givens in the environment once
certain things are understood, or, stated differently, when the informal
has been dealt with technically in this particular context. In this light the II
apathetic attitude of certain segments of our own voting population as de- V
scribed by Riesman
23
should suggest an area of research and a re - defi-
nition on the part of the scientist of that which has been viewed informally.
The fatalism of the Near East is also presenting grave problems to
technical assistance teams. In this connection, prelinrinary investigation
on the part of the writers indicates that Near Eastern fatalism is a func-
tion' in part, of a shift of the order of the basic focal systems of perpetua-
hon (88), elaborated around religion, from ninth plac e (in the natural hier-
archy) to second place, where they are intricately intertwined with com-
munication, even to the extent that items of vocabulary and the script are
sacred and also formal. Situations of this sort present the social scientist
wit h particularly knotty problems. It is believed, however, that a better
understanding of how culture functions can be of considerable aid in mat-
ters of this sort. The attitude of the Mohammedan in these situations is
informal, with a variety of informality associ ated with the technical rathe r
than the formal part of our scale. It would be in the technical aspects of
the religion that one should look for opportunities to institute changes.
The informal, while new in our thinking, should make it possible to
delinrit activities in such a way that man's adjustment to his environment
will be more appropriate. It also fills a long felt gap in regard to the analy
sis of change as a process (see 4.3).
4.3. The technical in culture is that part which is explicitly stated and
statable, which is learned from a teacher, as it were, which applies speci-
fic lore or knowledge to problems, especially in terms of alternatives in
the formal system, which delimits, refines, and makes precise the func-
tioning of originally informal activities, and which collects and organizes
the foundation materials for development of new formal systems,
In the tables the expressional systems are those that are inherently
most technical and most apt for technical elaboration. Learning, play, and
defense activities r i s i n g from an original undifferentiated protective
adaptation (2.2 above)-represent successive specialization of activity on
a basis of explicit recognition of needs and response to them. Encultura-
tion (66) as a whole represents the specific response of a society to the ~
necessity for imparting its recognized ways of ineeting needs to succeedin!
generations; it avails itself of all kinds of explicit statements-traditional
lore, scientific knowledge, presentation of choices, definitions, explana-
tions, commentaries. Recreation (77) again shows a specific set of re-
sponses torecognized and stated needs: the categorization of fun, the
29
playing that children (and others) do, and the participation in games are
all activities that involve a large measure of explicit recognition and ver-
balization; we say 'Children play', 'That's not fun', and so on-a type of
statement not encountered for the core systems. Protection systems (88)
arise from recognition and explicit statement of the nature of hostile
forces and how they are to be dealt with. Material systems (99) are the
technicalization of the technical-the most explicitly externalized of all
cultural activities.
It is now appropriate to go through all the basic focal systems once
more to point out their technical elaborations. For communication (OO)
the technical systematic elaboration is language. The voice -qualifier sys-
terns and the kinesic system are, as we have seen, based on traditional
noises and informal gestures; language, however, represents the explicit
systematization of certain kinds of sounds; itis something that can be
said to have been invented, and it can be handled (heard, written down,
passed on) very much like material objects. Once elaborated, of course,
language becomes a formal system, since it is an elabor ation of commu-
nication-the most formal of the basic focal systems.
For society (11) it would appear that control systelns represent the
technical elaboration. These are the systems elaborated by a society to
apply to the members as a whole; they state relations and hierarchies
explicitly, apportion power, and delimit controls; government i s an aspect
of controls.
Work (22) has as its technical elaboration the systems of crafts,
occupations, and professions. It is formal to work or not as the case may
be, it is informal to perform maintenance, but it is technical to engage in
a specialized occupation.
For the sexes (33) the technical elaborations are in the systematic
statements of technical norms. The celibacy of monastic orders, the sex-
lessness of professional, acadeInic, and military titles, the special roles
and statuses of sex deviants in various cultures, are included here. When
the needs of a society require it, segments of one or the other sex Inay
thus be treated as a special sex or transferred to the opposite one.
Under space (44), the technical elaborations deal with boundaries.
This terIn Inust be understood in a wide sense. There are the systeIns
of actual Inaterial Inarkers of all kinds; there are the kinds of boundaries
Inarked on Inaps and charts and diagrams; and there are the non-Inaterial
boundaries -those liInits on action that exist by virtue of convention and
agreeInent or siInply as forInal controls. All systems of weights and Inea-
sures Inust be considered as special tertiary elaborations here (as well
as under the systeInic focus 'Inaterial extensions of territorial activi-
29
playing that children (and others) do, and the participation in games are
all activities that involve a large measure of explicit recognition and ver-
balization; we say 'Children play', 'That's not fun', and so on-a type of
statement not encountered for the core systems . Protection systems (88)
arise from recognition and explicit statement of the nature of hostile
forces and how they are to be dealt with. Material systems (99) are the
technicalization of the technical-the most explicitly externalized of all
cultural activities .
It is now appropriate to go through all the basic focal systems once
more to point out their technical elaborations. For communication (00)
the technical systematic elaboration is language. The voic e -qualifier sys-
terns and the kinesic system are, as we have seen, based on traditional
noises and informal gestures; language, however, represents the explicit
systematization of certain kinds of sounds; it .is something that can be
said to have been invented, and it can be handled (heard, written down,
passed on) very much like material objects. Once elabor ated, of course,
language becomes a formal system, since it is an elabor ation of commu-
nication-the most formal of the basic focal systems.
For society (ll) it would appear that control systelns represent the
technical elaboration. These are the systems elaborated by a society to
apply to the members a s a whole; they state relations and hierarchies
explicitly, apportion power, and delimit controls; governInent i s a n aspect
of controls.
Work (22) has as its technical elaboration the systems of crafts,
occupations, and professions. It is forInal to work or not as the case may
be, it is inforInal to perforIn Inaintenance, but it is technical to engage in
a specialized occupation.
For the sexes (33) the technical elaborations are in the systematic
statements of technical norms. The celibacy of Inonastic orders, the sex-
lessness of professional, acadeInic, and military titles, the special roles
and statuses of sex deviants in various cultures, are included here. When
the needs of a society require it, segInents of one or the other sex may
thus be treated as a special sex or transferred to the opposite one.
Under space (44), the technical elaborations deal with boundaries.
This term must be understood in a wide sense. There are the systems
of actual Inaterial markers of all kinds; there are the kinds of boundaries
marked on maps and charts and diagrams; and there are the non-material
boundaries -those limits on action that exist by virtue of convention and
agreement or simply as formal controls. All systeIns of weights and mea-
sures must be considered as special tertiary elaborations here (as well
as under the systeInic focus 'Inaterial extensions of territorial activi-
' Il

SO,
'}f1f.... 'I',lN
D
30
ties'-94).
Under tiITle (55) the technical elaborations are the calendrical and
tiITle -telling systeITls. These bec OITle forITlalized, of course, and subj ect
to tertiary and subsequent further elaborations. NUITlbering and counting
ITlust be included with the technical elaborations here, involving the cyclic
aspects of sequence.
For enculturation (66), the technical systeITlic elaborations are the
various kinds of systeITls of education. This iITlplies a set-up involving
specifically designated teachers and learners , places or buildings (schools),
designated subject ITlatter (courses), and the like.
Recreation (77) is technically elaborated as gaITles and sports. Once
it has been forITlally established what fun is, playing takes place iniorITlally,
but gaITles arise only when playing is technicalized and pinned down by
rule, precept, and control.
The technical elaboration of protection systeITls (88) is found in the
various kinds of specialized defense systeITls: health systeITls, ITlilitary
systerns, taboos, ITlagic, and ITlost of what is desc ribed as religion in ITlany
cultures. SysteITls of prayer to and propitiation of the supernatural are in-
cluded here.
For ITlaterial systeITls (99) the rubric for the technical elaborations
is technics. By this terITl we ITlean allthat is norITlally ITleant by tech-
nology, and the techniques involved in it. Pottery ITlaking, basketry ITlaking,
weaving, and the actual production of ITlaterial goods are included und er
i ndustry. Such concepts as industrialization are further integrations of
t he technical tertiary systeITls (see 5).
Marriage (31) has as its technical tertiary elaborations the systeITls
that explicitly instruct the UleUlbers of the culture in the behavior appro-
priate to courtship and Ularriage, that indicate the s erious and the play
aspects of Ularriage situations, that give legal protection or sanction to
ITlarriage rites, and that deal with the Ulaterials that go with Ularriage
(the goods and chattels that the partners own or bring, etc . ). For subsis-
tence areas (24), the technical systeITls will deal with such specific Ulat-
ters as precise geographical or geological description of resources and
where to find theITl, with the kinds of departures froUl subsistence use
that are allowed for pleasure (grass and flowers bordering a field, for
exaUlple), with legal and physical protections for subsistence areas, and
with the use of Ulaterials to define, strengthen, and exploit such areas .
Under the use of ITlaterials for protection (89), the techni cal elaborations
deal with specific instruction for using all kinds of protective devices,
with the ITlanner in which the uses are deviated froITl for rest and recrea-
tion ('change of pace', leave passes for ITlilitary personnel, post-e;change
30
ties'-94).
Under time (55) the technical elaborations are the calendrical and
time -telling systems. These bec orne formalized, of course, and subj ect
to tertiary and subsequent further elaborations. Numbering and counting
must be included with the technical elaborations here, involving the cyclic
aspects of sequence.
For enculturation (66), the technical systemic elaborations are the
various kinds of systems of education. This implies a set-up involving
specifically des i gnated teachers and learners, places or building s (schools),
desi gnated subject matter (courses), and the like.
Recreation (77) is technically elaborated as games and sports. Once
it has been form.ally established what fun is, playing takes place iniormally,
but games arise only when playing is technicalized and pinned down by
rule, precept, and control.
The technical elaboration of protection systems (88) is found in the
various kinds of specialized defense systems: health systems, military
syst ems, taboos, magic, and most of what is desc ribed as religion in many
cultures. Systems of prayer to and propitiation of the supernatural are in-
cluded here.
For material systems (99) the rubric for the technical elaborations
is technics. By this term we mean all that is normally meant by tech-
nology, and the techniques involved in it. Pottery making, basketry making,
weaving, and the actual production of material goods are i ncluded unde r
i ndustry. Such concepts as industrialization are further integrations of
t h e technical tertiary systems (see 5).
Marriage (31) has as its technical tertiary elaborations the s y stems
t hat explicitly instruct the members of the culture in the behavior appro-
priate to courtship and marriage, that indicate the s erious and the play
aspects of marriage situations, that give legal prot ection or sanction to
marriage rites, and that deal with the materials that go with marriage
(the goods and chattels that the partners own or bring, etc . ). For subsis-
tence areas (24), the technical systems will deal with such specific mat-
ters as precise geographical or geological description of resources and
where to find them, with the kinds of departures from. subsistence use
that are allowed for pleasure (grass and flowers bordering a field, for
example), with legal and physical protecti ons for subsistence areas, and
with the use of materials to define, strengthen, and exploit such areas .
Under the use of materials for protection (89), the technjcal elaborations
deal with specific instruction for using all kinds of protective devices,
with the manner in which the uses are deviated from for rest and recrea-
tion ('change of pace', leave passes for military personnel,
31
and usaactivities, after-school use of a playing field), and with the spe-
cific and technical protective devices as such.
Itwas indicated above that the consideration of cultural systems in
the three ways stated-formal, informal, technical-suggests the possible
ways in which cultures and cultural systems change. Itis here that our
analytical scheme deals with history, and citation of examples of histori-
cal change may help to clarify the analysis.
For a first example we shall take a known bit of linguistic history.
I,
InOld English there was a phoneme I f I which had the allophone [f] ini-
tially' when doubled internally, and finally, and the allophone [v] when
single internally (ftf 'five' had initial and final [fJ, seofen 'seven' had in-
ternal [vJ). This was part of the formal system of the Old English language.
After the Norman Conquest in 1066, words from French began to be used,
informally by individuals who 'picked them up', so to speak. In Old French,
IfI and I vl were separate phonemes (femme but vain, affaire but avoir-
and only IfI in final position, vif). The English speaker who picked up -
such an Old French word as veal 'veal, calf' (modern veau) could either
pronounce it with initial [] =7fT,following his formal system, or could
use initial [vJ as an informal deviation from that system. Vv hen, however,
French words became more widespread, the use of [vJ in such instances
became technically dema nded and approved; we can imagine the kitchen-
hand from the lord's castle telling his friends back home about how calf
meat is called veal, and when some one of them tried to say it and uttered
an initial [f], correcting him explicitly, 'No, not [f...]. but [v . .. J'. Finally ,
the technical knowledge of how to use [v] initially became widespread, the
word veal (and others like it) became a part of English, and a new formal
system was thus instituted, in which IfI and Ivl became separate pho-
nemes, as they continue to be. When the old formal system Y/as replaced
by the new one, the previous formal usage became an informa l one-some
speakers still said [f] in v e al , but this was no longer 'correct' or 'stan-
dard' or 'prope r'.
Going now from this very precise example in a special and limited
area, we can turn to an examination of the history of mankind in terms of
subsistence, as it has been fairly well established by known do::umentation
and archeological evidence, and we can see that the same pattern hol ds:
the informal is acquired as a deviation from the formal, or as an innova-
tion; then there is technicalization; then a new formal system arises, and
the old formal system becomes informal. At first the food quest was a
formal activity of the whole group (men, women, and children). Informally,
individuals deviated or innovated by going off hunting, snaring, robbing
nests, and killing young animals. Technical knowledge acquired this way
- ~ __ - ' - ~ ' _ . ' - ~ ' ' _._ ...l _____-_.___ . _ ~ ~ . ' t ' _., ......-"
31
and USO activities, after-school use of a playing field), and with the spe-
cific and technical protective devices as such.
It was indicated above that the consideration of cultural systems in
the three ways stated-formal, informal, technical-suggests the possible
ways in which cultures and cultural systems change. It is here that our
analytical scheme deals with history, and citation of examples of histori-
cal change may help to clarify the analysis.
For a first example we shall take a known bit of linguistic history.
In Old English there was a phoneme If I which had the allophone If] ini-
tially' when doubled internally, and finally, and the allophone [v] when
single internally (ftf 'five' had initial and final [f], seofen 'seven' had in-
ternal [v]). This was part of the formal system of the Old English language.
After the Norman Conquest in 1066, words from French began to be used,
informally by individuals who 'picked them up', so to speak. In Old French,
If I and I vl were separate phonemes (femme but vain, affaire but avoir-
and only If I in final position, vii). The" English speaker who p i k e ~
such an Old French word as veal 'veal, calf' (modern veau) could either
pronounce it with initial [f} = 7fT, following his formal system, or could
use initial [v] as an informal deviation from that system. 'Nhen, however,
French words became more widespread, the use of [v] in such instances
became technically demanded and approved; we can imagine the kitchen-
hand from the lord's castle telling his friends back home about how calf
meat is called veal, and when some one of them tried to say it and uttered
an initial [f]. correcting him explicitly, 'No, not [L..]. but [v ... ]'. Finally,
the technical knowledge of how to use [v] initially became widespread, the
word veal (and others like it) became a part of English, and a new formal
system was thus instituted, in which If I and Ivl became separate pho-
nemes, as they continue to be. When the old formal system ';,as replaced
by the new one, the previous formal usage became an informa l one-some
speakers still said [f] in v e al , but this was no longer 'correct' or 'stan-
dard' or 'proper'. --
Going now from this very precise example in a special and limited
area, we can turn to an examination of the history of mankind in terms of
subsistence, as it has been fairly well established by known do::umentation
and archeological evidence, and we can see that the same pattern hol ds:
the informal is acquired as a deviation from the formal, or as an innova-
tion; then there is technicalization; then a new formal system arises, and
the old formal system becomes informal. At first the food quest was a
formal activity of the whole group (men, women, and children). Informally,
individuals deviated or innovated by going off hunting, snaring, robbing
nests, and killing young animals. Technical knowledge acquired this way
'
~

'W
SOl
'>IlIV'I',}N
32
developed the specially skilled in tracking and finding game, and produced
the invention of special artifacts for these purposes. This was then elabo-
rated into specialized hunting-a technical activity-which came to be the
formal, primary subsistence activity. The old food gathering now became
an informal, subsidiary activity. As innovations in this field, there came
about the informal care of young animals, and the occasional care for a
plant or shrub . These latter activities resulted again in technical skills,
and from these grew the formal systems of agriculture and herding. With
this development, the old formal hunting and fishing came to be informal,
part-time activities. These activities in their new form, and the continuing
maintenance activities, gave rise, among other innovations, to the develop-
ment, still informally, of special artifacts such as metal weapons, con-
tainers for the products of agriculture and the hunt, and so on. As these
got technicalized, there arose pottery, weaving, metal-working, and other
special occupations. It seems probable that technicalized religious activi-
ties - a special priesthood, for example-arose at the same time. These
technical skills become actual technical systems of occupations, crafts,
2..nd professions. In comparatively recent times, technical skills of this
kind, as well as technicalizations of older activities like agriculture and
animal husbandry, become new formal systems reflected in the industrial
revolution. Other forms of work now become informal-housekeeping,
unskilled labor, gardening. As technical knowledge grows, even these ac-
tivities tend to become technical systems, so that, for instance, house-
keeping is becoming more and more an occupation or profession; as houses
are better designed for their functions, and no longer need to get too warm
or too cold, or dirty, housekeeping will become entirely a technical sys-
tern. At this point we may perhaps introduce a note of prediction. It may
well be that mankind faces a neW 'revolution' -not an industrial one, but
one involving the formalization of science and scientific knowle dge as the
basis for subsistence activities (as well as many others). In this connec-
tion' we may note that social science is, by and large, still an informal
system, since cultural differences are still being treated as givens, about
which little can be done, ('cultural relativism ').
32
developed the specially skilled in tracking and finding game, and produced
the inv ent ion of special artifacts for these purposes. This was then elabo-
rated into specialized hunting-a technical activity-which came to be the
fo r mal, primary subsistence activity. The old food gathering now became
an informal, subsidiary activity. As innov ations in this field, there came
about the informal care of young animals, and the occasional care for a
plant or shrub . These latter activities resulted a gain in technical skills,
a nd from these grew the formal s y stems of a g riculture and herding. With
this development, the old formal hunting and fishing came t o be informal,
part-time activi ties. These activities in their new form, and the continuing
rnaint enance activitie s , gave ri se, among other innovations, to the develop-
ment , still informally, of special artifacts such as metal weapons, con-
t ainers for the products of agriculture a nd the hunt, and so on. As these
got technicalized, there arose pottery, weaving , metal-working, and othe r
spe c ial occupations . It seems probable t hat technicali z ed reli gious acti vi-
ties - a special priesthood, for example-arose at the s ame time. These
tec hnica l skills become actual technical systems of occupations, crafts,
a.n d professions. In comparatively recent times, technical skills of this
k ind, as well as technica liza tions of older activities lik e a g riculture and
animal husbandry, become new formal systems reflected i n the industrial
r e volution. Other forms of work now become informal-housekeeping,
un skilled labor, gardening. A s technical knowledg e grows, even these ac-
ti v ities tend to become technical systems, so t hat, for instance, house-
kee ping is becoming more and more an occupa tion or profession; as houses
are better designed for their functions , and no longer need to g et too warm
or too cold, or dirty, housekeeping will become entirely a technic a l s y s-
tern. At this p oint we may perhaps introduce a note of p rediction . It may
well be that mankind faces a neW 'revolution' -not an indusirial one, but
one involving the formalization of science and sci entific knowle dge as the
basis for subsistence activities (as well as many others). In this connec-
tion' we may note that social science is, by and large, still an informal
system, since cultural differences are still being treated as givens, about
which little can be o n ~ ('cultural relativism') .
5. SYNTHESES OF CULTURAL SYSTEMS
It has already been indicated that different parts of our scheITle re-
fleet or point up activities of various kinds. Individually oriented foci ap-
pear above and to the right of the diagonal forITled by the basic focal sys-
terns, group oriented foci below and to the left of this line. It was ITlentioned
that the characterization of the nature of the relationship of priITlary to
secondary foci varied, depending on what part of the table was being read.
It was also noted that the order of priITlary and secondary foci was con-
sistent with the order in which these foci eITlerge phylogenetically and
ontogenetically, and that it was critical that the order be ITlaintained. The
above considerations are basic to what is to follow; there are, however,
some additional iteITls to be ITlentioned; these constitute general knowledge
among anthropologists.
We are referring to what Kluckhohn
3
has terITled covert culture,
and which we have called above (Introduction) the iITlplicit or unstated as-
peets of culture. Obviously people are not going to be able to tell the sci-
entist very ITluch about that which is autoITlatic and taken for granted. In
fact, this type of behavior only shows up when cultures are going through
marked changes, or in the cross-cultural situation, with that which other
people take for granted as a contrasting backdrop.
The anthropologist noted this type of activity and also learned that
it was in these areas (soITletiITles referred to as values, a terITl which is
variously defined and used) that changes were accoITlplished with difficulty
and that integration of new patterns was slow. In 1951 Ha1l
24
, reporting on
changing institutions, advanced the proposition that there are core insti-
tutions supported by an elaborate ITlatrix of supporting institutions, and
that change did not take place in the core until the supporting props (figu-
ratively speaking) were reITloved or shifted to support a new core; at this
point the core toppled, dissolved, or ceased to function as a core. This
observation, while it involved a type of topological thinking (the core is
often that which is ITlost obvious to outsiders), explained in part why it
was that there are tiITles when changes in culture are accoITlplished with
tremendous rapidity and in very iITlportant areas of life. 25
The concepts of core, iITlplicit, covert, and activities variously stated
as important or centrally located in a given culture, were already well es-
tablished in anthropological thinking. The anthropologist had also noted
33
5. SYNTHESES OF CULTURAL SYSTEMS
It has already been indicated that different parts of our scheme re-
flect or point up activities of various kinds. Individually oriented foci ap-
pear above and to the right of the diagonal formed by the basic focal sys-
tems' group o ~ ~ e n t e foci below and to the left of this line. It was mentioned
that the characterization of the nature of the relationship of primary to
secondary foci varied, depending on what part of the table was being read.
It was also noted that the order of primary and sec ondary foci was con-
sistent with the order in which these foci emerge phylogenetically arid
ontogenetically, and that it was critical that the order be maintained. The
above considerations are basic to what is to follow; there are, however,
some additional items to be mentioned; these constitute general knowledge
among anthropologi sts.
We are referring to what Kluckhohn
3
has termed covert culture,
and which we have called above (Introduction) the implicit or unstated as-
pects of culture. Obviously people are not going to be able to tell the sci-
entist very much about that which is automatic and taken for granted. In
fact, this type of behavior only shows up when cultures are going through
marked changes, or in the cross-cultural situation, with that which other
people take for granted as a contrasting backdrop.
The anthropologist noted this type of activity and also learned that
it was in these areas (sometimes referred to as values, a term which is
variously defined and used) that changes were accomplished with difficulty
and that integration of new patte rns was slow. In 1951 HaU
24
, reporting on
changing institutions, advanced the proposition that there are core insti-
tutions supported by an elaborate matrix of supporting institutions, and
that change did not take place in the core until the supporting props (figu-
ratively speaking) were removed or shifted to support a new core; at this
point the core toppled, dissolved, or ceased to function as a core. This
observation, while it involved a type of topological thinking (the core is
often that which is most obvious to outsiders), explained in part why it
was that there are times when changes in culture are accomplished with
tremendous rapidity and in very important areas of life.
25
The concepts of core, implicit, covert, and activities variously stated
as important or centrally located in a given culture, were already well es-
tablished in anthropological thinking. The anthropologist had also noted
33
"N

'0'
')MI.,',)N
34
that items dealing with technology and materials were often accepted,
transmitted, or diffused with great rapidity. Between these two extremes
there lay a spectrum (without any well-defined patterns), of activities
which changed with relative degrees of rapidity, depending on the cultural
context in which they were found.
As was indicated in section 4, we hold that there exist not two foci
in regard to change, but three: the formal, the informal, and the technical.
The covert, implicit, or core foci are formal ones. The most easily dif-
fused and changed items are technical . An intermediate area involves the
informal, where the rate of change is a function of the definition of the
situation. The overt, the technical, is relatively easy to state, and in fact,
the mernbers of a culture can theITlselves make the statements. The for-
maL being largely unstated, has proved in the past to be also difficult for
the anthropologist to describe. The inforITlal, having to do with areas that
invol ve reactions to circumstances that cannot be c hanged or are con-
ceived as unch.angeabJe -that are givens as it were-is the ITlost difficult
t o de scri be , or to separate from the forITlal.
Keep ing in mind the relative degrees of stability, explicitness, and
degr ee of elaboration of various aspects of cultures that have been studied,
and with a clear picture of the meaning of the three labels formal, infor-
mal, and techni cal , w e saw that various parts of the scheme as a whole
could be grou p ed in terms of these characterizations. This again was not
anticipated, and is another confirmation of the validi ty of the order of
analysis propos e d.
Our interp retation of these groupings is based on the years of COITl-
bined experience of anthropologists in observi ng h ow culture s op er a te,
our repeated w orking , reworking and increased familiar i ty with the new
f r a me of r e ference, and a detailed analysi s of t he ti me- s pace a n d commu-
ni c ation systems . This led to the precise formulation of t he nature of the
el abocations of activities. With this central conc e pt, the re is also clarifi-
cation of the process of change and evolution of c ultur e .
S. L If the reader will refer to the table s he will note that t h e syst e ms
f orrned by association, subsistence , a nd bisexuality - I , 2, 3-are t erm ed
cor e systems. Interactional interaction or the basic fo cal system of com-
munication is the core of the core; in every culture the cOITlITlunication
situation exists in a central location, setting the stage, as it were, for all
other activities (references 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12., 26, 27, 28, 29, 30) . Core sys-
terns are those which are the most basic to all cultures, those in which
there is the greatest elaboration of the 'unstated and taken for granted',
which are the ITlost difficult to change and hence the most persisting. They
are, as wholes, forITlal systeITls.
34
that items dealing with technology and materials were often accepted,
transmitted, or diffused with great rapidity. Between these two extremes
there lay a spectrum (without any well-defined patterns), of activities
which changed with relative degrees of rapidity, depending on the cultural
context in which they were found.
As was indicated in section 4, we hold that there exist not two foci
in regard to change, but three: the formal, the informal, and the technical.
The covert, implicit, or core foci are formal ones. The most easily dif-
fused and changed items are technical. An intermediate area involves the
informal, where the rate of change is a function of the definition of the .
situation. The overt, the technical, is relatively easy to state, and in fact,
the mernbers of a culture can themselves make the statements. The for-
mal . being largely unstated, has proved in the past to be also difficult for
the anthropologist to describe. The informal, having to do with areas that
invol ve reactions to circumstances that cannot be c hanged or are con-
c e ived as unchangeable -that are givens as it were -is the most difficult
t o de scri be , or to separate from the formal.
Ke eping in mind the relative degrees of stability, explicitness, and
degr ee of elaboration of various aspects of cultures that have been studied,
and with a clear picture of the meaning of the three labels formal, infor-
mal, and t e c hni cal , we saw that various parts of the scheme as a whole
could be grouped in terms of these characterizations. This again was not
anticipated, and i s another confirmation of the validi ty of the order of
analysis propos e d.
Our interpretation of these groupings is based on the years of com-
bined experience of anthropologists in observing h ow cul ture s op er ate,
our repeate d w ork in g, reworking and increased familiarity with the new
f r a me of reference, and a detailed analysi s of t he ti me- s pace and commu-
ni c ation systems . This led to the precise formulation of t he nature of the
el abocations of activities. With this central conc e pt, the re is also clarifi-
cation of the process of change and evolution of c ultur e .
5. 1. Ii the reader will refer to the tables h e will not e that t h e syst e ms
f o rrned by association, subsistence , and b isexuality - I , 2, 3-are t er m ed
cor e systems. Interactional interaction or the basic fo cal system of com-
munication is the core of the core; in ever y culture the communication
situation exists in a central location, setting the stage, as it were, for all
other activities (references 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12., 26, 2.7, 2.8, 29, 30). Core sys-
terns are those which are the most basic to all cultures, those in which
there is the greatest elaboration of the 'unstated and taken for granted',
which are the most difficult to change and hence the most persisting. They
are, as wholes, formal systems.
35
Territoriality and temporality -4, 5 -are involved in the orienta-
tional systems. The reasoning behind this term is appropriately obvious
and needs no further elaboration. Biological territoriality and cyclicity
are not too difficult to define. An examination of how territoriality and
cyclicity are expressed as functions of size, energy, numbers, and the
passage of time (for example, the altered territ , 'riality of the female li-
zard while she is protecting her eggs is differel ' from her usual terri-
toriality) shows that by and large one is dealing ,-,ith 'givens'. However,
man's territoriality has been expanded to inclulle all sorts of boundaries,
cultural as well as natural, which has increased the difficulty of descrip-
tion. But there is little man can do about the of a mountain, a
coastline, a river, or a desert; nor can he alter " e diurnal, lunar, sea-
sonal, annual, and other sidereal cycles. Man lives, as it were, surrounded
by territorial and cyclic 'givens' to which he has to adjust himself . His
response to these systems has a tendency to be informal (see 4.2.), which
is reflected in our labelling of the central set of orientational systemi c
foci (d. Territorially determined temporality-54, Temporally determined
territoriality-45, etc.). The 'given' nature of territorial and temporal ac-
tivities is present everywhere in the orientation systems, but where these
involve both formal and informal foci (40-43, 50-53, 04-05,14-15,2. 4 -25,
34-35) the reading of the combinations is in terms of the overlying grou p -
ings discussed in 5.2..
With the exnressional systems (involving 6,7,8, 9-learning, play,
defense, materials) man begins to exercise greater freedom in manipu-
lating his culture. There are many more of these systemic foci. As one
moves outward from the adjacent orientational systems, changes tend to
be accomplished with greater elaborations. They include several distinct
areas; the purely technical (66-69, 76-79, 86-89, 96-.99), the mixtures of
informal and technical (46-49,56-59; 64-65, 74-75, 8!-85, 94-95), and the
mixtures of formal and technical (06-09, 16-19,2. 6 -2.,),36-39; 60-63, 70-
73, 80-83, 90-93).
Apart from language, the most distinctly human systems are the
systems (included in the expressional -eystems). There' are 19 of
them, and they are, in essence, material extensions of activities indicated
in the rest of the table. The material systems tend to be dominated by the
technical, and are usually subject to change without undue resistance a nd
immediate dislocation of core systeITls. If, however, as sOITletiITles hap-
pens, core systems are threatened by technical advances, resistance will
be present . Technologically, the advantages of early spring plowing can,
be appreciated; but if a people holds that in the spring the earth is preg-
nant and ITlust not be disturbed, no aITlount of technical argun1entation can
35
Territoriality and terrlporality-4, 5-are involved in the orienta-
tional systems. The reasoning behind this term is appropriately obvious
and needs no further elaboration. Biological territoriality and cyclicity
are not too difficult to define. An examination of how territoriality and
cyclicity are expressed as functions of size, energy, numbers, and the
passage of time (for exarrlple, the altered territ, ' riality of the female li-
zard while she is protecting her eggs is differel " frorrl her usual terri-
toriality) shows that by and large one is dealing .Iith 'givens'. However,
man's territoriality has been expanded to inclul(e all sorts of boundaries,
cultural as well as natural, which has increased the difficulty of descrip-
tion. But there is little rrlan can do about the of a mountain, a
coastline, a river, or a desert; nor can he alter 'e. diurnal, lunar, sea-
sonal' annual, and other sidereal cycles. Man lives, as it were, surrounded
by territorial and cyclic 'givens' to which he has to adjust himself. His
response to these systems has a tendency to be informal (see 4.2), which
is reflected in our labelling of the central set of orientational systemic
foci (cf. Territorially determined temporality-54, Terrlporally determined
territoriality-45, etc.). The 'given' nature of territorial and temporal ac-
tivities is present everywhere in the orientation systems, but where these
involve both formal and informal foci (40-43, 50-53, 04-05,14-15,21 -25,
34-35) the reading of the combinations is in terms of the overlying group-
ings discussed in 5.2.
With the exnressional systems (involving 6,7,8, 9-learning, play,
defense, materials) man "?egins to exercise greater freedom in manipu-
lating his culture. There are many more of these systemic foci. As one
moves outward from the adjacent orientational systems, changes tend to
be accomplished with greater elaborations. They include several distinct
areas: the purely technical (66-69, 76-79, 86-89,96-99), the mixtures of
informal and technical (46-49,56-59; 64-65, 74-75, 8J-85, 94-95), and the
mixtures of formal and technical (06-09, 16-19, 36-39; 60-63, 70-
73, 80-83, 90-93).
Apart from language, the ITlOst distinctly human systems are the
systems (included in the expressionalfSyscems). There' are 19 of
them, and they are, in essence, material extensions of activitie's indicated
in the rest of the table. The material systems tend to be dominated by the
technical, and are usually subject to change without undue resistance and
immediate dislocation of core systems. If, however, as sometimes hap-
pens, core systems are threatened by technical advances, resistance will
be present. Technologically, the advantages of early spring plowing can.
be appreciated; but if a people holds that in the spring the earth is preg-
nant and must not be disturbed, no amount of technical argun1entation can
' ..
I
r
SOl
N'>tlfY:..
36
persuade them to plow at that time (this example comes from the Taos of
New Mexico). When technological changes are accepted, however, they are
e v en tually reflected in changes in more centrally located cultural systems.
Another approach to the grouping of cultures gives a diagram ho-
mologous with the one arrived at for core, orientational, and expressional
systems, but starting from the lower right corner. We have then the 'fringe'
s y s t ems (involving only 6,7,8,9) . L-shaped around them are the 'situa-
tion al' s ystems, the corner of which is identical with the corner of the
orientat ional systems (44-45, 54-55), the two 'wings' of which are parts
of t he exp res sional systems above. At the top and left of the table come
the 'emot i onal' s y stems -comprising the core systems, and the formal
pa.rts of t he o rientational and expres sional systems. This three -fold groupinl
(f rin ge, etc .) has been investigated by us to only a s li ght extent, and is much
less solidly based t h an t he other one.
We reca pitulat e these two int ercrossing sets of groupings thus:
core : formal only ;
orientational: informal plus form al -informal plus informal -formal ;
expressional: techni cal plus formal - t echni cal plus i nformal-technic al
plus technical-f ormal plus technical-informal;
'fringe': technical only;
'situational': i nformal plus i nformal-technical plus technical - inf ormal;
' emotional': formal plus f ormal-informal plus formal-techni c al plus
informal-formal plus technical-formal.
The core and f ringe systems do not overlap at all, and are 'pure' or
' isolate' systems . The orientational and situational systems overlap at t he
corner. The expressional and emotional systems .overlap at the outer ends .
These last four groups .are systems .
, Formal systems are those involving the bases 0, I, 2, 3 ; informal
systems inv olve 4, 5 ; technical systems involve 6, 7 , 8, 9.
In addition to these groupi ngs, it is also possi ble to discern that the
systemic foci 09,18,27,36,45, 54,63,72,81,90 are different from the
other systemic foci, a nd are indeed, f rom some points of view, not foci,
but actual systems. We may call the m the reciproca l f ocal syst ems. The
existence of this diagonal in the chart suggests t he p os sibility of still fur-
ther groupings. T he formal-technical systems may have some spe cial
unity , with L-sha p e d aggregates around them (1 + iI + iT and f F + iF
+ tF + tI + t Tl. Similarly, t he tec hnic al - f ormal m ay be a starting point,
with the groupings iF + iI + tI and fF + fI + f T + iT + tT a round them.
These possibilities need further exploration .
We may concluc.e this subsection by pointing out some mnemonic
characteristics of the tables for the groupings discussed; the arrange-
36
persuade them to plow at that time (this example comes from the Taos of
New Mexico). When technological changes are accepted, however, they are
even tua lly reflected in changes in more centra lly located cultural systems.
Another approa ch to the grouping of cultures gives a diagram ho-
nlOl ogous wi t h the one arrived at for core , orientational, and expressional
s y stems, but starting from the lower right corner. We have then the 'fringe'
syst ems (involving only 6,7,8,9) . L-shaped around them are the 'situa-
tion al' sys tems, the corner of which i s identical with the corner of the
orientat ional systems (44-45, 54 - 55) , the two 'wings' of which are parts
of t he exp re s sional systems abov e. At the t op and left of the t able come
the 'emoti onal' s y stems -comprising the core systems, and the formal
parts of t he o rientational and ex pressional systems. This three-fold g roupinl
(fri n ge, etc . ) has been investigated by us to only a sli ght extent, and is much
less solidly based t h an t he other one.
We recapitul a t e these two int erc r o s sing set s of groupings thus :
cor e : formal only;
orientational: i nformal plus f ormal -informal plus informal -formal ;
expressional: technical plus formal - technic al plus i nforma l-t echni cal
plus technic al-f ormal plus techni cal-i nformal;
'fringe': technical only;
'situational': i nformal plus informal-technical plus technic al - informal;
'emotional': formal plus fo rmal-informal plus formal-techni cal plus
informal-formal plus technical-formal.
The core and f ringe systems do not overlap at all, and are 'pure' or
'i solate' systems. The orientati onal and situational systems overlap at the
corner. The expressional and emoti onal systems .overlap at the outer ends.
Thes,e last four groups , are ~ n U x e d systems.
Formal systerrls are those, involving the bases 0, 1, 2, 3; informal
systems involve 4, 5 ; technical systems involve 6, 7, 8, 9.
In addition to thes e groupi ngs, it is also possi ble to discern that the
systemic foci 09,18,27,36,45,54,63 ,72,81,90 are different from the
other systemic f oci, a nd are indeed, f rom some points of view, not foci,
but actual systems. We may call them the reciproca l f ocal systems. The
existence of this di a gonal in the chart suggests the p ossibility of still fur-
ther groupings . T he forrrlal-technical systems may have some spe cial
unity, with L-sha p e d aggregates around them (1 + iI + iT and f F + iF
+ tF + tI + t Tl. Similarly, t he tec hnic a l-f ormal m ay b e a starting poi nt,
with the groupings iF + il + tI and fF + 1 + f T + iT + tT around them .
These possibilities need further explor ation.
We may concluc.e this subsection by pointing out some mnemonic
characteristics of the tables for the groupings discussed; the arrange-
37
ments are depicted in Tables 3, 4, 5 at the end of the pamphlet. If the two-
figure symbols for the systems and the systemic foci are symbolized by
nlnZ' then we have these numerical relationships:
individually oriented systems: nl is smaller than nZ;
group-oriented systems: nl is greater than nZ'
fF systems: both nl and nZ can be only 0,1, Z, or 3;
iI systems: both nl and nZ can be only 4 or 5 ;
tT systems: both nl and nZ can be only 6, 7, 8, or 9.
basic f ocal systems: nl is the same as nZ;
reciprocal focal systems: nl + nZ = 9;
for both bfs and rfs, the reciprocally placed systems add up to 99: 00 and
99,11 and 88, 09 and 90, 18 and 81, etc.
iF : nl is 0,1, Z, or 3, nZ is 4 or 5;
tF: nl is 0,1, Z, or 3, nZ is 6, 7, 8, or 9;
1 : nl is 4 or 5, nZ is 0, 1, Z, or 3;
tI: nl is 4 or 5, nZ is 6, 7,8, or 9;
fT: nl is 6, 7, 8, or 9, nZ is 0,1, Z, or 3 ;
iT:nl is 6,7,8, or 9, nZ is 4 or 5.
5. 2. Patternment and p a ttern can be demonstra t e d throughout t h e unI -
ver s e whenev er we are provided wit h the necessary t ools a nd tec r..niques
for discovering them. Theref ore, one of the thing s we looked f or on th e
level of pre -culture wa s a foc us of acti vit y in which pattern set t he st a ge,
as it were. It soon became obvious, h owev er, that pattern, in and of i tself,
does not become sign i f icant until i t is combined with somethi ng , or un til
there is somethin g to p a t tern or b e patterned.
While p a ttern bec a me a pp arent in many way s as our work dev elop ed,
it would seem that there are c ert a in are a s of cultur e where patt e r n p re-
dominates as contrasted with other a reas where such t hings as situation
and extension p redominate.
It was necessary to pos tpone a ttempts to discove r how patt ern fi tted
into the picture until fur t her step s had b e en tak en in t he anal ys is, st eps
which eventually lea d to great er clarification of the w ay in which the pri-
ma ry and seconda ry foci were to be interpreted as they int ersected at
various points in the chart.
In any anal y s i s of this sort there are always points at which intui-
tion or hunch dictate which of a numb er of leads should be selected for
further investigation. In the present instance there were the facts that not
only were time and space at the center of the chart in a functional relation-
ship to each other, but the basic focal s y stems of communication and ma-
terials (at the edge of the chart) seemed to be in a special relationship
that bound them together, in spite of the extreme differences between these
37
ments are depicted in Tables 3, 4, 5 at the end of the pamphlet. Ii the two-
figure symbols for the systems and the systemic foci are symbolized by
nln2' then we have these numerical relationships:
individually oriented systems: nl is smaller than nZ;
group-oriented systems: nl is greater than nZ'
fF systems: both nl and nZ can be only 0,1, Z, or 3;
iI systems: both nl and nZ can be only 4 or 5;
tT systems: both nl and nZ can be only 6,7,8, or 9.
basic focal systems: nl is the same as nZ;
reciprocal focal systems: nl + nZ " 9;
for both bfs and rfs, the reciprocally placed systems add up to 99: 00 and
99,11 and 88, 09 and 90, 18 and 81, etc.
iF:nl is 0,1, Z, or 3, nZ is 4 or 5;
tF: nl is 0,1, Z, or 3, nZ is 6, 7, 8, or 9;
1: nl is 4 or 5, nZ is 0, 1, Z, or 3;
tI: nl is 4 or 5, nZ is 6, 7,8, or 9;
fT: nl is 6, 7, 8, or 9, nZ is 0,1,2, or 3;
iT:nl is 6,7,8, or 9, nZ is 4 or 5.
5.2. Patternment and pattern can be demonstrated throughout the uni-
verse wheneve r we are provided with the necessary tools and tecrJ1iques
for discovering them. Therefore, one of the things we looked for on the
level of pre-culture was a focus of activity in which pattern set the stage,
as it were. It soon became obvious, however, that pattern, in and of itself,
does not become significant until it is combined with somethi ng, or until
there is something to pattern o r b e patterned.
While pattern became apparent in many ways as our work developed,
it would seem that there are certain areas of culture where pattern p re
dominates as contrasted with other areas where such things as situation
and extension predominat e.
It was necessary to postpone attempts to discover how patte rn fitted
into the picture until further steps had b een taken in the anal ysi s, steps
which eventually lead to greater clarification of the way in which the pri-
mary and secondary foci were to be interpreted as they inte rsected at
va rious points in the chart.
In any analys is of this sort there are always points at which intui-
tion or hunch dictate which of a number of leads should be selected for
further investigation. In the present instance there were the facts that not
only were time and space at the center of the chart in a functional relation-
ship to each other, but the basic focal systems of communication and ma-
terials (at the edge of the chart) seemed to be in a special relationship
that bound them together, in spite of the extreme differences between these
38
two systems.
One does not have to be a linguist, for instance, to be aware of the
relationship between the thing and the thing symbolized, and the fact that
these two are quite often confused. The anthropologist, of course, is fa-
m-iliar with many instances wherein words and ideas are treated as ma-
terials -bought, sold, exchanged, guarded, and copyrighted.
Further analysis and a review of data of this sort indicated that
these two systems were in a functional relationship to each other and re-
presented two different types of extensions, or ways in which man has ex-
tended hims elf.
All materials and their systems are in essence extensions, of one
type or another, of man's body, a body which is also used to communicate
cmd forms the basis of the communication systems, especially kinesics.
The ant hropologist does not need to have a picture drawn for him to get
t hi s point, and while culture as a whole can be sai d t o be an extension of
man, the material and conununication systems are the most characteris-
tically 'extensional' of all the systems of culture.
The communication systems are , characteri zed b y another type of
extension, symbolic extension. As the body, w hich is material, is used to
communicate, the verbal symbols used' by man eventually become 'reduced
to w riting, v-lhich involves materials again. In f a ct, it is where the two sys
terns meet, at 09 and 90, that the two t ype s of extension s become intri-
cately interwoven. 09 - 'exploitational exie n si ons of interaction' -in cludes
the u se of books , telephones, si gnals, writing, etc., and is al s o in a reci-
procal and a functional rel ationship to 90, whi ch is read as 'interactional
ex::ens i ons of exploitation', and inclu d es all sorts of communication net-
work s.
In fact, if one reads a round the chart , taking in only those systemic
f oci which include interaction and/ or expl Oit a ti on, h e will notice that these
foci form a ring which is characterized by diff e rent types of e xt ensions.
Society (11) and the protection s yst e m s (88), while quite different at
first glance, also appear to be in a defin ite functional relationship in re-
gard to each other. It is true that both syst e ms c an be analyzed in and of
themselves as separate and distinct activities, but there is also a relation-
ship between them of the type one finds in the case of the material and
communication systems. FOT instance, the very existence of a group ne-
cessitates systems of dehmse, and the structure of protective systems
everywhere reflects, the social organization of the group.
It was this type of thing that Warde r C. Allee
31
was getting at, on
the level of pre-culture, when he demonstrated that being in groups ac-
tually enhances survival. Montagu
32
, in his attempt to demonstrate ' a bio-
1
38
two systems.
One does not have to be a linguist, for instance, to be aware of the
relationship between the thing and the thing symbolized, and the fact that
these two are quite often confused. The anthropologist, of course, is fa-
m.iliar wi t h m a n y instances wherein words and ideas are treated as ma-
terials -bought, sold, exchanged, guarded, and copyrighted.
Further analysis and a review of data of this sort indicated that
these two systems were in a functional relationship to each other and re-
presented two different types of extensions, or ways in which man has ex-
tended himself.
All m at erials and their systems are in essence extensions, of one
type or another, of man' s body, a body which is also used to communic ate
<md fo rms the basis of the communication sys tems, especially kinesics.
Th e a n t hropologist does not need to have a picture drawn for him to get
thi s point, and while culture as a wh ole can b e s a i d t o be an extension of
man, the material and conununication systems are the most characteris-
tically 'extensional' of all the systems of culture.
The communication systems are , char acteri z ed by another type of
ex t ension, symbolic extension. As the body, which is m a terial, is used to
c ommunic ate, the v e rbal s y mbols used' by m a n eventually become 'reduced
t o w ritin g, which i nvolves materials again . In f act, it is where the two s y s-
tems meet, at 09 and 90 , that the two types of extens ion s become int ri-
c at el y interwoven . 09 -'exploitati onal exte n si ons of interaction' -in cludes
the u se of books, telephones, si gnals, writing, etc., and i s al s o in a reci-
procal and a functional rel ationship to 90, whi ch. is read as 'intera ctional
e xt ens i ons of exp loitation', and inclu d es all sorts of communicati on net-
wor k s.
In f act , if one reads a round the chart , taking in only those s y stemic
f oci which include interaction and/ or explOitati on , h e will n otice that these
f o c i form a ring which is characterized by diff e ren t types of e xte nsions.
Society (11) and the protecbon s yste m s (88), while q uite different at
first glanc e, also appear to be in a der utite functional relationship in re-
gard to eac h other. It is true that syst e ms c an be analyzed in and of
themselves as separate and distinct activities, but there is also a relation-
ship between them of th.e type one finds in the case of the material and
communication systems . Fo,r instance, the very existence of a group ne-
cessitates systems of dei6mse, and the structure of protective systems
everywhere reflects, the social organization of the group.
It was this type' of thing that Warder C. Allee
3l
was getting at, on
the level of pre-culture, when he demonstrated that being in groups ac-
tually enhances Montagu
32
, in ills attempt to demonstrate ' a bio-
39
logical base for cooperation. also made this point. drawing from the works
of Allee and others. Fromm
33
shows how controls (which are a technical
aspect of the societal systems) become formal. which he states as a pro-
cess of internalization. The work of both Fromm
17
and Riesman
23
and the
ways in which they developed the relationship between shaming, guilt. and
anxiety. and the effects that this has on 'Society'. are very enlightening
if one examines the kinds of activities which engender this triad. Again,
one does not need more than a passing knowledge of either psychology or
anthropology to see the relationship between acts which engender shame,
guilt, or anxiety, and threats, real or imagined, from the outer world.
In a recent article, Meyer Fortes
34
discussing among other things
the emphasis the British anthropologists have placed on the study of 'so-
cial organizations or social structure', treats society, quite appropriately,
as a basic focal system. 'In this sense social structure is not an aspec t
of culture but the entire culture of a given people handled in a special
frame of theory' (italics ours). He later notes the relationship between
the societal systems and those concerned with defense or protection, i n
this case, religion: 'Anybody who has tried to underst2.nd AfTic an religious
beliefs and practices in the field knows. for example, that ,"Cle c annot get
far without a very thorough knowledge of the kinship and politic al organi-
zations'; and later in the same article, he says: ' What app ears t o happen
is that every significant structural differentiation has its specific ritual
symbolism, s o that one can, as it ,,,ere, read off from the scheme of ri-
tual di fferentiation the pattern of structural differentiation' (it alics ours).
The Pueblo of New Mexico provide another example of the close
inter-relationship between societal and protection systems.
While the exac t nature of the functional relationship betwe en soci a l
and protection systems has not been worked out. a n d is not clearly under-
stood. even on the level of pre -culture. it is quite clear that defense is
enhanced by association and vice versa at almost any level of analysis.
As was the case with communication and materials, the societal
and protection systems form a ring; in t hi s pattern predominates, just as
extension predominates in the outside ring. The fact that there are two
different types of extension (ma terial and symbolic) suggests two types
of patterns: for 11 (society) one deals with the patterns of relationships
between and among people, in 88 (protection systems) one finds the pat-
terns of relationship between man (however he is conceived, singly or in
groups) and that part of his environment which is conceived of as threaten-
ing. In the western world these relationships are thought of or experienced
as man's conquering or dominating nature, whereas in southeast Asia, the
general over-all pattern would seem to be one of man in nature. as it were.
d'
39
logical base for cooperation, also made this point, drawing from the works
of Allee and others. Fromm
33
shows how controls (which are a technical
aspect of the societal systems) become formal, which he states as a pro-
cess of internalization. The work of both Fromm
l7
and Riesman
23
and the
ways in which they developed the relationship between shaming, guilt, and
anxiety, and the effects that this has on 'Society', are very enlightening
if one examines the kinds of activities which engender this triad. Again,
one does not need more than a passing knowledg e of either psychology or
anthropology to see the relationship between acts which en gender shame,
guilt, or anxiety, and threats, real or imagined, from the outer world .
In a recent article, Meyer Fortes
34
, discussing among other things
the emphasis the British a nthropologis ts have placed on the study of 'so-
cial organizations or social structure', treats society, quite appropriately,
as a basic focal system. 'In this sense social structure is not an aspect
of cult ure but the entire culture of a given people handled in a special
frame of theory' (italics ours). He later notes the relations h ip between
the societal systems and those concerned with defense or p r otection, i n
this case, reli gion: 'Anybody who has tried t o understand African religious
beliefs and practices in the fiel d knows , for example, that ,"ne cannot get
far without a very thorough knowledge of t he kinship and political organi-
zations'; and l ater in the same article, he says : ' What appea rs to happen
is that every significant structural diffe renti ation has it s specific ritual
symbolism, so that one can, as it we re, read off from the scheme of ri-
tual differentiation the pattern of structural differentiation' (italics ours).
The Pueblo of New Mexico provide another example of the close
inter-relationship between societal and protection systems.
While the exact n ature of the functional relationship between soci al
and protection systems has not been worked out, and is not clearly under-
stood, even on the level of pre-culture, it is quite clear that defense is
enhanced by association and vice versa at almost a n y l evel of anal ysis.
As was the case with communication and materials, the societal
and protection systems form a ring; in t his pattern predominates, just as
extension predominates in the outside ring . The fact that there are two
different types of extension (material and symbolic) suggests two types
of patterns: for 11 (society) one deals with the patterns of relations hips
between and among people, in 88 (protection systems) one finds the pat-
terns of relationship between man (however he is conceived, singly or in
groups) and that part of his environment which is conceiv ed of as threaten-
ing. In the western world these relationships are thought of or experienced
as man's conquering or dominating nature, whereas in southeast Asia, the
general over-all pattern would seem to be one of man in nature, as it were.
I
:-

so,
N ')f1l'!'1n,.
.40
We realize that this form.ulation in regard to the two different types
of pattern is far from. precise. We suggest it here, however, in order that
there m.ay be a focusing of attention on the clarification of not only what
pattern entails and is, but what different types of pattern m.ay exist in the
world of m.en. A first check on the basic soundness of our assum.ption m.ay
be had by noting the points at which the two different types of patterns
overlap, at 18 (protectors -doctors, clergy, soldiers, policem.en, scien-
tists, etc.) and 81 (defense groups: arm.ies, police, public health, religious
institutions, associations of scientists, etc.). It should be noted that when-
ever any of the above in either their individual or group aspects, em.pha-
sizes one of their functions at the expense of the other, there are pressure
to bring them. into line. It is quite appropriate, therefore, that religious
institutions should be concerned not only with the supernatural, but with
rel a tions between m.en as well, that armies should hav:e chaplains, and
that our scientists, having created the atom. bom.b, should then hold a sym-
posium on 'Physical Science and Hum.an Values2.9.
The extension ring and the pattern ring together provide the basis
for structure. That is, the structure of. an event, whether it is a sentence,
a building, or a group, is a function of both extension and patfern and all
that these im.ply.
Having worked through the functional relationships of the com.muni-
c ation and material system.s as well as those involving social and pr otec-
tion system.s , it still cam.e as som.ewhat of a surprise to find ,vork (2.2.)
and play (77) staring us in the face at the opposite e nds of still another
ring, even though we aref'ully awar e !t"hat the work .., pl ay dich.otom.y has
been a favorite topic; of dis cussion f.ortbe past 2000 yea rs or m.ore; our
analysis is made with full of the pitfalls r e sulting from this
and com.parable facts. Vie menti one d' i a rli:er that one d oes not ne ed spe-
cialized training to see certain and of all, oft he functional relation-
ships the onem.ost widely is t1iat getting a living and .
recreation. These two are inde.ed in a:n-lntimate f Unctional relationship,
and if one reduces the tenus we have; uS'ed' iri. various parts of the table to
sym.bols one discove.rs that there are work-play {Z1}, play-work (72). work
work (22), and play-play {71}. is 'drudgery', play;..piay is 'real
fun', work includes hobbies (that which a 'rich m.an does fbr fun, but
which a poor m.an earns a living at), while ' play-work is enjoying one's
work or getting paid for that which other people do for recreation. The
work-play ring {22, 23,24,25, 2.6, 27, 37, 47, 57, 67, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73,
72, 62., 52, 42, 32.), in which work and play are functions of each other, is
one in which activity predominates, just as pattern and extensionpredomi-
nate in the two outer rings. While the relationship cannot be dem.onstrated
,40
We realize that this formulati on in regard to the two dierent types
of pattern is far from precise. We suggest it here, however, in order that
there may be a focusing of attention on the clarification of not only what
pattern entails and is, but what different types of pattern may exist in the
world of men. A first check on the basic soundness of our assumption may
be had by noting the points at which the two different types of patterns
overlap, at 18 (protectors -doctors, clergy, soldiers, policemen, scien-
tists, etc.) and 81 (defense groups: arrnie s, police, public health, religious
institutions, associations of scientists, etc.). It should be noted that when-
ever any of the above in either their individual or group aspects, empha-
sizes one of their functions at the expense of the other, there are pressure
to bring them into line. It is quite appropriate, therefore, that religious
institutions should be concerned not only with the supernatural, but with
r elations between men as well, that armies should have chaplains, and
that our scientists, having created the atom bomb, should then hold a sym-
pos ium on 'Physical Science and Human Values2.9.
The extension ring and the pattern ring together provide the basis
for structure. That is, the structure of. an event, whether it is a sentence,
a building, or a group, is a function of both extension and patfern and all
that these imply.
Having worked through the functional relationships of the communi-
cation and material systems as well as those involving social and protec-
tion s yst ems , it still carne as somewhat of a surprise to find work (2.2.)
and play (77) staring us in the face at the opposite e nds of still another
ring , even though we are f ully awar e '! t:hcict ,the work .,p l ay dichotomy has
been a favorite topic; of dis cussion. p a st 2000 yea rs or ' more; ou.!"
analysis is made with full a ppreciati.oni of the pitf alls r e sulting from this
and comparable facts. Vie e a rli:er t hat one d oes not need spe-
cialized training to se'e certain and of all, of t h e func tional relation-
ships the one most widely recognize'li is tbat b etweert getting a living and -
recreation. These two <ire indeed an- fUnc'tiou'al relationship,
and if one re'duces the terms' we have; us'ed' various parts of the table to
symbols one discove,rs that there are work-play fZ1}, play-work (7Z), work
work (22). and play-pray e77}. is 'drudgery', play'-piay is "real
fun', includes hobbies,: (that ' which a 'l"ich man does for fun; but
which a poor man eanis a at), while ' play-work is enjoying one;s
work or getting paid for ' that which other people d.o for recreation. The
work-play ring (22,23; 24,25, 26, 2.7, 37, 47, 57, 67, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73,
72., 62., 52, 42, 32), in which work and play are functions of each other, is
one in which activity predominates, just as pattern and extensionpredomi-
nate in the two outer riI\gs. While the relationship cannot be demonstrated
41
in a rigid continuumfromthe level of pre-culture to culture,it would
seemthat pre-cultural activity can be of two types: tensioning and deten-
sioning as describedby Kluckhohn and Murray35. Whether this assumption
is valid ornotwill be demonstratedby future work on the definition of
exactlywhat itis that 'activity' entails. At the presentwriting, it seems
that the relationship between work and play on the level of micro-culture,
andtensioning and detensioning on the level of pre-culture, is less obvious
than is the case for the two different types of extensions noted earlier.
All ofthefunctional relationships betweenthe various basic focal
systems have been mentionedwiththe exception of that of the sexes and
enculturation. This isnot atfirst an easy relationshipto see in this way.
In fact, one could hold that the fact thattherearetwo sexes, andthatthey
aretreatedquite differentlyfrom one another, is one thing, while the fact
that people learnand grow up in a cultureis something else again. All of
this seems tobe true until one takes a secondlook. Before doing this,
however, itis appropriate to recapitulate a bitfirst. A glance over the
primaryand secondaryfoci (at the extreme left and atthe top of the chart)
shows that one is dealing with events which are of several quite different
orders. This may explainwhy anthropologists can come up with such
strikingly different results attimes. The British,for instance, have fo-
cused their attention on social organizationwiththe resultthatthey and
the Americananthropologists often seemto be studying quite different
things, andindeedattimes they are. The disciplines of Economics and
Education as they are currently conceivedand handled, are, indeed, worlds
apart, anduntil recentlythe work ofthe linguist seemedto be so specialized
andunique as to e ~ c l u d e all ofthe above . One could also mention the spe-
cializeddisciplines ofp olitical science, government, andlaw, as well as
psychology (working partlyatthe levelofpre-culture,in the area of
learning, phis some overlapWiththe doctor,theminister, or priest). Our
point is one whichis an old cme and yeta new one too. Culture includes a
wide varietyof eventsi.n manydifferent relationships to each other-events
whicharecharacterized, as suggestedby Whorf
36
, by rapid shifts from
one eventtoanother. The shifts from extensionto pattern and from pat-
terntoactivityare extremeinthe essence, and one has to be prepared
for this type of thing inthe analysis of culture.
The shiftfrom activityto whatwe will now call conditioningis another
casein point. An examination of the ring in whichthe sexes and encultura-
tion appear shows thatthese two are alsoin a functional relationshipto
eachother. Again one does not have to be a social scientistto observe
thatlittleboys andlittle girlslearnand are taught quite differentthings
andthatthe enculturation process isdifferentfor thetwo sexes; thatis,
41
in a rigid continuum from the level of pre-culture to culture, it would
seem that pre-cultural activity can be of two types: tensioning and deten-
sioning as described by Kluckhohn and Murray35. Whether this assumption
is valid or not will be demonstrated by future work on the definition of
exactly what it is that 'activity' entails. At the present writing, it seems
that the relationship between work and play on the level of mic ro -culture,
and tensioning and detensioning on the level of pre-culture, is less obvious
than is the case for the two different types of extensions noted earlier.
All of the functional relationships between the various basic focal
systems have been mentioned with the exception of that of the sexes and
enculturation. This is not at first an easy relationship to see in this way.
In fact, one could hold that the fact that there are two sexes, and that they
are treated quite differently from one another, is one thing, while the fact
that people learn and grow up in a culture is something else again. All of
this seems to be true until one takes a second look. Before doing this,
however, it is appropriate to recapitulate a bit first. A glance over the
primary and secondary foci (at the extreme left and at the top of the chart)
shows that one is dealing with events which are of several quite different
orders. This may explain why anthropologists can come up with such
strikingly different results at times. The British, for instance, have fo-
cused their attention on social organization with the result that they and
the American anthropologists often seem to be studying quite different
things, and indeed at times they are. The disciplines of Economics and
Education as they are currently conceived and handled, are, indeed, worlds
apart, and until recently the work .of the linguist seemed to be so specialized
and unique as to exclude all of the above . On e could also mention the spe-
cialized disciplines of p olitical science. government, and law, as well as
psychology (working partly at the level of pre-culture, in the area of
learning, phis some overlap With the doctor, the minister, or priest). Our
point is one which is an qld ane and yet a new one too. Culture includes a
wide variety of events ~ many different relationships to each other-events
which are characterized, as suggested by Whorf
36
, by rapid shifts from
one event to another. The shifts from extension to pattern and from pat-
tern to activity are extreme in the essence, and one has to be prepared
for this type of thing in the analysis of culture.
The shift from activity to what we will now call conditioning is another
case in point. An examination of the ring in which the sexes and encultura-
tion appear shows that t h s ~ two are also in a functional relationship to
each other. Again one does not have to be a social scientist to observe
that little boys and little girls learn and are taught quite different things
and that the enculturation process is different -for thetwo sexes; that is,
r
42
wha t one learns is largely a function of one's s ex, and conver sely how onl
is t aught is also a function of s ex, as every teacher knows . (Girls have to
be handl e d diHe renUy from boys . ) Ove r-ri ding thi s, and as a l ate r consi -
deration, what one learns a n d h ow one is taught , is also a function of one '
s ocio-economic statu s. where and when one lives a nd t he langua ge one
speaks, as well as the physical equipment c oincident to learning. One 's
sex, however, is basic to t h ese .
As indi cated a bove, t he e vent s which occur in the r ing f ormed by
the sexes ( 33 ) a nd e nculturati on (66) a re predominately c onc ern ed with
conditioning, which i s a function of one's sex on one hand, and how one
integrate s ex p erience on the other . Conditioning and activity together p ro
vide the basis for behavior.
Before going on to situation, which i s basically a function of time
and space, we would like to pick up a poi nt indic ated towards the end of
the previ ous p a rag raph. The reader m ay have a l ready guess e d that if t h e r
are t wo sexes which give rise to two types of conditioning. that perhaps
t here are two of som. ething else expressed in the b asic foc al system of
en culturati on. T his would indeed s eem t o b e the cas e. We did n ot a r rive
at t h e two types of i n tegration in this way, however, but in another way
(th rou gh a line of inqui ry which is as yet incomplet e ) . Working on the le-
vel of pre-cult ure, we were attempting t o see if our schemata would indi-
cate t he different t ypes of basi c event s o r components which culture ex-
pre s s e s, or stated diffe rently, wh at diffe rent ki nds of thi ngs does every
language h a ve to expres s or deal with . Inventories of t he content of lan -
guages and culture have not to this dat e led t o any s yst ematic expre ssion
of the type of thing we w e r e l ooking f or. Our c hart and the accompanyin g
analy s i s di d indicate that perhap s the r e was a way in which one could dis-
cove r the s y stems , or sch emes , governin g t h e integr ation of c ul ture on
at least one level. A g ood d e al of this is alrea dy indicated in what has bee
s aid. That is , one fi n d s vari ous t ypes of ext ensions of the biologic a l or -
ganism, pattern, a ctivities, etc . We were, howev er, looking f o r a diffe rent
order of event which was suggested by our analysis of function al relation-
s hips bet ween the basic focal systems .
Starting at the c enter of the chart one finds t ime and space in a si-
tuation nexu s, and that time (one thing) with space (again one thing) c on-
stitute a func tion of situation and v i c e ver sa. As one move s out, one di s-
covers i n the next block, t wo thi ngs (two sexes ) , which leads to the hypo -
t hesis that, given the type of data we have b een working wi th in this p ar-
ticular frame of reference, if there are t wo sexes, then there should be
two ways of integrating experience which a re in a complementary rela-
tionship to each other, each with its own necessary func tion. This does
42
wh a t one learns is largely a function of one 's s ex, and conversely how onl
is taught is al s o a f unction of sex, as every teacher knows , (Girls have to
be handl e d diffe rently f r om boys . ) Ove r-ri ding this , a nd as a l ate r consi -
deration, wha t one learns a nd h ow one is taught , is also a funct ion of one'
s oc io-economic statu s, wer e and when one liv e s a nd the language one
speaks, as well as the physical equipment c oi ncident to l earning. One ' s
sex, however, is basic to t hese .
As indi cated above, the event s whi ch occur in the ring for med by
the sexes ( 33 ) a n d enculturati on (66 ) a re p redominately c onc e rned with
conditioni n g, which is a function of one's sex on one hand, and how one
integrate s ex p erie c e on the other . Conditioning and activity together p ro
vide the b asis for behavior.
Before going on to situation,. which i s basically a function of time
and spa c e, we would like to pick up a poi nt indi cated towards the en d of
the previous p a ragraph. The reader IIlay have al r e ady guessed that if t h e r
are two sexes which give rise to two types of conditioning, that perhaps
t here are two of something else expressed in the b asic focal systeIIl of
e n culturati on. T his would indeed s eem t o b e the cas e . We did n ot a r r ive
at t h e two types of i n tegration in this way, however, but in another way
(th rou gh a line of inquiry which is as yet i n c omplet e ). Working on the le-
vel of pre-culture, we were attempting t o see if our schemata would indi -
ca+e t he different types of b asi c event s or compon ents which culture ex-
pre s ses , or stated diffe rently, wh at diffe rent ki nds of t hings does every
language h a ve to expre s s or d e al wit h . In v entorie s of t he c ont-ent of l an -
guages and culture have not to this date led to any s yst ematic expression
of the type of t hing we w e r e l ooking f or. Our c hart and the accompanying
analy s is di d i ndic ate that per h ap s the r e was a way in which one could dis-
cove r the s y s t ems , or sch emes , governin g the integration of culture on
at least one level. A g ood d e al of t his is alrea dy indicated in what has beer
s aid. That is , one fi n d s vari ous t ype s of ext ensions of the biological or-
ganism, pattern, a ctivities, etc. We w r e, howev er, looking f o r a different
order of event which was suggested by our analysis of funct i onal relation-
s hi ps between the basic focal systems .
Starting at the c enter of the chart one finds t ime and space in a s i -
tuation nexus, and that time (one thing) with s p ace (a gain one thing) c on-
stitute a functi on of situation and v i c e ver sa. As one move s out, one di s-
covers i n the next block. two things (two sexes ) , which leads to the hypo-
thesis that, given the type of data we have b een working wi th in this p a r -
ticular frame of reference, if there are t wo sexes , then there should be
two ways of integrating experience which a re i n a c o mpl ementary rela-
tionship to each other, each with its own necessary func tion. This does
43
indeed seem to be the case. While the final proof of this hypothesis will
rest with the neuro-anatornist, we believe that there are enough indica-
tions to support our analysis, to lead us to make it public at this time.
Like a great deal that we have merttioned that is common knowledge
on the part of both scientist and layman, the two ways of integrating ex-
perience have been taken account of and described by men far back in li-
terature . What we are talking about is very real, it would seem, but is
not indicated by any external distinguishing traits. The 'intelligence' and
various other tests of the modern psychologist are recent attempts to get
at this distinction.
It is well at this point to repeat what our analysis indicated: A: there
are two ways in which experience is integrated or learned, or two ways
in which the organism is modified; also as in the case of sex, these do not
exist in their pure state, i.e., each has characteristics of the other in
varying degrees and there are inter-grades. B: these two things exist in
complementary relationship to each other and are both necessary; also,
as in the case of the sexes, different cultures may enhance or value or
emphasize one more than the other. C: within each there will be a hier-
archy; just as some men are more masculine than others and some women
more feminine, there is also a hierarchy within the two types of integra-
tion.
In order to a v oid invidious differentiations, we have termed these
two point and line integration. Both can be either hi gh or low order in
their own class, or they can fall between the extremes . They are charac-
terized as follows:
The line inte g rat or works within a given s y s tem o r syste m s. Hi s
function is to make systems g o, and his intellectual eyes a re t u rned i n-
ward, as it were, towar d s imp rov ing and working within, or m ani pulating
his Own frame of refe r enc e. When he is a high order line integ r ator, he
l earns very r api dly and with great ease, as long a s what i s given hi m is
inte grated i nto some type of s ystem. Memory work is not arduous to him.
By and l arge h e ignores contradicti ons bet ween the inte rnal logi c of his
own sys tems a n d events whi c h are outsi de hi s systems. It must not be
as sum ed t hat line int egrators are not scienti s t s; one can say that some
of the best scientific work is d one by p e r sons of this type. T his i s because,
given a system, they then go to work and build the solid f oundation which
gives the system substance.
As indicated earlier, this type has an easy time in school if he is
'bright', because he does not tend to question the system but accepts it
as given him. He is, however, at times disturbed by and tends to distrust
the point integrator who raises questions about points that are outside the
43
indeed seem to be the case. While the final proof of this hypothesis will
rest with the neuro-anatomist, we believe that there are enough indica-
tions to support our analysis, to lead us to make it public at this time.
Like a great deal that we have mentioned that is common knowledge
on the part of both scientist and layman, the two ways of integrating ex-
perience have been taken account of and described by men far back in li-
terature. What we are talking about is very real, it would seem, but is
not indicated by any external distinguishing traits. The 'intelligence' and
various other tests of the modern psychologist are recent attempts to get
at this distinction.
It is well at this point to repeat what our analysis indicated: A: there
are two ways in which experience is integrated or learned, or two ways
in which the organism is modified; also as in the case of sex, these do not
exist in their pure state, i.e., each has characteristics of the other in
varying degrees and there are inter-grades. B:, these two things exist in
complementary relationship to each other and are both necessary; also,
as in the case of the sexes, different cultures may enhance or value or
emphasize one more than the other. C: within each there will be a hier-
archy; just as some men are more masculine than others and some women
more feminine, there is also a hierarchy within the two types of integra-
tion.
In order to a v oid invidious differentiations, we have termed these
two point and line integration. Both can be either high or low order in
their own class, or they can fall between the extremes . They are charac-
terized as follows:
The line inte g rat or works within a given system o r systems. Hi s
function is to make systems g o, and his intellectual eyes a re t u rned in-
ward, as it were, towar d s imp roving and working within, or m ani p ulating
his own frame of refe r enc e. When he is a high order l i ne integ r ator, he
learns very rapi dly and wi th great ease, as long a s what is given hi m is
inte grated i nto some type of system. Memory work is not arduous to him.
By and l a r ge h e ignores contradicti ons bet ween the inte rnal logi c of his
own s y s tems a n d events whi c.h are outside hi s systems. It must n ot be
as sum ed t hat line int egr ators are not scienti s t s; one can say that some
of the best scientific work is done by p e r sons of this type. Thi s i s because,
given a system, they then go to work and build the solid f oundation which
gives the system substance.
As indicated earlier, this type has an easy time in school if he is
'bright', because he does not tend to question the system but accepts it
as given him. He is, however, at times disturbed by and tends to distrust
the point integrator who raises questions about points that are outside the
44
line integrator's systems. Some figures of speech associated with this
type are as follows: 'Now I get (or don't get) the picture'. 'Let me sketch
you in'. 'I can't quite take this in'.
The point integrator has to make each point his very own, and con-
sequently may learn more slowly than a line int e grator. He is likely to
question his teachers and professors about the 'principles' involved in a
given scheme. He is deeply disturbed by contradictions, either within a
given frame of reference or between that frame of reference and what is
outside. There are times when he has difficulty with line integrators who
do not get his points. His function in regard to society is to cr eate new
sys tems as conditions change; he is, howev er, restless in a static situa-
ti on and tends to suff er if he isn't permitted to inte g rate his points . Having
d i sc ove red the points, however, he is likely to lose interest and move on,
l e aving line integ rators to fill in the picture, so t hat in the realm of sci-
e nc e he is often a ccused of being 'unscientifi c ' or lacki ng proof for his
Professor Einstein would be an e x ample of a point integrator of
the highest order, Napier of a line integrator. No one can deny t he contri-
bution of e ither.
P oint integrators tend to use figures of speech somewhat as follows:
' L et' s get down to cases'; 'Now I get (or don't get) the point'; 'Somehow I
can 't seem t o gra sp what he 1S talking about'; 'I n e ed something tangible
to g et hold of'; ' That brings it into focus'; 'Can't you pin-point it a little
mor e ? '
Point integrators seem to get very excited or c e nter their emotions
on ideas, whe r eas the line i ntegrator has vis c e r al re a cti on s when his sys-
tems (which are seen a s inv ol v ing moral principl e s) are viol ated.
Ou r ide a in b r inging this up at thi s p oint h as to d o with the p rog res -
sian and ord-er of basic units o,r component s of culture. T her e i s a ls o the
fa ct that these two types not only wor k quite well together as me mbers of
teams (provided thei r functions are seen prope r ly), but they a lso some-
times clash. It would be of value to the e duc a t or to know it, if thes e two
typ es are valid and real. If so, it certainly follows that t hey should be
hancJ.iLed differently wherever one finds them. Although they occur in a
functional relationship to the two sexes, it should be m a de clear that there
is no indication at present that these characteristics are sex-linked.
As was indicated above in regard to activi t y as a function of work
and play and possibl" tensivning and detensioning, it would seem that the
conditioning ring is not only a function of bisexuality and enculturation
but possibly, on the level of pre -culture, of euphoria and dy sphoria (how-
ever these may be defined in a given culture). That is, pleasure and pain,
or euphoria and dysphoria, are the means of conditioning, man seeking
44
line integrator's systems. Some figures of speech associated with this
type are as follows: 'Now I get (or don't get) the pictu're'. 'Let me sketch
you in'. 'I can't quite take this in'.
---The point integrator has to make each point his very own, and con-
sequently may learn more slowly than a line int e grator. He is likely to
question his teachers and professors about the 'principles' involved in a
given scheme . He is deeply disturbed by contradictions, either within a
given frame of reference or between that frame of reference and what is
outside. There are times when he has difficulty with line integrators who
do not get his points. His function in regard to society is to create new
s y stems as conditions change; he is, however, restless in a static situa -
tion and tends to suff er if he isn't permitted to integrate his points. Having
disc overed the points, however, he is likely to lose interest and move on,
leaving line integrators to fill in the picture, so that in the realm of sci-
ence he is often accu'sed of being 'unscientific ' or l a cki ng proof for his
poi n ts. Professor Einstein would be an example of a point integrator of
the hi ghe s t order, Napier of a line integrato r. No one can deny the cont ri -
but ion of either .
P oint integrators tend to use figures of speech somewhat as follows:
' L et' s get down to cases'; 'Now I get (or don't get) the point'; 'Somehow I
can 't seem t o g r a sp what he ls talking about'; 'I n e e d something tangible
to g et hold of'; 'That b rings it i nto focus'; ' C an't you pin-point it a little
mor e ? '
Point integrators seem to get very excited or c e nter their emotions
on i deas, wh e r eas t h e line integrator has v isc e r al re a cti on s when his sys-
t ms (which: are seen a s invol ving moral pri n c i ples) are viol ate d.
Our idea in b r inging this up at thi s p oint h as to d o with t h e prog es -
sion and ord'er of basic units o,r componen t s of c ultur e . T h e r e i s als o the
f act that these t wo types not only w o r k quite well togeth er as member s of
teams (provided their functions are seen prope r l y), but t h e y also some-
times clash. It would be of value to the e duc a t o r to know i t, if these t wo
types a re valid and real. If so, it certainly follows that they should be
handled differently wherever on'e finds them. Although they occur in a
functional relationship to the tw'o sexes, it should be m a de clear that there
is no indication at present that these characteristics are sex-linked.
As was indicated above in regard to activity as a function of work
and play and possibly tensiuning and it would seem that the
conditioning ring is not only a function of bisexuality and enculturation
but pOSSibly, on the level of pre -culture, of euphoria and dysphoria (how-
ever these may be defined in a given culture). That is, pleasure and pain,
or euphoria and dysphoria, are the means of conditioning, man seeking
45
one and avoiding the other. We have not, however, worked out the continuum
from euphoria and dysphoria on the level of pre -culture to c ondi tioning on
the level of micro-culture. The relationship seems clear enough; the steps
in the process of establishing the relationship have not, however, been
demonstrated.
Having taken up the elements of structure and behavior, one is left
with situation, a function of time and space. There is not much one can say
about this at present, except that every event has its situational aspects,
as well as its behavioral and structural ones. We have phrased this as fol-
lows: there is the structure of, behavior in, and situation for, any given
event in culture. This means that an appropriate cl.llturological descrip-
tion or analysis will include not only the formal, informal, and technical
aspects, but the structural, behavioral,. and situational ones, as w ell.
It is hoped that further work on the part of colleagues and ourselves
will make it possible to further define and refine what is now known of
these two trichotomies which seem so basic to culture.
It is also envisioned that it will be possible to discover the under-
lying units of all cultural systems in the way that it has been p ossible for
the situational and conditioning rings. We have already done a great deal
of investigation along the line mentioned above and propos e to report in
detail at a later date. In the meantime; we can indicate that the logic of
our system points towards four basic components of work and four of re-
creation, ei ght components of society, and comparably eight protection
components, and 16 components each f or the communication and material
systems. Our logic als o demands that what is present in one ring , w ill be
reflected in the others, so that the possible number of combinations be-
comes very large indeed, when one deals with communication and material
at the outer edges. It should be noted this last is by way of hypothesis and
remains to be d e m onstrated . We mention it simply as a preliminary re-
port of investigation in progres s and as a means of providing the reader
with more of the 'feel ' of what this frame of reference can lead to, namely
a calculus for the analysis of culture .
45
one and avoiding the other. We have not, however, worked out the continuum
from euphoria and dysphoria on the level of pre -culture to c ondi tioning on
the level of micro-culture. The relationship seems clear enough; the steps
in the process of establishing the relationship have not, however, been
demonstrated.
Having taken up the elements of structure and behavior, one is left
with situation, a function of time and space. There is not much one can say
about this at present, except that every event has its situational aspects,
as well as its behavioral and structural ones . We have phrased this as fol-
lows: there is the structure of, behavior in, and situation for, any given
event in culture . This means that an appropriate cl.llturological descrip-
tion or analysis will include not only the formal, informal, and technical
aspects, but the structural, behavioral, and situational ones, as wel l.
It is hoped that further work on the part of colleagues and ourselves
will make it possible to further define and refine what is now known of
these two trichotomies which seem so basic to culture.
It is also envisioned that it will be possible to discover the under-
l ying units of all cultural systems in the way that it has been possible for
the situational and conditioning rings. We have already done a great deal
of investigation along the line mentioned above and propose to report in
detail at a later date. In the meantime; we can indicate that the logic of
our system p oints towards four basic components of work and f our of re-
creation, ei ght components of society, and comparably eight protection
components, and 16 components each f or the communication and material
systems. Our logic als o demands that what is present in one ring, will be
reflected in the others, so that the possible number of combinations be-
comes very large indeed, when one deals with communication and material
at the outer edges. It should be noted this last is by way of hypothesis and
remains to be d emonstrated . We mention it simply as a preliminary re-
port of investiga tion in progr e s s and as a means of providing the reader
with more of the 'feel ' of what this frame of reference can lead to, namely
a calculus for the analysis of culture.
6. THE CONFIGURATIONS OF CULTURE
In the elaboration of the analysis presented in this paper so far, it
has been indicated at several points that some of the seemingly central
subjects of cultural analysis do not appear as rubrics in the tables be-
cause they are at higher or more complex levels of organization. Such
items as war, religion, law, 'motherly devotion', etc., are not found in
any of the boxes in the tables resulting from the intersection of the basic
foci of activity, nor do they seem to be describable as formal, informal,
or technical aspects of some labelled category. We believe that what is
involved here is the identiiication of functional interrelationships between
various parts of the scheme. The configurations of interrelationships are
real enough, of course, and cannot be overlooked. Differences between
cultu r e s are even more striking in these configurations than elsewhere.
They corne about from the selection of the items that constitute the sets
of activities that are interrelated.
It appears to us that an analogy may be made with the field of lin-
guistics, and that such an analogy will help u s t o clarify what has just
been said and will show how to approach the analysis of what we are calling
configurations and sets. The field of linguistics as a whole, macrolinguis-
tics, is divided into prelinguistics, microlinguistics, and metalinguistics.l
2
In prelinguistics we have the biological bas e, in mi c r olinguisti cs the ac-
tual linguistic phenomena as such, and in met alinguistic s the interrela-
tions between the linguistic system and othe r c ult u r al systems. Th e ma-
terial we have been presenting. lends itself neatly to analog ous des crip-
tion.
The biological activities from which we started our dis cus sion and
analysis constitute the level of 'pre-culture' (as we may call it , by analogy
with the linguistic terminology). The primary and secondary f oci of acti-
vity as we have set them up, on a biological b ase, are already, however,
on the level of 'micro-culture' (culture prop e r). This is analogous to the
situation in macrolinguistics: the physics of sound and the physiology of
the so-called organs of speech (which physiologically are no more 'or-
gans of speech' than the hand is an 'organ of culture') are in prelinguis-
tics; but the actual speech sounds and their formation, as studied in pho-
netics, are part of microlinguistics. The failure to make this fundamental
distinction of levels has led many students of culture to try to become
46
6. THE CONFIGURATIONS OF CULTURE
In the elaboration of the analysis presented in this paper so far, it
has been indicated at several points that some of the seemingly central
subjects of cultural analysis do not appear as rubrics in the tables be-
cause they are at higher or more complex levels of organization. Such
items as war, religion, law, 'motherly devotion', etc., are not found in
any of the boxes in the tables resulting from the intersection of the basic
foci of activity, nor do they seem to be describable as formal, informal,
or technical aspects of some labelled category. We believe that what is
involved here is the identiiication of functional interrelationships between
various parts of the scheme. The configurations of interrelationships are
real enough, of course, and cannot be overlooked. Differences between
cultu e s are even more striking in these conHgurations than elsewhere.
They corne about from the selection of the items that constitute the sets
of activities that are interrelated.
It appears to us that an analogy may be made with the field of lin -
guistics, and that such an analogy will help u s t o clarify what has just
been said and will show how to approach the analysis of what we are calling
configurations and sets. The field of linguistics as a whole, macrolinguis-
tics, is divided into prelinguistics, microlinguistics, and metalinguistics.l
2
In prelinguistics we have the biological base, in micr olinguisti cs the ac-
tual l inguistic phenomena as such, and in met alinguistic s the interrela-
tions between the linguistic system and othe r c ult ural systems. Th e ma-
terial we have been presenting. lends itself nea tly to analogous des crip-
tion.
The biological activities from whi c h we started our discus s ion and
analysis constitute the level of 'pre-culture' (as we may call i t , by analogy
with the linguistic terminology). The primary and secondary f oci of acti-
vity as we have set them up, on a biological b ase, are already, however,
on the level of 'micro-culture' (culture prop e r). This is analogous to the
situation in macrolinguistics: the physics of sound and the physiology of
the so-called organs of speech (which physiologically are no more 'or-
gans of speech' than the hand is an 'organ of culture ') are in prelinguis-
tics; but the actual speech sounds and their formation, as studied in pho-
netics, are part of microlinguistics. The failure to make this fundamental
distinction of levels has led many students of culture to try to e c ~ r n e
46
47
physiologists or neuro-anatomists or acoustic engineers or statisticians,
in a desire to be sure about the pre-cultural base of culture. It is, of
course, perfectly proper, and in fact, essential, that the culturologist
should ask questions in the various pre -culture fields, but he can ask them
only when he has delimited the field of micro-culture; and then, having
asked his questions, he should, preferably, put them to the specialist and
get the answers that way more quickly and more accurately than by trying
to work in pre-culture himself. When the culturologist has gone into pre-
culture himself, the result has often been to produce confusion rather than
clarification. Organic pathology, of course, does make differences in the
adjustment of individuals to their culture, but pathological deviations, as
such, are not the concern of the culturologist, though he can concern him-
self with the culture's response to the presence of such pathology. The
culturologist must necessarily deal with the normalized responses of the
normal human being, an abstraction that he must start with in doing mi-
ero-culture . To seek to explain cultural phenomena b y physiology is just
as unscientific in personality as it i s to 'explain' differences between so-
cieties by means of 'race'. In linguistics, the linguist may identify his
informants, but he explicitly a nd implicitly indicates that he is using them
as samples that adequately rep resent the speakers as a whole. Individual
differences in voices d o not make any diff erence in the structural a r:.aly-
si s : in English, where the re a re f our pitch phonemes
lO
, a woman m ay u se
much higher absol ute pitches than a man, but the analysis of a sentence
like i t will s h ow the int onation morpheme /231# for any normal
speaker s ay ' ng it i n t h e usual 'unemotional' way. F or the hear er the a b-
solute pitch range is completely blocked out because he is behaving as a
participant in the culturally patterned c ommuni c a tion sit uation. A for-
ei gne r , not hav i ng the pattern, may very w ell hea r t he diffe r ences and not
know how to react to them. Other physiological differences must be 'over-
lo oked' in the same way when the cultu rologi st discusse s cultural activi-
ties tha t involve t hem.
Vi e h ave s aid that the pri mary a nd sec ondary foci of our tabl e s are
the sub ject matte r of T he inter sec tions of the foci, t w o at
a time, a s in the tables, and al l the ir elaborations taken as a whole, are
a second, more complex ('higher') level of micro-culture. It appears to
us to be quite possible to compare with microlinguistics again, and to in-
dicate that the primary dichotomy made the re between phonology and mor-
phology is here paralleled. The primary and secondary foci cover the
elemental buildi ng-blocks, as it were, of culture as a whole, as phonology
does of language. The intersections of the foci are then like the groupings
of phonemes into morphemes-the morphemics. Now under morphemics
47
physiologists or neuro-anatomists or acoustic engineers or statisticians,
in a desire to be sure about the pre-cultural base of culture. It is, of
course, perfectly proper, and in fact, essential, that the culturologist
should ask questions >in the various pre-culture fields, but he can ask them
only when he has delimited the field of micro-culture; and then, having
asked his questions, he should, preferably, put them to the specialist and
get the answers that way more quickly and more accurately than by trying
to work in pre-culture himself. When the culturologist has gone into pre-
culture himself, the result has often been to produce confusion rather than
clarification. Organic pathology, of course, does make differences in the
adjustment of individuals to their culture, but pathological deviations, as
such, are not the concern of the culturologist, though he can concern him-
self with the culture's response to the presence of such pathology. The
culturologist must necessarily deal with the normalized responses of the
normal human being, an abstraction that he must start with in doing mi-
ero-culture. To seek to explain cultural phenomena by physiology is just
as unscientific in personality as it i s to 'explain' differences between so-
cieties by means of 'race'. In linguistics, the linguist may identify his
informants, but he explicitly and implicitly indicates that he is using them
as samples that adequately rep resent the speakers as a whole. Individual
differences in voices d o not make any diff erence in the structural a roaly-
sis: in English, whe re the re a re f our pitch phonemes
lO
, a woman m ay use
much higher absol ute pitche s than a man, but the analysis of a sentence
like I like i t will s h ow the int onation morpheme /231# for any norma l
speaker say>ng it i n t h e usual 'unemotional' way. For the hear er the a b-
solute pitch range is completely blo ck ed out becau se he is behaving as a
participant in the culturally p atterned c ommuni c ation sit uation. A for-
eigne r , not hav i ng the pattern, may very w ell hear t he diffe r ences and not
know how to react to them. Other physiological differences must be ' over -
lo oked' in the same way when the cultu rologi st discusse s cultural activi-
ties t hat i nvolve t hem.
We h ave s aid that the pri mary a nd secondary foci of our tabl es are
the subj ect matter of mic r o-culture. T he inter sec tions of the foci, t w o at
a time, a s in the tabl es , and al l their elaborations taken as a whole, are
a second, more complex ('higher') level of micro-culture. It appears to
us to be quite possible to compare with microlinguistics again, and to jn-
dicate that the primary dichotomy made there between phonology and mor-
phology is here paralleled. The primary and secondary foci cover the
elemental buildi ng-blocks, as it were, of culture as a whole, as phonology
does of language. The intersections of the foci are then like the groupings
of phonemes into morphemes-the morphemics. Now under
48
the linguist considers morphophonemics -the shapes of the morphemes,
and arrangement-the putting together of the morphemes. Corresponding
to the first of these we have the study of the separate tertiary system.s
and systematic elaborations of our scheme, in all their aspects. To the
second correspond the groupings of systematic elaborations and tertiary
systems; these are of two kinds: the basic focal systems, and the systemic
foci . Cur analogy seems still to hold even this far: the basic focal sys tems,
constituting the fundamental structure of the culture, are like morphology
in language -the structural arrangements of morphemes to form words;
the systemic foci parallel the syntax-the arrangement of words into con-
structions. With syntax microlinguistics ends; paraHelly, with the sys-
temjc foci mic ro-culture ends.
J\fetalinguistics has been described as the area dealing with the re-
lation of the mic rolingui stic system to other cultural systems. So, for
c ultur e as a whole , 'meta-culture' may be described as the area of the
r elati on of any of the cultural systems described under micro-culture to
any of t he other s. These interrelations, then, would give us the set s and
con figurations alluded to above and developed in 5.1. Table 6 depicts the
anal ogies we hav e just discussed.
6. 1. Vie shall now discuss some of the items under meta-culture as
just delirnited, and inilicate some aspects of the methodology for analyzing
then"l that m ay be worked out.
The te rm set is a convenient one to us e fo r a grouping of items whos(
individualness is r ecognized, but whic h ar e "onetheless regarded as con-
stituting a necessary kind of aggregate. Cultur al differences are often
m ade cl ear whe n what is regarded as a set in one culture is look ed upon
as a unit elsewhere or as part of a different set. T hi s is an important
p oint: a set is an aggregate or compl ex but it is not a unit. The behavi or
towards that which is defined as a unit is of qui t e a diffe r ent orde r from
that towards a set, and when a society iliscovers that some supposed unit
is really a set, or vice versa, behavior change s accordingly.
Historically, the human body was looked upon as a unit, 'the body',
opposed to another unit, 'the soul' (or, in other contexts, 'the mind'). With
increa se of human knowledge, it became app a r ent that what we usually
m ean by the body is really a set of physiological and other systems. Of
course, an individual human being, especially when dead, is a 'body', a
unit, but the term body does not usually have such a specialized reference.
This comes out in the fact that we often use the term body as an equiva-
lent of body of knowledge', 'a body of troops'. languages,
it is sometimes difficult to get a translation for body: the Taos of New
Mexico tell the inquiring lingwst that the word is tuona, but on further
48
the linguist considers morphophonemics -the shapes of the morphemes,
and arrangement-the putting together of the morphemes. Corresponding
to the first of these we have the study of the separate tertiary systems
and systematic elaborations of our scheme, in all their aspects. To the
second correspond the groupings of systematic elaborations and tertiary
systems; these are of two kinds: the basic focal systems, and the systemic
foci . Cur analogy seems still to hold even this far: the basic focal systems,
constituting the fundamental structure of the culture , are like morphology
in language -the structural arrangements of morphemes to form words;
the systemic foci parallel the syntax-the arrangement of words into con-
structions . With syntax microlinguistics ends; parallelly, with the sys-
tenUc foci mic ro-culture ends.
:tvfdalinguistics has been described as the area dealing with the re-
lation of the microlinguistic system to other cultural systems. So, for
cult u r e as a whole , 'meta-culture' may be described as the area of the
r elati on of any of the cultural systems described under micro-culture to
any of t he others. These interrelations, then, would give us the sets and
c n figurations alluded to above and deve oped in 5.1. Table 6 depicts the
anal ogies we hav e just discussed.
6. 1. Vle shall now discuss some of the i tems under meta-culture as
just delimited, and indicate some aspects of the methodology for analyzing
them that m a y be worked out.
The te r m set is a convenient one to us e f or a grouping of items whos(
individualness is r ecognized, but whic h ar e "onetheless regarded as con-
stituting a necessary kind of aggregate . Cultur al differences are often
m ade cl ear when what is regarded as a set in one culture i s look ed upon
as a unit elsewhere or as part of a differen t set. Thi s is an important
p oint : a set is an aggregate or compl ex but it is not a unit. The behavi or
towards that which is defined as a unit is of qui t e a diffe r ent order from
that towards a set, and when a society discovers that some supposed unit
is really a set, or vice versa, behavior changes accordingly.
Historically, the human body was looke d upon as a unit, 'the body',
opposed to anothe r unit, 'the soul' (or, in other contexts, 'the mind'). With
increase of human knowledge, it became apparent that what we usually
mean by the body is really a set of physiological and other systems. Of
course, an individual human being, especially when dead, is a 'body', a
unit, but the term body does not usually have such a speciali zed reference.
This comes out in the fact that we often use the term body as an equiva-
lent of ~ - a body of knowledge', ' a body of troops'. In other l anguages,
it is sometimes difficult to get a translation for body: the Taos of New
Mexico tell the inquiring linguist that the word is tuona, but on further
T
A
B
L
E

C
u
l
t
u
r
e

a
s

w
h
o
]

e
.

M
a
c
r
o
-
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
.

P
r
e
-
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
.

(
H
u
m
;
:
l
l
1

b
i
o
l
o
g
y

,
]

M
i
c
r
o
-
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
.

[
C
u
l
t
u
r
e

i
l
S

c
u
l
l
u
r
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
s
.
]

[
P
r
i

a
n
d

s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

f
o
c
i

.
)

[
I
n
t
e

r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

t
h
e

f
(
)
c
i
.

[
T
e
r
t
i
a
r
y

s
y
s
t
e
m
:
:
;

a
.
n
e
!

t
h
e
i
r

a
,
s
p
e
c
t
s
.
]

[
G
r
o
u
p
i
n
g
s

o
f

s
y
s
t
e
m
a
t
i
c

e
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

t
e
r

t
i
a
r
y

s
y
s
t
e
m
s
.
]

[
B
a
s
i
c

f
o
c
a
l

F
W
l
d
a
m
e
n
t
a
l

u
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

u
l
t
u
r
e
.
)

[
S
y
s
t
e
m
i
c

f
o
c
i
.

G
r
o
u
p
i
.
n
g
s

o
f

t
e
r
-
t
i
a
r
y

s
y
s
t
e
m
s
.
]

M
e
t
a

-
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
.

[
l
n
t
e

r
r
e
l
a
i
i
o
n
s

o
f

c
u
l

t
u
r
a
l

s
y
s
-
t
e
m
s

C
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

s
e
t
s
.
)

a
n
g
u
a
g
e
.

M
a
c

r
o
l
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c

P
r
e
l
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c
s
.

[
P
h
y
s

i
c
s

a
n
d

p
h
y
s
i
o
l
o
g
y

o
f

s
p
e
e
c
h
.
]

M
i
c
r
o
l
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c
s
.

(
L
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c
s

p
r
o
p
e
r

l
i
n
-
g
u
i
s
t
i
c
s

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

.
]

P
h
o
n
o
l
o
g
y
.

[
S
o
u
n
d
s
,

p
h
o
n
e
m
e
s
.
]

M
o
r
p
h
e
m
i
c
s
.

(
M

o
r
p
h
e
m
e
s
.
]

M
o
r

p
h
o
p
h
o
n
e
m

i
c
s
.

(
S
h
a
p
e
s

o
f

m
o
r
-
p
h
e
m
e
s
.
]

A
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t
.

[
G

r
o
u
p
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

s
e
-
q
u
e
n
c
e
s

o
f

m
o
r
p
h
e
m
e
s

.
]

M
o
r
p
h
o
l
o
g
y
.

[
F
u
n
d
a
m
e
n
t
a
l

s
t
r
u
c
-
t
u
r
e

-
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

w
o
r
d
s
.
]

S
y
n
t
a
x
.

[
G
r

o
u
p
i
n
g

o
f

w
o
r
d
s

a
n
d

m
o
r
p
h
e
m
e
s

i
n
t
o

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c

-
t
i
o
n
s

M
e
t
a
l
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c

s
.

[
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

l
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

'
"

t
o

o
t
h
e
r

c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
s
.
]

-
.
0

T
A
B
L
E

6

C
u
l
t
u
r
e

a
s

i
t

w
h
o
]

e
.

M
a
c
r
o
-
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
.

P
r
e
-
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
.

(
H
u
m
a
n

b
i
o
l
o
g
y
.
]

M
i
c
r
o
-
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
.

[
C
u
l
t
u
r
e

a
s

s
u
c
h
,

c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
s
.
]

[
P
r
i
m
a
r
y

a
n
d

s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

f
o
c
i
.
)

[
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

t
h
e

f
o
c
i
.
]

[
T
e
r
t
i
a
r
y

s
y
s
t
e
m
5

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

a
s
p
e
c
t
s
.
]

[
G
r
o
u
p
i
n
g
s

o
f

s
y
s
t
e
m
a
t
i
c

e
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

t
e
r
t
i
a
r
y

s
y
s
t
e
m
s
.
]

[
B
a
s
i
c

f
o
c
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
!
>
.

F
u
n
d
a
m
e
n
t
a
l

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

c
u
l
t
u
r
e
.
]

[
S
y
s
t
e
m
i
c

f
o
c
i
.

G
r
o
u
p
i
n
g
s

o
f

t
e
r
-
t
i
a
r
y

s
y
s
t
e
m
s
.
]

M
e
t
a

-
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
.

[
I
n
t
e
r
r
e
l
a
l
i
o
n
s

o
f

C
l
l
l

t
u
r
a
l

s
y
s
-
t
e
m
s
.

C
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

s
e
t
s
.
]

L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
.

M
a
c
r
o
l
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c
s
.

P
r
e
l
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c
s
.

[
P
h
y
s
i
c
s

a
n
d

p
h
y
s
i
o
l
o
g
y

o
f

s
p
e
e
c
h
.
]

M
i
c
r
o
l
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c
s
.

[
L
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c
s

p
r
o
p
e
r
;

l
i
n
-
g
u
i
s
t
i
c
s

s
y
s
t
e
m
s
.
]

P
h
o
n
o
l
o
g
y
.

[
S
o
u
n
d
s
.

p
h
o
n
e

m
e

s

.
]

M
o
r
p
h
e
m
i
c
s
.

[
M
o
r
p
h
e
m
e
s
.
]

M
o
r
p
h
o
p
h
o
n
e
m
i
c
s
.

[
S
h
a
p
e
s

o
f

m
o
r
-
p
h
e
m
e
s
.
]

A
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t
.

[
G
r
o
u
p
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

s
e
-
q
u
e
n
c
e
s

o
f

m
o
r
p
h
e
m
e
s
.
]

M
o
r
p
h
o
l
o
g
y
.

[
F
u
n
d
a
m
e
n
t
a
l

s
t
r
u
c
-
t
u
r
e

-
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

w
o
r
d
s
.
]

S
y
n
t
a
x
.

[
G
r
o
u
p
i
n
g

o
f

w
o
r
d
s

a
n
d

m
o
r
p
h
e
m
e
s

i
n
t
o

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
-
t
i
o
n
s

.
J

M
e
t
a
l
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c
s
.

[
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

l
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

>
l=
-
t
o

o
t
h
e
r

c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
s
.
]

-
D

50
inquiry this turns out to mean 'meat', 'edible flesh'. When 'a student body'
is treated as a unit, there takes place behavior quite different from that
which occurs when the student 'body' is recognized as a set of individuals
or gr oups.
The set, then, is a recognized and recognizable analytical unit of
culture. It;identification is part of the anthropologist's job. It is, like
vocabulary items, arbitrary, but its reference can be determined accu-
rately by extensive observation of the facts of occurrence and distribu-
bon. In the Western world 'the cosmos' was a unit until the Copernican
astronomy took over; 'nature' is still, for many people, a unit; 'disease',
'war', 'peace', 'the Indians', are other assumed units; all of these, and
m.any mOTe, are actually sets of phenomena, taken out of context, so to
speak, and culturally assigned to a single rubric. Cross -culturally, as
a.l rea dy stated, a set in one culture is a unit elsewhere, or the connections
ar e not made at all: to us war is a set in most of its references, though
sometimes treated as a unit ; war to the pre -Columbian Aztecs was a very
diffe r e nt set; and some peoples have no war. Common unit terms are
ene r g etic, neat, prudish, friendly, perceptive, apperception, intellection,
e lTIotion, need, learning, etc.
In our e:-:amination of the d a ta represented in tables I and 2 we soon
saw, as has been indi cat ed before, that three-dimensional models would
be very us eful for showing some of the larger interrelations. Constructing
som:;! models of intersecting great circles not oruy made it possible to ac-
tuaily see some of the known interrelations, but also brought tc our atten-
tion other possibilities that seemed significant for futur e investi gations .
This is not the place to pursue the subject of visual, spatial models for
c on c eptual schemes like ours. But we can point out that the kinds of inter-
r e lations that are sugge sted here are the ones that we designate as con-
figurati on s. Configurations differ from sets by being not arbitrary but
foundf'd on real functional interrelations.
Some configurations which are immedi a t ely apparent are such thing,
as religion, science, literature, and law. In our culture, historically, and
lar gely even at present, these are the clusterings of activity which 'every
body' recognizes. It will be useful to exa,rnine these four rubrics in the
light of the analysis presented here.
Religion in the Western world has accreted such a series of special
connotations that it has always been hard for anthropologists to define
what they were looking for under this rubric in other cultures. Always
terms like magic, tabu, ritual, super stition, and others, have somehow
com.e into the picture. Taking one of the more usual starting points, and
defining religion as the means whereby a group secures the cooperation
50
inquiry this turns out to mean 'meat' , 'edible flesh'. When 'a student body'
i s treated as a unit, there tak es plac e behavior quite different from tha t
whi c h oc curs when the student 'body' is recognized a s a set of individuals
or g roup s .
The set , then, is a recognized and recognizable analytical unit of
culture. It;-identification is part of the anthropologist's job. It i s , like
vocabulary items, arbitrary, but its reference can be determined accu-
r a tely by e x tensive observation of the fac ts of occurrence and distribu-
bon. In the Western world 'the cosmos' was a unit until the Copernican
astronomy took ov er; 'nature' is s till, for many people, a unit; 'disease',
'war', 'peace', ' t he Indians', are other assumed units ; all of these, and
m any m OTe: , are actually sets of phenomena, taken out of context, so to
speak, and culturally assi gned to a s ingle rubric. Cros s -culturally, as
alr e a dy stated, a set in one culture is a unit elsewhere, or the connections
are n ot made at a ll: to us war is a set in most of its references, though
s ometimes treated as a unit ; war to the pre -Columbi a n Aztecs was a very
differen t s et; and some peoples have no war. Common unit terms are
e erg etic , neat, prudish, friendly, perceptive, apper c eption, intellection,
e lTI otion, need, learni n g , et c .
In our examination of the da ta represented in tables I and 2 we soon
s aw, as h as been indi cated before, that three -dimensional models would
b e very u s eful for showing some of the larger interrelations. Constructing
som<! models of intersecting great circles not only made it possible to ac-
tual1y see some of the known interrelations, but also brought tc our atten-
tion other possibilities that seeme d significant for futur e investi gations.
Thi s is not the place t.o pursue the subject of vi s ual, s patial model s for
c onc eptua l schemes like ours. But we can point out tha t the kind s of inter-
relations that are suggested here are the on e s that we designate as con-
fi gur a tion s . Configur a tions differ from sets by being not arbitrary but
foundf'd on real functional interrelations.
Some confi gurations which are immedi at ely apparent are such thingo
as religion, science, literature, and law. In our culture, historically, a nd
lar gely even at present, these are the clusterings of activity which 'every-
body' recogni z es. It will be useful to exa,mine these four rubrics in the
light of the analysis presented here.
Religion in the Western world has accreted such a series of special
connotations that it has always been hard for an'thropologists to define
what they were looking for under this rubric in other cultures. Always
terms like magic, tabu, ritual, supe:i'stition, and others, have somehow
come into the picture. Taking one of the more usual starting points, and
defining religion as the means whereby a group secures the cooperation
51
or mitigates the hostility of the sup ernatur al s, we see that this is first of
all something that comes under protection systems. There are formal de-
fense aspects of religion in the traditional patterns of attitudes toward the
supernatur al powe r s; there a re informal defense systems in the relations
with ev erp resent spirits an d the lik e, and there are technical def ense sys-
tems in ritual . Aspe cts of religion are found in all the basic focal sys- terns . The clergy man's ton e of voice is well known, the sanctimonious look has often been desc ri b e d , the spe c i al vocabulari e s of the sacred and profane a r e part of eve ryone's knowl edge. In rnany cultures the practi- tione rs of reli gion a re a special class ; with us, m embers of some reli- gions a r e castes (c ol ored B a ptists , J ews); and in many g overnmental structur es reli gi on is speci fi c ally t r eate d (exclu ded with us, i ncluded els ewh e re). Mu c h work and maintenanc e ar e a c c omp anied by special ri- t ual a c ti vitie s ; while being a clergyman or t he e quivalent is c ertainly a speci fic p rofession. Bi sexuality i s tied up with all kinds of rel igious ac- tivities in so many ways that we need n ot exp atiate on it. Space has rel i - gi ous aspects in hol y ground, cemeteries , and t h e like. Ti m e is involved
i n religi on in the variou s cy cles and the calendar. Enculturation shows r eligious aspects of rearing and e duc a tion, a s well as in i nf ormal l earning.
Rec r e a ti on i s deeply i n olved with r eligi on : da n ces , s ongs (hymns) , mira-
cl e plays, and the like are f ound in m any cult ures . In m a te rial s y stems , rituals a c c ompany many of the activi tie s , material object s a re s anctified or used t o sanctify. and buildi ngs b ecome special h oly pl a c es. A large configu r ation like religion has many sub-c onfi gu rations. One of these clusters around the feeling s and attitudes t hat result f r om three a s p e ct s of com muni cati on: i n s tructional, rec r eat ional , protect ive (06, 07, 08 ) . The
communicant i s given a set of precept s -he is in s tru cted how t o behave . If he f ollows these fait hfully, he will achiev e well-bei n g of a kind t h at will r el ax a nd rest him and give him j oy , a n d he will a l s o get a p r otecti v e
a r mor aga i n s t evil forces of all kinds. By d oin g what h e i s suppo s e d t o do, the faithful one avoids anxiety and the di s pleasur e of si gn i fi c a nt ot he rs,
thus a cqui ring well -being
4
. It may be n oted t hat anx iety h e re, a s well as guilt and shame , a re t hings .tha t can be av oide d or brought on by acts of the will , so to speak , an d should n ot b e confused with the re's ults of end o- crine di sturbance s or othe r phys i ological factors, which are pre-cultu r al.
The 'ethical v alues' of m a ny religions are found in such a configurati on,
or in the reci procal one based on interactional learning, play and defense (60, 70, 80). Religion is such a pervasive kind of c onfiguration, that we could trace elements of it in all the systemic foci, and, for the western cultures certainly, in most of the tertiary el aborations.
When we begin to examine the configuration labeled science, we see
52
that it is very much like religion. It is widely elaborated, it is found re-
fleeted in many or most of the same systems, and it serves many of the
same functions (has siITlilar 'ITleanings'). This is historically very clear
in the Weste rn world: as technology developed rapidly (a process that
has been going on for two ITlillenia) , so ITlany new, and highly technical,
activities arose that there was no tiITle, so to speak, to incorporate them
into the forrnal configuration of religion. There thus arose a kind of di-
chotomy' which, with the progressive technicalization of religion itself,
brought about a widening gulf between science and religion. In the '.,vestern
'.vorld today, science is the religion of many, scientists (real or pseudo)
are 'high priests', and the products of science are holy and revered ob-
jects. ' Organized religion', thus, finds in science a threat and a danger.
One aspect of science, the belief in freedom of inquiry and in the need for
e v er -widening knowledge, represents a meaning or value that is not found
in tr a ditional religions, and in this way gives Western culture the possi-
bility of a new kind of all-eITlbracing formal configuration. It may be noted
he re t h at in China, for exaITlple, much of what we would call religion is
ve ry informally or ganized, so that science there, whether indigenous or
,-'{estern, i s not in cOIlQict with reli gion. In still other cultures -say t hose
of the Pueblos in the Southwest of the United States -reli gion and science
are a single configur ation, with conflict betv/een theITl quite incom;)Tehen-
sible; Pueblo science is applied science (i rrigation, harvesting, etc.), and
goes hand in hand with religious practices.
Literature is anothe r large configuration. It invol v es the interrela-
tions of all the aspects of interaction and of all the interacti onal aspects
of the other prima ry foci. Its orientation or specialization is largely in-
structional and recreational in any of these aspec ts.
A factor that has not hitherto been specifically mentioned COITles out
from the three configurations of religion, literature and science. This is
the matter of invention or creation of new aspects or systeITls of culture.
Invention in this sense is, we believe, largely a result of the recogni tion
of needs as they have becom.e apparent in the developITlent of a configura-
ticn involving SOITle facet of cOITlITlunication. The recognition takes place
informally. There is then explicit looking about for a solution. This re-
sults frOITl the conversion of a supposed unit into a set. It also seems that
in cross-cultural diffusion the items of such a set ITlay be separated out
and incorporated into existing configurations or may participate in new
configurations.
AITlong other configurations there ITlay be ITlentioned such things as
crime, law, ethics, social disorganization. The ITlanner in which these
can be examined and characterized is clear from the brief treatment of
53
religion above.
The recognition of sets and configurations leads to the consideration
of cultural profiles and of personality values in the next two sections.
6.2. In 2.1 reference was made to the accounts of travellers and others
containing descriptions of culture. It was also stated that most such de-
scriptions emphasized the technical aspects of culture. In recent years,
however, anthropologists have been attempting in various ways to do this
more scientifically. There has also been a stated effort to communicate
the core values and the traditional aspects of cultures other than our own.
These attempts mark steps in the r ight direction. It is our opinion, how-
ever, that the non-specialist, unhampered by technical tradition and mo-
tivated by artistic goals, still does a more successful job of communicating
in this field. It was not until recently that the reasons for this became
clear. The good writer necessarily records the k ind of thing that is basic
in the lives of men: bits of the kinesic systems, tones of voice, how space
is used and organized, the unit s of time, and, if h e is particularly p ercep-
tive, he keeps separate and distinguishes between the form"l, info rmZil
and technical. He also manages to point up the rel ative weigrlting of the
basic focal systems and reflects quite acc urately those events which a r e
taken for granted by h is characters.
Besides writers with purely artistic aims, there have also be en
philosophers and his tori ans who have attempted to describe whole cultures
and to summa r i ze their basic orientations. Psycho -ana l ytic worke rs in
posses sion of v ery detailed personal data, have also here and there in-
terpreted t hei r findings in the light of antluopol ogy . "rost rec e ntl y, a n thro -
pologi sts have ex plicitly tried to get data on whic h to con struct p rofiles
of the modal pe r sonality of groups and the basic personality of i ndivi dual s.
The variety of the attempts testifies to the compl exi ty of the p robl em. The
p resent write r s believe , a s a result of the research bei ng de s c r ibe d i n
this paper , that it is really possible to construct cull.ur a l pr ofiles , onc e
one has the full pict ur e set forth within the frame of refercnce we ar e
using.
Our first attempts at such evaluations gave encouraginci r esult s .
These first analyses were at two levels: t he highl y specific, using p art s
of two basic focal systems, and the more general, in which all t he basic
focal systems were weighted.
In the first instance, we wanted to discover the basis of culture con-
flict and misunderstanding in regard to promises in two areas -time and
materials -between Americans and a lvliddle Eastern culture. An intona-
tion pattern which commonly occurs in both Persian and English, and
which indicates, among other things, a reaction of disappointment to (om-
54
mitments (implied and other), provided the first cue . Our analysis showed
that Americans tend to expect a promise or commitITlent involving tiITle
to be kept, and will apologize and react viscerally for being ITluch ITlore
tha n a few ITlinutes late. The Persians take this sort of thing very lightly.
We, on the other hand, take a 'reasonable' attitude when a material COITl-
ITlitment on the part of another cannot be fulfilled because of events be-
yond his control. The Persians' response to a broken COITlITlitITlent of this
s ort very closely parallels our own in regard to tiITle . Persians, therefore,
do not like to COITlITlit theITl selves ITlaterially for fear that sOITlething ITlay
intervene, and Americans find it difficult to pin theITl down. Moreover,
t hey rea ct negati v ely to our 'irresponsible' behavior in regard to SOITle
of the proITlises we ITlake .
Our second and ITlore general experiment involved securing froITl
Ame ri c ans -mostly ITliddle cl a ss , and Eastern-seaboard oriented-a
w:::ighting or ranking of the iITlportance of the ten basic focal systeITls of
our analytical scheITle. \V e discovered that the natural hierarchical order
h:J.5 b een d e parted froITl, for ITlo s t such subjects, in the ar e as of bisexuality,
ITl i'.te ri.als, and recreation. Materials are placed very near the top, ,vhere-
as bisexuality is ranked ne a r the bottoITl, alternating for last place with
recreation. An Arab informa n t , on the other hand, ranked bisexuality and
it s manifestations at very near its place in the natura l hierarchy. He
s e pa rat e d time and space and put tiITle last. Material systeITls was also
r a n k ed low, while defens e systeITls were placed very high in an intiITlate
nexus with cOITlrnunic ation.
There are, howe v er, cautions which should be noted: a properly
ex ecuted cultural profile should treat not only the ten basi c focal systeITls,
but the systeITlatic elaborations of each as we ll, so that the resulting ta-
ble indi cates not ten, but forty ,points of reference. In cultur es which are
sin1ilar, such as our own and those of I,V estern Europe, the full scale
should be used so that the re sulting table shows not only the arrangement
and de g ree of elaboration of thc basic focal systeITls, but the systeITlic
foci a s well.
Sinc e all of the ten basic focal systeITls are iITlportant, asking a sub-
ject to weight theITl is often attended by high eITlotional responses of the
type associated with a Rorschach or forced-choice tcst. To adITlinister
such a test is in itself a technical skill that has to be acquired and should
not be atteITlpted without previous experience in, and knowledge of, just
what is indicated by a fraITle of reference of the type we are describing.
The preliITlinary work is promising, but considerably ITlore research
of the type indicated, is needec before anything approaching a valid state-
ITlent of results can be ITlade. There is the ITleans, however, of recording
55
cross-cultural profiles of up to a possible thousand or more activities.
Preliminary investigation indicates that, among other things, points of
conflict between cultures will show up quite readily when full profiles
are compared.
Three types of activity in which awareness is restricted were indi-
cated in 4.2 above. These are: that resulting from, and attributable to, the
'taken-for-granted nature' of formal culture, the unspoken neutral, apa-
thetic or fatalistic response to givens, real or imagined, that one encoun-
ters in informal culture, and the highly charged negation of the dissociated
set. It is in this last area that psychiatry and cultural anthropology over-
lap5, while the attempts (or their absence) to 'adjust' patients to their
cultural environment seldom take into account either formal or informa l
culture (a response which the psychiatrist shares with other scientists
2
, 11).
Further de velopments of the rather complex subject indicated above would
carry our discussion beyond the scope of the present paper, as it deals
with the whole matter of the cultural deviant, the psychotic, and the neuro-
tic, and it is anticipated that future pUblications will be devoted to this
field.
The remaining point germane to the current discussion t ak es up
again, admittedly all too bri e fly, the matter of dissociation. Dissoci a tion
cannot be adequately explained in terms of much that has been known of
cultural activity in the past, which may be one of the reasons why it was
left to the psychiatrist to deal with. Preliminary investigations indic a te,
however, that behavior of this sort m ay eventually be understood in t erms
of shifts in the natural hierarchy , as expressed in the tables, and that the
presence or absence of dissociation may be one of th e most valid criteria
for determining whether such reversals or shifts hav e occ urred or not.
6.3. In 3.2 meaning on different levels was discussed. It will be remem-
bered that ideally, the student of culture during the early stages of inves -
tigation' is con c erne d onl y wi t h diffe rential meaning. It was also indicated
(5) that the l evel on w hich one i s w orki ng is a function of m eaning and vice
ver sa and that in the nalys is of mi c ro-culture, one only s eeks to d i s ~ r
whether the peopl e of a gi ven culture distinguish betwe en two eve nts or
not . He i s not c on c erned with v a lued meani n g at this point in his analy sis.
However, it would seem, as soon as three o r more focal systems i nter-
sect, forming a confi guration (5.1) of even t h e simplest sort, t h a t , as a
function of this r elationshi p, meaning in the value d sens e is achieved.
F rom the points of reference which we hold here, it becomes impos sible
to distinguish between values and meaning. Values are meaning and v ice
versa. The values of a culture then become that which is elaborated
the level of meta-culture or the cultural p rofi.1e on the highest level of
56
analysis.
Taken a step further, if values are irn.plicit in the meta-cultural pro-
f iles and modal personality, basic personality structure, national charac-
ter arId the like are also a function of these sarn.e profiles, then values =
modal personality, etc. = culture
37
.
There have been certain trends in social science theory that already
p oint in this direction . "For instance, Riesm.an's types
Z3
tradition-directed,
inner -di rected and other -directed, are profiles (lacking content) of f ormal
gr oup- orien ted, f ormal individual-oriented, and technical group-oriented,
respe ctively. F or example, tradition direct ed plus Flopi values = the meanin
of Hopi life = Hopi modal p ersonality.
Anot her t r e atm ent, that of Mu rra y and Kluckhohn
35
be gins with the
following statement: 'A dynam.i c or garus m.i c conception of personality ...
i mpeded by the fact that the i ntegrati ons of processe s which constitute
personality are hidden ... t h ei r f orrn. s rn.ust b e inferred fr om their m anifes-
t a tions in words and other overt actions'. We find the end of this question
unex ceptionable . The beginning, however, needs re-examin ation. That
whi ch c an be inferred from. m.anifestations i s not in any s ense hidden. The
personality is the statemen t of the m.anifestations, and these are t he charac
terizations of t he processes of integration involved. That is, gi ven a n al y-
ses of m.icro-culture and of m eta-culture, t he personality profiles eme r ge
as the values = rn.eanings = the culture as a whole . If these things were
really hidden, they could not, of course, be examined by the s c ient i st. Our
whole point in the present paper has been to show that m.any item.s of cul-
t ure thought to be hidden or unknowable are really quite apparent wh en an
adequate frarn.e of reference i s created. Sullivan
4
rn.ade a great contri bu-
tion in this field when he took issue with the concept of the unc onsci ous
and demonstrated that what form.erly was (and still is by many) cons ider ed
the unc on scious i s act ually d issociation
5
. As such it is knowable and ob -
s e rva'lle .
There r ern. ains, of c ourse, much that is unknown. In that sense, we
rn.ay say that it is hidden. But past expe ri e n ce indicates that it will become
observable and known as methodology develops . .
,
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The present article is a theoretical paper setting forth a hypothesis
and methodology for the analysis of culture as a whole and specific cul-
tural systems. It is based on observation of the behavior of man as a mam-
mal and as a member of society and a participant in culture. It deals with
the observed behavior and the patterns into which the behavior fits, and
presents the whole as a general analytical scheme into which all cultural
activities, at all levels of integration and complexity, can be fitted. As the
presentation proceeds, suggestions are made as to the historical inter-
pretation of cultural change, and it is indicated that the precision and
exactness lacking in much previous work in the social sciences seems to
be supplied by the techniques of analysis developed here.
A statement of earlier approaches to the problems dealt with here
was followed by a consideration of the biological base of culture, and by
identification of the basic foci of cultural behavior. Then we discussed in
detail the structuring of culture, presenting tables showing the basic focal
systems of culture and the systemic foci of further elaborations. The
elaborations were discussed, with examples, and statements of the impli-
cations of the relations:"li.ps shown, and cultural systems were g rouped in
various ways. There followed an analysis of the inte g ration of culture,
showing in detail how formal, informa l, and technic a l s ys tems and aspects
of systems could be treated. Then we brought out the nature of the larger
sets and configurations in culture, elaborating the theory for the configu-
ration of religion in some detail, with other
Throughout our presentation we have emphas i z ed certain points:
culture is firmly based on precultura l biologic a l activity; culture is k now-
able and its basic systems and their basic units can be observe d and iden-
tified; culture integrates at various lev els of complexity, and only by
taking into account the nature of these levels, and keeping them strictly
apart, can the analyst of culture hope to arrive at a clear picture of what
he is dealing with.
Our theory embodies some new relations, but essentially develops
further notions already widely accepted as fundamental for analysis in one
cultural field-linguistics. The analogy and parallelism of culture as a
whole with linguistics is brought out and developed at some length. It is
believed to give valuable insight into the nature of CUl ture and the process
57
58
of analyzing it.
As is the case with any new presentatioll, there are bound to be er-
rors. Some of our rubrics may be wrong, some may be misplaced. But
we believe that the consistency and coherence of the scheme as it developeq
are guarantees of the essential correctness of our thinking. The details
mc.y require adjustment here and there, but we believe the basic system
is sound. This suggests both an incentive and a caution. Cultures and parts
of cultures should be examined in the light of our scheme, to give the an-
throp ologist practice in handling it and facility in extracting the vast
amount of detail that the arrangement calls for. Every such examination
s hould be done with care, to a void forcing, a n d any seeming inconsisten-
ci es and infelicities should be carefully check e d and, if found to persist,
s houl d b e discussed and presented as the oasis for necessary modification
of t h e s c h e m e .
The natu re of culture has been shown to be such that a satisfactory
an al ysi s can be made only by re spe c ting level s of c om plexity . A religion,
a ceremon y , a language, a sen ten c e , a fa c t o ry, a piece of pottery-these
a re all item s in a culture. But they are items of varying degrees and
kin ds of complexity. They can be successfully analyzed and described
only by det.ermining the basic activities involved in each and stating the
sequences and relations of these activities. The establishing of a frame
of reference in terms of which such analyses could be made has been our
principle purpose.
References
1. Useem, John. 'Americans as governors of natives in the Pacific.'
Journ. of Social Issues (Aug . 1946).
2. Whorf, B. L. 'Science and linguistics.' Technology Review, 42, no. 6 (1940). Reprinted in Collected papers on metalinguistics, 3-7, Washing- ton, D.C.: Foreign Service Institute, Department of State (1952) [and previously as Four articles on metalinguistics (1950)].
3. Kluckhohn, Clyde. 'Covert culture and administrative problems . '
American Anthropologist, 45, 213-27 (1943).
4. Sullivan, Harry Stack. Conceptions of modern psychiatry. Vv'" ashington, D.C., William Alanson White Psychiatric Foundation (19 4 7).
5. Hall, Edward T . Jr. 'Concepts of dissociation and awareness as fac- tors in change in the cross-cultural situation.' Read before Section H, AAAS annual meeting. 1950 . Unpublished.
~ Boas, Franz. 'Introduction.' Handbook of American Indian languages, part I, 1-83. (Bur. Amer. Ethnology, Bulletin, 40,1911).
:)" Sapir, Edward. Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace (1921).
8
y
Bloomfield, Leonard. Language. New York: Henry Holt and co . (1933).
9. Bloch, Bernard, and George L. Trager. Outline of linguistic analysis.
/
Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America (1942). Especially chapter 2.
10. Trager, George L., and Henry Lee Smith, Jr. Outline of English Struc-
",-
ture. = Studies in L inguistics, Occasional papers, 3. Norman, Okla . : Billenburg Press (for Studies in Linguistics, Washington, D.C . ) (1951).
n. Whorf, B. L. 'The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language.' L anguage , c ulture , and p ers onality. 75-93. Menasha, Wis., Sapir Me- mori al Publication Fund, 1941. R eprinted in Collected papers [d. 2 above ].
12. T r a ger, Geor ge L. The field of linguistics . = Studi e s in Linguistics, Oc c asi onal P a p ers , 1. Nor m an, Okla. : B attenbur g P r e ss (f or Studies in Linguistics, Wa shington , D. C . ) (1949) .
59
60
13. Hall, Edward T., Jr . and George L. Trager. 'Cultural systems as an
approach to interdisciplinary research.' Read before Amer. Sociologi-
cal Society, annual meeting, 1952. To be published.
14. Murdock, George P., et a1. Outline of cultural ma1erials. 3d revised
ed. New Haven, Conn.: Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (1950). Pre-
vious editions 1938 and 1945,
15. Birdwhistell, Ray L . Introduction to kinesics . Washington, D.C.: De-
partment of State, Foreign Service Institute (1952) .
.l6. Dob z; hansky, T. 'The genetic basis of evolution.' Sci. Amer. 182, no. 1,
p. 3Z-40 (1950) .
.17 . Linton, Ralph. The study of man. New York: Appleton-Century (1936).
J. 8. Malinowski, Bronislaw. Argonauts of the Pacific. London (1929).
19 . Fromm , Erich. Man for himself. New York: Rinehart (1947).
20 . F r eud, Sigmund. New introductory' lectures on psyc hoanalysis. New
York: W. W. Norton and co. (1933).
21. Benedi c t, Ruth. Patterns of culture. New York: Houghton Mifflin (1934).
22. The c hrysanthemum a nd t he s wor d. New York: Hough-
ton Mifflin (1946).
23. Riesman, David. The lonely c rowd. New Haven , C onn. : Yale University
Press (1950).
24. Hall, Edward T., Jr. The process of change. Washington, D.C .: Depart-
ment of State, Foreign Service Institute (1952).
25. Jaffe, Natalie. 'Th'e Fox of Iowa.' In: L i n ton, Ralph, Ac c ulturati on in
seven American Indian tribes. New York: Appleton-Century (1939).
26. Boas, Franz. 'Language.' General anthropology, 124-45 . Boston, etc.:
D. C. Heath and co. (1938).
_______ . 'Race, language and culture.' The m ind of primitive man,
145-58. New York: Macmillan (1938).
27. Korzybski, Alfred. Science and sanity. Lancaster, Penna. : Science
Press (1933).
28. Hayakawa, S. 1. Language in thought and action. New York: Harcourt,
Brace (1949).
61
29. Bridgeman, P. VI. 'New vistas for intelligence . Physical science and
human values. A symposium: 144-65. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton Uni-
versity Press (1947).
30. Chappel, E. D . , and C . S. Coon. Principles of anthropology. New York:
Henry Holt and co. (1942).
31. Allee, Warder C. The social life of animals. New York: W. W. Norton
(1938).
32. Montagu, M. F. Ashley . On being human. New York: Henry Schuman
(1950).
33. Fromm, E. Escape from freedom. New York: Farrar and Rinehart
(1941).
34. Fortes, Meyer. 'The structure of unilinear descent groups.' Am.
Anth. 55,17-41 (1953).
35. Kluckhohn, Clyde and H. A. Murray, eds. Personality in nature, so-
ciety. and culture. New York: A. A. Knopf (1949). Especially Part 1
and Part 2, section 1.
36. Whorf, B. L. 'Linguistics as an exact science,' p. 15, in Collected Pa-
pers ... (see reference 2).
37. Spiro, M. E. 'Culture and personality.' Psychiatry, 14, 19-46 (1951).
62
To complete this booklet, the 5 fold-out Tables are to be fastened inside the back
cover. It is possible to do this in such a way that anyone of them can be kept out
in plain sight whi Ie the booklet is being read, but only if the following instructions
ore followed carefully. First procure an ordinary office stapler, and a strip of thin
tough cardboard (such os Manila folders are made of) 81 inches (22 centimeters)
long and three eighths of an inch {1 centimeter} wide. Lay the booklet open on a
table with this page at your left and the inside of the back cover at your right.
PI'ace TABLE 1 face down upon the back cover, then TABLE 2 face down upon TABLE
1, then TABLE 3, then 4, and last 5. Bring the edges of all five tables {those edges
which would be at the left of each table when spread out to read} even with the
edge of the back cover, and place the strip of cardboard there also. Finally, staple
through the strip, five thicknesses of chart paper, and edge of back cover. Turning
it all face down before staples are inserted will leave the outside flat and the staple
ends hidden inside, but this is not essential although it helps to make a neater job.
The exploded-view picture shows only an edgewise view of the booklet's pages, its cover,
the five charts, and the cardboard strip. All seven elements shown at the right of this
sketch are to be stapled together.
-
T
A
B
L
E

1
.

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

O
F

C
U
l
T
U
R
E
(
S
C
H
E
M
A
)

1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
F
O
R
M
A
l
.

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
L
.

-
-
-
-
,
;
.
.
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I

.............

.

B
A
S
I
C

F
O
C
A
l

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

"
'l
i
l
t
.
.
.

f
o
c
i

I

.
.
.
.
.
.

"

.
.
.
.
.

C
O
O

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

"
"
"

.
.
.

O
R
l
E
N
T
A
T
I
C
N
A
l

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

1

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

E
X
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
l

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

M
A
T
E
R
i
A
l

/

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y

X

:
'
?
"
.
o

I

I

N
T
E
R
A
C
T
I

O
N
A
l

T
E
R
R
I
T
O
R
I
A
l

T
E
M
P
O
R
A
l

I
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I

O
N
A
l

O
R
G
A
N
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
A
l

S
E
X
U
A
l

R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
A
l

P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E

E
C
O
N
O
M
I
C

E
X
P
L

O
f

T
A
T
I

O
N
A
l

I
P
R
I
M
A
R
Y

c
e
-
o

.
0
'

Y

I

-
1
1

-
2
1

-
4
/

-
S
i

'

-
6
1

-
7
1

-
9
1

'
I

'

C
O
M
M
U
N
I
C
A
T
I
O
N

1

1

1

_

1

I

8

I
N
T
E
R
A
C
T
I
O
N

-
X

a
x
t
w
.
1
o
n
t

0
1

Y

-
I

-
-
t
.
.
m
g
.
.
.
a
g
e
'

-
'
-

I

I

1
-
I
'

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
I
O
N

I

g
:
:
,

1

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,

-
-
-
X

p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s

o
f

Y

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_

_

_

_

_

I

.
.
.

"

I

1
-
1
0

!
G
o

"

.
.
.
.
1
t

1
1

!

1
2

i

1
3
.
.
l

1

I
S
.
1
.

1
6
1

'

1
7
1

1
8

$
I
1
9

6
-
-
-

-
-
-
1
'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
.

:
;
;
,

1

I

1
;
;
;
;
;
;
i
-
n
.

1

I

8

>
-
S
U
B
S
I
S
T
E
N
a

1

1

1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
;
-
-
X

.
.
.
.
'
t
s
o
f
y
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1

8

'
"

1

1
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

1

-
1

.
.
.
,

O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s

-
8

2
-
_
_
_

_
_

0
-
1
-
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

-
-
p
L
-
-
-
-
-
!
s
.
.
t
-
-
-
,

,
,
1

T
H
E

S
E
X
E
S

1

8

1

I

S
!
B
I
S
E
X
U
A
l
I
T
Y

3
-
T
E
R
R
I
T
O
R
I
A
l
I
T
Y

<
!

II

I

4
-
1

I

'
"

o

.
.
.

z

T
E
M
P
O
R
A
l
i
T
Y

z

i
i
i

o

5
-
L
E
A
A
N
i
N
G

_
_

_

.
.
.
.

'
"

>
-
'
"

I

:
:
t
.

Q

u

'
"

Z

-
'
"

U

X

w

.
.
.
.

P
\
.
A
Y

7
-
,

>
-
'
0

E

I
I

;
c

I
I

X

1

I

1
M
a
s
.
:

v
s
.
F
a
m
.

1

I

0

I

I

1
c
_

(
b
"
"

'
)

-
-
-
-
X
e
o
n
c
I
i
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

Y

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I

I

8

I

I

I

-
1
0

o
g
l
c
a

I

1

8

I

S
a

(
t
a
e
h
n
i
c
a
l
)

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
!
4
-
1
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_

!
6
.
l
_
_
_

-
-
1
7
-
1
-
-
-
-
_
_

:
!
.
s
l
.
.

_
_

_

1

1

I

S
P
A
a

I

-
i

I

I

>
-

>
-
1

I

I

1

1
-
-
1

>
-
1

I

-
1
5

'
0

1

>
-
1

>
-
1

>
-
1
r
:
r

1

X
'
l
y

d
e
t
e
n
n
i
n
e
d

Y

"
0

1

>
-
1

8

c

1

1

'
0

1

'
0

1

'

1

'
0

I

I

E

1
=

I

-
4
3

I

4
4

1

4
S

-
:
:

4
6

I

4
7

!

-
4
5

g

-
-
-
+
-
-
-
.
.

-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-

0
;
;

-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
-
&
.

-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
x

1

:
:
&
.

1

I
i

1

:
;
:

1

1
T
I
M
E

-
c
l

e

I

x

I

I

-
1

-
g

I

1
-
-
8

1

x

1

1
5
-
I

x

1

x

1

8

1

X
'
I
y

d
a
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
d
Y

1

x

1

I

8

I

I

I

x

1

I

1

I

g

.
.
.

"

I

1

1

_
_
_
_
_
'
_
_
_
_

J
_
_
_
_

_
_
P
'J
_
_
_
_

I

I

I

I

E
N
C
U
l
T
U
R
A
T
l
O
N

1

I

I

1

1

1
R
e
a
r
'

I

l

0

1

I

1

-
-
-
-
-
X
a
>
n
d
i
l
i
o
n
s

o
f

Y

-
1
'
n
f
o

1
"
9
,

,
.

1

g
O

I
I

1

I

e
a
m
l
n
r
J

I

I

6
0
1

_

6
1

I

,
I

6
2

I

6
3

I

6
4

I

6
S

I

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

6
6

I

I

6
7

!

6
8

8

I

I

I

I

1

1

1
R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N

I

g

-
I

I

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X

I
W
S
I
l
h

o
f

Y

-
-
_

_

_

_

_
_

I

F
u
n

.

I

1

I

-
-
I

I

I

,

7
0

1

7
1

I

7
"
2

I

7
3

1

7
4

!

7
S

I

7
5

I

7
7

!

_

'

7
8

0

-
-
-
:
.
+
-
-
-
-

_
_

_
_

_

I

1

I

I

I

I
'

I

I

P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N

i

I

I

'S
O

'
I

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X

p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s

o
f

Y

-
_

_

_

_

-
_

_

-
_

_

-
_

_

_

_

I

F
o
r
=
1

I

I

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
l

d
e
f
e
n
s
e
.

0

-
-
'
!
?
j

.

,

I

-
-
1
'1

I'

_
_

1

5
9
1

.
,
-
_

...

1

f

I

"

'
.

T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

d
e
f
e
n
s
e
.

g

o
o
a
J
!
&
b
.
.
"
,
l
C
"
"
.
O
O

J
\
,
\
c

,

l
C
:
:
"
"
,
.
.
,S
J
o
l
,
O

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

8

8
6

I

8
8

o
,
_
_
_

<
_
_
_
_
_
_

I

D
E
F
E
N
S
E

8
-
I

I

:
S
:
:
;
E

"
"
.
.
.
.

.

-
'

E
X
P
L

0
1

T
A
n

O
N

I

I

I

I

I

I

M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L

S
Y
S
T
f
M
S

I

C
o
n
t
e
c
t

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X

_
n
s
i
o
n
s

o
f

Y

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I

M
o
t
o
,

h
l
b
i
t
s

I

,

I

I

I

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

9
5
,

9
6
J
9
7
.
.

9
8
,

9
9
:

'
"

-II

I

I

I

I

-
=
-
9
-
,

9
0

I

9
1

I

9
2

!

9
3

I

!

B
A
S
I
C

F
O
C
A
L

I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
l
y
'

..............

T
A
B
L
E

2
.

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

O
F

C
U
L
T
U
R
E

(
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
)

1
_

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
F
O
R
M
A
l

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
l

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
T
E
C
H
N

I
C
A
L

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I

I

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

C
O
R
E

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

.

I

.
.
.

O
R
I
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
L

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

1

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

E
X
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
l

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

.
.

.

I

M
A
.
T
E
R
I
A
l

1

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y

X
i

J

c
,
_

....
/
:
.
.
,
f
:
!
/
)
.
/
:

,
.... c

I
N
T
E
R
A
C
n
O
N
A
L

P
R
I
M
A
.
R
Y

O
R
G
A
N
I

Z
A
T
I

O
N
A
l

E
C
O
N
O
M
I
C

S
E
X
U
A
l

T
E
R
R
I
T
O
R
I

A
l

T
E
M
P
O
R
A
l

I
N
S
T
R
U
C
n

O
N
A
l

R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
A
l

P
R
O
T
E
C
n
v
E

E
X
P
L
O
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
J

'
"
"
"

,
Y

0

1

2

3

-
4

6

7

8

I
C
O
M
M
U
N

I
C
A
T
I
O
N

i

i

.
.

:
.

.

.

g
.

:
.
.

.
.

:

.

"
.

g

,

-
1

V
o
c
a
l

q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
r
s

g
S
t
c
t
u
s

e
n
d

R
O
l
e

I

E
x
c
h
a
n
g
e

I

H
o
w

t
h
e

s
e
x
e
s

o
P
l
a
c
e
s

o
f

i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

I

T
i
m
e
s

o
f

i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

8

T
e
a
c
h
i
n
g

a
n
d

I

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n

I
n

t
h
e

I

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

o
e
l
n
g

8
U
s
e

o
f

j

I
N
T
E
R
A
C
T
I
O
N

I

K
i
n
e
s
i
c
s

0

I

:

i
n
t
e
r
e
c
t

I

g

l
e
e
m
i
n
g

I

c
r
t
s

c
n
d

s
p
o
r
n

(
o
c
-
1

s
i
g
n
a
l
"

w
n
t
'
n
g
.

e
t
c
.

L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

g
i
l

I

t
i
v
e

e
n
d

p
o
s
s
i
v
e
)

I

g

I

0
-

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

Q
1
J
_
_
_
_
_
_

-
-
-
-
Q
2
_
l
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

3
-
&
.
.

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

5
.
.
.
g
.
.

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

Q
6
_
l
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

P
_
l
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
9

I

1

S
O
C
I
E
T
Y

I

1

g

!

g

I


8

I

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
I
O
N

I

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

:

C
I
e
s
s

I
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

r
o
l
e
s

:

S
e
x
u
a
l

r
o
l
e
s

g

L
o
c
e
l

g
r
o
u
p

r
o
l
e
s

;

A
g
e

g
r
o
u
p

r
o
l
e
s

g

T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s

a
n
d

l
e
u
m
e
r
s
:

E
n
t
e
m
i
n
e
r
.
;

;

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
c
"

(
;
"
:
.
c
.
o
.
s
,

g

U
s
e

o
f

l,
m
u
p

I

1

C
o
s
t
e

1

1

0

I

g

I

o
t
h
,
e
t
e
s

I

c
l
e
r
g
7
'

>
0

c
,
e
,
'
"

g

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

G
o
v
e
r
r
u
n
e
n
t

8

I

g

I

'

<
>
0
1

,
c
e
,

"
C
,
)

0

1
-
1
0
1

1
1
1

1
2
1

1
3
8

1
4

1
5
0

1
6

1
7
:

1
0
8

1
9

'
"

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
:
.
.
.
j
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<
>
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(
>
0
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
:
.
.
.
j
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
_
-
-
-
-

I

I

W
O
R
K

I

g
i
g

!

i

0

:
;
;

S
U
B
S
I
S
T
E
N
C
r
:

E
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

I
O
c
c
u
p
o
t
i
o
n
a
!

:

F
e
n
n
e
l

w
o
r
k
:

S
e
x
u
a
l

d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

g
W
h
e
r
e

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
:

W
h
e
n

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

g
L
e
a
m
i
n
g

'
"
,
m

w
o
y
k
i
n
g
:

P
l
e
a
,
u
r
e

f
r
o
m

w
o
r
.<
i
n
g
:

e
c
,
,
,

c
f

.
c
e
d
t
h
,

.

g

U
s
e

o
f

f
o
o
d
"

(
;
:
;

-
1

.

g
r
o
u
p
i
n
g
s

I

I

o
f

l
a
b
o
r

g

e
a
t
s
..
c
o
o
k
s
/

e
t
c
a

1

e
a
t
s
,

c
o
o
k
s
..
e
t
c
.

g

i

i

o
f

8
.

a
n
d

I

I

O
c
C
u
p
a
t
i
O
n
s

I

0

I

0

I

I

I

'
v
e
l

"
"
,
x
,
d

8

e
q
u
l
p
,,-
,
e
r
,
t

8

2
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

3
.
3
.
1

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

3
.
5
1
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

!
.
6
_
l
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
3
7
_
1
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
_
_
_

_
_

.
_

.
.

_
.
_
_
_
_

3
.9

I

I

i

T
H
E

S
E
X
E
S

80

i

g

I

I

8

I

I

I

,
0

I

'

0

B
I
S
E
X
U
A
L
I
T
Y

S
e
x

c
o
m
m
l
1
T
1
i
t
y

:

J
V
.
a
r
r
i
o
g
e

g
r
o
u
p
i
n
g
s

1

F
a
m
i
l
y

I

M
a
y
-
.

s
.

F
e
r
n
.

g
A
r
e
a
s

Q
5
s
:
s
n
e
d

)

P
e
r
-
i
o
d
s

a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d

t
o

g

T
e
a
c
h
i
n
g

a
n
d

1

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

I

P
r
c
-
t
e
c
t
i
c
r
"
,

o
f

s
e
x

g

o
{

d
:
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i

-
!

I

(
c
l
a
n
s
,

s
i
b
s
)

!

1

I

S
e
x

(
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
)

g

t
o

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
.

I

I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s

b
y

8
-
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g

s
e
x

r
o
l
e
s

I

r
e
c
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

b
y

!
.
e
X

I

e
n
d

f
e
r
t
i
l
i
t
y

g

a
t
l
n
g

I

I

I

I

S
e
x

l
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
e
J
)

g

b
y

v
i
r
t
u
e

0
1

s
e
x

I

v
i
r
t
l>
e

o
f

s
e
x

0

I

'

g

e
n
d

c
C
o
"
,
r
,
;
e
n
t

II
3
-
3

3
1

3
2

3
3

g

3
4

3
5

g

3
6

,

3
7

1

3
5

g

3
9

I

I

S
P
A
C
E

I

g

I

I

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

t
e
r
r
i
t
o
r
y

i

G
r
o
u
p

t
e
r
r
i
t
o
r
y

i

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

e
r
e
a
s

:

M
e
n
'
s

a
n
d

I

F
o
n
n
a
l

s
p
o
c
e

:

S
c
h
e
d
u
l

i
n
g

o
f

s
p
o
c
e

o
.
n
d

l
e
c
r
n
-
:

F
u
n
,

p
l
';
'Y
i
n
g

g
c
"
:
e
"

:

P
n
v
a
c
y

g
L
i
s
.

o
f

f
e
n
c
e
s

I

I

!

t
e
r
n
t
o
n
e
s

I

l
n
f
o
i
m
o
l
.

s
p
a
c
e
!

g

m
g

i
n
d
i
V
i
d
u
a
l

I

e
t
c
.

r

I
n

t
e
r
m
s

o
f

I

8

i
n
O
i
....
e
r
s

I

1

1

I

B
o
u
n
d
e
n
e
s

1

0

s
p
o
c
e

a
s
s
'
g
n
m
e
n
"
,

s
p
a
c
e

I

0

f
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
'-
4
_
-
-
!
-
1

_

-
-
-
-
i
O
_
l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

i
J
_
l
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

.
:
J
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

-
.

6

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_

.

_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

!

I

I

I

I

T
I
M
E

g

I

I

g

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

e
y
d
e
s

:

G
r
o
u
p

c
y
c
l
e
s

i

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

i

M
e
n
'
.

e
r
n
d

w
o
m
e
n
'
.

I
T
e
r
r
i
t
o
r
i
a
l
l
y

I

g
W
h
e
n

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
,
i
d
u
c
l

!

W
h
e
n

t
h
e

i
n
d
"
I
i
c
u
c
l

i

R
e
s
l
,

g

U
s
e

o
f

i

I

I

I

c
y
c
l
i
c
a
l

c
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

c
y
c
l
e
s
,

C
y
c
:
l
e
s

g

l
e
o
r
r
u
:

g

c
e
y
i
t
;
.
e
s
,

e
h
:
.

I

I

I

C
o

I
e
n
d
a
r

g
I
g

f

I

5
1

1

_
_
_
_

I

I
i
i

I

f
N
C
U
L

T
U
R
A
T
I
O
N

I

g

I

I
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

l
o
r
e
-
l
l
e
e
m
i
n
g

g
r
o
u
p
s
-
1

R
e
w
a
r
d

f
o
r

l
e
e
c
h
i
n
g

I
W
h
a
t

t
h
e

s
e
x
e
s

I
P
l
a
c
e
s

f
o
r

l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g

I
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
i
n
g

o
f

:

R
e
a
r
i
n
g

:

M
a
k
i
n
g

l
e
<
o
m
i
n
g

f
e
m

I

L
o
o
m
i
"
,?

.
.
,
I
f

d
e
f
e
n
s
e

g

U
s
e

o
f

t
n
c
i
n
i
n
g

o
i
d
s

w
h
e
t

g
e
"

I
o
u
g
h
t

I

I

a
n
d

l
e
o
m
i
n
g

I

a
r
e

t
a
u
g
h
t

I

I

l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g

(
g
r
o
u
p
)

I

l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g

1

i

e
n
d

t
"

.
t
o
y

h
e
a
l

t
o
y

g

a
n
d

l
e
a
r
n
e
d

1

I
n
o
h
M
l
o
r
u

1

.

I

I

1

I

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

I

1

8

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_

I

I

I

I

!

I

1
R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

p
l
o
y
-
t
h
e

I
P
l
o
y

g
r
o
u
p
s
-
t
e
e
m
s

I
P
r
o
f
.
,
.
.
i
a
n
o
l

'
P
O
m

I
M
e
n
'
.

o
n
d

w
o
m
e
n
'
s

I
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

c
r
r
e
c
.

i

P
l
o
y

s
e
a
"
"
'
"

I
I
n
,
t
r
v
c
.
t
i
a
n
o
I

p
l
a
y

I
F
u
n

-
I

E
x
"
r
c
;
.
.
,

8
I
J
,
,
,

<
I
i

r
'
.
c
r
"
"
I
I
O
,
,
,
I

o
m

a
n
d

s
p
o
r
t
>

I

e
n
a

t
r
o
u
p
e
s

1

a
n
d

e
n
t
e
r
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t

I

p
l
o
y
,

f
u
n

a
n
d

g
o
m
e
s

1

I

I

.

I

P
l
o
y
i
n
g
!

g

m
a
t
.
.
i
d
.

(
l
"
I
:
:
o
r
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

r
O
l

_
_
_
_
_
_
_

Z
3
J
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
z
4
J
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

r
S
J

.

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_

1
7

J
-
-

_
_
_
_
_
_
_

?
8
J

_
_
_
_
_
_

I

D
e
f
e
n
s
e

a
r
o
u
p
s
-
I

I

I
i
i

I

1
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N

g

.

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

d
e
f
e
n
s
e
.
-
l

:

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s

I
W
h
e
t

t
h
e

s
e
x
e
s

I
W
h
e
t

p
i
e
c
e
s

e
r
e

i

T
h
e

V
l
h
e
n

o
f

d
e
f
e
n
.
e

I
S
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
.

r
e
l
i
g
i
o
u
s
,

J

M
o
s
s

e
>
<
e
r
c
i
s
"
"

a
n
d

:1
F
o
m
e
'

d
e
'
e
n
s
e
,

L
i
s
e

o
f

m
o
r
e
r
;
a
l
,

i

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d

d
e
f
e
n
s
e

I

,
:
n
i
:
d
t

r

I

o
f

d
e
f
e
r
u
.
e

I

d
e
f
e
n
d

(
h
o
m
e
,

J

d
e
f
e
n
d
e
o

I

I

.:
m
d

m
i
l
r
t
o
r
y

m
i
l
i
t
a
r
y

g
c
m
e
s
.
,

1

d
e
;
e
r
'1
5
e
s

g

f
o
r

p
r
t
'l
l
e
c
t
i
c
n

1

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

1

g

I
'

.

I

I

h
o
n
o
r
,

e
t
c
.
)

I

I

I

I

I

,
e
c
h
r
.
,
e
a
l

d
e
,
e
'
,
s
e
,

0

r
e

'
g
,
o
n

8
1

8
2

:

8
3

8
4

8
'
i
:

S
6

8
7

8
8
0

8
9

:
J
0
0
(
X
)
O
O
O
O
O
<
:
o
o
t
;
-
{
'.J
O
O

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
i

I

I

\

I

I

I

i

I

M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

I
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

:

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

:

F
o
o
d
,

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,

a
n
d

:

W
h
a
t

m
e
n

a
n
d

w
o
m
e
n
:

P
r
t
'
p
e
r
t
y
-
.
'
.
'
I
h
a
t

i
s

:

W
h
e
l
t

p
e
r
i
o
d
s

a
r
e

:

S
c
h
o
o
l

b
.
,
.
,
H
d
;
"
1
9
S
,


A
m
v
s
e
m
e
-
r
:
t

a
n
d

:

F
o
r
t
i
f
i
c
o
t
l
o
r
.
s
,

;
!
,
m
o
-
j

C
o
n
t
c
c
.
,

.

r
.
e
t
w
o
r
k
s

I

n
e
t
w
o
r
k
s

(
c
i
t
i
e
s
,

I

i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
,

e
r
e

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d

w
i
t
h

I

e
n
c
l
o
s
e
d
,

c
o
u
n
t
e
d
,

I

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

a
n
d

I

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

a
i
d
s
,

e
l

c
.

:

s
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

g
o
o
d
s

a
n
d

I
m
e
n
h
,

m
e
c
j
i
c
o
[

r

t
-
k
t
o
r

I
1

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

g
r
o
u
p
s
,

I

I

e
n
d
o
w
n

i

e
n
d

m
"
,
,
,
u
r
e
d

I

r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d

I

I

t
h
e
;
r

i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
e
s

i

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
,

s
o
f
e
t
y

I

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

I

9
-
1

9
0

I

e
t
c
.
)

9
1

9
2

i

9
3

I

9
4

I

9
5

I

9
6

I

9
7

,

d
e
v
,
c
e
s

9
8

I

_
_
.
.
_
.
_
.
z
2
J

-
'

-
<

:
:
E

'
"

o

u
.
.

.....
-
'

-
<

-
'

<

Z

0

0

Z

i
=

-
<

.....
Z

w

'
"

0

'
"

.....
'
"

>
-
'
"

-
'

-
<

-
'

Z

-
<

0

U

V
i

'
"

;
;

w

'
"

U

c
.
.

X

w

C
;::::w
..J

.....
'
"

<
>
-
:
:
E
'
"

T
E
R
R
I
T
O
R
i
A
l
i
T
Y

T
E
M
P

O
R
A
L
I
T
Y

L
E
A
R
N
I
N
G

P
L
A
Y

D
E
F
E
N
S
E

E
X
P
L
O
I
T
A
n
O
N

5
-
7
-
B
A
S
I
C

F
O
C
A
l
.

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
e
l
l
l
'

T
A
B
L
E

3
.

F
,

I
,

T

G
R
O
U
P
I
N
G
S
.

B
A
S
I
C

a
n
d

R
E
C
I
P
R
O
C
A
L

F
o
c
a
l

S
y
s
t
e
m
s
.

1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
F
O
R
M
A
l

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
l

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
l
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I

I

.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

C
O
R
E

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

.

1

.
-
.
.
.

O
R
I
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
l

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

1

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

E
X
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
l

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

M
A
T
E
R
i
A
l

1

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y

X
l

II
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E

E
X
P
L
O
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
l

P
R
I
M
A
R
Y

!

I

I

I
N
T
E
R
A
C
T
I
O
N
A
l

O
R
G
A
N
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
A
l

E
C
O
N
O
M
I
C

S
E
X
U
A
l

T
E
R
R
I
T
O
R
i
A
l

I

T
E
M
P
O
R
A
l

I
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
A
l

R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
A
l

I!
D
C
'
.

'
'
l
i
.
.
.

Y

-
0

-
1

-
2

-
4

-
6

-
7

-
8
!

-
9

-
;
-
i

i

C
O
M
M
U
N
I
C
A
T
I
O
N

8

I

I

I

I

I
N
T
E
R
A
C
T
I
O
N

V
o
c
a
l

q
u
e
l

i
f
i
e
D

0 8

I

I

I

I

8

u
.
.

o
f

t
e
l
.
p
h
o
n
e
s
.

K
i
n
e
s
i
c
s

0

I

I

1

I

I

8

s
i
g
n
a
l
s
.

_
i
t
i
.
.
.

e
t
c
.
.

l
a

a

,
I

1

I

I

8

,
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

l
'

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

0
-
r

'
\

1
-
-
1

I

l
'

-
..

.
.
.

;
:

-
S
U
B
S
I
S
T
E
N
a

I

t

_
r
i
c

1

r

r

P
l
e
a
s
-
f
"
"
"

.
.
.
n
i
n
g

,

II

:
:
:

I

I

1

1

I

1

I

'
"

I

-
O
c
C
u
p
a
t
I
o
n
S

I

1

o

2
-
-
2
0

2
1

1

2
2

2
3

2
4

2
5

2
6

!

'1
7

t

2
8

2
9

u

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

B
I
S
E
X
U
A
l
l
l
Y

r

1
S
e
x

(
b
'
.

I
'
.

'1
)

1

I
'

-
I

1

1

8

1

I

1
0

1

"
"
'
'
'
'
'
I
I

.
.
,
.

I
'
D

.
.

1

1

S
e
x

i
'
e
c
h
n
,
c
o
l
)

I

S
1

3

3
1

!

3
2

I

,

3
6
!

3
7
1

3
8

1

I

S
P
A
C
E

1

-
1

1

1

1

-
-
1

-
1

1

I

;
:

T
E
R
i
U
T
O
R
l
A
l
l
l
Y

1

1

_
_

1

;
0
;
:
0
1

r
c
e

o
f

o
p
a
c
e

r
i
ll

.
!

:
:

1

f

J
f

1

-
1

-
[

II

4
-
1
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_

n

_
_
_
_
_

I
:
,
_
!
:
'

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
!
S
T
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
!
9

z

-
<

l
i
T

I
I

1

-
c
s

.
.
.
.

T
E
M
P
O
R
A
l
l
l
Y

1

1

I

e
.
.
l
o
w
r
l
o
.

y

1
-
-
<
u
e
n
c
e

1

I

Z

I

-
,

1

d
e
t
e
r
m
I
n
e
d

e
y
e
l
.
-
I

C
y
c
l
e
s

\
0
/

-
C
a
l
e
n
d
a
r

I

I

o

5
-
I

1

I

I

I

I
,

I

-
5
8

-
-

'
"

.
.
.

.
.
.
.

'
"

.
J

I

-
<

.
J

Z

-
<

0

U

-
-
'
"

Z

=

'
"

U

.
.
.

.
.
.

x

0
-
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
I
"
,

"
'
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I

1

1

L
E
A
R
N
I
N
G

W
h
a
t

t
h
e

.
.
"
"
"

!

P
L
A
Y

.

_
_
_
_
_
_
_

.

.

1

.
r

1

-
I
I

1
G
a
n
.
s

I

I

7
-
1

_
_
_

h
n
_
Z
O
+
l
i
i
.
;
;
.
;
;
;
.
;
.
:
.
-
Z
l
+

_
_
_
_
_
_
_

2
.
2
+
n

_
_
_
_
_
_
_

2
.
3

I

_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

Z
5

I

a
r
m
i
e
s
.

p
o
l
i
c
e
,

I
L
l

I
}

I

i

D
E
F
E
N
S
E

I

p
u
b
l
i
c

.
.
.
.
.
I
t
h
.

I

I

-
I

I

I

f
i
:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
1

d
e
f
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I

I

I

I

I

1
I
l
i
f
o
,"
,
,
:
,
,
1

d
e
f
.
.
"
.
.
.

8
-
E
X
P
L
O
I
T
A
T
I
O
N

9
-
c
-
.
i
c
o
t
i
o
n

1

r
e
l
i

i
o
n

I

I

I

I
'

T
-
'<
:
"
,
,
,
,
c
a
l

d
e
f
e
n
s
e
.

8
3

8
4

6
6

S
I

6
8

.
_
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

.
>
9

1

1

1

1

9
0
1

I

I

I

I

I

I

M
A
T
H
I
A
l

S
Y
s
n
M
S

I

1

1

1

I

I

1

I

1

1

I

I

1

I

I

9
1

I

9
2
1
9
4
1

9
6
1

'1
1
1

9
8
'

l
e
e
,
.
.
,

9
9

C
o
n
t
o
c
t

M
:
:
>
t
o
r

i
d
o
i
t
1

-
.

"
l
o
g
y

I
I
A
S
I
C

F
O
C
A
l
.

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

I
n
d
i
v
i
d
L
.
C
l
l
y

"
"
'

f
o
c
i

C
''b

I
"
:
i
t
.
.

S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y

0
,
.
.
"
.
0

,
.
"
'
'
'
,
,
,
,
'

P
R
I
M
A
R
Y

-
r
.
l
.

o
I
l
Y

y

T
A
B
L
E

4
.

G
R
O
U
P
I
N
G
S

O
F

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
F
O
R
M
A
l

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
l

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
T
E
O
i
N
I
C
A
I
.

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I

1
-

C
O
R
E

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

-
-
j

O
R
l
E
N
T
A
n
O
N
A
I
.

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

1

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

E
X
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
l
.

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

-
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
l
.

j

,

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

x
;

S
E
X
U
A
L

T
E
R
R
I
T
O
R
I
A
l
.

T
E
M
P
O
R
A
l

I

I
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
A
l
.

II

R
E
C
R
E
A
n
O
N
A
I
.

I

P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E

I
N
T
E
R
A
C
T
I

O
N
A
I
.

O
R
G
A
N
[

Z
A
n

O
N
A
l
.

-
0

-
1

E
C
O
N
O
M
I
C

E
X
P
L

0
1

T
A
n

O
N
A
L

-
9

"

-
'
I

-

1

-
'
I

-
-
I

-
,
I

-
8

C
O
M
M
U
N
I
C
A
T
I
O
N

8

1
!
t
L

'

I

I

1

I
N
1
H
A
C
n
O
N

,

v
,
.
.
'
.

_
"
r
_

,

:

:

;

:

I
"

:

:

"
.
n
e
s
.
c
s

g

1

,

g

I
"
'
J

'

1

0
-
,
,
'
:
:
:
:
:
,
,
,
,
o
o
o
,
J
I
'
J

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_

Q
2
L

_
_
_
_
_
_

-

_
_
_

-
-
_
_
_
_
I
t
'

1
.

_
_

!
!
'
-
!
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

f
!
'

L
-
-
_
_
_
_
_

-
P
1
.
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
_

!
!
'

t

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

!
!
'
_

-
;
-
'
.
:
t
i
.
.
.

,

I

s
o
o
m

'

.

0

,

,

8

/

,
-
-
-
.

I

1

,

I
I

'
A
S
S
O
O

A
n
O
N

I

I

S
l
-
1

I

"

o

:
:

W
O
R
K

I
i
i

I
f
.
.

i

!

'
i
v0

.
.
.

S
U
E
S
1
S
T
E
N
Q
:

I

I

F
o
r
:
n
o
J

w
o
r
k

I

;

'
"

I

I

I

I

I

2
-
1

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

?
O
-
''
(

_
_
_

_
_

-
P
L
-
-
-
-
m
-
!
'
.
1
m
m
(
1
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
m
-
m
-
-
"
L
-
-
-
-
f
P
-
L

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
!
S
f
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
!
9
-
I

I

I
V
-
I

I

T
H
E

S
E
X
E
S

!

!

0

I

B
l
S
E
X
U
A
l
.
r
T
Y

I

i

I

I
M
a
s
c
.

,
v
s
,

K

I

-
V

8

I

:

8

I

I

1
S
e
x

(
b
,
o
!
"
!
!
.
c
a
l
)

0

1

S
(

1

I

I
,

S
e
x

(
t
e
e
m
,
c
a
l
)

0
,
.

-
_

!

,
-

_
_
_
_

1
'

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
l
'
.
.
L
-
-
-
.
.
I
-
-
-
-
"
L

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

1
'
_

I

j

I

:

I

I

S
P
A
Q
:

:

-
,
.
.
.
.

0
-
I

\
7
'

I

"
"

0

.
.
.
.

I

I

I

I

1
-
-
I

g
,

I

.

:
;
:
;

I

T
E
R
i
U
T
O
R
l
A
l
.
I
T
Y

j

i

I

A
.

:

8

1

L

0

.
.
.

"
'
"

i
\

\
.

I
.

"

8

1

4
-
:

I'
U
I

r
'

\

I

\
.
-

I

f
l
J
.
.
.

V
I
-
g

V

-

T
E
M
P
O
R
A
L
I
T
Y

:
"
'
:
:

-
,

:

8

:

-
1
"

E
N
C
U
l
r
u
R
;
.
.
'
T
i
O
N

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

.
9
l

'
"

I
I
I

z

u

Q

-
'
"

z

'
"

-
.
.
.

-
'
"

u

.
.
.

w

X

.
.
.

I

I

i

I

,

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
n
;
,

I

I

,

=
'

l
e
a
m
i
n
;

,

I

-
-
=
-
?
<
J
-
-

..

7
+
"
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

1.

.

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

!
9

,

,

,

:

8

1

i

"
F
u
n
.

I
'

8

I

I

.

P
l
a
y
"
"
"

.

1

"

.

I

'
\
!

I

i

P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N

I

1

W
'

I

\
_
.
-
I

I

!

i

1
'0
"
"
,
,
1

I

i

I

.
.
.
.

,

I

I

I

.

"
,
e
"
"
"

"
0
'

c
>
e
f
e
n
s
e
s

i

I
I
!

I

1
C
o
n
t
e
e
t

.
.

I

I

1

1

I

M
o
t
o
r

';
"
1
>
,
"

1

I

!

I

I

i
o
c
f
o
n
o
o
<
>
g
y

T

-
!

"
7

I
i

7
':"

I
.

1

9
4

I
9
5

.

9
6

,

f
1
7

v
B
,

l
!
l

B
A
S
I
C

F
O
C
A
l

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
l
y
'

S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y

X

T
A
B
L
E

5
.

G
R
O
U
P
I
N
G
S

O
F

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
F
O
R
M
A
L

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
L

-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
:
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I

I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

C
O
R
E

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

I

.
.
.
.

O
R
J
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
l

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

1

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

E
X
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
l

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

M
A
T
E
R
i
A
l

I

-
S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

S
E
X
U
A
l

-
9
1

6
1

-
7
1

-
a

'
I

-
5
1

-
I

I
P
R
I
M
A
R
Y

I

1

I

-
2
1

-
3
l

,

g

I

"
'
"
.
'
.
0
'

0
1

-
I

S

'
"
,

Y

0

I

.
.
.
.
.

C
O
M
M
U
N
I
C
A
T
I
O
N

g

,

:

R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
.

E
X
P
L
O
I
T
A
n
O
N
A
l

T
E
M
P
O
R
A
L
.

I

N
S
T
R
U
C
i
l

O
N
A
l
.

P
R
o
n
C
T
I
V
E

T
E
R
R
I

T
O
R
J

A
l

O
R
G
A
N
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
A
l

I
N
T
E
R
A
C
T
I
O
N
A
l

E
C
O
N
O
M
I
C

I
N
T
E
R
A
C
T
I
O
N

V
o
c
a
l

q
u
a
l

j
f
i
o
m

i

I

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
I
O
N

.
.

'
"

"
"

.
.
.

.
.
.

'
-
:
1

L

!

1
-
_
_
_
_
_
_

l
O
J
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

-
.
!
.
I
-
4
'
-
W
-
Q
R
K
-
-
-
-
-
-
i
-I

I

I

II

-
-
-
-
I

I

!

"

I

I

w
o
r
k

I

i

I

Z
l
!

_
_
_
_
_
3
.
8
-
&
.
.

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_

I

I
i
"

!

l
'

i

I

_
p
-
'
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I

I

,

0

.
.
.

E
I

S
U
B
S
I
S
T
E
N
C
E

.
.
.

t
5

u

o

.
.
.

z

.
.
.
.

'
"

Z

;
t

Q

u

'
"

-
'
"

Z

.
.
.

-
"
"

.
.
.

U

X

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

"
"
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
J

2
1

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0

I

2
-
1

-
2
O
-
l
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

-
-
-
I

T
H
E

S
E
X
E
S

I

.

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I

1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,

-
-
-
-
1

1
M
o
s
c
.
.
.
.
.

F
e
m
.

,

I

S
e
x

(
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
)

1

I

.
.
.

1
,
,
"
'
.
.
1
"
,
,
'

"

I

-
-
-
I

i

3
2

I

1
,
-
:

t

f

7
i

1

,

I

"
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


.
L
I

!

.
.

!

\
-
0
-
"
+
A
-
-
!
/
(
+
t
-
:
-
m
"
r
-
-
m
-
-
-
-
"

I

-
-
-

!

1
/

'
(

I

i

I

V

I

-
s
.
q
-
u
e
n
c
e

I

i

"
'8

I

I

I

C
y
c
l
e
s

I

i

_
_

5
6
-
.

_

_

I

I

I

C
a
l
e
n
c
I
a
T

8

5
6

!

_

_

5
7
-
,

_

I

I

I
,
<
,

-
,

i

K
!

0

=
:
:
:
"
_
1

.
.

i

i

-
-
r

"
I

I

I

I

I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I

"

I
,

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_

II
H
t
J
!

i
l
-
-
i

:

6
3

-
-
-
-
-

-
l

'
"

I

6
2

_
_
_
_
_
_

6
0

1

-
-
-
-
_
_

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.

-
-
.
.
.
J

1
F
u
n

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
1
-
I

I

I
'f
\
I
"
Y
i
"
l
l

I

7
8

I

I

I

I

"
I

n
.

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

D
o

.
v

1
'
-
h

I

7
4
1

_
l
S

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

-
'
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

-
I
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N

r

.
.
.
.
.
'
1

1

7
3

_
_
_
_
_

I

n

1

n
-
i
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1

K

I

F
e
"
"
,
,
1

d
e
f
e
"
.
.
.

1
-
1

"
'
-
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I

.

I

'
"
,
.
.
.
.
.

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I

I

I

.

i

I
!

.
.
.
.

_

_

"

I

I

I

,

,

.
.

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_

1

1

J

1

1

I

I

8
1

!

8
2

T
E
M
P
O
R
A
L
I
T
Y

5
_
:

L
E
A
R
N
I
N
G

D
E
F
E
N
S
E

_
8
-
E
X
P
l
O
l
T
A
n
O
N

-
J

I

J

.
y

\

I
'

i

'
V

:
-
M
A
T
E
R
i
A
l

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

1

1

1

1

1

I

I

1

1

I

"
"
'
t
o
c
:
t

I

I

1

I

I

'

M
o
t
o
r

h
a
b
i
t
s

a

I

-
"
"
I

a
,

1

.
,
.
,
1

"
4

!

M
i

_
I

:

1
"
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
;
y

T
V

,
"

,

T
V
,

7
T