Cultural Materialism: Meaning and Key Concepts

Cultural Materialism is a theoretical framework in anthropology and sociology that seeks to understand culture through the lens of material conditions—such as technology, economic systems, and environmental factors. It posits that human culture is primarily shaped by the material conditions of life, which include the ways in which societies organize their production, distribution, and consumption of resources. This theory emerged as a response to the more ideologically driven schools of thought in the social sciences, particularly those that focused on symbolism, ideas, and beliefs as primary drivers of culture. Cultural materialism challenges the notion that culture is an independent or autonomous domain, and instead, it argues that culture is a reflection of the material reality in which a society operates.

The intellectual roots of cultural materialism can be traced to the work of early anthropologists such as Karl Marx, who emphasized the role of economic structures in shaping society, and to the work of Leslie White, an anthropologist who argued that culture could be explained by material factors like energy capture and technological development. However, it was the anthropologist Marvin Harris who is most famously associated with the development and popularization of cultural materialism in the 1960s and 1970s. In this narrative, we will explore the main ideas behind cultural materialism, its key concepts, its relationship with other sociological theories, and its impact on the study of culture.

The Foundations of Cultural Materialism

Cultural materialism emerged as a response to the idealist and symbolic approaches in anthropology, which emphasized the role of beliefs, ideas, and symbols in shaping society. Early cultural anthropologists, such as Franz Boas, focused on cultural relativism and the notion that different societies should be understood on their own terms. Symbolic anthropology, led by thinkers like Clifford Geertz, also sought to understand cultures through their symbols and meanings. Geertz, for instance, famously described culture as “a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about life.” While these approaches were valuable in their own right, they were critiqued by cultural materialists for focusing too much on ideas and meanings and neglecting the material conditions that underlie those ideas.

Marvin Harris, who is considered the primary proponent of cultural materialism, argued that human behavior is fundamentally shaped by the necessity to satisfy material needs, such as food, shelter, and reproduction. These needs form the basis for the structure of society, and the values, beliefs, and ideologies that people hold are a reflection of the material conditions they face. Harris was deeply influenced by the Marxist tradition, particularly the idea that economic structures shape all aspects of society, including culture, religion, politics, and law. However, cultural materialism goes beyond Marxism by emphasizing the importance of the environment, technology, and ecological factors in shaping cultural practices.

Harris’s framework posited that societies could be analyzed through three levels: the infrastructure, the structure, and the superstructure. The infrastructure refers to the material and economic base of society—the methods by which people produce and distribute goods and services. This includes the technology, labor, and resources available in a given society. The structure encompasses the social and political organization of society, such as kinship systems, political institutions, and the division of labor. The superstructure refers to the ideological and symbolic aspects of society, such as religion, art, and law. Cultural materialism suggests that the infrastructure largely determines the structure and superstructure, meaning that the material conditions of a society influence its social institutions and cultural practices.

Key Concepts of Cultural Materialism

Cultural materialism is grounded in several key concepts that emphasize the importance of material factors in shaping culture. These concepts help to distinguish it from other anthropological and sociological approaches.

Infrastructure

As mentioned earlier, infrastructure is the foundation of society, encompassing the economic and material base of production. Cultural materialists believe that the ways in which societies produce and distribute resources are fundamental in shaping all other aspects of culture. For example, the development of agricultural technology might lead to the growth of hierarchical social structures, the formation of permanent settlements, and changes in religious practices. In contrast, societies based on foraging or hunting and gathering have different social organizations and cultural practices because their mode of subsistence is fundamentally different.

Cultural Evolution

Harris and other cultural materialists argue that culture evolves in response to changing material conditions. This view is often associated with the idea of cultural determinism, the notion that the material world determines the cultural, social, and political structures of a society. For instance, the development of new technologies or the availability of resources can drive social changes. The invention of the plow, for example, revolutionized agricultural practices and led to significant changes in the organization of labor, gender roles, and social stratification.

Cultural Adaptation

One of the key tenets of cultural materialism is that cultures are adaptive responses to their environment. Societies evolve in ways that enable them to survive and thrive in their particular ecological context. Harris argued that all cultural practices, from religious rituals to social norms, can be understood as responses to the material needs of society. For example, the prohibition against eating cows in Hinduism can be understood as an adaptation to the ecological conditions of India, where cows were valuable for plowing fields and producing milk, making them essential for agricultural production.

Ethnographic Analysis

Cultural materialism emphasizes the need for ethnographic analysis to understand how material factors shape cultural practices. Harris and other proponents of this theory argued that anthropologists should focus on empirical, observable data to understand the relationship between material conditions and culture. This includes studying how societies organize their economy, distribute resources, and adapt to their environment. Ethnographic research is seen as essential for identifying the links between infrastructure and culture, as well as for analyzing the ways in which societies respond to changes in their material environment.

Universalism

Cultural materialism also holds that certain cultural practices are universal across societies because they are driven by similar material conditions. For example, all societies need to find ways to organize the labor necessary for survival, and as a result, many cultures have developed kinship systems, social hierarchies, and religious practices that serve similar functions. While the specific form these practices take may differ, the underlying needs they address—such as food production, social organization, and resource distribution—are universal.

Cultural Materialism and Other Theories

Cultural materialism is often contrasted with other theoretical perspectives in sociology and anthropology, particularly symbolic and interpretive approaches. For example, symbolic anthropology, as championed by Clifford Geertz, emphasizes the importance of symbols, meanings, and rituals in understanding culture. Geertz argued that culture is a system of shared symbols that help people make sense of their world, and that these symbols should be studied in their own right, rather than being reduced to material causes.

Cultural materialism, however, critiques this idealist approach by suggesting that cultural symbols are not independent or autonomous but are shaped by material conditions. Harris argued that the symbols and rituals that Geertz studied are best understood as adaptive responses to material needs. For instance, religious beliefs, far from being purely symbolic or spiritual, are often linked to practical concerns such as resource distribution, social organization, and survival.

Another approach that cultural materialism critiques is structuralism, which focuses on the underlying structures that govern human behavior, often through binary oppositions. While structuralism, as developed by Claude Lévi-Strauss, examines the deep structures of the human mind and culture, cultural materialism takes a more empirical and materialist approach, emphasizing how environmental and economic conditions influence cultural systems.

Critiques of Cultural Materialism

Despite its contributions to the field, cultural materialism has faced several criticisms. One major critique is that it overemphasizes the role of material conditions in shaping culture and neglects the role of human agency, creativity, and ideologies in cultural production. Critics argue that culture is not merely a reflection of material needs but also a product of human imagination and interpretation. This critique is particularly evident from postmodern and interpretive theorists who argue that cultural practices cannot be reduced to material causes and should be understood as symbolic systems that reflect the meanings people attach to their experiences.

Another critique of cultural materialism is its determinism. By focusing on infrastructure as the primary driver of cultural change, cultural materialists are accused of downplaying the role of human choice and agency. Critics argue that cultures can evolve in complex, unpredictable ways that cannot be reduced to material causes alone. The emphasis on cultural evolution and adaptation also raises questions about the universality of cultural patterns, as some critics argue that cultural practices can arise from factors other than material conditions, such as individual creativity, historical accidents, or ideological movements.

Conclusion

Cultural materialism provides a powerful framework for understanding the relationship between material conditions and culture. By emphasizing the role of economic systems, technology, and ecological factors in shaping cultural practices, it offers a distinctive and empirical approach to the study of society. Although it has faced critiques, particularly for its determinism and reductionism, cultural materialism remains an important perspective in anthropology and sociology, offering valuable insights into how societies adapt to their material environments and how material conditions shape the structures and practices that define human culture.