I have indicated here some features of a kind of entity which I have called a cultural identity system, and I have focused on a variety of this general type-the persistent system. In general terms it is best described as a system of beliefs and sentiments concerning historical events. I suggest using the term "a people" for the human beings who, at any given time, hold beliefs of this kind. These are phenomena with which we have been long familiar, but they have not been systematically studied by any but a few investigators. I have emphasized that a persistent system is a cumulative cultural phenomenon, an open-ended system that defines a course of action for the people believing in it. Such peoples are able to maintain continuity in their experience and their conception of themselves in a wide variety of sociocultural environments. I hold that certain kinds of identifiable conditions give rise to this type of cultural system. These may best be summarized as an oppositional process involving the interactions of individuals in the environment of a state or a similar large-scale organization. The oppositional process frequently produces intense collective consciousness and a high degree of internal solidarity. This is accompanied by a motivation for individuals to continue the kind of experience that is "stored" in the identity system in symbolic form. The persistent identity system is more stable as a cultural structure than are large-scale political organizations. When large-scale states disintegrate, they often appear to decompose into cultural systems of the persistent type. Large-scale organizations also give rise to the kind of environment that can result in the formation of new persistent systems. It is possible that, while being formed, states depend for their impetus on the accumulated energy of persistent peoples. A proposition for consideration is that states tend to dissipate the energy of peoples after transforming that energy into state-level integrations, and then regularly break down in the absence of mechanisms for maintaining human motivations in the large-scale organizations that they generate.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

HE theme of this paper is that the social structure of contact situa-T tions is an important determinant of the cultural change which goes on when two societies with differing cultures come into contact. This proposition is certainly not new or revolutionary, but it often seems neglected. If it is taken seriously, it does not permit one to advocate such generalizations as, for example, that under contact conditions material culture changes more readily than other aspects of culture, that core values (whatever they may be) are the most resistant elements to change, or even that traits from one culture which are incompatible with traits in another are resisted by participants in the latter. It promotes abandonment of this type of generalization simply because it requires any general statement about sequences of change in acculturation to include some reference to the structure of cultural transmission. I t directs attention to the nature of the social relations through which contact is maintained and suggests that they have a determinable influence on the character of the innovations offered, on the acceptance and diffusion of these, and on the modification of the innovations which takes place. The view implied is not that social structure is the major determinant. It is rather that no instance of acculturation can be adequately described so long as the social structure of contacts is omitted, and hence that no change sequence can be explained without some consideration of the nature of the social structure.I wish to illustrate the proposition by consideration of some cultural changes among Yaqui Indians of northwestern Mexico. In the examples presented I shall try to show how the social structure of contact communities influenced changes in such cultural innovations as ritual artifacts, ritual behavior, and ritual beliefs. The present paper does not present comparative data which would help to illuminate the nature of the relationship between social structure and processes of cultural change, but the two papers which follow NOTE: