BANC-108
THEORIES OF CULTURE AND SOCIETY
School of Social Sciences
Indira Gandhi National Open University
EXPERT COMMITTEE
Professor S.M. Patnaik
Department of Anthropology
University of Delhi
Former Vice-Chancellor
Utkal University, Odisha
Dr. Rukshana Zaman
Discipline of Anthropology
School of Social Sciences,
IGNOU
Dr. K. Anil Kumar
Discipline of Anthropology
School of Social Sciences,
IGNOU
Dr. Sunita Reddy
Associate Professor
Centre of Social Medicine and
Community Health
School of Social Sciences,
Deputy Director (R&D)
Jawaharlal Nehru University,
Adjunct Faculty, Special Centre
for Disaster Research, New Delhi
Prof. Rashmi Sinha
Discipline of Anthropology
School of Social Sciences
IGNOU
Dr. Palla Venkatramana
Discipline of Anthropology
School of Social Sciences,
IGNOU
Dr. Mitoo Das
Discipline of Anthropology
School of Social Sciences,
IGNOU
PROGRAMME AND COURSE COORDINATOR
Dr. Rukshana Zaman
Discipline of Anthropology
School of Social Sciences, IGNOU
CONTENT EDITOR
GENERAL EDITOR
Prof. Subhadra Mitra Channa
Former Professor, Department of Anthropology
University of Delhi
Dr. Rukshana Zaman,
Discipline of Anthropology
School of Social Sciences, IGNOU
COURSE PREPARATION TEAM
Block/Unit Title
Unit Writer
Content Editor
Block 1
Emergence of Anthropology
Unit 1
Evolutionism
Dr Rukshana Zaman, Discipline of
Anthropology, School of Social
Sciences, IGNOU and Professor
Siva Prasad, Former Professor and
Head Department of Anthropology,
University of Hyderabad,
Hyderabad.
Prof. Subhadra Mitra Channa,
Former Professor, Department
of Anthropology, University of
Delhi. New Delhi.
Unit 2
Diffusionism
Professor Nita Mathur, Discipline
of Sociology, School of Social
Sciences, IGNOU New Delhi
Prof. Subhadra Mitra Channa,
Former Professor, Department
of Anthropology, University of
Delhi. New Delhi
Unit 3
Culture Area Theories Dr Indrani Mukherjee, PostDoctoral Fellow, Department of
Anthropology, University of Delhi.
Delhi.
Prof. Subhadra Mitra Channa,
Former Professor, Department
of Anthropology, University of
Delhi. New Delhi
Block 2 Emergence of Fieldwork Tradition
Unit4
Historical
Dr Indrani Mukherjee,
Particularism and
Post-Doctoral Fellow,
Critique of
Department of Anthropology,
Comparative Method University of Delhi. Delhi.
Prof. Subhadra Mitra Channa,
Former Professor, Department
of Anthropology, University of
Delhi. New Delhi
Unit 5
American Cultural
Tradition
Dr Gunjan Arora,
Post- Doctoral Fellow, Centre of
Social Medicine and Community
Health, School of Social Sciences,
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New
Delhi
Prof. Subhadra Mitra Channa,
Former Professor, Department
of Anthropology, New Delhi
Unit 6
Cultural Materialism
Dr Chandana Sharma, Associate
Professor, Department of
Anthropology, Cotton University,
Guwahati
Prof. Subhadra Mitra Channa,
Former Professor, Department
of Anthropology, University of
Delhi. New Delhi
Block 3 Theories of Social Structure and Function
Unit 7
Social Integration
Dr Prashant Khattri, Assistant
Professor, Department of
Anthropology, Allahabad State
University, Prayagraj. UP.
Prof. Subhadra Mitra
Channa, Former Professor,
Department of Anthropology,
University of Delhi. New
Delhi
Unit 8
Functionalism and
StructuralFunctionalism
Prof. Subhadra Mitra Channa,
Former Professor,
Department of Anthropology,
University of Delhi. New Delhi
Dr Rukshana Zaman,
Discipline of Anthropology,
School of Social Sciences,
IGNOU
Unit 9
Structuralism
Dr Prashant Khattri, Assistant
Professor, Department of
Anthropology, Allahabad State
University, Prayagraj. UP.
Prof. Subhadra Mitra
Channa, Former Professor,
Department of Anthropology,
University of Delhi. New
Delhi
Unit 10
Conflict Theories
Dr Shubhangi Vaidya, Associate
Professor, School of Interdisciplinary and Trans-disciplinary
Studies SOITS, Indira Gandhi
National Open University IGNOU,
New Delhi.
Prof. Subhadra Mitra
Channa, Former Professor,
Department of Anthropology,
University of Delhi. New
Delhi
Block 4 Contemporary Theories
Unit 11
Symbolism and
Interpretive
Approach
Prof. Subhadra Mitra Channa,
Former Professor,
Department of Anthropology,
University of Delhi. New Delhi.
Dr Rukshana Zaman,
Discipline of Anthropology,
School of Social Sciences,
IGNOU
Unit 12
Feminism
Prof. Subhadra Mitra Channa,
Former Professor, Department of
Anthropology, University of Delhi.
New Delhi
Dr Rukshana Zaman,
Discipline of Anthropology,
School of Social Sciences,
IGNOU
Unit 13
New Ethnography
and Contemporary
Changes
Dr Queenbala Marak,
Associate Professor,
Department of Anthropology,
North-Eastern Hill University
(NEHU), Meghalaya.
Prof. Subhadra Mitra
Channa, Former Professor,
Department of Anthropology,
University of Delhi. New
Delhi
Practical Manual
Prof. Subhadra Mitra Channa,
Former Professor, Department of
Anthropology, University of Delhi.
New Delhi and Dr Rukshana
Zaman, Discipline of
Anthropology, School of Social
Sciences, IGNOU
Prof. Subhadra Mitra
Channa, Former Professor,
Department of Anthropology,
University of Delhi.
New Delhi
Cover Design: Dr. Brototi Roy, Associate Professor, Department of Zoology, Maitreyi College, University
of Delhi, Delhi, 110021
Cover Concept: Dr. Rukshana Zaman, Discipline of Anthropology, School of Social Sciences, IGNOU.
Consultants: Dr. Pankaj Upadhyay and Dr. Smarika Awasthi
PRINT PRODUCTION
Mr. Rajiv Girdhar
Assistant Registrar
MPDD, IGNOU, New Delhi
Mr. Hemant Parida
Section Officer
MPDD, IGNOU, New Delhi
June, 2021
©Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2021
ISBN All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or any other
means, without permission in writing from the Indira Gandhi National Open University.
Further information about the School of Social Sciences and the Indira Gandhi National Open University
courses may be obtained from the University’s office at Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110 068, India or the
Official Website of IGNOU: www.ignou.ac.in
Printed and published on behalf of the Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi, by Registrar,
MPDD, IGNOU, New Delhi.
Laser typeset by Tessa Media & Computers, C-206, Shaheen Bagh, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-25
Printed at:
CONTENT
Page No.
BLOCK 1
EMERGENCE OF ANTHROPOLOGY
11
Unit 1
Evolutionism
13
Unit 2
Diffusionism
26
Unit 3
Culture Area Theories
37
BLOCK 2
EMERGENCE OF FIELDWORK TRADITION
51
Unit 4
Historical Particularism and Critique of Comparative Method
53
Unit 5
American Cultural Tradition
64
Unit 6
Cultural Materialism
77
BLOCK 3
THEORIES OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION
87
Unit 7
Social Integration
89
Unit 8
Functionalism and Structural-functionalism
101
Unit 9
Structuralism
114
Unit 10
Conflict Theories
125
BLOCK 4
CONTEMPORARY THEORIES
139
Unit 11
Symbolic and Interpretive Approach
141
Unit 12
Feminism
154
Unit 13
New Ethnography and Contemporary Changes
168
PRACTICAL MANUAL
181
BANC 108
THEORIES OF CULTURE AND
SOCIETY
Course Introduction
Theories of Culture and Society takes into account the theoretical perspectives
that have helped in the study of society and culture. The course looks into the
classical theories and delineates the contributions of the thinkers that had dealt
with the evolution of society and culture and how it might have moved on to
other spaces through diffusion. It reflects on historical particularism as an approach
that underlines the importance of studying a society or a culture for its own self
rather than comparing with others and moves on to the contemporary
anthropological theories of cultural evolution and relativity. Within the ambit of
contemporary theories; interpretive anthropology, post-modernism, post-feminism
and post-colonialism has been taken up. Theoretical paradigms and debates; forms
of anthropological explanation; the role of theory in the practice of anthropology
is the essence of this course.
Learning Outcome
After reading this course, you should be able to:
 discuss and explain the classical theories;
 deliberate on the theory of historical particularism and cultural relativism;
 debate on the contemporary theories; and
 analyse the role of theories in the study of social and cultural anthropology.
Course Presentation
The course content comprises of four blocks and a practical manual. Each block
has thematically arranged units. In total there are thirteen units and a practical
manual. Now let us see what we have discussed in each block.
Block 1: Emergence of Anthropology
Block one has three units that deals with the emergence of anthropological
thoughts. This block takes into account how development of theory in
anthropology is linked to the historical development of the subject. In the first
unit, Evolutionism, we acquaint the learners with how the early thinkers in
anthropology looked at the question of development and change in society and
culture through their perspectives on evolution. The emphasis is on how initially,
the questions were related to explaining the diversity and evolution of humans,
both biologically and culturally once the paradigm of divine creation changed to
one of natural creation and evolution. The key concepts and the basic premises
for evolution like unilinear evolution, universal evolution, psychic unity of
humankind, culture survivals, culture parallels, single line of evolution, simplicity
to complexity, that were being postulated by the anthropologists has been
discussed herein. The criticisms levied on evolutionism by the later
anthropologists along with the rise of Neo-Evolutionism is also a part of this
unit. The second unit Diffusionism deals with the concept of diffusion how it
has been studied by anthropologists to explain spread of cultural traits from one
region to another. The unit also outlines the essential features of diffusion and
distinguish between diffusion and acculturation. The schools of thoughts that
examined diffusionism: the British, German and American has also been critically
looked at in this unit. The third unit on Culture Area theories explores the
historical, theoretical and methodological significance of the culture area concept
and explains the contributions of the various scholars whose works influenced
the concept, building up to the culture area theories. The unit also critically assess
why the culture area concept lost its significance.
Block 2: Emergence of Fieldwork tradition
The section deals with an important paradigm shift in the anthropological theories
and thoughts. This phase deals with the anthropological thoughts that were based
on the concept of collecting first hand data. The anthropologists have moved out
of the realm of collecting data from second hand sources and had given away
their tag of being ‘arm chair anthropologists’. We begin this block with the fourth
unit of our course on Historical Particularism and Critique of Comparative
Method. The aim here is to understand why Franz Boas critiques the comparative
method. We look into the various concepts proposed by him to understand culture
of specific communities in holistic terms. We delineate the concept of cultural
relativism and why Boas insisted on fieldwork to collect the data. Finally, we
explore the reasons Boasian thoughts were critiqued by other scholars. In the
next unit on American Cultural Traditions, we try to understand the growth
and development along with the key concepts in the Culture and Personality
school. This school basically focused on the inter-relationships between culture
and personality and how a culture can shape the personality of a group, leading
to the formation of national character. Cultural Materialism, our next unit in
this block looks at the works of the neo-evolutionists who revisited the
evolutionism theory. Herein, we see the shift of the primary focus from the
ideational basis of culture to emphasise how material and environmental
conditions are primary in determining human behaviour. Studies in cultural
ecology emerged as a very relevant area of study within this approach.
Block 3: Theories of Social Structure and Function
The paradigm shift in anthropological studies that had begun with the
anthropologists venturing out to the field saw it being institutionalised as a
hallmark in anthropology. Malinowski set the trend for long extended fieldwork.
He spent almost thirty-nine months among the Trobriand islanders, learning the
local language and focusing on understanding culture from an emic perspective.
This phase saw the attention of the anthropologists draw towards the structure
and functions of the various aspects within a culture. Unit-7 Social Integration
in this section looks at the concept of social integration; the beginning of the
theory of social contract. Tracing the earlier works of Auguste Comte and Herbert
Spencer it moves on to the Durkheimian thoughts on social integration and its
influence in social anthropology. The unit also tries to delineate the concepts of
social disintegration and anomie. The next unit, explores the origin of
Functionalism and Structural-functionalism, their emergence and
development. Radcliffe-Brown’s structural-functional theory has been analysed
herein to understand how it differs from Malinowski’s functionalism. In
Structuralism unit 9, the origin of this theory has been dealt with. The emphasis
of this theory lies in the fact that it moved beyond the understanding of culture
rather delved into the deeper meanings of structures within a society and how
one aspect is linked to the other. Claude Lévi-Strauss’s contribution to this theory
has been discussed in this unit along with Edmund Leach’s work on the concept
of neo-structuralism. The last unit in this block Unit 10 on ‘conflict theories’
presents the ideas of the Manchester School and the use of Marxian theory in the
understanding of conflicts in social anthropology. The emerging concepts and
ideas regarding social conflicts and social change associated with Gluckman’s
and a few other works would be a part of this unit.
BLOCK 4: Contemporary Theories
Contemporary theories is the last block in the theory section of this course. There
are three units in this block that looks at the new paradigms that developed with
regards to the new theoretical perspectives in the study of society and culture.
Unit 11 deals with the origin and evolution of symbolic behaviour in human
culture. It takes into account the works of the anthropologists like Mary Douglas,
Victor Turner, Sherry Ortner and Clifford Geertz’s who have established the
symbolic and interpretive perspective in anthropological thoughts. Anthropology
as a White man’s domain of study since its inception had looked at the worldviews
from a male perspective. It was only with the works of Margaret Mead, Ruth
Benedict, Cora Dubois, Annette Weiner, Rubin Gayle, Sherry Ortner etc. that the
female voices were recorded in the field. Thus, the feminist approach in
anthropological studies had a very late entry. Unit 12 Feminism looks at the
influence of feminist perspectives in the anthropological thoughts and writings.
The last unit i.e., Unit 13 in this section takes a look at the new paradigms and
the contemporary changes that has come up with new ethnography. This unit
focuses on the new type of ethnographies that are coming up and how they differ
from the old traditional ethnographic style.
Practical Manual
The manual presents the understanding of theory and delineates the relevance of
theory and how it is situated within ethnographic study. The manual shall act as
a guide to the learners to select their topics and choose a theory to justify the
topic. The theoretical part has been explained in detail and the choice is left open
for the learner to reflect and justify the theory he/she may choose for her/his
topic.
Let us now take you through the units. If you understand how to approach the
units and read the course material in a systematic manner you would benefit as a
learner. As we have already stated the blocks are divided thematically, thus, a
learner is advised to read the units in a sequence in terms of the themes so that
they are able to connect and comprehend the link between two units. If you read
randomly, you might find it difficult to comprehend concepts and definitions,
and lose the thread of the unit. For an easy reading and better comprehension,
the units have been divided into sections and sub-sections. Each section is
indicated clearly by BOLD CAPITALS and each sub-section by bold and small
letters. The significant divisions within a sub section are still in smaller bold
letters so as to make it easier for you to see their place within the sub-sections.
The items which need to be highlighted are numbered as a., b., c., etc. For the
sake of uniformity, we have employed the same scheme in every unit throughout
the course. Each unit begins with the ‘Objectives’ which explains to a learner:
a) what we will be presenting in the unit, and
b) what we expect from the student once he/she completes working on the
unit.
After every section we have given Check Your Progress that would help the
learner to self check whether they have been able to comprehend the subject
matter in the section. The purpose of the Check Your Progress is to enable the
learner to compare their answers with the answers given at the end of each unit.
Please do not look at the answers before you write your own answers in the
given space. The learner may write the answers with pencil, so that it can be
rubbed and rewritten again as a practice component. For the long answers the
hints have been provided, the answers have not been given so that the learner
develops the skill of writing in their own words, without directly copying word
by word from the course material.
In the last section of each unit, under the heading ‘Summary’ we summarise the
entire unit for purpose of revision and ready reference.
After summary the next section of the unit comprises of either ‘References or
Suggested Reading’. If the author has quoted directly from a text or texts, we
have provided the references. If there are no text cited, we have provided a list of
readings that the learner may want to read in order to enhance the understanding
of the subject.
At the end let’s see how the learner may use the wide margin provided in the
units. The learner may write down important points after reading each section in
the margins. This will help you in your study and also when you attempt the
Check Your Progress.
All the best, happy reading. Wish you success. Hope the course material act as a
guide for you to achieve your goals.
BLOCK 1
EMERGENCE OF ANTHROPOLOGY
Emergence of Anthropology
UNIT 1
Evolutionism
UNIT 2
Diffusionism
UNIT 3
Culture Area Theories
12
UNIT 1
EVOLUTIONISM*
Evolutionism
Contents
1.0 Introduction
1.1 The Beginning of Evolutionary Thoughts
1.2 The Early Thinkers
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
Herbert Spencer
Edward Burnett Tylor
L.H. Morgan
J.J. Bachofen
1.3 Basic Premises of the Evolutionary School
1.4 Criticisms of Evolutionist theory
1.5 Neo-Evolutionism
1.6 Summary
1.7 References
1.8 Answers to Check Your Progress
Learning Objectives
After reading this unit, the learners should be able to:
 explain the context of evolutionism in social and cultural anthropology;
 delineate the contributions of the proponents of the evolutionary thoughts;
and
 discuss the limitations of the classical evolutionary theory.
1.0
INTRODUCTION
The term ‘evolutionism’ is derived from the Latin word evolu`tio, from e-, ‘out
of’, and volu`tus, ‘rolled’. The literal meaning of the term is ‘unrolling’. In earlier
times Roman books were written on lengths of parchments and rolled onto wooden
rods, so as to read they had to be unrolled or ‘evolved’ (McCabe 1921:2). Around
the seventeenth century the term evolution was used in English to refer to an
orderly sequence of events, particularly one in which the outcome was somewhat
contained within it from the start (Carneiro 2003:1). In this unit we shall discuss
how the early thinkers in anthropology looked at the question of development
and change in society and culture through their perspectives on evolution. The
evolutionary perspective emerged in the late nineteenth century and gained
popularity in the late twentieth century in anthropology.
1.1
THE BEGINNINGS OF EVOLUTIONARY
THOUGHTS
By the sixteenth century there was a realisation among scholars that, human
beings were a part of the natural schema and not a divine creation. This was the
*Contributors: Dr. Rukshana Zaman, Discipline of Anthropology, School of Social Sciences
IGNOU and Professor Siva Prasad, Former Professor and Head Department of Anthropology,
University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad.
13
Emergence of Anthropology
time when the scientific world was moving away from the Church towards a
rational perspective.This was a significant paradigm shiftfrom a religious
perspective to a scientific perspective in understanding phenomenon. Let us now
look at some of the early works before anthropology was established as a
discipline.
Adam Ferguson, John Miller, and Adam Smith were Scottish thinkers, in the
early 1700 who had reflected on social evolution.They contended that all societies
pass through four stages: (i) hunting and gathering, (ii) pastoralism and nomadism,
(iii) agricultural, and finally (iv) commerce. For these thinkers the theoretical
base was their own national experience of being united with England in 1707
and the effect it had on the development of trade in what came to be known as
the United Kingdom (Zaman 2011:6) Among the early thinkers Montesquieu
(1689-1755) had proposed an evolutionary scheme consisting of three stages:
hunting or savagery, herding or barbarism, and civilization. In his work De l’
esprit des loix (The Spirit of Laws), he made a cross- cultural comparative study
of legislative systems. He looked at the legal system as closely intertwined with
other facets of the society like politics, economy, kinship, family and religion.
Montesquieu’s work was based on first hand data which he gathered on a small
sample size and supplemented with secondary sources. He gave the classification
of the different stages of the society as- Savagery, Barbarism and Civilization.
This arrangement was accepted and used by the nineteenth century social theorists
such as Tylor and Morgan in their works (Seymour-Smith 1986:105). Morgan in
his work had further subdivided both savagery and barbarism into three stageslower- middle and upper. In the next section we would examine the works of
some of the scholars who contributed to the rise of anthropological thoughts that
was based on the concept of evolution.
Check Your Progress 1
1) What do you understand by the term evolution?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
2) Name the Scottish thinkers, in the early 1700, who had contended that all
societies pass through four stages.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
14
.......................................................................................................................
3) Describe the four stages that society passes through, as proposed by the
early Scottish thinkers.
Evolutionism
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
1.2
EARLY THINKERS
The rise of anthropology as a discipline has its roots in the Western world. The
industrialisation of the European nations and their need for resources to feed
their industries and markets, led to the exploration of new spaces, non-western
regions, that were different from the Western world in their way of life. Based on
the stories brought back by the travelers, the missionaries, the administrators
etc., the scholars indulged in speculative thinking based on the comparative
method of study used in Biology. The comparisons were based on the premises
that these societies and their cultures were not at par with their existing Western
cultures (civilization) but were at different levels of maturing or evolving into
‘civilized’, and those believed to be the farthest away from European civilization
were placed at the bottom of the scale and labelled ‘Primitive’. This comparative
approach of judging a culture based on one’s own culture was criticized by the
later anthropologists and labelled as ‘ethnocentrism’. Voluminous works were
published during these times by scholars who later came to be known as ‘arm
chair anthropologist” as they were gathering information on hearsay and building
up their theories of social and cultural growth of the non-western societies without
collecting first hand data. Sir James Frazer’s work “The Golden Bough” is worth
mentioning here, till date a legendary work, that ran into twelve volumes.
1.2.1 Herbert Spencer
For long in the academic world the term evolution has been linked with the work
of Charles Darwin. This supposition however, needs introspection. In his work
the Origin of Species, the term evolution appears in the sixth edition, 1872. By
this time the term ‘evolution’ was already in vogue in the social sciences owing
to Herbert Spencer’s work. In the year 1851, Spencer had used the term in his
work Social Statics to explain ‘progress’ (pg. 63 cf. Carneiro 2003:3). The term
evolution was explicitly defined by Spencer in his initial volume “Synthetic
Philosophy” in ‘First Principle’ stating ‘Evolution as a change from an indefinite,
incoherent homogeneity, to a definite, coherent heterogeneity; through continuous
differentiations and integrations’ (Spencer 1863:216 cf. Carneiro 2003:5). His
major work constitutes an understanding of the process of change from the simple
to complex and from the undifferentiated to the differentiated, i.e., how one part
is different from the other. The detailed explanation of how evolution had occurred
in Human societies can be found in The Principles of Sociology (3 vols, 18761896). The learners might find it noteworthy that the term “Survival of the Fittest”
was coined by Spencer to explain the concept of struggle among the different
members in a society wherein the ones with merit rise, leading to the elimination
of the weaker ones, thus, highlighting the process of social selection.
15
Emergence of Anthropology
1.2.2 Edward Burnett Tylor
Edward B Tylor is reckoned not only for assuming the first chair of anthropology
at the Oxford University, thereby establishing anthropology as a discipline, but
also for providing one of the most classic definitions of ‘Culture’ in his work
‘Primitive Culture’ (1871) that is still being used. In defining culture, Tylor
emphasised that there was a single Culture that was possessed by humans and
different societies possessed culture in different stages of development. This
explained why, even though all humans were alike as a single species, they
displayed such variations in their culture. Tylor provided us with the sequence of
the evolution of religion as an institution of human societies, as he did not
understand society in wholistic terms but as co-existence of different institutions
existing parallel to each other.
Tylor defined the earliest form of religion as Animism; a belief in the soul or the
belief in a dual body of spirit and material body. The speculation over the
phenomenon of death and of dreams provided the base for emergence of the
belief in soul. He speculated that primitive men must have thought that in dream
the soul was able to leave the body temporarily and wander around, while in
death it leaves the body permanently. The real source of life or anima thus, is the
soul and the body thrives on its existence. According to Tylor, evolution of religion
started from Animism and stage by stage evolved into other systems of beliefslike in ancestors, in sacrifice and other rituals. Animism was followed by Naturism,
Totemism, Polytheism till finally the ultimate stage of religion, namely
Monotheism and the belief in a Supreme God comes about. Thus, Christianitythe religion of the Europeans of that time was seen as the highest form of religious
belief, while the other societies were speculated to be at the different levels in
the evolutionary stages.
Tylor used the concept of ‘psychic unity of (hu)mankind’ to explain that all humans
have the same capacity to think alike and that there is a “general likeness in
human nature”. Thus, Tylor gave the examples of culture parallels stating that
the earliest humans must also have thought in synchronic ways to produce similar
cultural traits. Taking the example of tool making techniques and the pottery of
the prehistoric period, Tylor demonstrated that the stone tools were similar in
different parts of the world that had no direct contact like in Europe and India.
These tools and pottery types also went through various stages of development
and more progressive types were seen with the passage of time.
16
While exploring the evolution of culture Tylor put forward the doctrine of
‘survivals’ as the remnants of those traits that have now lost their function, but
remain by force of habit or inertia of customs for change. Among the many
examples that Tylor provided, one was of the unused button behind the waist of
a jacket, that now has lost its functional value or the clay pottery that we no
longer use but keep as decoration pieces and as a link to the past. The survivals
in terms of religion were shown with examples of persistence of ancient rituals
and beliefs, the meaning of which is long forgotten, yet still continue to be a part
of the religious performances. Thus, survivals are those traits that either in their
original form or in modified forms are carried over from the past, as a force of
habit or as a way of showing respect to the traditions or as a kind of identity
marker. They no longer have any real function but are of symbolic and decorative
value only. But survivals provide a real clue to tracing what had existed in the
past of a culture and were seen as a method of reconstructing evolutionary
sequences.
1.2.3 L.H. Morgan
Evolutionism
Lewis Henry Morgan an American anthropologist was a trained lawyer by
profession. His interest in the native way of life of the Iroquois was triggered by
the law suit based on the loss of land rights, he was handling for them. Morgan
spent a long time among the Iroquois as it is said that the Iroquois were practically
living in his backyard, and thus, was involved in first hand collection of data,
making his work different from the other the arm chair anthropologist of his time
like Tylor.
L.H. Morgan’s major contribution to the world of anthropology was the study of
kinship terminologies and kinship systems. Among the Iroquois, Morgan studied
the kin relations and the way the kinsmen address each other. One of the major
observations of Morgan was that among the Iroquois a child addresses mother
and mother’s sister by the same term and father and father’s brother by the same
term. While the father’s sister’s children and mother’s brother’s children were
called cousins. Morgan identified the Iroquois kinship as classificatory kinship
system as it clubbed together two different persons with the same kin term. He
called the English system of naming kin as descriptive kinship system, because
in it, the kin terms used for primary kin are not used for anyone else. While
studying the Ojibway tribe, he realised that their kinship terms were similar to
that of the Iroquois, thus confirming to the classificatory system.
Based on his observations, Morgan, presumed that all Native Americans have a
classificatory system which later evolved into descriptive system like the English
system after passing through the different stages of evolution namely: savagery,
barbarism and civilization. The first two stages are marked by classificatory
kinship they evolve into the descriptive kinship system, as societies become
civilized. Morgan linked types of subsistence activities with the types of kinship
systems. When the resources are held collectively as at the tribal level,
classificatory system prevails as the clan is the collective owner of property and
one clan member is substitutable by others. When property is held by the
patrilineage for example, father and father’s brother are equal owners of property
and hence one can be substituted for the other. With the rise of private property
rights and it’s passing down through the lines of inheritance “descriptive kin
systems evolve, and the nuclear family eventually develops” (Moore 2009:24).
This meant that groups that followed the classificatory kinship system were
survivals of the 'savage' and 'barbaric' stages. Morgan’s finding were published
in his two works, Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family
(1870) and his master piece Ancient Society (1877).
Morgan in his work had stated:”With the production of inventions and discoveries,
and with the growth of institutions, the human brain necessarily grew and
expanded; and we are led to recognize a gradual enlargement of the brain itself,
particularly of the cerebral portion” (Morgan 1887: 37). Morgan presented this
concept with the example of the subsistence patterns among societies and how it
improved as the societies progressed. Morgan’s evolutionary scheme remained
a question of debate among anthropologists, yet he influenced other thinkers, as
his work brought forth the materialistic factors highlighting the aspect that
economic and technological know-how go a long way in shaping the fate of
humanity. Fredrik Engels’s work was influenced by Morgan’s thoughts in Ancient
Society. Morgan’s opinions are reflected in Engle’s book, Origin of the Family,
Private Property and the State (1884).
17
Emergence of Anthropology
1.2.4 J.J. Bachofen
Inspired by Greek and Roman literatures Johann Jakob Bachofen, had theorized
the concept of ‘mother-right’ or prehistoric matriarchy. In Das Mutterrecht (or
Mother Right), published in 1861 Bachofen had looked into the religious and
judicial character of matriarchy in the ancient world. He studied grave paintings
and their symbolism and interpreted the gender relations as depicted on them as
patriarchal, where the woman is symbolized as an object. He equated civilization
with the West and with patriarchy, and the matriarchy with a lower state of
evolution where society is not advanced enough to think in abstract concepts
such as fatherhood and are only aware of biological motherhood. He gave a
complex of traits that constituted the mother-right societies and a complex of
traits that comprised the father right societies. Thus, for him mother right or
father right were not stand-alone concepts but wholistic ones that integrated
various material and symbolic dimensions. He imagined a mother right society
and described it like a book.The women being the sole parent of the child, through
whom descent could be traced, assumed a position of high respect and honour in
society. With this assumption Bachofen, laid the foundation for the rule of women
in the ‘primitive’ world which he termed as gynaecocracy. Though it gave a
higher status to women yet Bachofen decried this stage as the primeval stage of
anarchy till the reign was taken over by men which led to the progress of the
society. The progression from matriarchy to patriarchy saw a decline in the role
of women and the increase power in the hands of the males, making them more
assertive. The gradual transition from promiscuity to monogamy was also noted.
Mother-right existed within the context of primeval, matriarchal religion or Urreligion.
Sir Henry Maine had based his work on the ancient legal systems of Rome,
Islamic Law and the Brahmanical Laws and had opposed the placing of mother
right before father right. Maine, in his work Ancient Law, (1861) had argued and
advocated father right, he established the laws of the people that integrated the
social heritage to a particular society, while negating the concept of universalism
that was the primary focus of study during that time. McLennan on the other
hand based his work on the premises of mother right in Primitive Marriage,
(1865), where he assumed that since primitive people were only aware of
biological motherhood, it was only logical to think that matriliny would be
recognized first. He traced the origin of marriage or the regulation of sexuality
to the regulation of warfare between groups.
Check Your Progress 2
4) Who coined the term ‘survival of the fittest’? What is its significance?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
18
.......................................................................................................................
5) What are cultural survivals? How do they explain evolution?
Evolutionism
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
6) What is ‘psychic unity of humankind? How did Tylor use this concept to
explain the origin of religion?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
7) Who elaborately studied Classificatory and Descriptive Kinship and
established kinship studies within the ambit of anthropological studies?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
8) Define gynaecocracy. How was it used to rank societies in the evolutionary
schema?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
1.3
BASIC PREMISES OF THE EVOLUTIONARY
SCHOOL
In the earlier section we had discussed some of the works of the anthropologists
who had used the evolutionary schema to understand the emergence of society
and culture. We had seen that within the context of evolution most believed in
the single line of progression from simple to complex, postulating the concept of
‘psychic unity’ of humankind. i.e., human beings everywhere in the world think
in much the same way. Now, let us discuss the basic premises of the evolutionary
school.
19
Emergence of Anthropology
1)
Unilinear Evolutionism:The evolutionists believed in the development of
societies from simple to complex in a precise line of evolution or in a single
line of order, moving from a lower to a higher stage or in a line of progression.
Thus, classical evolutionary theory is a theory that believes that there is
only one line for cultural progress.
2)
Universal Evolutionism: The emphasis was on an evolution pattern that
was happening across the globe and this was based on the concept of ‘psychic
unity of mankind’. Giving rise to questions of the brain capacity of human
beings that is also developing as the societies develop from simple to
complex. The argument was that all societies would go through the same
process as the human brains develop from simple to complex.
3)
Single Culture: As described by Ingold (1986) in his work, the propagators
of the evolutionary theory believed that there is only one Culture, with a
capital C. The difference that we see in societies across the world is not
because they have different cultures, but because they are at different stages
of the same Culture. Citing examples of ‘Culture parallels’ this phenomenon
of a single ‘Culture’ moving from simple to complex was explained by the
evolutionists.
4)
Sequential Progress:The evolutionist theorists stated that once the sequence
of progress has been established, it will step up from one stage to the other
and continue in this sequence in which the society will progress. Each society
goes through the same stages but at their own pace.
5)
Comparative Method:The evolutionist basically derived at the concept of
evolution of society and culture using the comparative method. The white
Europeans also known as the ‘arm chair anthropologists’ used their own
societies to set the comparison table, where they placed their own society at
the helm of ‘civilization’ and compared all other societies based on this
scale.
Check Your Progress 3
9) Define universal evolutionism.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
10) Explain the comparative method.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
20
.......................................................................................................................
1.4
CRITICISMS OF EVOLUTIONIST THEORY
a)
Colonisation amplified: The evolutionary theory in a way on moral grounds
justified colonisation. The Europeans ‘white men’, having been put on the
highest scale of civilization by the intellectuals of their own breed, justified
their plunder of the colonies in the name of ‘civilizing’ them.
b)
Cultural ethnocentrism: The white Europeans presenting their own culture
as a bench mark for civilization put all other societies on an evolutionary
scale. They justified each society as being at different levels of evolution
based on their technological knowledge. Thus, giving rise to ‘cultural
ethnocentrism’. This concept devalued the comparative method, as it was
used mainly to accentuate the scholars own society as ‘superior’ than the
societies of the people under study.
c)
Devoid of Cultural Relativism: The cultural elements and social institutions
are relevant in their own context in each society. The evolutionist while
categorising some cultures as simple and others as more complex, did away
with the value that was associated with each culture. The evolutionists had
treated social institutions such as religion, economy and political systems
as forming separate strands, comparing them individually across cultures.
Owing to this premises, the value of customs and practices that had its own
cultural meaning within the context of that society was lost.
d)
Lack of empirical data: The later anthropologists had pointed to the fact
that most of the data was conjured as there was no first-hand data collection.
The data collected was based on the stories and accounts that came from
the travelers, the sailors, the missionaries and the administrative personals.
Thus, such works were based on second hand data and the scholars came to
be known as arm-chair anthropologists. However, it has also to be noted
that a few of them had attempted to collect first hand data during their times
like Morgan. Yet there was a lack of a precise methodology and thus, lost
out on scientific vigour.
e)
Missing links: The later scholars like Franz Boas, Margaret Meads, and
others from the American Culture School questioned universal evolution
based on the concept of ‘psychic unity of humankind’ as it could not explain
cultural variations. Moreover, later studies showed that Morgan’s concept
of evolution based on technological progress could not explain Polynesian
chiefdoms that were based on complex political systems, yet technologically
they were far behind, as even the use of pottery was not known in their
culture.
Evolutionism
Check Your Progress 4
11) List the criticisms levied against evolutionism.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
21
Emergence of Anthropology
1.5
NEO-EVOLUTIONISM
The revival of the evolutionary approach may be attributed to Leslie A. White
(1900-1975), Julian H. Steward (1902-1972), Elman R Service (1915-1996) and
Marshall D. Sahlins (1930-2021) the doyens of cultural neo-evolutionism. The
early twentiethth century anthropologists attempted to relook at the work of the
classical evolutionary theorists by incorporating the methodology of empiricism
and also trying to develop rational criteria of measuring evolution.
Leslie White attributed a special status to culture as it is based on the unique
capability of human beings and opined that culture can be represented in symbols.
For e.g., a pen is a material, a product of human creation and has a pointed end
which is used by human beings to record and communicate meaning through
written words therefore, the pen is a symbol for writing, and the national flag of
India is a symbol of our country. This ability to create symbols is a unique attribute
of human beings. In search of the mechanisms for cultural developments he
attempted to establish laws. Culture, according to White, is enabled by
communication and it develops based on its own principles and laws. Human
culture is ever changing; its dynamism comes from consuming energy. White’s
ideas were written in two books The Science of Culture (1949) and The Evolution
of Culture (1959). The core of White’s evolutionary approach centred upon the
consumption of energy. The greater the amount of energy tapped per capita per
year, the greater will be the scale of cultural development. The tapping of the
animal energy by attaching the plough to these animals has improved agricultural
production. A surplus in food has resulted in increasing population and the
harnessing of fossil fuels for combustion has led to the industrial revolution. His
conception is expressed in a formula E x T = C. Where E is amount of energy
used, T is the quality or efficient tools that result in C that is culture. White links
the expansion of culture to the energy consumed. However, “a close correlation
had been established between the consumption of energy and the development
of culture, but establishing a correlation is not enough to provide an explanation.
Moreover, White did not explain why complexity emerged in some places and
not in others” (Claessen 2002). Hence, establishing a causal connection that
growth of culture is caused by consumption of energy is difficult to demonstrate
(Claessen 2000).
22
Julian Steward, a neo-evolutionary anthropologist is regarded as a pioneer of
modern cultural ecology. Steward divided evolutionary thought into three
divisions, i.e., unilinear, universal and multilinear. Julian Steward’s theory was
based on his concept of culture in which he describes culture as having a core
and a periphery, in his book, Theory of Culture Change. This two-layered
definition of culture enabled him to identify culture and environment interaction
as a driving force for culture change. According to him the core of culture is
formed by the interaction between the cultural and environmental variables and
comprise the socio-economic aspects of culture. This relationship is dialectical,
in that as the culture acts upon the environment, the environment transforms and
to adapt to the changed environment, the culture has to transform. Here, Steward’s
concept of culture shows the influence of the dialectical process of Marxism.
The peripheral aspects of culture are those that are not connected directly to the
environment and gives to each culture its distinctive character. Since most human
societies show only a few modes of adaptation to the environment, the culture
cores of various cultures can be fitted into a typology of a few known modes of
adaptation; namely hunting-food gathering, pastoralism, horticulture, agriculture
and industrial society. The simpler the mode of subsistence, the more direct the
relationship between culture and environment. According to Steward, it is
theoretically possible to construct different lines of evolution depending upon
the direction taken by the dialectical relationship between culture and
environment. But it requires a large amount of data collected over a historical
period of time. Steward was able to construct only one line of possible evolution.
Since there are several ecological zones in the world, it is possible that evolution
could take in multiple directions; therefore, this theory is called the theory of
multilinear evolution. After Steward, no one else was motivated to construct any
more lines of evolution. The criticism of this theory was that there can be multiple
ways in which evolution can take place and it is not possible to determine what
variable can be put in the core and which ones in the periphery. However, this
model of culture helped to construct models of various modes of adaptation,
identifying the core cultural elements that constitute each subsistence type.
Evolutionism
Marshall Sahlins and Elman Service were colleagues at the University of
Michigan and students of White and Steward and they worked to combine the
works of White and Steward. They identified two types of evolution, i.e., ‘general’
and ‘specific’ by making a distinction between them. Specific evolution is the
adaptation of a particular society to an environment, and it often remains specific
to that habitat, like the adaptation of the Eskimos to the Arctic or the bushmen to
the Kalahari. General evolution is a general progress of society in which higher
forms emerge from lower forms and out do lower forms. Specific represents
Steward’s multilinear evolution and General evolution resembles White’s
universal evolution. Diagrammatically, they can both be represented by a tree,
with the trunk growing upwards, symbolizing General Evolution and the branches
growing in all directions. Specific evolutions. If one has to search for variety in
historical developments one has to search for specific evolution of the culture,
look for the changes in social institutions of the particular society in a historic
perspective. If one looks back at the overall picture of evolution of humankind
from the level of hunting -food gathering to industrial society, then one is talking
about General Evolution. Service and Sahlins described these two types by using
the concepts of Adaptation and Adaptability. The former refers to the ability to
survive in a specific niche only and the latter to the capacity to spread over a
much larger geographical area. Sahlins gives the example of gun powder used
by the Europeans to colonize many regions as an example of adaptability. This
spread of a dominant culture was described as adaptive radiation.
Sahlins and Service did not rank the two kinds of evolution and considered the
mode of adaptive radiation as often detrimental to the loves of the ones getting
over run or colonized. The neo-evolutionists departed from the early classical
evolutionist by demonstrating the evolution of particular cultures by the process
of adaptation to particular environments.
Check Your Progress 5
12) What is neo-evolutionism?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
23
Emergence of Anthropology
13) How are the neo-evolutionists different from the earlier classical
evolutionists?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
1.6
SUMMARY
Anthropology has its roots in Europe’s history of colonization and plunder, but
also in the desire to understand the cultures they had to rule. An interest in the
past of their own culture led to an interest in the history of cultural evolution the
result of which was the theory of evolutionism that came up as a ‘speculative
history’. Evolutionism, was basically, the white European’s way of classifying
the non-Europeans encountered in their journeys, into categories that could explain
the differences between them, by a theory of development from lower to higher
stages. This led to the invention of the concept of ‘primitive’ societies, labelled
as still in a state of infancy, as compared to the matured European civilizations
that set the bench mark for the highest point of evolution, thus, bringing in the
concept of ‘ethnocentrism’. The white Europeans, judged the non-Europeans on
a scale where they put themselves on the highest scale of civilization, justified
their plunder of the colonies in the name of ‘civilising’ them. This intellectual
approach was not based upon ‘rationality’ or ‘evidence’; nor did it follow any
empirical methodology. Thus, the views of such anthropologists based on
secondary sources were referred to as “arm-chair approach” devoid of physically
observed evidence but only deductive reasoning.
1.7
REFERENCES
Barnard, Alan. 2004. History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Carneiro, Robert. 2003. Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Critical
History. USA: Westview Press.
Claessen H.J.M. 2000. Structural Change: Evolution and Evolutionism in Cultural
Anthropology. Leiden: Research School CNWS, Leiden University.
2002. “Evolution and Evolutionism”. In Alan Barnard and Jonathan
Spencer (eds.) Encyclopaedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology. London:
Routledge.
Eriksen Thomas Hylland and Finn Sivert Nielsen. 2001. A History of
Anthropology. London: Pluto Press.
Erickson. Paul. A and Liam D. Murphy. 2001. A History of Anthropological
Theory. Broadview Press.
Harris, Marvin. 1969. The Rise of Anthropological Theory. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul Ltd.
24
McCabe Joseph. 1921 The ABC of Evolution. New York: Putman.
Evolutionism
Moore, Jerry D. 2009. Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological
Theories and Theorists. Lanham: Altamira Press.
Morgan, L.H. 1887. Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress
from Savagery Through Barbarism to Civilization. New York: Henry Holt and
Company
Seymour-Smith. Charlotte, 1986. Macmillan Dictionary of Anthropology. Great
Britain: Macmillan Press Pvt. Ltd.
Spencer, Herbert. 1851. Social Statics. London: John Chapman
1876. “The Survival of the Fittest”. Nature, Vol.5. pp. 263-264
1890 The Principles of Sociology. Vol 1. 3rd ed. New York: D. Appleton and
Company
Sidky, H. 2004. Perspectives on Culture: A Critical Introduction to Theory in
Cultural Anthropology. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Tylor, E.B. 1920. Primitive Culture (Vol. I). London: John Murray.
Zaman. R. 2011. “Classical Theories” in Social and Cultural Anthropology (MAN
001) course of Master’s in Anthropology (MAAN) Programme. New Delhi:
IGNOU. ISBN No. 978-81-266-5573-1
1.8
ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
1)
Refer to section 1.0
2)
Refer to section 1.1
3)
Refer to section 1.1
4)
Herbert Spencer
5)
Refer to section 1.2.2
6)
Refer to section 1.2.2
7)
L.H. Morgan
8)
Refer to section 1.2.4
9)
Refer to section 1.3
10) Refer to section 1.3
11) Refer to section 1.4
12) Refer to section 1.5
13) Refer to section 1.5
25
Emergence of Anthropology
UNIT 2
DIFFUSIONISM*
Contents
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Essential Features of Diffusion
2.2 Schools of Diffusionism
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
British School of Diffusion
German-Austrian School of Diffusion
American School of Diffusion
2.3 Summary
2.4 References
2.5 Answers to Check Your Progress
OBJECTIVES
After going through this unit, you will be able to:

explain how cultural traits spread from one region to another;

outline the essential features of diffusion;

distinguish between diffusion and acculturation; and

critically examine British, German and American schools of diffusion.
2.0
INTRODUCTION
Many of you would be aware of what happens when a drop of ink is placed on
the surface of water in a cup or when a tea bag is immersed in a cup of water. We
notice that as the drop of ink or tea bag comes in contact with water in the cup,
colour spread from a region of its high concentration to the region of low
concentration (i.e., from the drop of ink/tea bag towards the margins of the cup
filled with water). Just as colour in our example, objects and ideas belonging to
one culture spread over to other cultures. In our day-to-day lives we use objects
that belong to people living far away from us. In fact, we tend to adopt and use a
few of them so routinely that we tend to forget that they have come from elsewhere.
You could think of noodles (which originally belongs to China but prepared in
different ways and consumed in different parts of India). Two other examples of
interest and relevance are: paper (first invented in China from where it spread to
the West via the silk route and to other parts of the world); and fax machine (first
developed in Germany and now used worldwide). The transmission of objects,
customs, beliefs, ideas, and values from one culture to another or more cultures
is referred to as diffusion.
Two questions arise, (i.) How does diffusion actually take place? (ii.) Is diffusion
the only way through which cultural traits travels from one culture to another?
Diffusionism assumes that there has been direct transmission of cultural elements
from one stable population to another or through migration of people from one
culture to another. The transmission is one way i.e., let us say from population A
to population B or from population B to population A, or to population C and so
26
*Contributor: Professor Nita Mathur, Discipline of Sociology, School of Social Sciences,
IGNOU.
on. Diffusion, however, is not the only process through which transmission of
cultural traits takes place. The other process that comes close to diffusion is that
of acculturation. According to Redfield, Linton and Herskovits (1936:149-50),
‘Acculturation comprehends those phenomena which result when groups of
individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact,
with subsequent changes in the original cultural patterns of either or both groups’.
While diffusion refers to the spread of cultural traits from one culture to another
and is in this sense it is a one-way transaction, acculturation refers to exchange
of cultural traits between cultures through direct contact in a way that both cultures
undergo change. The situation of contact between two cultures could arise due
to immigration of groups of people, conquest of one population by another or
any other means. What is important to note is that diffusion does not call for
exchange of cultural elements while exchange of cultural elements is an essential
feature of acculturation.
Diffusionism
Expectedly, diffusion does not lead to change in both the cultures. In acculturation,
however, both cultures adopt elements from each other and in this way exhibit
change. Herskovits (1955:742) distinguishes between diffusion and acculturation
in following words, ‘diffusion is study of achieved cultural transmission while
acculturation is the study of cultural transmission in process’. This means, that
diffusion assumes that contact between culture did take place some time in the
course of which elements got transferred from one culture to the other.
Acculturation, on the other hand, obtains from contact between cultures that can
be demonstrated.
Silk Route: It is also known as silk road and refers to a series of routes
through which both trade and transmission of culture took place between
Asia and the West chiefly through soldiers, monks, pilgrims and traders.
2.1
ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF DIFFUSION
According to Linton (1936), diffusion takes place through three processes: a.)
presentation of new cultural elements or traits; b.) acceptance of these cultural
traits by society; and c.) integration of accepted cultural traits into the accepting
culture. The following are important features of diffusion.
i)
Diffusion of any cultural trait depends upon contact between the populations.
The likelihood of diffusion between populations in close physical proximity
of each other is greater than that between populations located far away
from each other.
ii)
The traits spread irregularly and at different speeds from their centres of
origin. The nature and extent of diffusion of a cultural trait depends on the
ease with which it can be transferred. Ease of transfer depends on the level
of complexity and the ease with which it can be comprehended. Compare
two cultural traits: an alphabet and a complex theory. You will agree that
the alphabet will diffuse faster than a complex theory, because the former is
easier to communicate and understand than the latter.
iii) The acceptance of a cultural trait by the receiving group depends on its
utility for and compatibility with traits of the culture in which it is getting
diffused. Those cultural traits that are of no use or are in conflict with the
beliefs and values prevalent in the receiving culture are likely to be rejected.
27
Linton (1936) explains this with an example of the Apache’s reaction to
peyote. The Apache rejected the offer of peyote by certain tribes. The reason
was that the Apache believed that consumption of peyote would generate
visions and those people who had vision would be bestowed with enviable
power. This power could be stolen by other medicine men. The Apache did
not promote the regular pattern of peyote consumption in a group for the
fear of the power that accrues from it getting stolen by others. Another
example is that of diffusion of refrigerator or say television set. Diffusion
of such items (here referring to those that raise the consumption of electricity)
depends on the availability of electricity connection at people’s houses, and
among others, per capita income of the family (that determines their
affordability).
Emergence of Anthropology
iv) Changes or innovations in a cultural trait that has undergone diffusion lags
behind the original cultural trait. Consider the example of plough that
developed in region A and has reached regions B, C and D through the
process of diffusion. Now, people in region A improve certain features of
the plough. The new features will not spread as fast as the original version
of the plough did. The advanced plough will take a long time to reach and
replace the older one at all the places.
v)
Diffusion of single cultural trait does take place, however, those cultural
traits that are functionally related get diffused together. Diffusions of tea,
for example, gets linked with various methods of brewing it. Surely, in the
course of diffusion, new methods of brewing tea developed in places of its
spread and these got diffused too.
vi) Extent of distribution of a cultural trait is not deterministic of its age. It is
not correct to assume that a trait which is more widely distributed is older
in its origin, that the one which is scarcely distributed because certain traits
or set of traits tend to get diffused faster than other. This is determined by
the nature of trait.
Apache: The term Apache is used to collectively refer to the American Indians
in the United States.
Peyote: It is a small cactus known for its psychoactive properties when
consumed
Check Your Progress 1
1) Explain the concept of diffusion.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
2) What is the difference between diffusion and acculturation?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
28
.......................................................................................................................
3) What are the processes through which diffusion takes place?
Diffusionism
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
2.2
SCHOOLS OF DIFFUSIONISM
The fundamental premise of diffusion is often contrasted with that of the
evolutionary theory. While the evolutionary theory assumes that human beings
are creative and that innovations will be developed independently in different
societies (which is why all societies are expected to develop innovations
characterising the evolutionary stage they are in), diffusion assumes that human
beings are, largely, conservative and uninventive and they tend to borrow cultural
traits that have originated at one or more but specific places(s). Diffusionism
challenged the basic proposition that all societies pass through the same stages
of evolution. Instead, diffusionists argued that there is/are distinct centre(s). It is
from this/these centre(s) of culture(s) that cultural traits spread to different regions
through the process of diffusion. While agreeing on the basic postulate of spread
of cultural traits from specific center(s), diffusionists differed on other counts.
The following are three prominent schools of diffusionists.
2.2.1 British School of Diffusion
The founder of the British School of diffusion was Graffon Elliot Smith. Both
Smith and his disciple William James Perry insisted that cultures originated in
Egypt. They argued that it was from Egypt that cultures spread to different parts
of the world. You might want to know why Smith identified Egypt as the centre
of all cultures. Smith was a well-known anatomist and surgeon who went to
Egypt to study the anatomy of mummies. He was so impressed with the Egyptians’
procedure of mummification, their pyramids and large monuments of stone that
he postulated (i) the stone monuments in Egypt were the forerunners of megalithic
structures much like the Stonehenge in England; and (ii) Egypt was the only
place on earth where ancient culture originated and spread to other parts of the
world.
According to him, sun worship and stone monuments were of critical value in
Egyptian culture. Other traits were: irrigation and agriculture, mummification,
pyramids and other megalithic structures, ear piercing and circumcision practices.
He began looking for these in other cultures as well.
Smith maintained that the soil along the banks of the river Nile that flows in
Egypt was very fertile. Here, wild barley grew in abundance which was later
cultivated by Egyptians. In order to cultivate barley, Egyptians developed
hydraulic system of irrigation. The rich harvest of barley had to be stored. So,
Egyptians invented pottery and constructed granaries. Later, granaries developed
into dwellings. When people did not have to worry about food and house, they
had leisure. They used this leisure to develop different skills such as those of
29
Emergence of Anthropology
basketry, matting and weaving. Additionally, they invented the wheel and plough,
domesticated cattle, and developed metallurgy. Thereafter, they set up towns,
and cities. Large monuments for law and governance came up. River Nile
continued to be the most important resource for the people. The king could predict
the course that the river would take and since the river was very important for
them, the people came to believe that their king was an embodiment of sun and
that he was immortal. This made them to preserve his body as a mummy after he
died.
As one would expect, (i) religion based on sun-worship developed; and (ii) rituals,
dance, drama and music developed to protect the body of the king from getting
corrupted in any way. These were the beginnings of religion. According to Smith,
around 4000 BC Egyptians travelled to different parts of the world in search of
precious metals and raw materials. This enabled them to master the skill of
navigation. In the course of travel to different places, they passed on the traits of
culture to people in distant lands. The position of Graffon Elliot Smith and Perry
postulating that Egypt was the cradle of all cultures is referred to as an extreme
diffusionism. Perry was far too impressed with sun temples at Cairo. He asserted
that the process of diffusion of art and craft from Egypt to different cultures was
inevitably accompanied with their degradation. But Smith and Perry were not
the only two diffusionists within the British school of diffusion.
There were other diffusionists as well who did not assert the importance of Egypt
but maintained that similarities and differences among cultures could be explained
in terms of contact with other cultural groups not just with those in Egypt. This
approach is referred to as moderate diffusionism. The chief proponent of moderate
diffusionism was, among others, W H R Rivers. Rivers studied people from
different parts of the world. He studied the Torres Strait Islanders, Todas (tribal
community in the Nilgiri hills of South India) and the Melanesians and
Polynesians. Rivers explained that similarities and differences, particularly among
islands comprising Melanesia were due to the process of diffusion which took
place through a series of migrations between them. Rivers suggested that cultural
complexes spread by way of successive migration. He stated that migration leads
to spread of cultural traits as also loss of some of them. When he did not find
canoes on some islands, for example, Rivers explained that in the past canoes
would have been used by the people but disappeared later due to dying out of the
island’s canoe making guild. He studied the Oceanian culture as well in terms of
cultural complexes. Interestingly, he accorded the presence of five different burial
rituals in Australia to a series of migrations.
According to Rivers, small groups of men equipped with superior technology
migrated to Australia, settled down there and married the local women. The
following were the consequences: (i) since the migrants were few in number,
their racial strain could not find expression in physical features of the native
population which implies that the children lost the racial features of their
forefathers; and (ii) the original language of the migrants was lost because they
had to adopt the local dialects for communication with the natives. The migrant
men, in effect, lost their own way of life. They, however, retained their own
burial rites due to strong emotional attachment with them. What remains
unexplained is/are the reason(s) for local people abandoning their own burial
practices and adopting the rituals of the migrants.
30
The British school of diffusion suffered from several weakness. The following
are a few of them: (i.) its basic assumption that other than those in Egypt, people
are largely uninventive has been challenged vehemently; (ii.) both extreme
diffusionists and moderate diffusionists assumed that culture complexes spread.
The difference between them was that the former argued that Egypt was the only
centre point while latter argued that there were other center points as well. It is
difficult to accept this proposition because certain cultural traits could have been
independently invented by the people; (iii) it does not account for the possibility
of multiple diffusions; and (iv) it does not give cognizance to the meaning and
significance attached with a cultural trait.
Diffusionism
2.2.2 German-Austrian School of Diffusion
The German-Austrian School of diffusion was founded by Fredrick Ratzel. Some
of the other proponents were Leo Frobenius, Fritz Graebner and Father Withelm
Schmidt. German-Austrian diffusionists differed from British diffusionists chiefly
on following counts: unlike the latter, they maintained that (i) there were not one
but many centers of culture; (ii) culture complexes diffused in totality rather
than in bits-and-pieces as through singular traits. Interestingly, they assumed
that similarity between cultures was due to contact between them some time in
history. Even cultures situated far apart from each other were assumed to have
come in contact sometime if similarity existed between them. Thus, similarity
between cultures was accounted for by diffusion. They identified two kinds of
similarities. The first was based on functional reasons for example sharpness of
spears. Now, spears would have sharp points everywhere because if it were not
so, they would be useless. The other kinds of similarity were based on historical
contact, for example presence of matrilineal descent in two cultures.
Ratzel proposed ‘criterion of form’ which could be stated as: ‘similarity between
two culture elements which do not automatically arise out of the nature, material,
or purpose of the traits or objects should be interpreted as resulting from diffusion,
regardless of the distance which separates the two instances’ (Harris 1968:384).
In fact, Ratzel examined similarities in bow-shaft, mechanism of fastening of
bow strings, material they are made from and the way on which features are
attached to the arrows in Africa and in Australia. He maintained that since these
features had nothing to do with how the bow and arrow would function, it was
safe to conclude that the similarities were due to historical contact leading to
diffusion between Africa and Australia. In other words, he explained that the
similarity is not due to functional reasons (i.e., not because the design was the
one that was best suited for hunting). Rather, the similarity was due to (i) historical
connection between them; and (ii) similarity in psychological makeup of people
in the two regions. Ratzel’s ‘criterion of form’ was called ‘criterion of quality’
by Schmidt.
Ratzel maintained that while cultural traits diffuse singularly, culture complexes
spread through migration. He insisted that regions and routes of migration and
diffusion across the world should be mapped. He added that cultural traits, could
get simplified or complicated when they get diffused.
Just as Ratzel proposed ‘criterion of form’, one of his pupils named Leo Frobenius
proposed ‘criterion of quantity’. Frobenius saw that certain cultural traits diffuse
together. We can conclude that diffusion has taken between two culture when
many similar traits are found together. The ‘criterion of quantity’ establishes that
31
Emergence of Anthropology
diffusion has taken place between two or more cultures when we see many similar
traits in them. Let us refer to the example of the bow and arrow in West Africa
and Australia once again. The similarity in bow and arrow in the two cultures
was accompanied with similarity in house types, shields masks, clothing and
drums. With increase in number of similar traits between cultures, the possibility
that diffusion has taken place between them increases.
German-Australian diffusionists came up with the theory of kulturkreis (‘culture
circle’ or ‘culture center’) to explain how diffusion actually takes place. It
accepted that all cultures originated in specific cultural centers. From here they
spread through larger circles in a way that additional cultural areas were
encompassed. The original cultural centers were believed to be identified by
discrete characteristics referred to as ‘cultural complex’. Diffusionists were to
trace the spread of cultural traits from their specific centers of origin. The initiative
of Ratzel and Frobenius, the notion of kulturkreis was carried forward by Graebner
and Schmidt. Graebner was a museologist who was mainly interested in
similarities in material culture first across Oceania and later in different parts of
the world. What he did was to bring together Ratzel’s ‘criterion of form’ and
Frobenius’s ‘criterion of quantity’ and proposed that both form and quantity were
critical in assessing the likelihood that any two cultures were historically related.
He maintained that Asia was the region that was occupied by human beings in
earliest time. It was here that they invented language, tools and other elements of
culture. Later, they organised themselves into bands and moved independently
to different parts of the world (first through land routes and later through the
seas). In course of travel and settling down in different parts of the world, they
developed their own cultures. There were now different kreise (i.e., distinct culture
of each band). According to Graebner, all dimensions of a culture did not develop
at the same pace. This explained why a culture that was characterized by simple
kinship system could exhibit complex technology.
Schmidt compared kulturkreis or ‘culture circle’ with a living organism. Just as
a living organism is made up of different parts that are interrelated with each
other, kulturkreis comprises of economy, material culture, social life, customs
and religion all of which are related with each other. A culture circle is complete
in itself, however, if one of its needs was not met internally, it borrows a substitute
to meet this need from another culture. A culture circle ceases to exist when the
number of substitutes grows to be fairly large. Evidently, a culture complex
tends to diffuse in totality and as a whole. It adopts elements to meet specific
needs of cultures it comes into contact with.
Following were major criticism against German-Australian diffusionists: (i) undue
emphasis on trait complex. This ruled out the possibility that some traits could
originate and spread independently; (ii) the maze of traits is complex, not easy to
sort out and understand; (iii) the proposition that all cultures of the world are
derived from a few basic cultures is too far-fetched and difficult to accept; and
(iv) the association of certain elements with each culture seems to be arbitrary
and subjective.
Check Your Progress 2
4) What is the difference between ‘criterion of form’ and ‘criterion of quantity’?
.......................................................................................................................
32
.......................................................................................................................
Diffusionism
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
5) What do you understand by kulturkreis?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
2.2.3 American School of Diffusion
The foundation of American school of diffusion was laid by Franz Boas who
was born and educated in Germany. Expectedly, his ideas were influenced by the
German school of diffusion. According to Boas, each cultural group had its own
history comprising its own development and influences of others on it. Boas
believed that culture developed independently. Hence, there are many cultures
and each culture is a consequence of its own geography, climate, environment,
resources and borrowings. The task before anthropologists was to record and
document the history, compare groups of cultural traits in specific geographical
areas and then plot the distribution of these cultural traits. Plots of different sets
of cultural traits in a geographical area are indicative of cultural borrowings and
enable reconstruction of histories of specific cultures. Understandably, Boas
regards culture as an assemblage of traits and since trait has a complex past, he
projected that cultures have their own unique histories.
American diffusionists believed that people tend to learn and borrow elements
of cultures they come in contact with. The likelihood of learning and borrowing
increases when the duration and frequency of contact increases. They proposed
the concept of ‘culture area’ which referred to geographical space in which similar
cultures were found. The basic proposition was that mapping of distribution of
cultural traits in culture areas would provide an explanation of similarities and
differences between cultures, particularly Native American Cultures.
According to Clark Wissler, subsistence was an important means of identifying
culture areas. The reason was simple: subsistence was the basis of existence
itself and influences other aspects of culture. On the basis of following subsistence:
Caribou; Bison; Salmon; Wild Seed; Eastern Maize; Intensive agriculture;
Manioc; and Guanaco he identified eight culture areas-Eskimo, Mackenzie (and
north part of Eastern Woodland); Plains; North Pacific Coast; Plateau; California;
South east, Eastern Woodland (except north non-agricultural portion); South west,
Nahua-Mexico, Chibcha, Inca Peru; Amazon, Antilles; and Guanaco respectively.
Each culture area had a culture centre which governed its social, economic,
political, and religious activities. Wissler also proposed the age-area hypothesis
by which he meant that a trait which is more widely distributed around a culture
centre is older than the one that is less widely distributed. Edward Sapir, however,
33
Emergence of Anthropology
cautioned that (i) the spread of cultural traits may be faster in one direction than
in another (ii) the oldest cultural trait could undergo large-scale transformation
at the centre (i.e., at its place of origin) to the extent that the real point of origin
could be mistaken; and (iii) migration within the area of distribution of a cultural
trait may lead to erroneous conclusion regarding culture distribution.
Alfred Louis Kroeber suggested that culture area should be looked at in the broad
framework of its cultural contact. He identified six culture areas of native America
based on geographical and ecological considerations and several other factors.
These culture areas were: Arctic zone, North-West Coast, South-West Coast,
Intermediate and Inter-mountain Area, East and North Area, and Mexico-Central
American Area. In fact, he argued in favour of using the term ‘culture climax’
instead of culture area. He defines culture climax as, ‘the point from which the
greatest radiation of cultural material has taken place’ (1952:39). The level of
organization of cultures increases as they become richer and more differentiated
in the sense of developing religious hierarchies, detailed norms and customs etc.
As cultures become richer, they are able to assimilate and incorporate new material
or traits that could be borrowed or developed internally.
The American school of diffusion has been criticized for its culture area concept:
(i) It is argued that cultural trait which constitutes the very core of culture area
concept is itself not a clearly understood one. Critics have expressed concern
over what constitutes cultural trait. Consider the example of a ship. Should ship
be considered as a simple unit or as a combination of traits such as nature and
design of the seating space, decorations in it etc. (ii) Equal importance was
assigned to each cultural trait. The number of oars in a ship, the number of wives
a man had or the number of husbands a woman had, for example, hold equal
value so far as diagnosis or determination whether diffusion had taken place was
concerned. What comes out of the example is the fact that only the trait as such
was taken into account while the function it performed in a culture was ignored.
(iii) In order to determine culture areas, large number of criteria were identified.
Based on these criteria several culture areas were noted. There was, however no
agreement among the diffusionists about the culture areas. (iv) Symbiotic
interaction between culture areas was largely ignored. (v) Geographical conditions
harbouring different cultures in different periods of time were not taken into
account. (vi) Free diffusion within culture areas is assumed ignoring forces of
resistance and difficulties of acceptance of cultural traits in different culture areas.
Another set of criticism of American school of diffusion relates with the agearea hypothesis: (i) it is not appropriate to correlate age of a trait with its
distribution. This is meaningless because traits do not spread continuously; and
(ii) it ignores the fact that spread of a trait depends on its receptivity in the other
culture.
Cultural Trait: It is the basic unit of a culture. Diffusionists regard cultural
trait as a unit of cultural transmission. There are both empirical units (i.e.,
things that can be touched and held e.g., a jar) and ideational units (i.e.,
descriptions, ideas, beliefs etc. that characterize a thing or they may be
theoretical or analytical in nature).
Cultural Complex: It is a combination of different cultural traits.
34
Check Your Progress 3
Diffusionism
6) What is the age-area hypothesis? Outline it demerits.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
7) What are the major tenets of the American school of diffusion?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
2.3
SUMMARY
In this unit we obtained an explanation of how and why similarities among cultures
are found. We familiarised ourselves with three schools of diffusionism. None of
them however, could explain how and why certain traits originate and how do
we account for similarities in culture which have not come into contact with
each other? Notwithstanding its limitation, diffusionist school captured the
attention of anthropologists for a long time. The question it answered and those
that it generated provided a feeder for new paradigms and theories in anthropology.
2.4
REFERENCES
Harris, M. (1968). The Rise of Anthropological Theory. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Herskovits, M. J. (1955). Cultural Anthropology. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH
Publishing Company.
Kroeber, A. L. (1952). The Nature of Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Linton, R. (1936). The Study of Man: An Introduction. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts.
Mathur, N. (nd). ‘Diffusion of Culture: British, German-Austrian, and American
Schools’ http://nsdl.niscair.res.in/jspui/bitstream/123456789/156/1/
PDF%207.3Diffusion.pdf
Redfield, R., R. Linton and M. J. Herskovits. (1936). Memorandum on the Study
of Acculturation. American Anthropologist xxxviii: 149-152.
35
Emergence of Anthropology
2.5
ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Check Your Progress 1
36
1)
Diffusion refers to the transmission of cultural traits.
2)
For detailed explanation of the concept of diffusion and for difference
between diffusion and acculturation refer to section 2.1
3)
According to Linton, diffusion takes place through the following practices:
presentation of new cultural elements or traits; acceptance of these cultural
traits by society; and integration of accepted cultural traits into the accepting
culture.
4)
‘Criterion of form’ establishes that similarity between two culture elements
that are not due to the nature, material, or purpose of the traits or objects
should be interpreted as resulting from diffusion. This is irrespective of the
distance which separates them. The ‘criterion of quantity’, on the other
hand establishes that diffusion can be said to have taken place between two
or more cultures when many similar traits are found in them.
5)
For the concept of kulturkreis refer to section 2.2.2.
6)
Age-area hypothesis was proposed by Wissler to ascertain the relative age
of a culture trait. The age-area hypothesis suggests that a trait which is
more widely distributed can be considered to be older than the one which is
of limited distribution. The main demerits of the age-area hypothesis are
first, since traits do not spread continuously it is not appropriate to correlate
age of a trait with its distribution; second, it does not account for the fact
that spread of a trait depends of its receptivity in the other culture.
7)
For major tenets of the American school of diffusion refer to section 4.3.3
UNIT 3
CULTURE AREA THEORIES*
Diffusionism
Contents
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Historical Trajectory of Thought
3.1.1
A Critique of Unilinear Evolution
3.1.2
Influence of Biological Sciences and Museology
3.2 Theoretical Context
3.2.1
British School of thought
3.2.2
German School
3.2.3
American School and Culture Area Theories
3.3 Why did ‘Culture Area Concept’Lose its Steam?
3.4 Summary
3.5 References
3.6 Answers to Check Your Progress
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
In this unit, the learners will be able to:

explore the historical, theoretical and methodological significance of the
culture area concept;

understand the contributions of various scholars whose works influenced
the concept, building up to the culture area theories; and

critically assess why the culture area concept lost its significance.
3.0
INTRODUCTION
It has often been found that neighbouring cultures share common cultural traits
which might include food, dressing pattern, festivals, rituals and ceremonies.
This commonality of traits often results in the definition of geographical areas
based on the cultural inclination (the more obvious or prominent cultural display/
manifestation). For example, one often hears of the term Punjabi culture or that
north of India is represented by Punjabi culture, why is this the case? Is the north
of India or the geographical region of Punjab indeed a homogenous culture? If
not, then why is it that they are termed as such, and how and why is it that they
have shared cultural traits? One of the possible answers to why cultures find
association with geography (at a large scale) is that even a casual sorting of
cultural information like language, social institutions, material culture and even
social behavioural patterns can throw up certain commonalities between specific
areas.
The culture area concept attempted to provide a method to such casual
observations to make it acceptable as an anthropological theory. The culture
area concept was developed in the early 1900s, along with the theories of diffusion
and historicism. It was based in the western context in a time period when the
European powers were still colonising the rest of the world. Anthropology as a
*Contributor: Dr. Indrani Mukherjee, Post-Doctoral Fellow, Department of Anthropology,
University of Delhi. Delhi.
37
Emergence of Anthropology
discipline was already establishing itself as the study of the ‘other’ culture (usually
termed as ‘primitive’ at that point of time). However, there was realisation within
the discipline that while western exploration had led to the discovery of a number
of ‘other’ cultures, the very process of colonisation was also leading to the
diminishing and disappearance of a number of these cultures. In this,
anthropologists recognised an urgent need to document information from these
‘disappearing’ cultures. American anthropologists, namely Franz Boas and his
students, did pioneering work in this area by conducting extensive fieldwork to
collect enormous amounts of data about the ‘disappearing’ native cultures of
North America.There was however, no framework for organising this data. It is
in the sorting of the empirical data by spatially tracing (cultural) traits that the
culture area concept was born.
The concept of culture area was first applied by ethnologist Clark Wissler in
order to provide a theoretical framework for the information being generated. A
culture area was defined as a geographical/cultural region whose population and
groups share important common identifiable cultural traits, such as language,
tools and material culture, kinship, social organisation, and cultural history.
Therefore, groups sharing similar traits in a geographical region would be classed
in a single culture area. Culture area highlighted the historical relationships
between different cultures over geographical spaces and recognised the areas
governed by the same or a dominant culture. This cultural relationship was
understood in terms of cultural phases taking into consideration the dimension
of time to understand historical relationships. Russell Gordon Smith (1929) in
his paper ‘The Concept of the Culture-area’ explains that, “the culture-area is an
empirical grouping of cultural data cultures in which the unit of investigation
and the principle of classification have been derived from direct observation of
the facts and of their temporal and spatial distributions” (Smith 1929: 421).
George W. Hill (1941) in his paper ‘The use of Culture Area Concept in Social
Research’ points out that “A technique of classification is a cornerstone of
scientific research. Prior to the development of such a system, a discipline remains
speculative and has little objectivity. Following the evolutionary system, the
culture area provides the much-needed classification in Anthropology” (Hill 1941:
39). This statement brings to light the fact that anthropology was still positioning
itself as a scientific discipline in the ‘positivists’ era, and in that the culture area
concept provided it with the much-needed framework to prove its credibility,
while it disengaged itself from the theory of unilinear evolution of humankind.
Let us, in the next subsection, understand how the critiques to the classical
evolutionary school of thought lead to a shift in anthropological thought towards
culture area concept.
3.1
HISTORICAL TRAJECTORY OF THOUGHT
The concept of culture area developed as an alternate explanation to unilinear
evolution. It also borrowed from other disciplines like natural science and
museology, in developing a theoretical framework to understand cultural data.
This section provides a background on how the critique of evolutionism and a
multidisciplinary influence helped in the development of the concept.
38
3.1.1 A Critique of Unilinear Evolution
Culture Area Theories
The classical evolutionary theory came into being in the late 1800s and has been
criticised as an ethnocentric theory putting the western civilization at the pinnacle
of development.The evolutionists proposed that humans share a set of
characteristics and modes of thinking that transcend individual cultures (psychic
unity of mankind) and attributed similarity of cultural traits between
geographically separated areas to similar evolutionary pattern. As more and more
anthropological information started getting collected, it led to the ideation of
two alternate possibilities:
a)
independent local innovation (local inventions one place after another) and
b)
diffusion (innovation are created in a few localities from where they spread
over a wide area)
Evolutionary theory was a grand or nomothetic theory. In contrast we have the
development of Historical Particularism in America focused on the historical
trajectory of unique cultures. Diffusionism was the first approach devised to
accomplish this type of historical approach to cultural investigation. As the term
suggests diffusionism studied the dispersal of culture traits from its place of
origin to other places. Both Historicism and Diffusionism contributed to the
concept of culture area, however before dwelling into these thoughts in details
and how they contributed to the culture area concept let us look at how natural
sciences contributed to the idea of culture area concept.
3.1.2 Influence of Biological Sciences and Museology
Culture area concept finds its influence from the systematised presentation and
classification of biological data in terms of typology and taxonomy which can
be traced back to Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus, French biologist JeanBaptiste Lamarck and others who used morphology or physical structures of
organisms (like flowers, shells, and bones) to illustrate the relatedness between
groups of living beings.
This idea was furthered in museology by the Danish archaeologist, Christian
Jürgensen Thomsen, curator of the National Museum of Denmark (1816–65)
who in his study of the bracteate, a type of ancient pendant found in
northern Europe, charted a variety of morphological categories, such as insignia
and size. By combining the typologies thus created, he showed that these Nordic
ornaments had developed from earlier Roman coins. This depicted the diffusion
of a cultural item through geographical space, resulting in subsequent changes
in the item through its travel.
Vadstena Bracteate
Courtesy of Kungl. History of Witness and the Academy of Antiquities, Stockholm.Vadstena
bracteate - Wikipedia
39
Emergence of Anthropology
This supported the idea of diffusion (a theoretical perspective that influenced the
idea of culture area). The political implications of the innovation-diffusion debate
were profound. It resulted in the methodological problem of how one might
scientifically determine the primacy of either process. Otis T. Mason, curator
of ethnology at the Smithsonian Institution (1884–1908), suggested one such
method in a report of his program for organizing the museum exhibits for the
United States National Museum, Mason (1886). He was among the first to use
the term ‘culture area’, however his focus was on presentation of cultural material.
He believed that if a biologist could study variations in the wing form of birds,
ultimately creating a sequence from the wing’s most basal to its most advanced
form, an ethnologist could apply the same methods to see if a cultural trait (such
as basketry) had been independently developed or has spread through. According
to Mason, a series of such studies, analysing a multitude of traits, would eventually
result in a preponderance of evidence supporting either innovation or diffusion,
thus resolving the question of causation in cultural evolution.
Mason was however criticised by Franz Boas that, in ranking cultures as higher
or lower according to their traits, the comparative method Mason adopted was
intrinsically biased and, therefore, not scientific. Boas writes that “there is one
fundamental difference between biological and cultural data which makes it
impossible to transfer the methods of the one science to the other. Animal forms
develop in divergent directions, and an intermingling of species that have once
become distinct is negligible in the whole developmental history...…. Human
thoughts, institutions, activities may spread from one social unit to another.….
Before morphological comparison can be attempted the extraneous elements due
to cultural diffusion must be eliminated.” (Boas 1932: 609)
Boas’s assistant, Clark Wissler, succeeded him as the curator of the American
Museum of Natural History. Culture area concept was developed in earnest by
Clark Wissler, and given a theoretical perspective that could produce scientific
laws while preserving the cross-cultural perspective essential to anthropology.
Before we dwell further into the culture area concept as proposed by Clark Wissler,
let us first look at scholarly discussions that contributed to the culture area concept.
As mentioned earlier, the culture area concept came into being as a methodological
response to the innovation-diffusion debate, it is thus important to understand
the thoughts around diffusion and its influence in the culture area concept.
Check Your Progress 1
1) Why did anthropological thought preference shift from classical sociocultural evolution to historicism and diffusionism?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
40
.......................................................................................................................
2) How did biological sciences and museology contribute to the culture area
concept?
Culture Area Theories
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
3) Who was Christian Jürgensen Thomsen?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
3.2
THEORETICAL CONTEXT
It is important for us to remember that the ideas of innovation and diffusion
developed as a critique to the classical evolutionary theory. However, it was in
continuation with the evolutionary theory itself, where social evolution took a
more regional perspective and the ideas of cultural contact and diffusion were
provided academic recognition. At this conjecture of anthropological history (late
1800s and early 1900s) extensive anthropological data was being collected. This
data showed a commonality of traits among different tribes in a region. Further,
as anthropologist acknowledged the need to study disappearing/vanishing tribes
and there was a realisation that this disappearance is due to the colonising process,
or cultural contact. Regional commonality of cultural traits and the reality of
culture contact brought forth the idea of innovation and diffusion within the
space of understanding social evolution and development of cultures.This shift
in anthropological thought is usually studied under the ambit of Diffusionism.
Diffusionism was represented by three distinct schools of thought: the British
school, the German school and the American school as you have already read in
Unit 2. Here in this section, we are giving a gist of the same for you to recapitulate.
3.2.1 British School of Thought
The British school of diffusionism was led by G. E. Smith and W. J. Perry.
These scholars were known as Egyptologists. According to them all of culture
and civilization was developed only once in ancient Egypt and diffused throughout
the rest of the world through migration, colonisation and diffusion. Therefore,
all cultures were tied together by a common origin (or psychic unity of humankind)
and, as a result, worldwide cultural development could be viewed as a reaction
of native cultures to this diffusion of culture from Egypt.
G. Elliot Smith was a great admirer of Egyptian civilization. According to him
there were many English monuments which were secondary copy of the structure
of pyramid. Smith travelled to Egypt, Japan, Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia to
41
Emergence of Anthropology
study the architecture, where he found similarity among Egypt pyramids and
Japanese pagoda, Cambodians temples, temples of Indonesia. From all of his
studies he concluded that around 400 B.C culture traits of Egyptian monuments
started spreading from Egypt to the other parts of the world. In his book “The
Origin of Civilization” (1928), he emphasised that Egypt was the only centre of
the culture, and that agriculture and subsequently the first civilisation emerged
at the fertile bank of river Nile. Egyptian developed scientific methods like
hydraulic system for controlling water, invented pottery, weaving, wheel, and
script to write and began to live in cities. Government was formed, laws were
formulated and religion prospered. The Egyptians developed systems of
navigation and travelled far and wide to the different corner of the world in
search of precious stone and metal. In this course of travel they spread the benefit
of their civilization to the other part of the world. Thus, according to Smith there
were two kinds of men, the civilized men of Egypt and natural men outside
Egypt. Smith believed that a revolution came in natural men when they came in
contact with civilized traits. Underlying smith idea is “uninventiveness of
humankind” i.e., human is basically uninventive in nature, and invention,
discovery began in Egypt.
W. J. Perry (1877-1949):W. J. Perry was a strong supporter of Smith, and agreed
that cultural similarities were due to diffusion and not invention, and that Egypt
was the citadel of civilization.
The Egyptologists were criticized for their narrow vision and the fact that they
thought that man was uninventive, and though their thought of diffusion held
certain interest, there was weakness in the evidence on the basis of which they
formulated their theory.
3.2.2 German School
The German School of Diffusionism proposed the culture circle or Kulterkreis
concept that conceptualised widening circles of culture trait complexes diffusing
outwards from their point of origin. F. Ratzel (1884-1904) in his book “Anthropogeography” (1892) carried forward the idea of culture circles. He argued that
there is a strong relationship between territory and culture. He said that
environment and climate played a major role in determining the culture circle.
People living on mountains, near rivers and in deserts have different culture
complex. Individuals continuously create innovations within these cultures circle
and innovations migrate or diffuse to the neighbouring areas. “Anthropogeography” conveyed that different culture circles could come up in different
geographical terrains making it amenablefor migration and diffusion.Frobenius,
a student of Ratzel,tried to utilise statistics to map the distribution of cultural
traits thereby suggesting the idea ofgeographical statistics.
The German concept of culture circles was criticised for a number of reasons.
Anthropologists realised that cultural phenomena is much too complex to be
explained by the interaction of a small number of Kulturkreise. It spoke of contacts
over unlikely distances and did not make allowances for independent invention.
The proponents of the theory often mistook analogous features (those that appear
similar but have differing origins) for homologous ones (those that appear similar
because they share an origin) and thus compared phenomena that were not really
comparable.
42
3.2.3 American School and Culture Area Theories
Culture Area Theories
American school of thought saw the development of the concept of culture area
into theory and practice under two key thinkers Clark Wissler and A L Kroeber,
who had both enjoyed the mentorship of Franz Boas.
In the United States, Franz Boas was the first to formally propound the
understanding of culture areas (Buckley 1989). He said that these areas were
historical as well as geographical units: the spatial coefficients of processes of
cultural growth through time. He identified the physical environment of culture
areas, the “psychology” of the peoples inhabiting them, and the spread of
technologies and other ideas as three independent variables governing cultural
growth, or development, within culture areas over time (Boas 1896). He reflected
on diffusion as a viable mechanism for culture exchanges among geographically
adjacent areas. Boas argued that, one had to carry out detailed regional studies of
individual cultures to discover the distribution of culture traits and to understand
the individual processes of culture change at work. He stressed on the need for
meticulous collection and organisation of ethnographic data on all aspects of
(different) human societies. He maintained that only after information on the
particulars of many different cultures had been gathered could generalisations
about cultural development be made with any expectation of accuracy.Thus, while
Boas recognised the relevance of culture area, he also felt that the need of the
time was for anthropologists to study specific cultures in-depth. To this end, he
sought to reconstruct the histories of specific cultures and focused on particularism
of a society in terms of both its history and culture. He argued that many cultures
developed independently, each based on its own unique set of circumstances
such as geography, climate, resources and particular cultural borrowing. Based
on this argument, reconstructing the history of individual cultures requires an indepth investigation that compares groups of culture traits in specific geographical
areas. Then the distribution of these culture traits must be plotted. Once the
distribution of many sets of culture traits is plotted for a general geographic area,
patterns of cultural borrowing may be determined. This allows the reconstruction
of individual histories of specific cultures by investigating which of the cultural
elements were borrowed and which were developed individually (Bock
1996:299).
The concept of culture area was however carried forward by Clark Wissler (18701947). He developed a view of culture that focused on its continuity over wide
geographical areas. Since cross-cultural nomothetic studies require that the items
to be compared be defined as rigorously as possible, Wissler became the first
anthropologist after Tylor and the first American anthropologist to offer a
definition of culture. He developed the concept of culture-area and age-area in
his books The American Indian (1917), Man and Culture (1923) and The Relation
of Nature to Man (1926).
In Wissler’s hands culture area became a significant theory of culture change. It
created a shift in the analytical focus from the culture and history of the specific
social unit (as prescribed by Boas) to a concern with the trait-complex viewed in
cross-cultural perspective (Freed. S. A and R. S. Freed, 1883). Unlike Boas,
Wissler was looking to understand world history. He followed agriculture, the
textile arts, architecture, and so on to create his picture of the western hemispheric
history.
43
Emergence of Anthropology
Culture area was chiefly determined by material traits and the economic base,
but ceremonial and social trait-complexes were also used to distinguish them.
Each culture area was perceived to have a culture center “from which culture
influences seem to radiate” (Wissler 1917: 242). Thus, diffusion was seen as the
basic process in the formation of a culture area. Wissler perceived the significance
of focal points of growth, resulting in culminations definable in spatial (culture
centres) and presumably temporal (cultural climaxes) terms. The traits radiated
outwards from the focal points and the traits that reached the furthers were
understood to be the oldest. Culture areas thus contained both:
a) a group of typical tribes that share most of the defining trait-complexes, and
b) marginal tribes that have fewer of the typical traits (Freed. S. A and R. S.
Freed 1883).
Wissler tried to explain the relation of culture areas to environment. He said that
environment does not produce a culture, but stabilises it. As (at many points) the
culture must be adapted to the environment, the latter tends to hold it fast. Cultures
therefore incline to change slowly once they have fitted themselves to a setting,
and to enter a new environment with more difficulty than to spread over the
whole of the natural area in which their form was worked out. If they do enter a
new type of territory, they are subject to change. Once fitted to an environment,
they are likely to alter radically only through some factor profoundly affecting
subsistence. Wissler divided North America into ten culture areas where
(according to Kroeber) subsistence areas seem to refer primarily to the basis of
culture, and environment and ecological aspects also played a critical role. A. L.
Kroeber recognised the significance of culture area theory, developed on it, as
well as put the theory into practice by defining various culture areas among the
North American tribes.
Alfred Louis Kroeber (1876-1960)- Kroeber referred to ‘culture area’ as an
unfortunate designation in that it puts emphasis on the area, whereas it is usually
the cultural content that is being primarily considered. Being from the Boasian
school of thought, Kroeber believed in cultural relativism. He said that cultures
occur in nature as wholes; and these wholes can never be entirely formulated
through consideration of their elements, in this he critiqued Clark Wissler. He
justified this with the example of the Navaho and Pueblos (or North Pacific
Coast Indians) tribes. He pointed out that Navaho altar paintings may be the
most developed in the Southwest, but Navaho culture is still close to that of the
Pueblos and in many ways obviously dependent on it. So, he showed that at
times a single trait can be very distinct in a culture and thus misleading if cultural
traits are being followed, while holistic comparisons can provide a stronger
association between cultures. The culture-area concept he thus believed should
attempt to deal with such culture wholes.
44
Kroeber looked at geographic-ethnic culture-whole in its historical course, with
the ultimate aim of searching for culture-historical laws. Kroeber applied the
culture area approach to the ever-growing body of ethnographic and
archaeological data worldwide. One of Kroeber’s greatest works was the
‘Handbook of the Indians of California’ published in 1925. It brings forth culture
areas and subareas, and their historic implications. Kroeber’s enlarged interests
in cultural areas and cultural continuities led to another of his major works,
‘Cultural and Natural Areas in Native North America’ (1939). Cultural and Natural
Areas not only delineated cultural areas, but also related them to natural areas
and, more important, introduced the concept of cultural climax. Earlier element
distribution studies had employed the concept of culture centers within areas,
which were more complex and therefore presumed to be more inventive, and of
margins, which were the simple, uninventive peripheral recipients of cultural
achievements. Kroeber’s concept of cultural climax avoided the implication that
greatest complexity meant the locus of inventiveness, and called attention instead
to cultural intensification or accumulation. He described this as ‘hearth’ or‘climax
area’. He wrote that “when part of a cultural substratum fluoresces into a level of
achievement higher than the surrounding groups, mainly on the strength of its
own initiative, it can be called a climax area. These areas almost inevitably serve
as important centers of dispersal” (Kroeber 1939: 222-9). He went on to develop
this context in sociological terms looking at golden and dark ages of great
civilisations, including the Egyptian civilisation by referring to these periods as
peaks and troughs of civilizational growth.
Culture Area Theories
In his specific anthropological quest of visualising culture area, he plotted a real
maps of California and North America on the basis of their culture area. Kroeber
explained that the weakest feature of any mapping of culture wholes is also the
most conspicuous: the boundaries. Where the influences from two culture
climaxes or foci meet in equal strength is where a line must be drawn, if boundaries
are to be indicated at all. Yet it is just there those differences often are slight. Two
people classed as in separate areas yet adjoining each other along the inter-area
boundary almost inevitably have much in common. It is probable that they
normally have more traits in common with each other than with the people at the
focal points of their respective areas. This is almost certain to be so where the
distance from the foci is great and the boundary is not accentuated by any strong
physical barrier or abrupt natural change. Kroeber provided an arial distribution
of culture area, dividingNorth America into 84 areas and sub areas and all of
these areas were clubbed under 7 grand areas. These 7 grand areas are Desert,
Artic, Great Plains, Mountains, River Valleys, Coastal Plains and Terrains of
rugged topography which do not constitute part of the remaining 6 other areas.
The concept of culture area held great significance in the trajectory of
Anthropology. Julian Steward, another student of Boas developed six culture
areas in South America, he connected to the prevalent environmental conditions.
Steward traced different patterns of culture growth and diffusion within these
cultural areas eventually leading to the ‘School of Culture Ecology’, within
anthropology.
The culture area concept can be located in a time period when the western
anthropologists were coming in touch with geographical areas consisting of native/
tribal/indigenous communities that had relatively less exposure with the colonising
world. These communities had a social relation among each other and the
anthropologists found that they often shared similarities in cultural practices,
especially among contiguous tribes. It was believed that this similarity or
continuity of cultural practices was due to diffusion among neighbouring tribes
over a period of time. However, there was no documented record of this diffusion.
Anthropologists, tried to construct this cultural history of where the cultural
practices had originated as well as tribal commonality and continuity by mapping
cultural spaces within geographical areas. Different anthropologist used the culture
area concept for different purposes. The main proponents of the concept were
from the American school of thought and looked at the concept from different
45
Emergence of Anthropology
positions. Franz Boas utilised the concept to propagate an insight into creating a
historical and cultural particularistic focus of studying a tribe holistically.Clark
Wissler and A. L. Kroeber however, theorised culture area in a cross-cultural
perspective cross-sectioned with time. Clark Wisslerused culture area to trace
world history (especially of the western hemisphere), while Kroeber sought to
uncover regionally individualised type or specific growth of culture while looking
at cultures in more holistic terms.
The contemporary relevance of this concept can be seen in the persistence of the
notion of area specialisation in anthropology whereschools as well as scholars
are divided into specialists in China studies, or South Asian studies or Middle
Eastern studies. Somewhere down the line the association of culture with
geography remains and defines sub-disciplines within anthropology.
Check Your Progress 2
4) Name two Egyptologists.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
5) Who suggested the idea of geographical statistics?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
6) Which were the key books in which Clark Wissler developed the concept of
culture-area and age-area?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
7) How did Franz Boas understand ‘culture area’?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
46
8) Name some salient works of A. L. Kroeber?
Culture Area Theories
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
9) Why did A. L. Kroeber refer to ‘culture area’ as an unfortunate designation?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
3.3
WHY DID ‘CULTURE AREA CONCEPT’ LOSE
ITS STEAM?
Culture area theories were criticised for the tendency to portray people in a static
and environmentally deterministic way. It was also pointed out that the theorists
were selective about which and how many traits were focused on. In case of
Kroeber (and through his own admission) the criteria for cultural comparison
are found to be descriptive and subjective in nature.
The culture area concept lost its steam because it did not necessarily account for
sudden culture contact and influence such as the colonial forces. The so-called
vanishing cultures either perished or acculturated and changed due to exposure
with the western world. The cultures had too many stimuli and influence tobe
understood in their so called pristine or original form. This is not to say that
cultures changed overnight, or that the cultural association (with neighbouring
cultures) and practices suddenly changed, but the heterogeneity among them
became prominent and pronounced. Further, over time the tribes being considered
within cultural area gained a voice of their own, and spoke up about their
representation/mis-representation. As culture area often created a geo-political
identity of the tribe as well. In today’s times culture still finds geographical (as
was given in the introduction with the reference of Punjabi culture) references.
However, one realised that cultural identity itself has many social forces at play.
In that a geographic-historical perspective and association with neighbouring
communities might play a significant role in understanding a culture, however a
superimposed categorisation of researcher’s perspective (of cultural distribution),
devoid of communities’ inputs, cannot remain free of critique.
Check Your Progress 3
10) What was the main critique against the culture area concept?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
47
Emergence of Anthropology
3.4
SUMMARY
In the present unit we trace the journey of Culture Area Concept through its
development. We looked at how its foundation was based in museology, and
how it came to be conceived in the need for logical arrangement of ethnographic
material. We looked at how the concept took from the idea of socio-cultural
evolution; however, it was more concerned with the idea of innovation and
diffusion in understanding cultural history. The unit also looked at how different
schools of thought namely the British and the German school contributed towards
the concept which was effusivelydeveloped by the American school of thought.
3.5
REFERENCES
Boas, F. (1896). The limitations of the comparative methodScience,4 (103), 901908
(1887). The occurrence of similar inventions in areas widely apartScience,
9(224), 485-86.
(1932). The Aims of Anthropological Research.Science,76 (1983),605-613.
Bock, P. K. (1996). Culture Change. in Levinson, David &Ember, Melvin (ed.)
Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology.Vol.1.New York: Henry Holt & Co.
Buckley, T. (1989). Kroeber’s Theory of Culture Areas and the Ethnology of
North-western California Anthropological Quarterly, 62(1), 15-26.
Freed, S. A and Freed, R. S. (1883). Clark Wissler and the Development of
Anthropology in the United States American Anthropologist, 85(4), 800-825
Hill, G. W. (1941). “The Use of the Culture-Area Concept in Social Research”.
American Journal of Sociology, 47 (1), 39-47.
Janusc, J.B. (1957). “Boas and Mason: Particularism versus Generalization”.
American Anthropologist, 59, 318-325
Kroeber, A. L. (1925). “Handbook of the Indians of California.” Bureau of
American Ethnology Bulletin, 78,1–995.
(1939). Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. Berkley,
California: University of California Press.
Smith, R. G. (1929). “The Concept of the Culture-Area”. Social Forces, 7(3),
421-432.
Willey, M. W. (1931). “Some Limitations of the Culture Area Concept”.Social
Forces, 10 (1), 28-31.
Wissler, C. (1917). The American Indian. New York: Douglas C. McMurtrie.
(1927). “The Culture-Area Concept in Social Anthropology”.American
Journal of Sociology, 32 (6), 881-891.
3.6
48
ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
1)
Refer to section 3.1.1
2)
Refer to section 3.1.2
3)
Refer to section 3.1
4)
Refer to section 3.2
5)
Frobenius
6)
The American Indian (1917), Man and Culture (1923) and The Relation of
Nature to Man (1926).
7)
Refer to section 3.2.
8)
Refer to section 3.2
9)
Refer to section 3.2
Culture Area Theories
10) Refer to section 3.3
49
BLOCK 2
EMERGENCE OF FIELDWORK TRADITION
Emergence of Fieldwork
Tradition
UNIT 4
Historical Particularism and Critique of Comparative Method
UNIT 5
American Cultural Tradition
UNIT 6
Cultural Materialism
52
UNIT 4
HISTORICAL PARTICULARISM
AND CRITIQUE OF COMPARATIVE
METHOD*
Historical Particularism and
Critique of Comparative
Method
Contents
4.0 Introduction
4.1 Historical Trajectory of Thought
4.1.1
Classical Evolutionary Theory
4.1.2
Critique of the Evolutionary School and its Comparative Method
4.2 Franz Boas’s influence on Anthropological Research
4 .2.1
Historical Particularism
4.2.2
Diffusion
4.2.3
Cultural Relativism
4.3 Franz Boas’s Influence on Anthropological Fieldwork
4.4 A Critique of Franz Boas’s Anthropological Thought
4.5 Summary
4.6 References
4.7 Answers to Check Your Progress
Learning Objectives
In this unit the learners would be acquainted with:

the universal evolutionary thought that lead to the discipline of anthropology
taking a racist directionand how the comparative method contributed to the
same;

Franz Boas’scritique of the comparative method and the various concepts
proposed by him to understand culture of specific communities in holistic
terms;

why Boas insisted on the need for fieldwork to collect information of a
culture from a holistic perspective and created an academic culture that
carried this thought forward; and

the reasons why the thinking of Franz Boas was critiqued by other scholars.
4.0
INTRODUCTION
Historical particularism is a concept which was developed by American
anthropologist Franz Boas. He was among the key anthropologists who introduced
the idea that culture was what differed between different kinds of people separated
by race and ethnicity, and there were no inherent biological or irreducible
differences between humans of any kind. He explained that all cultures are unique
and cannot be compared to each other in hierarchical perspectives, as each is a
product of its own historical development. Historical particularism was coupled
with the ideas of diffusion and cultural relativism, and was advocated through
extensive field work within anthropology.
* Contributor: Dr. Indrani Mukherjee, Post-Doctoral Fellow, Department of Anthropology,
University of Delhi. Delhi.
53
Emergence of Fieldwork
Tradition
Historical particularism postulates that each culture has its own particular and
unique history and anthropologists need to trace the historical development of
specific cultures rather than attempt the construction of a grand evolutionary
schema. As Boas focused on the specific histories of individual societies, his
approach to anthropology is called historical particularism. Though Boas provided
the concept of historical particularism, he did not coin the term. The term
‘historical particularism’ was coined by Marvin Harris in 1968.
In his paper ‘The Aims of Anthropological Research’ Boas explains that the
objective of anthropology is “to understand the steps by which man has come to
be what he is, biologically, psychologically and culturally. Thus, it appears at
once that our material must necessarily be historical material, historical in the
widest sense of the term. It must include the history of the development of the
bodily form of man, his physiological functions, mind and culture. We need a
knowledge of the chronological succession of forms and an insight into the
conditions under which changes occur. Without such data progress seems
impossible and the fundamental question arises as to how such data can be
obtained” (Boas, 1932: 605). With this Boas points out two of his key concerns
a) that there needs to be a specific focus on how human (within a culture) has
come into being and b) there is need to device a method of collection of this
information.
In his quest of exploring cultural history, Boas said that “the material for the
reconstruction of culture is …. fragmentary because the largest and most important
aspects of culture leave no trace in the soil; language, social organisation, religionin short, everything that is not material-vanishes with the life of each generation.
Historical information is available only for the most recent phases of cultural
life and is confined to those peoples who had the art of writing and whose records
we can read. Even this information is insufficient because many aspects of culture
find no expression in literature” (Boas, 1932: 608). In addition to this, he feared
that the exposure to colonising forces was drastically affecting indigenous people.
He thus believed that it was of utmost importance to gather all possible information
about cultures that might become extinct due to assimilation or acculturation.
He emphasised on the documentation of the nuances of a culture, so that even
when the culture’s customs, beliefs and rituals were no longer being practiced
they would still be preserved through time, in the anthropological archives, for
future reference.
In order to understand the concept of historical particularism better let us first
learn a little about the history of the discipline of Anthropology and the context
in which historical particularism developed.
4.1
HISTORICAL TRAJECTORY OF THOUGHT
Anthropology achieved disciplinary identity around 1860-90. The
‘evolutionists’,who were the classical thinkers among anthropologists, were
indoctrinated by the Enlightenment’s conception of a science of universal history.
Using the comparative method, they attempted to sketch in the details of the
evolutionary sequences of society and culture. Historical particularism developed
as a critique to the theory of uni-linear evolution.
54
4.1.1 Classical Evolutionary Theory
Evolutionists endeavoured to provide the first systematic methods of explaining
human societies. Europe had conducted explorations all around the world and
were conquering and colonising different reaches of the world. These expeditions
lead to exposure to different societies and cultures. As information on different
types of societies started pouring in, scholars tried to assimilate this information
and classify them for some kind of an understanding of the variations that they
saw. The scholars were influenced by the academic thinking of the time which
favoured evolution as a concept as well as the comparative method of science.They
posited their evolutionary theory based on the concept of ‘psychic unity of mind’,
according to which the human mind shares similar characteristics all over the
world, thus all societies go through an identical process of development. It was
postulated that the differences in the societies can be explained by assuming that
spatially dispersed contemporary societies are at different stages of cultural
evolution. The comparative method was utilised to compare cultural traits of
contemporary societies which implied that the relative progress of individual
societies could be assessed in comparison with other societies in order to determine
the level of sociocultural advancement that had been attained. To construct this
scale the evolutionists (primarily European males) assumed that the western
societies, which were dominant because of their military and economic power
against technologically simple societies, were at the peak of development.
Historical Particularism and
Critique of Comparative
Method
4.1.2 Critique of the Evolutionary School and its Comparative
Method
The term ‘primitive’ in the evolutionary trajectory sealed the outlook with which
the western society judged the ‘other’ cultures.The unilinear evolutionary schema
was not only based on technological advancement, but carried with itself the
additional burden of a racist undertone by the very tacit understanding of what
was considered as ‘civilized’. As Stocking points out, the ‘civilized’ western
society was characterised by its social behaviour/ culture which was “associated
with the progressive accumulation of the characteristic manifestations of human
creativity: art, science, knowledge, refinement” (Stocking, 1966:870). These
encompassed every facet of life including the basics of how to sit, talk, eat,
dress, carry yourself, to what art was considered fashionable to the politics of
knowledge creation, “those things that freed man from control by nature, by
environment, by reflex, by instinct, by habit” (Stocking, 1966:870). Thus, the
societies that were seen as closer to nature and geared towards what was naturally
instinctive were looked down upon, characterised as backwards, associated with
a lower evolutionary status and frequently argued in racial terms (Stocking, 1966).
Boas was among the first anthropologists to speak out against this discriminatory
framework. According to Boas, societies cannot be categorised as ‘savage’ or
‘civilized’. This approach follows a kind of belittling.
Franz Boas began his work in Anthropology with the Kwakiutl Indians of Northern
Vancouver and British Columbia in Canada. In studying this indigenous group,
Boas was convinced that all people have equally developed cultures. He writes,
“The more I see their customs, the more I realise that we have no right to look
down on them. Where amongst our people would you find such true hospitality?
….. We “highly educated people” are much worse, relatively speaking”. [This is
a quote from Boas’s Baffinland diaries (Diah et al, 2014:159)]. Boas’s contribution
55
Emergence of Fieldwork
Tradition
was noteworthy as he logically criticised the ethnocentrism (belief that one’s
own culture is more valuable or better than another).
Boas maintained that the sweeping generalisations of the unilineal social
evolutionists were hypothetical and not scientifically valid. He discredited the
comparative method utilised by the unilineal evolutionary schemes and argued
that cultures cannot be compared or be subjected to generalities because each
culture experienced a different and unique history, even if it led to a similar
cultural product. He said that before extended comparisons are made, the
comparability of the material must be proved.
In his paper “The Limitations of the Comparative Method in Anthropology”
(1896), Boas argued against the indiscriminate comparison of cultures simply
because they have similarities. He gave examples to clarify that cultures may
have similar traits for a variety of reasons, including diffusion and trade. He
further pointed out that corresponding environments or historical accident may
also produce similar cultural traits independent of any universal evolutionary
process. Thus, he said that the existence of such traits could not be used as evidence
for universal stages of cultural evolution (MacGee and Warms, 2003).
The evolutionists compared contemporary societies (which were geographically
isolated from each other), with historical data, archaeological finds, cultural
remnants/ survivals (cultural traits that were dying out) etc. Boas pointed out the
incomparability of such material. He especially critiques the use of such data in
the evolutionary comparative scheme as used by the classical evolutionists,
mentioning that “historic and prehistoric data give us little or no information on
the biological development of the human mind” (Boas, 1932: 608).While
evolutionists spoke of the ‘psychic unity of human kind’ in order to explain the
unilinear evolution, in the presentation of their schema they put the so called
lesser developed cultures into the status of ‘organic mental inferiority’ or mentally
less evolved than the more advanced cultures, by default. This was done with the
help of existing prehistoric and historical artefacts and comparing them with
present day existing societies which were still either using these artefacts or
following the customs. Boas argued that cultures cannot be classified as
biologically or mentally inferior based on incompetent comparisons used to
validate the already existing racist notions of the evolutionists. He says that
“we find in modern times isolated tribes living in a way that may very well be
paralleled with early conditions. A comparison of the psychic life of these groups
does not justify the belief that their industrial backwardness is due to a difference
in the types of organism, for we find numbers of closely related races on the
most diverse levels of cultural status” (Boas, 1932: 608). Boas points out that the
present times have all kinds of societies, some of these are industrially backwards,
however it does not point towards any kind of biological or psychic inferiority.
Further, one finds racial groups which are biologically closely associated to have
branched out into diverse culture. With this, Boas critiques the use of un-contextual
archaeological and historical data in a comparative framework.
56
Boas combated racism the majority of his life. He expressed in his ideals in his
Baffin Island letter-diary. He spoke out against World War I, and the resulting
xenophobia and jingoism the war had triggered in America. A staunch champion
of the rights of immigrants and African Americans, he fought against the poll
tax, racial discrimination, the intimidation of teachers in colleges and high schools,
and the rise of Nazism in Europe. Boas was deeply involved in the early years of
the National Association of the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). He
contributed the lead article for the second issue of that organisation’s journal,
'The Crisis,' and spoke out on the subject of race and racism repeatedly throughout.
Historical Particularism and
Critique of Comparative
Method
Thus, evolutionists were critiqued on their comparative method based on a) its
ethnocentric approach and b) the incomparability of the cultural material used.
However, these critiques brought to the forefront certain other exploratory aspects
namely that each culture is a product of a unique history. Also, that these cultural
trajectories were not governed by any universal evolutionary pattern, but were
responses to various stimuli, including adjustment to environment, sudden
innovation, diffusion and so on. In the next section we will explore how these
realisations influenced the discipline of anthropology.
Check Your Progress 1
1)
Why did Franz Boas consider the documenting of culture as urgent and
imperative?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
2)
Discuss how the Cultural Historical Approach developed as a critique of
the evolutionary theory?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
4.2
FRANZ BOAS’S INFLUENCE ON
ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Boas suggests an alternative to the generalisations of the comparative method.
Rather than following a ‘nomothetic’ (generalised) approach, Boas encouraged
the anthropologists to follow an ‘idiographic’ (dealing with particular/ specific
cases) approach (Langness 1974; 57). In his paper ‘The Limitations of the
Comparative Method in Anthropology’, Boas advocates that anthropologists need
to conduct a detailed study of customs in relation to the relevance of these customs
to the total culture of the tribe practicing them. These customs, he says, also
need to be studied and investigated in connection with an understanding of their
geographical distribution among neighbouring tribes. This kind of a holistic
approach towards investigating culture and customs as well as their
contiguousness, could help determine with considerable accuracy the historical
causes that led to the formation of the customs in question and to the psychological
processes that were at work in their development. The results of inquiries
57
Emergence of Fieldwork
Tradition
conducted by this method, he said may be three-fold. “They may reveal the
environmental conditions which have created or modified cultural elements; they
may clear up psychological factors which are at work in shaping the culture; or
they may bring before our eyes the effects that historical connections have had
upon the growth of the culture” (Boas, 1896:905). Highlighting certain aspects
of this dialogue can help us understand some key concepts that Boas proposed:
a)
‘total culture of the tribe’ and ‘psychological processes’ which are reflective
of cultural particularism.
b)
‘connection with other tribes’ bringing in the idea of diffusion and
c)
“historical causes that led to the formation” reflecting on historical
particularism.
Let us discuss these concepts in greater details:
4.2.1 Historical Particularism
Boas distantly differentiated his historic method from the comparative method
where he says that one is careful and slow detailed study of local phenomena
while the other was indiscriminate use of similarities of culture for proving
historical connection. He says that there is need for through and comprehensive
examination of the ‘continuity of distribution’of customs and traits that are
common to neighbouring and contiguous communities and tribes. This kind of
an examination would help in proving historical connection between commonality
of practices. However, he cautioned against the assumption of lost connecting
links and advised that it must be applied most sparingly so as to avoid conjectures.
Boas believed that to explain cultural customs, one must examine them from
three fundamental perspectives: the environmental conditions under which they
developed, psychological factors, and historical connections. He points out that
“the apparent stability of primitive types of culture is due to our lack of historical
perspective. They change much more slowly than our modern civilization, but
wherever archaeological evidence is available we do find changes in time and
space. A careful investigation shows that those features that are assumed as almost
absolutely stable are constantly undergoing changes. Some details may remain
for a long time, but the general complex of culture cannot be assumed to retain
its character for a very long span of time” (Boas 1932: 609).The function of the
historical method of anthropology is thus seen to lie in its ability to discover the
processes which in definite cases led to the development of certain customs.
Boas insisted that the focus should be on ‘discovering the inner dynamic of change’
and why a culture took a particular direction. Thus, historical particularism of
culture focuses on the explanation of not only what happened and where but also
why and how of different aspects of a specific society.
4.2.2 Diffusion
Boas includes the idea of diffusion in his historical method. We have seen in the
previous sections that Boas speaks about the interconnections between cultural
groups in the development of cultural history.
While Boas does talk about environmental influence on the historical development
of a culture, he believes that this developmental history is difficult to trace due to
the influence of diffusion. Boas points out that “inter marriages, war, slavery,
58
trade, have been so many sources of constant introduction of foreign cultural
elements, so that an assimilation of culture must have taken place over continuous
areas” (Boas 1896: 905). Boas tried to bring to the forefront the fact that while
there might be similarities in the cultural development of neighbouring tribes
due to environmental similarities there might also be other influencing social
factors in the history of these tribes which might have influenced them differently
as well as in isolation from each other. He thus, believed that it is equally important
to trace the development of separate cultural traits in order to understand the
differential effects of diffusion on neighbouring tribes as well as their unique
cultural history.
Historical Particularism and
Critique of Comparative
Method
Boas visualises an understanding of diffusion as an integral part of historical
particularism in the understanding of a culture, however he does admit to the
difficulties it might pose. He explains that in studying the distribution of cultural
traits in a geographical area with similar traits and customs, it might not necessarily
be easy to determine the direction of diffusion, especially because one has to
examine both diffusion as well as the composite of the development of customs
and traits within a particular culture (in a chronological order). Simultaneously
he cautions that one cannot take for granted that an area rich in a particular
cultural trait signifies that it is the place of origin of that cultural trait. He points
out that it is possible that complex customs and traits might have emerged from
one place and were simply adopted by neighbouring communities, or that a simple
trait might have been adopted by neighbouring communities and developed into
more complex forms over time. However, Boas reiterates that “the study of
geographical distribution of cultural phenomena offers a means of determining
their diffusion” (Boas 1932: 608). He, insisted that though difficult to construct,
the historical particularities of cultural customs and traits will help understand
the ‘logic’ of their development within a culture, i.e., the factors that influenced
the direction of development.Thus, while Boas discusses a need to understand
diffusion, his historical particularistic approach concentrated on its contribution
to the understanding of a particular culture. This perspective of understanding a
culture in itself was developed further by Boas’s students. Boas thus, laid the
groundwork for the concept of cultural relativism.
4.2.3 Cultural Relativism
The concept of cultural relativism was important in countering the ethnocentrism
of the evolutionist school. Cultural relativism explained that each culture is said
to constitute a total social world that reproduces itself through enculturation (the
process by which values, emotional dispositions, and embodied behaviours are
transmitted from one generation to the next). These values and practices are
usually perceived by members of a society as uniquely satisfying and superior to
all others, hence one can assume a universality of ethnocentrism. Cultural
relativism creates an understanding that there are many cultures in the world and
that each culture has its own values, beliefs, and practices that have been
developed over time in a particular context, and that none of the cultures are
necessarily wrong or right. Each culture must be seen as ‘sui generis’, offering a
satisfying way of life, however repugnant or outlandish particular aspects of it
may seem to outsiders.
Boas said that Culture is integrated, and with this he laid the foundation stone of
cultural relativism. In his paper ‘The Occurrence of Similar Inventions in Areas
Widely Apart’ (in context of display of ethnographic data at the national museum)
59
Emergence of Fieldwork
Tradition
Boas writes, that ethnographic collections should be “arranged according to tribes,
in order to teach the peculiar style of each group. The art and characteristic style
of a people can be understood only by studying its productions as a whole”
(Boas1887: 486). Franz Boas argued that detailed studies of particular societies
had to consider the entire range of cultural behaviour, and thus the concepts of
anthropological holism and cultural particularism became twin tenets of American
anthropology (Moore 2009). ‘Holism’ for Boas was that a culture should be
treated as a unified system; it referred to the importance of understanding a
particular phase or pattern in relation to its entire relevant cultural background.
Further, Boas described the need to study psychological processes to understand
how a society developed, in this it is important to note that he described
psychology as ‘the native point of view’, explaining that understandings are
relative to enculturation thus ethnographer must interpret a culture on the basis
of its own ‘internal web of logic’ (Brown 2008).
Boas in his conceptualisation of historical particularism proposed a method of
exploring “how the culture of each group of human came to be what it is”. In this
he emphasised that one needs to understand the internal logic of the people being
explored, highlighting that culture as an integrated whole. Environment, diffusion,
acculturation etc. were seen as exposures that lead to cultural change, however it
was maintained that the internal dynamics of the culture is the key to the direction
that development takes. Thus, arose the significance of cultural relativism that,
cultural material has to be understood within its cultural context.
The recognition of the need to collect cultural material in a cultural context
propelled Boas to promote the tradition of fieldwork within anthropology. Just
like Historical particularism was critique to the comparative method so was its
procedure of data collection.
Check Your Progress 2
3) Define Historical Particularism.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
4) Discuss cultural relativism.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
60
4.3
FRANZ BOAS’S INFLUENCE ON
ANTHROPOLOGICAL FIELDWORK
Historical Particularism and
Critique of Comparative
Method
We have already discussed in the introductory section that according to Boas
one of the key concerns of anthropological research was the collection of data.
Boasian anthropology was, among other things, a reaction to the classical
evolutionary school of thought, and their competitive method. Boas felt that
evolutionists made premature generalisations based on poor and inadequate
information. This information was obtained, not from a qualified researcher, but
rather from individuals “who often had only a biased, superficial understanding
of the people they were observing” and provided more conjecture than fact
(Barnouw 1971:39).
In order to overcome these biases Boas used a four-field approach in his fieldwork
(cultural, archaeology, physical/biological, and linguistics) to ascertain the
collection of proper information in the proper context. Boas believed that
anthropologists needed to ground their arguments with empirical evidence. He
highlighted the importance of comprehensive and detailed fieldwork and
conducted several fieldtrips over his lifetime. Boas insisted that meticulous
collection of ethnographic data by a properly trained researcher is paramount to
understanding the material in its correct and intended format. During his initial
commentary on field work it looked like Boas believed that the individual has
very little influence on the whole. Here he emphasised that the researcher needed
to collect information through observations of the perspective of those being
studied, however he changed this view in his later discourses claiming that whether
or not the person was “typical” to his/her society, the society or culture therein
has boundaries set up to keep individuals within the norms of what is and what is
not acceptable to them. Boas used this as a crutch supporting his view on the
collection of data from informants. He felt that he could obtain all the knowledge
needed to understand a culture from a few key people. (Goldschmidt 1959).
Boas trained a number of students in his methodological perspective creating an
academic environment which believed in the importance of intensive fieldwork.
Some of Boas’s influential students include Alfred L. Kroeber, Ruth Benedict,
Margaret Mead, Robert Lowie, Paul Radin and Edward Sapir and Boas’s legacy
is evident in the myriad of their works and theorisations.
Check Your Progress 3
5) Did Franz Boas have an impact on anthropological fieldwork?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
6) Discuss how Franz Boas influenced the conduct of anthropological fieldwork.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
61
Emergence of Fieldwork
Tradition
4.4
A CRITIQUE OF FRANZ BOAS’S
ANTHROPOLOGICAL THOUGHT
Boas did not technically leave behind a ‘school of thought’. Boas’s students
argued that this was not the case; he recognised the need for new theoretical
perspectives but believed that more general theories of human behaviour would
become obvious once enough data had been collected. Boas's refusal to theorise
about anthropological laws, was seen as a detriment to the field, to the extent
that he was perceived as anti-theoretical, by some of his contemporaries. Boas
was also criticised on his duration of fieldwork cause though he conducted several
fieldtrips in his life, he did not stay in the field for long periods of time.
Further, Boas critiqued standardised anthropological data of not examining the
individual of society as an entity of concern. He felt that within the individual
lies the true interpretation of human behaviour. Boas opined that the
anthropological focus remains on customary behaviour, and in that it neglects or
pays little attention to the understanding of the relation between individual and
his culture. It misses out on perceiving both how individual reacts to culture and
how individual changes culture. Boas in turn was critiqued by his student Alfred
Kroeber for this line of thought and his focus on individuals during research.
Kroeber did not believe in this idea as he considered culture was all pervasive.
Kroeber also differed from Boas’sthought that anthropology was ultimately a
discipline devoted to the study of humankind’s origins. Inspite of these differences
Kroeber and his other students continued to carry forward and developed Boas’s
concepts of historical particularism and cultural relativism, as well as contributed
significantly to anthropological theory. Inspite of critique Boas left behind an
academic tradition of fieldwork and a significant contribution to anthropological
thought.
Check Your Progress 4
7) Examine the critiques of Franz Boas anthropological thoughts.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
4.5
SUMMARY
Historical particularism marks a significant point in the history of anthropology,
as it changes the direction of the discipline from its racial past, and establishes
the recognition that all cultures are equally developed.This concept agrees with
the need to study social development however it discredits the comparative method
used by the evolutionists as ethnocentric, hypothetical and non-scientific (in terms
of comparability of material). Historical particularism goes hand in hand with
the concepts of diffusion and cultural relativism aspiring for a holistic approach
towards understanding culture. It speaks of a shift from nomothetic approach
(generalised and broad based), to an ‘idiographic’ (dealing with particular/ specific
62
cases) approach, especially cause it recognises a dearth of (holistic) cultural data
as well as the need to document vanishing cultures.
Historical Particularism and
Critique of Comparative
Method
Boas’s inclusion of the concepts of environment and individual psychology in
the cultural historical approach paved the way for the development of two
approaches: (a) the cultural ecological and (b) culture and personality in
anthropology. American anthropology therefore developed diverse branches,
moving away from the closed system approach of the British school. Later
developments include a full fledged psychological anthropology, historical
anthropology and medical anthropology among others.
4.6
REFERENCES
Barnouw, V. 1971. “An Introduction to Anthropology”. Ethnology Vol 2.
Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press.
Boas, F. 1887. “The Occurrence of Similar Inventions in Areas Widely Apart”.
Science. 9:485–86.
1896. “The Limitations of the Comparative Method of Anthropology”
Science (New Series). 4 (103): 901-908.
1932. “The Aims of Anthropological Research. Science (New Series). 76
(1983): 605-613.
Brown, M. F. 2008. “Cultural Relativism 2.0”. Current Anthropology. 49 (3):
363-383.
Diah et al. 2014. “An Overview of the Anthropological Theories”. International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science.4 (10, 1):155-164.
Goldschmidt, W. 1959.”The Anthropology of Franz Boas - Essays on the
Centennial of His Birth”. American Anthropologist, Memoir No. 89. New York:
The American Anthropological Association.
Langness, L. L. 1974. The Study of Culture (Revised Edition). California: Chandler
& Sharp Publishers, Inc.
McGee, R.J and R. Warms (ed). 2003. Anthropological Theory: An Introductory
History (3rd ed). McGraw-Hill.
Moore, J. 2009. Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories
and Theorists (Third Edition). Lanham and New York: Alta Mira Press.
Stocking, G. W. Jr. 1966. “Franz Boas and the culture concept in historical
perspective”. American Anthropologist. 68 (4): 867-882.
4.7
ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
1)
Refer to section 4.1
2)
Refer to section 4.1
3)
Refer to section 4.2.1
4)
Refer to section 4.2.3
5)
Refer to section 4.3
6)
Refer to section 4.3
7)
Refer to section 4.4
63
Emergence of Fieldwork
Tradition
UNIT 5
AMERICAN CULTURAL
TRADITION*
Contents
5.0 Introduction
5.1 Historical Development and Few Concepts
5.2 Culture and Personality School of Thought
5.2.1
Ruth Fulton Benedict
5.2.2
Margaret Mead
5.2.3
How Culture and Personality Influence Each Other?
5.3 Criticisms of Culture and Personality Theory
5.4 Summary
5.5 References
5.6 Answers to Check Your Progress
Learning Objectives
At the end of this unit, you will be able to:

understand the key concepts in the Culture Personality school;

comprehend the impact of Culture on Personality formation; and

relate how Culture and Personality influence each other.
5.0
INTRODUCTION
By now the learners are well versed with the meaning of Culture and its role in
society (see BANC 102 Unit 4 and 5). In this unit our emphasis would be on the
development of personality within a culture. We shall discuss about the role a
culture plays in the development of a personality, with emphasis on the group
rather than individual. The unit would acquaint the learners with the Culture
Personality school within the domain of anthropology, its growth and development
and the key contributors and their work. While reading this unit the learners
should also be able to discuss how culture and personality impact each other.
5.1
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND FEW
CONCEPTS
In the United States, in the early twentieth century under the vision of Franz
Boas (1858- 1942), his students developed the Culture and Personality school of
thought which focussed on the inter-relationships between culture and personality.
Attempts were made to study culture as it is embodied in the character of its
members and examined how humans acquired culture and also studied culture’s
effect on one’s personality.
64
*Contributor: Dr Gunjan Arora, Post- Doctoral Fellow, Centre of Social Medicine and
Community Health, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
Boasian influence:
American Cultural Tradition
Franz Boas(1858-1942) was a German physicist who following a research
expedition to Baffin Islands in Canada switched to Geography and then to
Anthropology. He strongly critiqued classical cultural evolutionism and
the Comparative method. He was a prolific scholar publishing more than
700 articles and books. He was an ardent empiricist and rigorously recorded
as much information as possible about the Native North American cultures.
His approach has been called ‘Historical Particularism’; ‘historical’ because
he described the present in terms of the past and ‘particular’ because he
considered the history of each culture to be unique (Erickson and Murphy
2008).
He opined that the task of Anthropology was to study empirically the
disappearing Native cultures and the rigorous fieldwork was the key to
attain an in-depth knowledge of the cultures world-over. He emphasised
studying the diversity of cultures, to understand cultures in their terms and
their historical contexts. The Boasian paradigm offered a new dimension
to the study of culture with two major strands one being historical i.e.,
studying the distribution of cultural traits, and the other being psychological
i.e., what makes individual minds different in different cultures. These
two threads were picked up by his students like Alfred Kroeber, Robert
Lowie, M.Herskovits, Edward Sapir, Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict in a
different manner. It was during the 1920s and 1930’s that the psychological
thread gained prominence which was also influenced by psychoanalysis
and Gestalt psychology. Those who followed this Boasian strand later came
to be known as the proponents of Culture and Personality school and
included Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict and Ralph Linton. Both Mead’s
and Benedict’s work were concentrated on the relationship between the
psychological (personality, emotion, character) and the cultural conditions
(socialisation, gender roles and values).
Before dealing with the theories of Culture and Personality school it is essential
to understand these terms. E.B. Tylor in his book Primitive Culture (1871) gave
the first comprehensive definition, but there are over 300 definitions of ‘culture’
in Anthropology. The simplest way to express or define culture is, any knowledge
that an individual acquires as a member of his/her society.The term ‘acquired’ is
the keyword in this definition as it denotes that culture is the product of social
learning rather than of biological heredity. It, therefore, includes all the socially
learned behaviour.
The word ‘personality’ comes from the Latin word persona which literally means
mask or character. Ralph Linton in his book Cultural Background of Personality
(1945) defines personality as the organised aggregates of habits that have been
established in the individual to form the bulk of personality and give it form,
structure and continuity. He defined personality in relation to habits and he is of
the view that every society has a basic culture and all its members undergo a
similar process of socialisation and share similar customs, beliefs and traditions.
And therefore, a common pattern in the behaviour of the member of that group is
visible.
Other determinants that are believed to affect the personality of an individual are
heredity, environment, and experience. When a child is born into a group, he
carries the genes and traits from his/her parents. The child resembles his/her
65
Emergence of Fieldwork
Tradition
parents in physical appearance and intelligence and it is said that they have
common heredity.
The environment too plays an important role in determining the personality
construction, for instance, people living in the Himalayan region in India have
different cultural practices, varied food habits, and different personalities than
those residing in the plain region. Occupations and lifestyles are influenced by
the habitat and to some extent affect personality development.
But an individual who lives in society also has his own set of unique experiences
in life and these life experiences also mould one’s personality. Family members,
siblings, peers play a crucial role in the overall personality development of the
child through daily interactions and reciprocal experiences that are incorporated
within the early childhood experiences.
It thus appears that personality is a blend of mainly four factors i.e., physical
environment, heredity, culture, and particular life experiences. However, the
relative contribution of each factor towards the overall development of the
personality of an individual varies.
Before we go further and discuss the individual theorists of this school in detail
it is essential to understand the influence of the discipline of Psychology on
Culture and Personality studies. Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict were both
aware of Freudian psychology and found elements of Freudian theory appealing,
especially his theory of the influence of early childhood experiences on the adult
personality, even as they critiqued and rejected most of Freud’s ideas as
speculative, overly generalised, evolutionary and sexist.
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) is well known for his thesis on the origin of totems,
incest taboo, exogamy and the Oedipus complex. Freud’s major work was on
psychoanalysis and it was an attempt to uncover the repressed feelings an adult
had due to the trauma he/she faced during childhood. He developed the Oedipus
complex theory according to which a son is jealous of his father’s attention on
his mother; develops a hostile nature towards his father and an erotic attachment
with his mother. Freud established this Oedipus complex as a universal story
rooted in human sexuality but also the heterosexual, patriarchal, nuclear family,
so characteristic of the West. It was Malinowski who tested this hypothesis among
the matrilineal Trobriand society (1922) and rejected the universality of Oedipus
complex theory. Malinowski in his work among the matrilineal South Pacific
Trobriand Islanders demonstrated that the Oedipus complex was irrelevant
because in their kinship system it was the mother’s brother and not the father
who was the source of authority over the sons. Boas also criticised the origin of
the concept of the Oedipus complex claiming that Freud’s method was one-sided
and did not aid in the understanding of cultural development. Boas and Mead
also tried to disprove Freud’s pronouncement that adolescent psycho-sexual
turmoil was universal.
Freudian psychology was subjected to a new synthesis by Psychological
anthropologists like Mead and Benedict that resulted in the development of a
Neo-Freudian phase in Psychological anthropology characterised by the study
of the development of personality cross-culturally with a strong emphasis on the
importance of early childhood experiences.
66
Check Your Progress 1
1)
American Cultural Tradition
Define Historical Particularism.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
2)
Discuss the development of Culture and personality school of thought.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
3)
Discuss the influence of Freud on culture and personality school of thought.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
5.2
CULTURE AND PERSONALITY SCHOOL OF
THOUGHT
5.2.1 Ruth Fulton Benedict
Ruth Fulton Benedict (1887-1948) was a student of Franz Boas and her PhD
work was “The Concept of the Guardian Spirit in North America”. She did her
fieldwork among Zunis, Cochiti, Pima and Kwakiutl tribes. Her field experience
with Pima was crucial because here she developed the idea of ‘culture pattern’,
in her paper ‘Psychological Types in the Culture of South West’(1928) which
was later elaborated in her book Patterns of Culture (1934). According to her, a
culture pattern is formed when cultural traits and complexes become related to
each other in functional roles. Cultural traits are the smallest unit of a culture
which organise and form cultural complexes. And when many traits and
complexes of culture become integrated into a functional whole, they form a
cultural pattern. In a way, it was Benedict who provided a methodological model
for studying human culture in terms of patterns. She further added that many
cultural patterns integrate themselves into a functional whole and form a special
design of a whole culture and called it Configuration. This configuration
expresses itself as the ethos or ‘special genius’ of culture. One can say that
Benedict described cultures as having personalities, or overall characters. She
67
Emergence of Fieldwork
Tradition
further says that there are three types of geniuses found in human society namely
Apollonian, Dionysian and Paranoid.Benedict borrows the first two from
philosopher Friedrich Nietzche (1844-1900), who in turn had borrowed these
terms from Greek drama.The word Apollonian comes from the Greek word Apollo
meaning peaceful Sun God. In the Apollonian pattern of culture, we find the
existence of peace, discipline, and kindness. The word Dionysian is derived from
the name of the Greek God Dionysius connected with drinking and luxurious
life. Thus, the Dionysian culture is characterised by aggressiveness and
fluctuations. The third type i.e., Paranoid is fearful suspicious and engaged in
sorcery. These three geniuses mould the personality of their respective group
members and thus leads to the formation of special cultural characteristics. For
instance, the Apollonian genius compels the members of the group to behave in
a disciplined and peaceful way and this defines the personality of the individual
group members.
Benedict in her comparative study on cultural practices among three Native North
American tribes namely Pueblo Zuni, Dobu and Kwakiutl described the three
different societies in terms of their basic personality configurations. Benedict
had done fieldwork only among the Kwakiutl, she borrowed the Zuni data from
Boas and the Dobu ethnography from Reo F Fortune.
She found the Pueblo Zuni of New Mexico were Apollonian because they
appeared peace loving, cooperative, helpful, kind and restrained by moderation.
They valued communality of the group, rejected individual displays of power
and avoided disruptive impulses (Moore,2011;64). This basic personality type
was reinforced in other elements of the Zuni culture. Child training practices
were designed to suppress individuality. Initiation ceremonies and marriages
were simple and casual and death was an occasion of little mourning. Religious
and magical performances were held for the common welfare of the group. The
Zunis had a strong sense of group solidarity, political leadership was nonauthoritarian, rituals undramatic and child-rearing practices mild.
In contrast, the Dobu of Melanesia was aggressive, competitive, violent and
prone to conflict. The religion among them was mixed with magic with an
intention to harm others or to defend oneself against others. They were highly
suspicious of witchcraft and lived in fear. They have been described as Paranoid,
borrowing the term from psychoanalysis. And the Kwakiutl (Dionysian) of the
North-west coast of America were individualistic and competitive. Among them,
wealth determined the status and prestige of the individual. The ideal man in the
community would be one who would always strive to prove his superiority. And
the child-rearing practices reinforced this cultural pattern. Leadership among
them was characterised by a constant struggle for power and the shaman in this
society wielded enormous power.
Benedict’s characterisation of entire cultures as personalities led to the study of
national character. During Second World War she turned to the study of Japanese
character as Americans were intrigued by the exceptional bravery of the Japanese.
Benedict and other American anthropologists analysed the Japanese culture
through films, books and other historical documents. She took interviews of
Japanese prisoners and Japanese immigrants in the USA; took their life histories
and case studies and this information was later produced in her book
Chrysanthemum and The Sword (1946). The work concluded that the strict toilet
training among the Japanese made them aggressive fighters in warfare. She also
68
described that Japanese culture has two methods of child-rearing. During
childhood, an individual is given full freedom, love and care but when he/she
reaches adolescence, strict discipline is imposed. During adolescence, the child
is expected to not break any cultural traditions and his/her behaviour should be
appealing to other members/elders of the society. The two different rearing
practices, one during childhood and the other during adolescence are compared
to Chrysanthemum and the sword respectively. Chrysanthemum (also the National
flower of Japan) symbolises the socialisation during childhood when the child is
given full care so that he/she blossoms like a Chrysanthemum flower but when
the child reaches adolescence stage, they have to face tough life. Parents leave
them to earn and lead an independent life. As a result, the child becomes aggressive
and violent.
American Cultural Tradition
Thus, 1940s saw the rise of such studies on the National Character. Another
similar study by Geoffrey Gorer and John Rickman’s The People of Great Russia:
A Psychological Study (1949) attributed the manic-depressive culture of Russia
to prolonged infant swaddling (Erickson and Murphy 2008: 107). The book
advanced the hypothesis that Russians prefer the authoritarian leadership that
could be linked to their experience of having been swaddled as infants. But such
studies on the National Character which used a Neo-Freudian approach that linked
the early child-rearing practices with adult personality faded during the 1950s.
Check Your Progress 2
4)
Define culture pattern.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
5)
Define cultural traits.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
6)
What is National Character?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
69
Emergence of Fieldwork
Tradition
5.2.2 Margaret Mead
Margaret Mead (1901-1978) like Benedict was also a student of Franz Boas. She
was a well-known anthropologist in America and many of her publications dealt
with linking child-rearing practices with differences in culture.
Her book Coming of Age in Samoa: A Psychological Study of Primitive Youth for
Western Civilization (1949) was based on nine months of intensive fieldwork,
where she compares Samoan and American adolescent girls. In this classic work,
she hypothesised that the stresses that marked adolescent personality in American
culture were culturally determined and not biologically influenced. During her
fieldwork, she found that the facts of birth, sex and death were not hidden from
Samoan children; premarital sex was considered natural and did not demand
emotional involvement. Children were taught to be quiet and obedient thus making
adolescence among the Samoan children less stressful and was seen as a phase
in one’s life. Mead’s work among Samoa was supported by Edward Sapir who
emphasised that the anthropological studies of personality represented an entirely
new approach to the study of culture and that the application of psycho-analytic
methods in the study of culture would add a new dimension to the ethnological
fieldwork.
Mead’s next major work was among the Manus tribe of New Guinea. In her
book Growing Up in New Guinea (1930) she highlights the kind of enculturation
processes by which the Manus of New Guinea brought up their children. The
book deals with the educative role of culture in the development of the personality
of a child from infancy to childhood and from childhood to adulthood.
The third important work of Mead is Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive
Societies (1935). Here in this study, she compared three different cultures namely
Arapesh, Mundugumor and Tschambuli staying in the same geographical region
of New Guinea. She noted the variation in the cultural patterns of the three cultures
and argued as to why people of societies living in the same area differed in
character, personality and temperament. She further dealt with the question of
the degree of malleability in the behaviour of sexes especially concerning the
sexually assigned behavioural roles in these three societies. The geographical
position of the Arapesh was such that they were protected naturally from the
enemies and the population was low. There were sufficient resources for each
member and hence there was no conflict, struggle, or competition among them.
She found Arapesh to be cooperative, peace-loving, caring and non-quarrelsome,
and both males and females demonstrated submissive temperament. This
submissive temperament was valued among them and everyone tried to follow
this type of temperament.
70
The Mundugumor, showed the characteristics like jealousy, suspicion and
competitiveness. Both men and women were aggressive and reflected such traits
and the entire cultural environment of Mundugumor was tensed and filled with
struggle and competition. The third cultural group. i.e., Tschambuli had a very
different arrangement, the males acquired a submissive temperament and the
females were found to be aggressive. Her study revealed that differences in the
personality types of the male and female were due to the cultural processes which
differ from one cultural group to another. Mead’s work importantly indicated
that gender was not biologically constituted and men and women were not limited
by their bodies. This was particularly emancipatory for women.
Later like Benedict, Mead too contributed towards the National character studies.
In her book Keep Your Powder Dry: An Anthropologist Looks at America (1942)
she dealt with the National character of America but she did not compare the
personality of a baby in America with that of Japan or Russia. The early personality
was similar and it is only when the child grows up that he /she is socialised as per
the norms of that particular culture that a particular personality develops which
later gets reflected in the National character. Another work of great value is New
Lives for The Old: A Study in Cultural Transformation (1956) where she
approached the Manus of New Guinea after 25 years to restudy them and note
the changes and continuity in the formation of characters and personality.
American Cultural Tradition
Check Your Progress 3
7) 'Differences in the personality types of male and female were due to cultural
processes'. Discuss.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
8) Discuss Margaret Mead’s contribution to culture and personality school of
thought.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
5.2.3 How Culture And Personality Influence Each Other
Here in this section, we discuss three other anthropologists who contributed to
Culture and Personality studies. They are Ralph Linton (1893-1953), Abram
Kardiner (1891-1981) and Cora- Du-Bois (1903-1991). These three scholars
believed that culture and personality complement each other and greater
cooperation of at least three disciplines namely Psychology, Sociology and
Anthropology was required to understand the basic premisesof the formation of
personality. Ralph Linton in his famous book Cultural Background of Personality
(1945) attempted to define culture based on behaviour; defined personality and
showed how personality is formed in a particular cultural setting; and how
personality influences cultural behaviour.
Based on his study, he divided culture into three groups
a.
Real culture (actual behaviour)
b.
Ideal culture (philosophical and traditional culture)
c.
Culture construct (what is written about the culture)
71
Emergence of Fieldwork
Tradition
Defining Real culture Linton said that it is the sum total of the behaviour of the
members of the society which are learned and shared by members of that society,
Ideal culture are the traits of a culture that are considered as ideal and worth
emulating and the last is when a culture is studied and gets written or talked
about. According to Linton, each society has its own culture, defined as the
‘organised group of ideas, habits and conditioned emotional responses shared by
the members of a society’(Bohannan and Glazer 1988: 199).
The individual learns to live in culture by imbibing cultural ways and ideals.
Further, Linton also talks of cultural universals, cultural specialities and cultural
alternatives. The traits which are followed by all members are called cultural
universals; for instance, the use of a particular language or the patterns of the
tribal costume are examples of cultural universals and form part of the basic
personality. Whereas cultural specialities are the traits that are followed and shared
by only few members of the society who are socially recognised for that role, for
instance, a craftsperson in society has certain special skills and a cultural repertoire
associated with it, which he calls as ‘status personality’.Third, there are some
traits that are shared by certain individuals but which are not common to all the
members of even the same group. They refer to different ways of doing the same
thing like one may use different modes of transportation to reach a particular
place. One may cycle while everyone else is using a bus. They are the social
inventors. Linton developed the concept of ‘basic personality’ with Abram
Kardiner which we discuss in the coming section.
Abram Kardiner (1891-1981) was a student of Freud and psychoanalyst by
profession. He along with Linton developed the concept of ‘basic personality
type’ in the book Psychological Frontiers of Society (1945). Kardiner understood
that the foundations of personality development are laid in early childhood. He
observed that the child-rearing practices such as duration of breastfeeding,
methods of weaning, maternal love/neglect are often similar in a group. Thus,
the adults have certain important common experiences and that gives rise to a
common basic personality type. He further added that this basic personality exists
in the context of particular institutions as people have different status personalities
in different institutional settings. Kardiner divided the institutions into primary
and secondary types. Primary institutions include the family organisation, feeding
pattern, methods of weaning, care/neglect of children, sexual training, toilet
training, etc. which are directly concerned with disciplining, inhibiting, or
gratifying the child. The secondary institutions include religion, rituals, taboo
system which are an integral part of the society but also affect the overall
personality development of the child/individual. The primary institutions
contribute to the formation of the basic personality which then projects onto the
secondary institutions like religion.
Following Kardiner, Cora-Du-Bois, another psychoanalyst developed a concept
of ‘Modal Personality’ which was considered as an improvement upon Kardiner’s
Basic Personality theory. Her concept of Modal Personality involved statistical
analysis so that the modal personality would be the most recurring personality
type in a culture, but it is not necessarily common to all members of that society.
Modal personality is indicated by the central tendency of a frequency distribution.
72
In 1937 Cora-Du-Bois visited the island of Alor in the East Indies and collected
rich ethnographic data through fieldwork. Also, she administered Rorschach
tests (inkblot test), Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), children’s drawings and
psychological life histories. She also analysed the available oral literature. The
data she collected was analysed independently by three different scholars upon
her return from the field. The life histories she collected were analysed by
Kardiner; the interpretation of children’s drawings was done by Trude Schmidt,
and Emil Oberholzer interpreted the Rorschach tests and TAT test results. Each
of them prepared their independent evaluation and their evaluations coincided to
a great extent with the ethnographies and field details Du-Bois had collected.
From this, a Modal Personality of Alorese that emerged was one full of insecurity,
shallowness in emotional life, indifferent and apathetic personality. They were
prone to violent emotional outbursts and tended to be uninterested in the world
around them. The researchers concluded that it was because of the early childhood
experience of maternal neglect that caused the development of such Modal
personality. The women in the Alorese society need to spend extended periods
away in the field to tend the crops and the emotional needs of an infant/child
were not readily satisfied. The critical and formative years of an Alorese infant/
child had sporadic and inconsistent attention of mother and gradually they learn
to live with this. The psychological tests confirmed the Alorese to be suspicious,
anxious and mistrustful.This was projected onto Alorese religion where the deity
was not considered to be having great power. She published her findings in her
book The People of Alora: A Social Psychological Study of East Indian Island
(1944).
American Cultural Tradition
The beginning of the 1950’s saw anthropologists innovating and using statistics
on similar lines of Kardiner’s and Du-Bois’ s work. A new generation of
Psychological anthropologists emerged who used statistics to make cross-cultural
generalisations more precise. The pioneering work was by John Whiting and
Irvin Child’s who in their book Child Training and Personality: A Cross Cultural
Study (1953) generated cross-cultural data, manipulated it statistically to reveal
significant cross-cultural associations. Whiting and Child renamed Kardiner’s
concepts. The primary institutions were called maintenance system, (as they
affected the child training practices); the secondary institutions became the
projective systems and the basic personality structure became the personality
variables (Harris 2001: 450)
Check Your Progress 4
9)
Differentiate between Real and Ideal culture
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
10) Define Basic Personality type
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
73
Emergence of Fieldwork
Tradition
11) Define Modal personality
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
5.3
CRITICISMS OF CULTURE AND
PERSONALITY SCHOOL
In the twenty five years between the Coming of Age in Samoa and Child Training
and Personality: A Cross-Cultural Study, American Psychological Anthropology
evolved through pre-Freudian to Freudian and post-Freudian phases. Throughout
all these phases the American contribution to anthropological theory and
particularly Culture and Personality school has been immense. But it had its
share of criticisms.
The early phase in the Culture and Personality school tended to be very simplistic.
They argued that each culture was having a single pattern and all members reflect
that theme. Both Benedict and Mead assumed culture as given and it determined
the personality, but neither questioned how it happened. Applying individual
personality attributes to whole cultures was criticised and was named faulty as
was later found in the National Character studies. Derek Freeman in his book
Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological
Myth (1983) strongly criticised Mead for her study among the Samoan. In her
Samoan study, she found girls carefree about sexual experimentation whereas
Freeman found a strict virginity complex among them. Mead found a free malefemale relationship whereas he found male-female hostility. Marvin Harris also
criticised Mead for being too generalised about the emotions of Samoan girls.
Ruth benedict’s theory of culture patterns has been criticised by Morris E. Opler
in his work An Apache Life-way: The Economic, Social and Religious Institutions
of Chiricahua Indians(1941). He criticised the cultural configuration theory of
Benedict as being narrow in approach, emphasising that there is much more
variability within cultures than Psychological anthropologists were discussing.
The Basic Personality type and Modal Personality were also criticised for making
generalisations about group personality. In the early 1950’s Anthony F.C Wallace
conducted a psycho-cultural study of the Tuscarora band of Iroquois Indians. He
administered the Rorschach test to a significant sample of the population to assess
personality types of informants along few dimensions, but he found that only
37% fell within the Modal Personality (most common) (Moberg 2013: 176)
We cannot say that one personality is representative of culture nor can we say
that members of different cultures are radically different from one another in
personality type. Despite these criticisms, the Culture and Personality school
74
has been among the most influential anthropological school of thought.
American Cultural Tradition
Check Your Progress 5
12) What are the points on which the Culture and Personality school has been
criticised?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
5.4
SUMMARY
Attributed to famous anthropologists like Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict,
the Culture and Personality school of thought that arose principally in the United
States combined elements of psychology, anthropology and sociology and even
applied psychoanalytical principles to ethnographic data. The culture and
personality theorists argued that the personality of an individual developed through
socialisation patterns and focussed on child-rearing practices, toilet training and
weaning practices. Different cultures with different socialisation practices
produced different personality types. The idea was that cultural practices produced
certain personality types and this further led to national character studies within
the school. It was suggested that anthropologists could gain knowledge about
the national character by examining individual personalities. The school in a
way brought focus on the individual as a unit of study. Using clinical interviews,
projective tests, life histories and participant observation, the scholars asserted
that scientific treatment to ethnographic data would reveal cross-cultural variations
prominently. The school had its share of criticisms but to date is one of the major
thoughts that emerged in the American tradition.
5.5
REFERENCES
Benedict, Ruth. 1934. Patterns of Culture. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Reprint 2005.
——————1946. Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese
Culture. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Reprint 2005.
Bohannan,P. and Mark Glazer. 1988. High Points in Anthropology. New York:
Mc Graw-Hill.
Du Bois, Cora. 1944. The People of Alor:A Social-Psychological Study of An
East Indian Island. University of Minnesota Press.
Erickson, Paul. A. and Liam D. Murphy. 2008. A History of Anthropological
Theory. Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Freeman, Derek.1983. Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking
of an Anthropological Myth. London: Harvard University Press.
75
Emergence of Fieldwork
Tradition
Harris, Marvin.1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory. New York: ThomasY.
Crowell Company. Reprint 2001 by Alta Mira Press.
Kardiner, A, Ralph Linton, J. West et.al.1945. Psychological Frontiers of Society.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Linton, Ralph. 1945. Cultural Background of Personality. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts.
Mead, Margaret. 1928. Coming of Age in Samoa: A Psychological Study of
Primitive Youth forWestern Civilisation.New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Reprint 2001.
1930. Growing Up in New Guinea. New York: Blue Ribbon.
1935. Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. New York:William
Morrow and Company. Reprint 2001 by Harper Collins.
Moberg, M. 2013. Engaging Anthropological Theory: A Social and Political
History. New York: Routledge
Moore, Jerry. D. 2011. Visions of Culture.New Delhi:Rawat Publications.
5.6
ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
1)
Refer Section 5.1
2)
Refer Section 5.1
3)
Refer Section 5.1
4)
Refer section 5.2.1
5)
Refer section 5.2.1
6)
Refer section 5.2.1
7)
Refer section 5.2.2
8)
Refer section 5.2.2
9)
Refer section 5.2.3
10) Refer section 5.2.3
11) Refer section 5.2.3
12) Refer section 5.3
76
UNIT 6
CULTURAL MATERIALISM*
American Cultural Tradition
Contents
6.0 Introduction
6.1 Main Concept
6.1.1 Theoretical Perspective
6.1.2 Cultural Ecology and Julian Steward
6.1.3 Leslie White and Neo-evolutionism
6.2 Methodology
6.3 Positive Points
6.4 Criticisms
6.5 Summary
6.6 Glossary
6.7 References
6.8 Answers to Check Your Progress
Learning Objectives
After reading this unit, the learners would be able to:

understand the focus of this approach;

trace the development of this concept;

relate to the term cultural ecology and neo-evolution;

comprehend about the contribution of this approach; and

present a critical appraisal of the approach.
6.0
INTRODUCTION
Cultural Materialism is a research strategy. It tries to explain similarities and
differences between humans with reference to behaviour patterns and thought
patterns. It denies the ideational basis of culture, emphasising that material and
environmental conditions are primary in determining human behaviour.This
theory was influenced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.This doctrine was
conceived by Marvin Harris, the anthropologist from North America. This
approach incorporates ideas from Marxism. In addition to that, it also incorporates
ideas from cultural ecology and cultural evolution. Cultural Materialism was
coined by Marvin Harris in. The Rise of Anthropological Theoryin 1968. However,
though he based his theory on Marxist anthropology, his theory is not dialectical.
In the early 1980s, this theory did not receive wide acceptance from
anthropologists, but gradually in the late 1980s many anthropologists began to
depend upon cultural materialism to analyse development of society and other
problems of capitalist societies.
* Contributor: Dr. Chandana Sharma, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, Cotton
University, Guwahati, Assam.
77
Emergence of Fieldwork
Tradition
6.1
MAIN CONCEPT
Cultural Materialism tries to compare human thought and behaviour by studying
the material constraints to which humans are subjected. These material constraints
include the need to produce food, shelter, tools, and machines and to reproduce
human populations within limits set by biology and the environment. According
to cultural materialists, the most likely causes of variation in the mental or spiritual
aspects of human life are the differences in the material costs and benefits of
satisfying basic needs in a particular habitat.
This research strategy focuses on technology, environment and economic factors
as key determinants in socio-cultural evolution.
6.1.1 Theoretical Perspective
The two basic assumptions of cultural materialists regarding societies are:
There is inter-relationship among the various parts of the society leading a
change in one part to change in the other parts too.
Environment is the basis of the socio-cultural system.
Cultural materialists divide all sociocultural systems into infrastructure, structure
and superstructure. So, what is then infrastructure?
Infrastructure is composed of the material realities like technological, economical
and reproductive factors. These on the other hand, influence the other two aspects
of culture. Material infrastructure includes the technology and social practices
by which a society adopts to its environment. The infrastructural component
includes technology (modes of production) and population (modes of
reproduction). These two modes act as balance between population level and
consumption of energy from a finite environment.
Modes of production consist of behaviour patterns required to satisfy needs for
subsistence. These include the production of food and other forms of energy,
like, horticulture, pastoralism, agrarian and industrial society. Modes of
reproduction include the behaviour which aims to control the destructive increases
or decreases in population size. These include the practices employed for
expanding, limiting and maintaining population size and some examples are
mating patterns, fertility, mortality, natality etc,.
The structural component of socio-cultural systems comprises of the organised
patterns of social life managed by the members of the society. Each society needs
to maintain orderly relationships among its members, constituent groups, and
neighbouring societies.This component consists of Political and Domestic
Economy. These groups (Political Economy) perform functions to regulate
production, distribution, consumption, and exchange between groups and sociocultural systems like military, education, police, caste, class and so on. Domestic
Economy comprises of small groups interacting on the basis of intimacy. They
regulate reproduction, socialisation, education and maintain domestic discipline.
These include domestic family structure, friendship networks, community,
domestic discipline and so on.
78
The superstructure component includes the ideological and symbolic aspects of
society. It may be Behavioural or Mental. Behavioural includes recreational
activities like art, music, dance, sports, hobbies, science and so on. Mental
superstructure consists of the patterned ways in which the members of a society
think, conceptualise and evaluate their behaviour like ideologies, religion,
aesthetics, myths and so on.
Cultural Materialism
As the infrastructure changes, the structure and superstructure may change
accordingly.Technology, energy and environmental factors are crucial to the
development of all aspects of society.
6.1.2 Cultural Ecology and Julian Steward
Julian Steward developed the theory of cultural ecology which “stresses the
inter-relationship among the natural resources in the environment—rainfall,
temperature, soils—and technology, social organisation, and attitudes within a
particular sociocultural system” (Scupin and DeCorse 2005:309). It tries to focus
on the adaptations of specific sociocultural groupings with environmental
conditions. He divides his cultural ecology structure into two domains: culture
core and secondary features. The environment, technology and economic
arrangements, that is, elements mostly associated with subsistence are considered
as culture core. Secondary features include the remaining characteristics like
politics, religion, social organisation and the like.
Steward argued that the Shoshoni had no organised social groupings larger than
the family due to scarcity of game in the Basin Plateau of the south-west United
States (Layton 1997: 161). According to him their dependence on gathering
sparsely distributed wild seeds during the pre-colonial period led each family to
wander alone across the ranges. In winter several families camped together at
Pinyon pine groves but each grove bore fruit irregularly and different sets of
families assembled at different groves in successive years (Steward 1938 as cited
in Layton 1997: 162). It is therefore evident that the environment and resources
available play a great influence on the form of social organisation for these people
during various seasons. Through cases like this, Steward demonstrated how
environmental influences (part of the culture core) affect the cultural developments
in a sociocultural system (Scupin and DeCorse 2005: 309). He even examined
the agricultural civilizations of South America, Mesoamerica, the Near East and
the Far East and attributed the similarities found among them to similar
environmental conditions.
He developed the theory of multilinear evolution. Steward was of the view that
all cultures of the world passed through different stages in different areas. He
was greatly impressed with the parallels in the evolution of the ancient
civilizations. These ancient civilizations include those of Peru, Mexico, Egypt,
Mesopotamia and China. He studied the cultures of these ancient civilizations
and opined that there are remarkable uniformities among them but they have
followed different paths of evolution in different areas and timeframes. He
distinguished his scheme of cultural evolution from that of nineteenth-century
evolutionism. Unlike the unilinear evolutionists who stressed on a unilinear
sequence of stages of development of society, Steward “postulated many, or
multilinear, paths of development depending on initial environment, technological,
and other conditions” (Harris 1995: 277). He based his work on cross-cultural
comparisons of different environments focussing on detailed features.
79
Emergence of Fieldwork
Tradition
He also developed the concepts of core and peripheral culture. Steward’s cultural
ecology framework divides socio-cultural framework into culture core and
peripheral (or secondary) culture. “The culture core consists of those elements
most closely related to subsistence: the environments, technology and economic
arrangements. The other characteristics such as social organisation, politics and
religion constitute secondary features” (Scupin and DeCorse 2005:309) or
peripheral culture. Marvin Harris is of the view that similar environments produce
similar arrangements of labour in production and distribution leading thus to
similar kinds of social groupings. Just like Steward’s culture core and periphery,
he divided socio-cultural systems into infrastructure, structure and superstructure.
The theoretical perspective of Harris represents an extension of the foundations
laid down by White and Steward (Scupin and DeCorse 2005: 310).
6.1.3 Leslie White and Neo-evolutionism
Leslie White suggested energy capture as a measure to find out the complexity
in a culture. His perspective on the evolution of society is sometimes referred to
as neo-evolutionism. His approach was influenced by Marx and Durkheim.
According to White, societies are entities that evolved in relation to the amount
of energy captured and used by each member of the society. The energy captured
is directed towards the production of resources for their survival. According to
him, ‘Culture evolves as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year is
increased, or as the efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to
work is increased’ (1971:368 as cited in Scupin and DeCorse 2005: 308). In
other words, the sociocultural system will be more evolved when the energy
harnessed is greater. He proposed that Culture = Energy x Technology, suggesting
that “culture evolves as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year is
increased, or as the efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to
work is increased” (Bohannan and Glazer 1988:340). He tried to explain the
differences in the level of development of society in comparison to differences
in technology and energy production.White argued that because the earliest
cultural systems exploited the energy of the human body alone, they were
condemned to remain simple in form (White 1949:382 as cited in Layton 1997
:128). The Agricultural Revolution witnesses the harness of energy through
domestication of plants and animals. This resulted in the growth of cities and
empires and new ideologies. The ‘Fuel’ (Industrial Revolution saw the use of
new forms of energy, like coal, oil and natural gas, leading to global
transformations. As White used only a single criterion, energy capture and the
efficiency with which it is used, he could measure cultural variation on a unilinear
scale only.
But both the views of Steward and White were criticised for emphasising the
environmental role without considering historical or political factors and reducing
human behaviour to simple adaptations to the external environment. However, it
has become an area of sophisticated research influences by other related sciences.
Reflection
80
Neo-evolutionists never assumed a unilinear approach to development of
society like the 19th century evolutionists. They were never biased in their
approach to understand the development of societies at various levels. They
never held the view that socio-cultural evolution can be considered equal to
progress and believed that some aspects of simple societies are better than
those of complex societies.
Check Your Progress 1
Cultural Materialism
1) Who developed the theory of cultural ecology?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
2) Discuss how Marvin Harris, conceptualises the structure of society?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
3) Discuss multilinear evolution.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
4) What is Leslie White’s theory of energy and evolution?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
6.2
METHODOLOGY
Cultural materialists try to focus on those events and variables which are
observable and measurable and can be applied across societies with the help of
empirical methods to develop nomothetic theories. Epistemologically, cultural
materialism focuses only on those entities and events that are observable and
quantifiable (Harris 1979: 27). His approach reveals how material considerations
are conditioned by emic thoughts and behaviours. He tried to lay stress on those
practices that lead to basic biological survival of those in society. His cultural
materialist approach uses the Hindu belief that cows are sacred and should not
be killed. Western agronomists believe that taboo against cow slaughter is the
main cause of India’s poverty. There is fight for croplands and foodstuff between
81
Emergence of Fieldwork
Tradition
the unproductive ones with useful animals and hungry human beings. The taboo
has led to a surplus of this animal. Massive slaughter of cattle during famines
constitutes a much greater threat to aggregate welfare than any likely
miscalculation by particular farmers concerning the usefulness of their animals
during normal times. Cow love with its sacred symbols and taboos protects the
farmer against calculations that are ‘rational’ only in the short term. The Western
experts believe that ‘the Indian farmer would rather starve to death than eat his
cow’. They do not realise that the farmer would rather eat his cow than starve,
but that he will starve if he does eat it (Harris 1974:21). First, he argued that the
taboos on cow slaughter (emic thought) were superstructural elements resulting
from the economic need to utilize cows as draft animals rather than as food
(Harris 1966: 53-54 as cited in Buzney and Marcoux). He also observed that the
Indian farmers claimed that no calves died because cows are sacred (Harris 1979:
38). In reality, however, male calves were observed to be starved to death when
feed supplies are low (Harris 1979: 38). Harris argues that the scarcity of feed
(infrastructural change) shaped ideological (superstructural) beliefs of the farmers
(Harris 1979: 38). Thus, Harris shows how, using empirical methods, an etic
perspective is essential in order to understand culture change holistically (as
cited in Buzney and Marcoux).
Reflection
One example of cultural materialism at work was cited by Maxine Margolis
(1984). Margolis studied the role of women in the post-World War II United
States and found that women in large numbers were engaged outside. The
1950s ideology however claimed that women’s duties should be restricted
entirely to the home (emic perspective). This developed due to the economic
requirements and ultimately led to increase in productive and reproductive
capabilities of U.S. households. Thus, this whole movement of feminism
turned out to be a movement caused by women into the workforce and not
a movement which forced women into the workforce. This proved how
infrastructure determined superstructure as ideology changed to new
infrastructural innovations (Buzney and Marcoux).
82
Pigs are considered as a taboo by the Muslims. On the other hand, it is quite the
opposite among the New Guinea and South Pacific Melanesian Islanders. They
consider pigs to be holy and offer as sacrifices to the ancestors and also partake
the meat offered on important events like marriages and funerals. Among some
tribes, declaration of war and peace are reverberated by sacrifice of pigs. Huge
feasts are arranged both for the dead ancestors as well as for the living and villagers
almost exhaust the total supply of pigs on such occasions. The feasts continue
for several days, villagers gorging on huge quantities of pork, even vomiting the
undigested amount and making space for some more of it. After they exhaust the
total supply of pigs then they again gear up for another plentiful supply involving
painful years of husbandry. They then again make preparations for another phase
of feasts and merry making with huge quantities of pork. Other than being branded
as a dirty and unhealthy animal, the pig was condemned by the Muslims as it
served as a threat to the integrity of the basic cultural and natural ecosystems of
the Middle East. Within the overall pattern of this mixed farming and pastoral
complex, the divine prohibition against pork constituted a sound ecological
strategy. The nomadic Israelites could not raise pigs in their arid habitats, while
for the semi-sedentary and village farming populations, pigs were more of a
threat than an asset (Harris 1974: 41). Thus, Harris cites these strange explanations
as functional and social responses to material society. No matter how peculiar or
strange a people’s behaviour may seem to be, it always originates from concrete
cultural and ecological constraints and opportunities.
6.3
Cultural Materialism
POSITIVE POINTS
Do you have any idea that this strategy earned some good points too? So what
are those? By now it is clear that Harris discourages to rely on native explanations
and rather urges to use more scientific methods. Cultural materialists also lay
stress on the fact that culture change can be studied across boundaries,
geographical and temporal to reach universal theories. Harris’ work (1966,1977)
reveals that cultural phenomena such as beef taboos (India) using scientific and
logical explanations are possible. These do not require the use of mystical or
other causal factors as found in functionalist or structuralist interpretations. It
thus in a way makes anthropology more dependable on the use of scientific
research methods.
Archaeologists have also used cultural materialist approaches. Archaeologist
William Rathje excavated modern landfills in Arizona and other states to verify
the assumptions archaeologists made regarding waste from the past. He tried to
analyse and verify the stated alcohol consumption and actual alcohol consumption
of informants which were based on the evidence of refuse. The study revealed
significant discrepancy between what people said they drank and what was found
in the refuse. The study brings to light that an emic analysis may sometimes miss
some vital points but an etic approach reveals the real picture.
6.4
CRITICISMS
The cultural materialist approach has been criticised by many. Marxists like
J.Friedman have termed it as vulgar materialism. According to them, cultural
materialists give more importance to infrastructure-superstructure relationship
to explain culture change and their ignorance to notice the effect of superstructure
on shaping structural elements may lead to wrong assumptions. Durkheim and
such other structuralists opposed the cultural materialist dependence on etic
perspective to understand culture change. According to them, etic view is not
relevant and ethnocentric. They believe that etic perspective of the cultural
materialists gives distorted assumptions and conclusions.
Another criticism against them has been levelled by the postmodernists.
Postmodernists are not in favour of the use of scientific methods by the cultural
materialists. They favour the study of culture based on relativism and
particularism. In fact, some postmodernists argue that science is a tool used by
upper classes and dominate lower classes (Rosenau 1922:129 as cited in Buzney
and Marcoux).
Reflection
Marxists in opposition to cultural materialists’ regard production as a
material condition determined by infrastructure, considers infrastructure –
structure relationship as reciprocal and believe that only ruling class benefits
from culture change. Cultural materialists consider infrastructure-structure
relationship as unidirectional and believe that both upper and lower classes
are benefitted from culture change.
83
Emergence of Fieldwork
Tradition
Check Your Progress 2
5)
What are the aspects on which cultural materialists try to focus upon?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
6)
Name one major accomplishment of cultural materialism.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
7)
Why cultural materialist approach is criticised?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
6.5
SUMMARY
This approach urges anthropologists to give causal explanations for variations
and similarities in human societies. They believe like the dialectical materialists
that this can be done by studying the material constraints humans are subjected
to for their survival. Production of food, providing shelters, tools and machines
and reproduction of humans within biological and environmental limits are some
of the constraints faced by them. They do not agree with the dialectical materialists
that anthropology needs to become associated with a political movement. Cultural
materialists allow for a diversity of political motivation among anthropologists
united by a common commitment to the development of a science of culture
(Harris 1995: 277). Harris developed cultural materialism in opposition to cultural
relativism and idealism. For Harris, cultural relativist and idealist perspectives
remove culture from its material base. Their approach is emic and not holistic.
On the other hand, cultural materialism focusses on those phenomena that are
measurable and observable. They, thus give an etic perspective of society.
6.6
84
GLOSSARY
Cultural ecology: A field developed by Julian Steward which studies the interrelationship between natural environment, technology and social organisation
within a specific sociocultural system.
Dialectical Materialism:This term refers to Marxist theory conceived by Engels
and others. It points out that dialectical laws determine all material phenomena
and processes.
Cultural Materialism
Emic: Emic refers to behaviour which is meaningful to the people studied
(insider’s view of culture).
Etic: Etic refers to behaviour meaningful to the one who studies the group
(outsider’s view of culture).
Infrastructure: Technology and practices applied to expand or control the modes
of production and reproduction.
Neo-evolutionism: A new twentieth century perspective on the evolution of
society.
Structure: Structure includes domestic economy like family structure, age and
gender roles, domestic division of labour. It includes political economy like class,
castes, police, military and political organisation.
Superstructure: Superstructure includes aesthetic component of society. Arts,
games, religion, philosophy, literature, science and values are all included within
superstructure.
6.7
REFERENCES
Buzney, Catherine and Jon Marcoux. (n.d). Cultural Materialism. The University
of Alabama.Department of Anthropology. Anthropological Theories: A Guide
prepared by Students for Students. Accessed from https://anthropology.ua.edu/
theory/cultural-materialism/on 06/05/2019.
Harris, Marvin.1974. Cows,Pigs,Wars and Witches. New York: Vintage Books.
1979. Cultural Materialism. New York: Random House.
1995. Cultural Anthropology. USA: Longman.
2001. The Rise of Anthropological Theory (updated edition).UK:Altamira
Press.
Layton,Robert.1997. An Introduction to theory in Anthropology.UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Scupin,Raymond and Christopher R.DeCorse.2005. Anthropology A Global
Perspective. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India.
Seymour-Smith, Charlotte. 1986. Dictionary of Anthropology. New York:
Macmillan Press Ltd.
6.8
ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
1)
Julian Steward developed the theory of cultural ecology. It studies the interrelationship between natural environment, technology and social
organization within a specific sociocultural system.
2)
Harris views structure of society as comprising of two components. They
are Domestic Economy which includes family, domestic division of labour,
age and gender roles. The other is Political Economy including political
organization, class, castes, police and military.
85
Emergence of Fieldwork
Tradition
86
3)
The theory of Multilinear evolution was developed by Julian Steward. It is
based on the assumption that all the cultures of the world have passed through
different stages in different areas. They (cultures) followed multiple paths
in the course of evolution.
4)
Leslie White considered societies as entities. According to him societies
evolve in relation to the amounts of energy used. The greater the amount of
energy harnessed and used, higher the development of socio-cultural system
is. He cited examples of simple hunting and gathering societies with no
complex sociocultural systems as they depended on human energy alone
and the modern industrial ones with complex sociocultural systems due to
use of new forms of energy.
5)
Cultural materialists try to focus upon technology, environment and
economic factors. These are the key determinants in sociocultural evolution.
6)
One major accomplishment of cultural materialism is its reliance on scientific
methods.
7)
Durkheim and such other structuralists criticized cultural materialism
because of its etic perspective and postmodernists were not in favour of its
use of scientific methods.
Cultural Materialism
BLOCK 3
THEORIES OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND
FUNCTION
87
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
UNIT 7
Social Integration
UNIT 8
Functionalism and Structural-functionalism
UNIT 9
Structuralism
UNIT 10
Conflict Theories
88
UNIT 7
SOCIAL INTEGRATION*
Social Integration
Contents
7.0 Introduction
7.1 What is Social Integration?
7.2 The Theory of Social Contract: The Beginning of Social Integration Idea
7.3 Auguste Comte and the Idea of Social Integration
7.4 Herbert Spencer and the Organismic Analogy
7.5 Emile Durkheim and the Theory of Social Integration
7.6 Anomie and the Idea of Social Disintegration
7.7 Durkheim and his Influence in Social Anthropology
7.8 Summary
7.9 References
7.10 Answers to Check Your Progress
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After reading this unit, the learners should be able to:

define social integration;

understand the roots of the concept of social integration;

discuss the Durkheimian theory of social integration;

locate and appreciate the theory of social integration in social anthropology;
and

understand the concepts of social disintegration and anomie.
7.0
INTRODUCTION
Social integration as a theoretical idea became established in Anthropology around
twentieth century. For a very long time before that, evolution was the general
theoretical framework that guided anthropological knowledge. Marvin Harris
writes that anthropology began as a study of human history. Anthropologists in
the mid nineteenth century were much concerned with the stages through which
human societies have passed and reached its present form in the modern European
societies. They were more concerned with the idea of change in human society
and culture. How human society changed over a period of time and what were
the characteristics of each stage through which societies passed, was their main
concern. However, anthropologists had little evidence to prove the claims they
were making. Most of the anthropologists during the mid-nineteenth century
were arm-chair anthropologists as they based their arguments and illustrations
of each stage of human society on the works of various missionaries, soldiers,
and travelers’ accounts. They themselves did not go to the field. Their arguments
were thus conjectural in nature. It was due to this that the theory of evolutionism
in social anthropology came under sharp criticism. Reaction to evolutionism in
Britain led to the formation of two camps- one led by diffusionists and the other
*Contributor: Dr. Prashant Khattri, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, Allahabad
State University, Prayagraj. UP.
89
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
led by functionalists. The idea of social integration is clearly visible, took shape
and became established in the second camp. Functionalism in social anthropology
is a broad term and has been further sub-divided into two groups vizpsychological functionalism and structural functionalism. Psychological
functionalism is associated with the works of Malinowski and the structural or
sociological functionalism (as sometimes it is also called by this name) is
associated with the works of A.R. Radcliffe-Brown. He, in-turn, was influenced
by the ideas of Emile Durkheim, a sociologist. Social integration as a perspective
and as a theoretical framework, although can be located in both forms of
functionalism, but it is the sociological functionalism where it is more firmly
rooted.
The theory of functionalism in anthropology is associated with several shifts in
the discipline. With the emergence of functionalism, anthropology shunned its
diachronic character and became a synchronic science. It became interested in
the study of the present and abandoned the idea of studying the past in the absence
of clear evidence. The idea of in-depth ethnographic fieldwork became established
in anthropology. All these changes had important contributions to make towards
the idea of social integration (Barnard 2000).
7.1
WHAT IS SOCIAL INTEGRATION?
In our everyday usage, the word social is used as a word to depict our relationships
with people. How many times people might have told you to become ‘social’?
What they mean by this is to go out and socialise with friends and relatives.
When we spend our time alone and do not meet with people for a long time we
are labeled as ‘not being social.’ Because of the corona pandemic we all are now
familiar with the term ‘social distancing.’ For a very long time we all were confined
to our houses due to lockdown and there were restrictions on our gatherings and
movements. Although we met with people online but social gatherings like
marriage functions, birthday parties and other such gatherings were prohibited.
Thus, we can get a sense of the term social through this experience. It is a term
that denotes our ability and need to be associated with others. It denotes a sense
of collectivity and cohesiveness. We also use the word anti-social for those
activities that go against the collective consciousness and collective nature of
human existence.
The word integration on the other hand has been defined by the Cambridge
dictionary as an action or a process of successfully joining or mixing with a
different group of people. If we can extend this definition then we can also say
that integration is a process of joining different units together. These different
units can be conceptualised or seen as different aspects or institutions of the
society. Society being a heterogeneous unit, in order to stay in equilibrium,
different units of the society must have a functional unity between them. Now,
clubbing both the words together to reach a meaning of the composite word
‘social integration’ we may say that it is a process where different units of society
or the collectivity that we call as a society is in a state of equilibrium. Different
units of a society are so joined or mixed together that we get society as a
functioning unit fulfilling various needs of the individual and the collectivity.
90
Further we may say that individual is a very important unit of the society. It is
also true that individual is inseparable from the collectivity and collective identity
of the social groups to which he/she belongs. Keeping individual at the center of
attention, social integration has been defined as “strength of social ties connecting
individuals to society (Stolley 2005: 250).“Therefore, social integration can be
seen as relationships between social groups and also between the individual and
society.” In social anthropology, the concept and idea of social integration came
up during the twentieth century. As already mentioned, when evolutionism as a
theory to understand society, fell out of currency, the idea of looking at the past
in order to understand the present came under attack. Instead, it was now believed
and thought that in order to understand the society, we need to examine the present
only. This was a shift from a diachronic understanding to a synchronic view of
society where society was seen as it is ‘here and now.’ Major theme within this
thought process was to understand that how society maintains itself and
perpetuates. A particular society came to be studied in its totality, that is to say,
that various institutions that made-up a society were studied. Society was viewed
as a totality with a boundary, with interrelated parts. Scholars tried to understand
that how different parts of the society, that is, different institutions like religion,
polity, economics etc. function and how they are related to each other to maintain
the society as a whole. Although it is true that in social anthropology, this idea
gained currency only during the twentieth century, but seeds of this idea were
present even before that in social sciences (Stolley 2005).
Social Integration
Check Your Progress 1
1)
Define social integration.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
7.2
THE THEORY OF SOCIAL CONTRACT: THE
BEGINNING OF SOCIAL INTEGRATION IDEA
Before we move on to understand the theory of social integration as put forward
by social anthropologists and sociologists, a more philosophical way of looking
at social integration is much warranted. This all begins with philosophical
questions like when and why societies were formed? What was the need to live
in a social arrangement? How human beings lived before the existence of
societies? Was there a stage in human existence when there was no society or
social relationship, in other words, had humans ever lived in a state of nature? If
yes, then what was the characteristic of the state of nature? Answers to these
questions were attempted by Thomas Hobbes who is associated with the theory
of social contract.
Hobbes was of the view that before human beings entered into a social contract
they were in a state of nature. This natural state according to him was full of
human-human conflict. This was so because everyone was free to do things based
on their own will. Human beings only thought about their individual profit and
interest. This natural state of human existence was actually a condition of war. If
91
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
any dispute arose between individuals then there was no authority that resolved
it. Disputes were resolved based on people’s own will and ways. Thus, without
any overall controlling power, human beings were in a perpetual condition of
war. This natural state of human existence therefore, according to Hobbes, was
tyrannical. In the natural state, since human beings remained ungoverned, they
would terrorise each other as they would only be governed by rules of selfpreservation and self-promotion.Thus, in order to bring peace, equilibrium, resolve
conflict, and have a peaceful collective existence, human beings entered into a
social contract.
Thus, according to Hobbes, the best way of social integration is to enter into a
social contract. In this contract, human beings submit to an authority which is
sovereign and an absolute ruler having indivisible powers. This prevents conflict
and chaos. By investing all powers with the third party, human beings establish
the rule of law. Thus, the basic function of the government according to Hobbes
was to bring about social integration and social order (Eriksen and Nielsen 2001).
Check Your Progress 2
2) The idea of social integration can be traced back to the theory of social
contract. Discuss.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
3) What is the theory of social contract and how is it linked to social integration?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
7.3
92
AUGUSTE COMTE AND THE IDEA OF SOCIAL
INTEGRATION
Auguste Comte, who gave the term,‘sociology’to a body of knowledge that was
theorising about society, and who is also regarded as the founding figure of the
discipline, was of the view that the nineteenth century would be the century of
biology because the idea of evolution in biology was the most powerful idea
during that time. He further said that biology will provide the metaphor for the
study of society. As biology was regarded as the study of natural organisms,
sociology could be regarded as the study of social organisms. Society, according
to Comte was more complex than the natural organism and therefore he regarded
society as a complex organism. He was of the view that as human organism is
made up of cells, the social organism is constituted by families which are the
building blocks comparable to the cells. All other parts in society are just
elaborations of the family that is the fundamental unit of society.
Social Integration
He further went on to say that as there are several needs of the human organism,
similarly there are needs of the society. If a society wants to persist then series of
needs must be met. However, there is one basic need that must be met for the
smooth functioning of the society and that is the need for social integration. This
need is actually about coordination, regulation and control of different parts of a
society. Societies where this basic need of social integration cannot be met are
likely to develop social ‘pathologies’ that may be detrimental for the society.
According to Comte social integration can be achieved in the following three
ways:
1)
by building a mechanism for mutual interdependence among various parts
of the society,
2)
by creating strong centers of power for political control and regulation of
various systems and parts in the society. This is similar to what we have
already seen in the social contact theory and
3)
by ensuring common cultural codes for different units of the society.
This gave rise to Comte’s model of social statics. This means that if the needs for
social integration are met then society will be in a state of equilibrium. The
model states that when the level of social differentiation increases in the society
it gives rise to integrative problems in society. This in turn gives rise to an
increasing pressure on the society to come-up with some new mechanisms for
integration. With the emergence of new integrative mechanisms in the form of
centralization of power, common culture and structural interdependencies, social
integration is achieved. Comte’s model however also talks about the situation in
which new mechanisms fail to emerge, for example a lack of centralised control
over different parts of the society that may lead to non-equitable distribution of
resources among different sections of the population. In such a scenario,
integrative problems of coordination and control increase, that may lead to social
pathologies (Turner 2014).
Check Your Progress 3
4) Discuss Comte’s idea of social integration.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
5) What is Comte’s idea of social statics and how is it relevant to the theory of
social integration?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
93
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
7.4
HERBERT SPENCER AND THE ORGANISMIC
ANALOGY
The ideas on social integration are very well entrenched into the works of Herbert
Spencer. Following the footsteps of Comte, although he denied it, Spencer also
put forward the ‘natural science view’ of the society. He developed Comte’s
ideas further. Spencer compared human organism with society and talked about
various similarities and differences between the two. This is known as the
organismic analogy.
While talking about the similarities he said the following:
1)
That both organism and society can be distinguished from the inorganic
matter as both grow and develop.
2)
As they grow, they increase in complexity and their structures differentiate.
When organisms grow, their organs become more complex and get
differentiated by assuming special functions. Same is true for the society.
3)
As the structure grows and differentiates, functions of different parts also
become different.
4)
In both, organism and society, different parts are interdependent on each
other and both cannot function without this interdependence. This
interdependence of parts is necessary to maintain both, the organism and
the society.
Spencer also came-up with certain differences between the two which are as
follows:
1)
Degree of connectedness and proximity of parts is greater in organism than
it is in the society.
2)
Communication between various parts takes place through different means.
In organism, parts communicate through molecular waves but in society,
parts communicate through cultural symbols like language.
3)
In society or the superorganism, as Spencer called it, all the units or parts
are capable of decision making but in case of an organism, it is only the
brain that is endowed with this capacity.
Spencer further says that as there are certain needs of the organism that should
be met in order to maintain the organism, or sustain life, similarly, there are
needs of superorganism that should be met in order to achieve social integration
or in order to maintain the society as a whole. These could be understood as
certain functional requisites that are essential to maintain the superorganism.
These functional requisites are:
94
1)
Production- this involves accumulation of resources and conversion of raw
materials into usable resources that can sustain a population.
2)
Reproduction- this involves creating structures that can ensure new members
are added to the population. It also involves learning the ways of life or
ways of living in a group or structure in order to maintain the whole.
3)
Regulation- this involves the use and consolidation of power and authority
in order to control the individuals. This also helps in maintaining the whole
as a corporate unit.
4)
Distribution- this involves creation of infrastructures in order to move people,
information and resources in a geographical space.
Social Integration
Thus, the organismic analogy compares the society with the human organism.
As in the case of human organism, different organs function in order to maintain
the whole, similarly, in society different parts of society function and are integrated
and interdependent on each other in such a way that the society is maintained as
a whole (Turner 2014).
Check Your Progress 4
6) What is organismic analogy in social sciences?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
7) How organismic analogy is central to the understanding of theory of social
integration?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
7.5
EMILE DURKHEIM AND THE THEORY OF
SOCIAL INTEGRATION
Durkheim, a functionalist, was concerned with how social order is maintained in
the society. He uses the term ‘social solidarity’ in order to talk about social order.
For him, institutions in the society function in order to maintain the social
solidarity. While writing on the division of labourin society, he put forth the idea
that the function of the division of labouris to maintain the social order or social
solidarity. Durkheim gave primacy to social facts,and looked for sociological
explanations of social phenomenon. There can be several other ways in which
we may describe phenomenon, for example, division of labourcan be described
in economic terms. It can be said and economists have tried to focus on this
particular description that division of labourserves economic functions as it
increases productivity. Durkheim however gave primacy to the social explanation.
For him, division of labourserves a very social function. It helps in maintaining
social solidarity as because of the division of labour different units are
interdependent and therefore promote social solidarity (Pope 1975).
Durkheim’s work on religion is one of the cornerstones in the sociology and
anthropology of religion. In his book, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life,
he talked about an Australian aboriginal group named Arunta. The Aruntas
95
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
practiced totemism that involves the collective worship of the totemic ancestor
that is often a natural being, like a bird or animal. The Arunta believe that they
are descendants of these natural beings and each clan has its particular nonhuman ancestor. Durkheim asked the question that what religion does for the
individual and the society. In other words what is the function of religion? He
focused on the functional aspects of the institutions rather than the substantive
aspects. He further said that among the Aruntas, whenever there is a religious
performance or a festival, they all gather together to sing and dance. This act of
gathering together and performing rituals together promoted collective behaviour.
This helps in generating collective consciousness. This in-turn promotes social
solidarity. Therefore, the main function of religion according to Durkheim is
that it promotes social solidarity. In his definition on religion, he writes that
religion binds people into a moral community called Church. A Church comprises
of all who share the same beliefs and related practices. Thus, religion has an
integrative function. It integrates the individual to the society. Religion also helps
the individual to imbibe society or internalize the society. According to Durkheim,
the moral values imbibed through religion are the ones that contribute towards
social integration (Moore 2009).
As already mentioned in this unit, social integration stresses the linkage or
relationship between the individual and the society. Social integration is made
possible by more conforming individuals who abide by the rules of the society
and more integrated the society, the better is the mode of enforcement of rules,
for example where family ties are strong, children grow up to be more obedient
and conforming. This theory is also an important explanatory device in
criminology. According to this view, in a better integrated society crime will be
less as people will be sensitive to the needs and demands of the others. The
consciousness of the other and the social control exerted by wanting to appear
good in the eyes of the others, or the collectivity is the hallmark of the theory of
social integration. Individuals that are more conforming to the social norms and
rules will be less directed and motivated to commit crime. Higher the level of
conformity to social norms more is the level of social integration.People tend to
focus their interest within the structure of the society and do not dare to think
beyond the societal interests. Children growing up in more traditional families
are always tending to please their elders and are also conforming to moral
pressures. Thus, Durkheim says that in those societies where social integration
is weak, individualism becomes strong and collective rules, norms and values
take a backseat. On the other hand, in those societies where social integration is
strong, individualism becomes weak and collective rules and norms take the
center stage.
96
Another remarkable work of Durkheim was ‘Suicide’. He wrote a book with the
same title. In this book, he tried to understand the social conditions that could
lead to suicide. Again, in this work he gave primacy to the social factors over
individual and psychological factors. Suicide could be viewed as a product of
individual and psychological factors, however, for Durkheim, it was more a
product of social factors and lack of integration of the individual to the society.
He compared suicide rates in European countries and based on statistical data he
said that there is a marked difference in suicide rates in protestant and catholic
countries. Suicide rates were higher in protestant countries as opposed to catholic
countries. He gave sociological explanation for this differential rate. According
to Durkheim, catholic countries have a strong foundation of Church as compared
to the protestant countries. Church played a significant role in integrating the
individual to the society. He writes: “What constitutes this society is the existence
of a certain number of beliefs and practices common to all the faithful, traditional
and thus obligatory. The more numerous and stronger these collective states of
mind are, the stronger the integration of the religious community, and also the
greater its preservative value. The details of dogmas and rites are secondary. The
essential thing is that they be capable of supporting a sufficiently intense collective
life. And because the Protestant church has less consistency than the others it has
less moderating effect upon suicide” (referred from Gupta 2005: 73).
Social Integration
In Suicide, Durkheim discussed three kinds of integrations viz- religious, familial
and political. Religion, according to him provides an important social context
that helps individuals integrate with social norms and values. It provides a
background for building strong emotional, psychological and social bonds. At
the level of the family, he was of the view that family provides an important
context for integration of individual family members with the rules and norms of
the family. It also provides a context for social control and order in the society.
As far as political integration is concerned, he was of the view that political
conflicts and upheavals are functional in a sense that they lead to better integration
in the society as they generate collective consciousness and sentiments. Political
crisis forces people to recognise common goals. Such crisis also emphasises the
role played by political institutions. This leads to stronger ties between the
individual and the society.
According to Durkheim, a certain kind of suicide is the result of lack of social
integration in the society. He talked about three kinds of suicides- egoistic,
altruistic and anomic suicide. The egoistic suicide is a result of excessive
individualism in the society and a person believes that he or she has full control
over his or her life and is therefore entitled to eliminate it. Such a person is likely
to be an agnostic as he or she will not believe that life is a gift of God and any
other such beliefs. He labelled a suicide as altruistic when a person kills himself
for the sake of honour, for example, committing Sati in India or Hara-Kiri in
Japan or in a war or for an ideology like in the case of the suicide bombers. The
third kind of suicide is called as the anomic suicide and according to Durkheim,
such suicides occur as a result of social disintegration. It is the last kind of suicide
that is directly related to the notion of social integration. Thus, alongside the
theory of social integration, he also talked about social disintegration, its causes
and consequences (Thorlindsson and Bernburg 2004).
Check Your Progress 5
8)
Discuss Durkheim’s view on social integration.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
97
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
7.6
ANOMIE AND THE IDEA OF SOCIAL
DISINTEGRATION
Anomie refers to lack of control or normlessness in the society that may lead to
social disintegration, such as break down of family, increasing rates of divorce,
lack of faith and excessive individualism. Anomie is a condition in society wherein
there is a breakdown of standards and values in the society. In a state of anomie,
common values and norms are no longer accepted in the society and new norms
and values are still not formed. This is a condition of normlessness. This results
into psychological state in individuals,which is characterised by emptiness, lack
of purpose and despair. The society loses common definitions of what is desirable
in the society and therefore people tend to loose interest in striving to achieve
something. There is a sense of alienation from the society and its norms (Turner
2014).
Anomic suicides are a result of this social disintegration as it leads to alienation
of the individual from the society. Scholars studying rapid urbanisation had
discussed the concept of alienation, where humans lose touch with each other
and the collective becomes shadowy. When humans no longer look towards the
other for approval, they may take recourse to any action, good or bad.The solution
therefore for Durkheim was to bring social solidarity or work towards it for
averting anomie and anomic suicides. But a too rigid society may inhibit the full
flowering of individual potential, for example if children only conform to what
their parents wish them to be, they can never become inventors or try out different
things. Durkheim was of the view that in order to completely realise the potentials
of a human being we need a social configuration that helps in such realisations,
or that society must be both controlling and liberal. The nature of society therefore
becomes a very important part for the realisation of human values. He was against
the idea of excessive individualism as promoted in the industrial world. He said
that those social circumstances that produce excessive individualism will lack
social control and regulation and thus may lead to social disintegration or anomie.
Check Your Progress 6
9)
What is anomie and how it can lead to social disintegration?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
7.7
98
DURKHEIM AND HIS INFLUENCE IN SOCIAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
As already mentioned in the introduction of this unit, it was A.R. RadcliffeBrown who was influenced by Durkheim to a very large extent. Radcliffe-Brown
visualised a kind of anthropology that is capable of generating general laws
governing the society. He was of the view that, just like natural sciences, social
anthropology should be a law-generating science. He was influenced by the idea
of positivism in sociology, of which Comte was the torch bearer. According to
positivism, society should be studied in the same way as natural science research
is done that is in objective terms. Whatever is observable is amenable to scientific
enquiry. Sociologists and social scientists should be able to generate laws that
govern society just like the laws that govern the functioning of living organisms.
Organismic analogy therefore became the cornerstone of studies in social sciences.
In order to carry out scientific enquiry of society, it was assumed that society is
an integrated whole. It is made-up of parts that are interrelated and work together
to maintain the society as a whole. Brown considered social anthropology as a
branch of comparative sociology where the main aim is to attempt acceptable
generalizations (Moore 2009). By comparing the institutions of various societies,
one can generate laws that could be applied to all societies, for example, RadcliffeBrown posited the laws of kinship behaviour.
Social Integration
The idea of society as an integrated whole was so central to the twentieth century
anthropology that they overlooked an important dimension of social existence
and that is, conflict. Scholars viewed society as made-up of parts that are in
harmonious relationship with each other. Each part in a society functions either
to fulfill basic needs of the individual or to maintain the society as a whole. Even
Malinowski in his early days was influenced by Durkheim. His earliest publication
was about family in Australia. The sub-title of this work was ‘a sociological
study’. In conclusion to this work, Malinowski writes that social institutions like
family have social functions. That is to say that their main function is for the
collectivity. They help to maintain the collectivity or society as a whole. It was
only later that Malinowski moved away from Durkheim and focused on individual
needs (Moore 2009 and Gordon et.al. 2011).
Check Your Progress 7
10) Discuss the idea of social integration is social anthropology.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
7.8
SUMMARY
In this unit we have learnt the meaning of the term social integration. We have
seen that there are at least two ways in which social integration has been defined
in social sciences. On one hand it means a harmonious social system where
different parts in the society, that are different institutions, function to maintain
the whole. In anthropology this came to be known as sociological functionalism
or structural functionalism that came-up and flourished under the influence of
Durkheim and spearheaded in anthropology by Radcliffe Brown. Brown based
his understanding of the society in terms of organismic analogy. He was of the
view that as there are different systems in the organism like reproductive,
circulatory, digestive and nervous system, in the same way there are different
systems in a society like kinship, religion, economic and political systems. As in
the case of organism, these systems work in tandem and maintain the whole,
similarly in a society, different systems work together and maintain the society
as a whole.
99
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
At another level or on the other hand social integration has been seen as attachment
of the individual to the social norms, values and rules. We have seen that Durkheim
elaborated on this aspect of integration and talked about the consequences of it
both, for the individual and for the society. Through his works on division of
labour in society, religion and suicide, he talked about a society in equilibrium
and various institutions promoting this harmony. Later, he also talked about the
consequences of rapid changes in the society that may lead to anomie and social
disintegration. We have also seen in this unit that the idea of social integration
can be traced to philosophers like Thomas Hobbes. August Comte and Herbert
Spencer contributed significantly to the concept and theory of social integration.
7.9
REFERENCES
Barnard, A. (2000). History and theory in anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Eriksen, T.H., & Nielsen, F.S. (2001). A history of anthropology. Virginia, USA:
Pluto Press.
Gordon, R., Lyons, A.P.,& Lyons, H.D. (ed.).(2011). Fifty key anthropologists.
Oxon: Routledge.
Gupta, A. (2005). “Durkheim,in Anoop Gupta.” Kierkegaard’s romantic legacy:
Two theories of the self. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Moore, J.D. (2009). Visions of culture: An introduction to anthropological theories
and theorists. New York: Altamira Press.
Pope, W. (1975). Durkheim as a Functionalist. The sociological quarterly. 16(3),
361-379.
Stolley, K.S. (2005). The basics of sociology. London: Greenwood Press.
Thorlindsson,T. &Bernburg, J.G. (2004). “Durkheim’s Theory of Social Order
and Deviance: A Multi-Level Test”. European Sociological Review. 20(4), 271285.
Turner, J.H. (2014). Theoretical sociology: A concise introduction to twelve
sociological theories. California: Sage.
7.10 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
1)
Refer to section 7.1
2)
Refer to section 7.2
3)
Refer to section 7.2
4)
Refer to section 7.3
5)
Refer to third paragraph of section 7.3
6)
Refer to first paragraph of section 7.4
7)
Refer to section 7.4
8)
Refer to section 7.5
9)
Refer to section 7.6
10) Refer to section 7.7
100
UNIT 8
FUNCTIONALISM AND
STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONALISM*
Social Integration
Contents
8.0 Introduction
8.1 Structural-Functional Approach of Radcliffe-Brown
8.2 Functionalism of Malinowski
8.3 Further Developments of the Functional and the Structural-Functional
Method
8.4 Criticism of Functionalism
8.5 Summary
8.6 References
8.7 Answers to Check Your Progress
Objectives
After reading this unit, the learners would be able to:

trace the origins of the functional theory;

analyse the structural-functional theory of Radcliffe-Brown;

comprehend the functional theory of Malinowski;

outline the impact of these on later development of social anthropology;
and

critically evaluate Functionalism.
8.0
INTRODUCTION
Functionalism in anthropology began in Britain and among those anthropologists,
in Africa, Australia and America, who were under influence of British
anthropology. However, its intellectual roots can be traced to France, especially
to the work of Emile Durkheim and others of the Anne sociology school, including
Marcel Mauss, Hubert among several scholars associated with Durkheim, who
can be seen as an evolutionist converted to functionalism. Durkheim (1915) began
working on the Australian Aborigines, looking for the origin of religion in their
totemic beliefs and rituals. He soon realised the role played by religion and ritual
in regulating their lives and promoting social solidarity. He specifically pointed
out the function of rituals in the maintenance of social relationships like clan
identity and solidarity.
Functionalism, the general term is more commonly used to include also structuralfunctionalism. The term arose out of the scholars’ emphasis on the understanding
of the function of a particular system, institution, rituals, morals, values etc.
within the context of the particular society and culture. The functionalist through
their intense fieldwork, that comprised of living among the people to know their
way of life, dismantled many of the assumptions that were innate to evolutionism.
In this unit we shall look into the origin of the functional theory how it emerged
*Contributor: Professor Subhadra Mitra Channa, Former Professor, Department of
Anthropology, University of Delhi. New Delhi.
101
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
in anthropological discourses. We would also comprehend how RadcliffeBrown’s structural- functional theory differs from Malinowski’s functionalism.
We would analysis the point of departure of these two approaches and critically
evaluate both of them.
8.1
STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONAL APPROACH OF
RADCLIFEE-BROWN
Radcliffe-Brown (1922, 1940), began as a positivist, trying to establish a science
of society, in the form of social anthropology. He was convinced that society as
defined by him: as organised social relationships was the core and culture, only
supported and provided content to the relationships. Like all positivist, or
objectively scientific endeavours, he also began with certain premises, like, to
begin with he conceptualised society as a closed system of interrelated parts.
Secondly, he believed that it was best to keep one’s analysis to the present as the
past was very difficult to reconstruct realistically. He was critical of the speculative
reconstruction done by the evolutionists. Thirdly, he believed in the comparative
method and accepted that it was possible to build up some generalised principles
about the working of human societies, using the comparative method. In other
words, he had faith that the social sciences could successfully duplicate the
methodology of the hard sciences like physics and chemistry and his ultimate
aim was to have a comparative science of society in the same way as there is a
science of comparative biology.
Towards this end, Radcliffe-Brown drew upon the organic analogy, or he
compared society to a living organism, with different parts which all contribute
to the functioning of the whole. To understand society, he gave the concept of
the social structure. To Radcliffe-Brown, a social structure is what is observed
by the scholar in the field. The way in which people on the ground actually
interact with each other, the norms and principles of such interaction. He
considered only the recurrent and regular interactions as part of the social structure,
leaving aside the occasional or accidental interactions. All generalisations formed
from the observation of regularities of both norms and principles of all interaction
can be complied into a structural form. This has been confusing for scholars
following him, as most of them consider what he refers to as social structure as
data, and what he refers to as structural form as social structure. Anyway, the
main character of structural form/social structure is that it is the generalised
representation of the most frequently occurring way of behaving in a particular
relationship. Secondly, the different parts of this structure are not independent of
each other, in that they affect each other, in a positive, mutually supportive way.
For example, the marriage rules of a society will be supported by its legal laws,
which in turn will be complementary to the economy and religion. Treating
structural form as a system of interrelated parts means that all parts reinforce the
working of the other parts.
102
It is here that the organic analogy comes in. The society is like an organism and
the various institutions of the society are like the various organs of the organism,
like family, economy, legal and political institutions are like the digestive,
respiratory, circulatory and nervous system of an organism, working in tandem
and all having the common goal of preserving the health in the case of a living
organism, and social equilibrium, in the case of a society. The important
methodological issue here is that this equilibrium or health is measured only at
one point in time. Structural-functionalism is a synchronic method, focusing
only on the present. As a result of this approach, we have a series of ethnographies
that seem to be frozen is space and time. These have become known as “The
Nuer’ by E.E Evans Pritchard, ‘Andaman Islanders’ by Radcliffe-Brown, ‘The
Naked Nagas’ by Fürer-Haimendorf and so on. It seems that these societies have
been captured on a canvass to be preserved for posterity. It is this ahistoricity
that came in for criticism at a later stage.
Functionalism and
Structural-Functionalism
In tune with his positivist approach and his search for universal laws that should
apply to most societies, Radcliffe-Brown made a comparative study of some
societies and their institutions to bring out his major works on kinship and religion.
His study of the Andaman Islanders (1922), follows Durkheim closely as he
explains rituals, such as the initiation rituals of the young people, as functional
for the social solidarity of the island people. He explained how by the use of
taboos on certain food items, the young people, who were going to become adult
members of society, learnt to be responsible users of valued food items. In a
subsistence- based society dependent on natural supply of food, careful use of
food is critical to survival of the entire group. According to Radcliffe-Brown,
anything that is of great social significance assumes symbolic significance in
terms of ritual value. He borrowed the term taboo from Polynesia. He explained
the social value of several instances of taboos. Like the strict taboos on the father
of an unborn child, as something that instils the responsibilities of fatherhood on
a man and makes him share the physical pregnancy of his wife. When RadcliffeBrown is referring to people he is actually talking about the abstracted category
of a social person, or a social status, as it was called later. Like husband and wife
refer to the collective ideal of a husband or a wife as distilled from the data on
real persons and situations. Therefore, in every case his explanation is directed
towards social solidarity and the needs of the total social structure or structural
form as he calls it. Overall, it is an objectification of the real situations and
devoid of any personal content like emotions. If sentiments are mentioned they
are also in an abstracted sense.
One of the most significant contributions of Radcliffe-Brown (1950) is to kinship
theory as condensed in his classic introduction to African Systems of Kinship
and Marriage. In this he has tried to put forward three rules of kinship that can
be taken as applicable to a large number of societies. These are:
1)
The Unity of the Sibling Group
2)
The Opposition of Adjacent generations
3)
Merging of alternate generations
These condense some principles, norms and etiquettes (his three elements of
kinship behaviour) of descent- based kinship systems. He also analysed kinship
terms as reflecting these principles. For example, in many parts of India, like in
Bengal, grandfather and grandson call each other by reciprocal terms (merging
of alternate generations), like dadubhai (dadu- grandfather, bhai- brother), unity
of sibling groups is expressed in the substitutability of a person by his sibling,
usually the younger sibling as he or she is the natural successor in the lineal
order of kinship. This is reflected in practices of sororate and levirate.While
expressing the principle of unity of the sibling groups, these practices also help
in reproduction of lineages and keep the society going.
103
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
Reflection
Sororate and Levirate: In the former, a younger sister can replace her
elder sister as a wife and in the latter, a younger brother can replace his
elder brother as a husband. Levirate is practiced in many parts of northwest India and sororate is common in almost all regions of India.
Radcliffe-Brown also put forward the practices such as avoidance rules and joking
relationships. Although very different in content these serve the same function.
They protect relationships in a situation where they are liable to be stressed
because of the existence of related principles and practices. Let us take avoidance
that is practised in Indian families between father- in- law and daughter- in- law
and between a son- in- law and his mother- in- law. Given the reality of early age
marriage in India, which still persists to a large extent, it is possible that a man
may still be relatively young even when his son gets married. As a human being
there is possibility of the father-in-law as well as the elder brother-in-law, getting
sexually attracted to the bride, given the close family living conditions. To avoid
the stress on the social system if this happens, there is strict prohibition of
interaction between them, to the extent of the woman observing veiling (purdah)
of her face in front of them. The same goes for the son- in- law and mother- inlaw relationship. A woman may be just in her mid-youth when her daughter gets
married and to avoid any untoward incidence strict adherence to avoidance is
practised.
The joking relationships perform the same functions but in a opposite way. In
India the joking relationship between a woman and her husband’s younger brother
is legendary and so is that between a man and his wife’s younger sister. By the
rules of marriage commonly practiced, these are both marriageable relations.
But most of the time they remain only potentially so. Thus, to avoid the
development of any serious relationship, the sexual tensions are dissipated through
joking. The descriptions of kinship behaviour as given by Radcliffe-Brown, are
still very much applicable to many parts of the world, and the value of his analysis
is realised when readers, say in India, can apply these rules to their day to day
lives so easily.
Criticisms of Structural-functionalism
Structural-functionalism, apart from being ahistorical and synchronic, is also
based upon a holistic view of society. According to it, all the various aspects of
society are not independent of each other, but interdependent, just like the body
of a living organism. While considering society as a system, it follows that like a
system society is also a bounded unit. Anything that takes place inside a society
is affected by other parts of the society, but not from its exterior. Like for example,
the religious and economic aspects of a society are interdependent on each other,
but not on the outside.
104
Thus, in addition to ahistoricity and boundedness, structural functionalism carries
an element of isolation. At the time when this theory was popular, the British
social anthropology was a part of the British colonial system. It was thus,
extending its rule over many regions, that then became the objects of study for
the anthropologists. They assumed isolation of societies like the Andaman
Islanders, that was already deeply impacted by colonial rule. Later anthropologists
like Eric Wolf have criticised the assumption of ahistoricity of societies that
were part of a global system of trade and travel for several centuries before
colonisation.
Structural-functionalism follows Durkheim (1938) who said that a social fact
can be explained only by another social fact. Therefore structural -functional
explanations are limited to other social variables interior to the society. In this
way, they remain isolated from psychological and historical variables in their
explanations, although not quite from the environment, that is incorporated by
the indigenous people into their cosmologies. For example, in the Andaman
Islanders, we find that natural elements like the winds and rain are deified as
supernatural beings and included within their pantheon. In the next section we
examine the functional theory of Malinowski that although similar in basic
principle to that of Radcliffe-Brown, deviates in important aspect of methodology.
Functionalism and
Structural-Functionalism
Check Your Progress 1
1) Functionalism in anthropology began in which country?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
2) To which country can we trace the intellectual roots of functionalism and to
which sociologist?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
3) How did Radcliffe-Brown define ‘social structure’?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
4) What is organic analogy?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
105
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
8.2
FUNCTIONALISM OF MALINOWSKI
The most significant difference between the approach of Radcliffe-Brown and
Malinowski is that the latter grounds his functionalism in the individual and not
in the abstracted category of society, although his individual is firmly entrenched
within society. When he talks of something being functional, it is functional to
the individual as a member of society and not to the society directly, ignoring the
individual. To Malinowski (1939), functionalism is marked by its emphasis on
the individual and it is this what sets it apart from other theories. Here he was
probably referring to theories like evolutionism and diffusionism that predate
functionalism that are grand theories dealing with universal processes. In
functionalism, he prefers to focus on the individual in relation to his or her
environment, to which the individual responds as a member of a culture. He
situates the individual in a culture. To him the relationships are manifestations of
feelings and sense of cooperation or duty, or even repulsion. The web of
relationships thus, formed is a secondary feature, of the mutuality of emotions
that forms the group. In other words, in a diametric opposition to RadcliffeBrown, he begins his analysis from culture, keeping the social relationships as
secondary. Methodologically, in his own words, “Empirically speaking, the
fieldworker has to collect texts, statements, and opinions, side by side with the
observation of behaviour and the study of material culture”(2014:91). He was
emphatic about the importance of language as it is the prime media of
understanding a culture. He believed that symbolism was the bed rock of human
life as it enabled them to have a language for communication, which in turn led
to the emergence of culture.
The individual to him is a compound of the biological and the cultural. As a
biological being, every individual has what he referred to as primary/basic needs.
The need for nourishment, for fulfilment of sexual desires and the need for
protection from the environment. The individual also needs oxygen for breathing,
rest and relaxation and recreation for mental stability. Humans also need to be
nurtured into adults from infancy, the human period of dependency being longer
than that of most animals and they need to be trained to become successful adult
members of a culture. The primary needs are not satisfied by direct engagement
with the environment, but are mediated through culture and the manner in which
they are satisfied, is a process that creates more needs, that he labels as
instrumental needs. Finally, as a sign of being human, they have symbolic or
integrative needs, that are represented by the capacity for abstract thinking and
imagination.
106
Beginning with the basic needs, we know that humans do not eat anything or at
any time, or in any manner. In other words, the very basic satisfaction of hunger,
that for any other species is an uncontrolled response to food, is a controlled and
highly systematised activity for humans. Each culture for example has its own
definition of what stands for food, what is edible and what is not edible. There
are also clear cultural prescriptions and labels for when to eat food, like breakfast,
lunch and dinner. Field anthropologists know that meal times and their nature
vary considerably from culture to culture. Some people eat twice a day, some eat
four times a day. The British culture of an elaborate ‘tea time’ for example has
been transmitted to many parts of the world in the colonial period, as has the
concept of a breakfast to be eaten as a special meal. Therefore, each group has its
own norms about what to eat, when to eat and how to eat? The last aspect is also
very important as eating etiquettes are a very important part of all cultures. Like
in a traditional upper caste Hindu family there are many norms and rules for
eating a meal. If anything leads to the upsetting of a rule, the meal may be
abandoned. Therefore, we see that for humans there is not a direct correlation
between hunger and food and everything is mediated by culture.
Functionalism and
Structural-Functionalism
Reproduction and satisfaction of sexual urge are similarly, possible only under
cultural constraints, that are sometimes very strongly imposed, like the universal
incest taboo. There is no human society, present or in the past, that did not impose
strong sanctions against incest, again culturally defined.
The same goes for shelter, recreation and all other human primary drives.
Malinowski, unlike the British structural -functionalists did not evade the
psychological dimensions, rather he emphasised upon it, referring to the basic
needs as those drives, emotions and desires that strongly motivate the humans to
seek for their fulfilment through various cultural means.
The manner of fulfilling these basic needs then give rise to other related needs as
the raw needs are shaped by the cultural dictates developed in a social milieu.
For example, the entire process of basic sexual desires is regulated by a highly
complex set of rules, legal requirements, social norms, values, ethics and
principles, embodied in family and marriage. Marriage involves many rules and
norms, that are enforced through the legal processes and derived from larger and
more abstract systems of thought and cosmological principles like religion,
morality and values. Notions of what is right, what is wrong, what is a sin, what
is a virtue inform the rules and regulations of marriage in any society. In some
societies for example marriages are seen as fulfilment of a divine relationship,
like among Hindus and Catholics. In others like in Islam, it is only a social
contract. Rules of incest also vary from society to society and are in turn informed
by larger historical processes.
Although marriage takes place between individuals, they represent their social
groups, social hierarchy and many other aspects. Therefore, according to
Malinowski, marriage is a secondary need that is linked to the primary need of
sexual satisfaction, but marriage goes way beyond this primary purpose and fulfils
many other needs like that of sustenance, economic cooperation, social status
and so on. Related to marriage is the family, that helps to convert the human raw
material into a cultural being. Humans do not operate as biological beings, and
as we have discussed, even the most basic biological requirements are culturally
conditioned. For all these conditions to be reproduced, there are a set of derived
needs. Like if humans consume food that is not picked raw from the environment,
they need an entire economic system to produce it. Which means there have to
be other related institutions like productive units like farms and factories, to
produce which we need other kinds of raw material and so on. Therefore, as
Malinowski puts it, even the simplest need has to go through a very complicated
process to be fulfilled and in the process creates many more needs and many
more institutions for their fulfilment. This is how human culture becomes more
and more complex and so does the group embodying that culture. These are the
instrumental aspects of cultures and to fulfil them there are a set of organised
activities called institutions, which consist of a set of personnel, who are organised
in a set of rights and duties towards each other, following a set pattern of norms
and obeying an overall charter that is specific to that institution. For example, if
we take the family as an institution, then, the family must live together as a
107
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
household, have a home, behave like a production and consumption unit, or if
production is located outside, the household is a consumption unit. It must have
resources for fulfilling the subsistence and other needs of its members. The family
also acts as an educational institution, caring for and also educating its new
members, who are born in it, to be become successful members of the culture. It
is also located within a larger culture and group which provides it with the legal
norms that it must follow and the wider society that provides it with a charter
that must be its goal, namely to reproduce not only physical members of that
culture, but also properly trained and educated ones to become successful
members for reproducing the culture.
Lastly, as humans our needs go beyond our primary bodily needs, often even
superseding them. For example, individuals may give up on their primary needs
of sexuality in order to fulfil their need for spiritual satisfaction. Humans take to
asceticism and become monks and nunsto fulfil their higher, symbolic desire for
the quest for divinity and inner peace. Individuals as members of a culture also
learn self- control, deferment of pleasure and many other ways of controlling
their instinctual desires and needs. These higher, esoteric ends are the integrative
needs of individuals that include aesthetic needs for art, literature and music.
Even in the earliest stage of human evolution we find cave paintings and remnants
of culture that indicates that humans were not just concerned with fulfilment of
their basic and instrumental needs, but always had expressive and creative needs
that they fulfilled by making drawings and scratched lines on the most primitive
of stone tools.
At this stage of needs, Malinowski has introduced the notion of values, that is
inherent in the concept of symbolisation. As humans we value things, acts and
events, not for their instrumental need fulfilling objectives, but for their symbolic
value, like keeping a fast has symbolic value although it does not fulfil our basic
need for hunger. As humans therefore we fulfil all levels of needs as cultured
beings.
Like Radcliffe-Brown, Malinowski also gave a lot of attention to rituals, and
their functions for a group of people bound by a common culture. He too took
the holistic method, approaching all cultures as systemic wholes, but he did not
use the organic analogy and put all social relationships at the back of his analysis,
treating them as by products of the individual’s engagement with the group.
108
His explanation of the role of rituals in economic activities was that rituals play
an important role whenever there is the chance of failure, danger and uncertainty
(Malinowski 1948). Like when a person goes on a long sea voyage, there will be
elaborate rituals as the journey is fraught with uncertainties about the weather,
the unpredictable changes in the sea and unknown dangers. According to him,
rituals are not substituted for skills, for example the Kiriwinians (the people of
the Trobriand Islands) are expert seafaring people with great navigation skills.
But there are always the grey zones of uncertainty, the sea is always full of
dangers, as we know even from our recent experiences, when science and
technology are so much more advanced. Rituals provide the sense of security
and provide psychological support in order to create a positive frame of mind,
that also ensures a higher rate of success. His work on the rituals of the coral
garden horticulture in the Trobriand is well known, where he has highlighted the
role of the towosi (garden magician). Rituals are performed for every step of the
gardening activities and he notes that the people are very deferential to the
commands of the magician. As with his entire theory of functionalism, the role
of ritual is towards the psychological state of the individual, that in turn helps
maintain the group and its culture.
Functionalism and
Structural-Functionalism
Check Your Progress 2
5) According to Malinowski what is the emphasis that makes functionalism
stand apart from other theories?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
6) What are the needs of individuals in a group, as identified by Malinowski?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
7) How does culture function to fulfil the needs of individuals?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
8) What is the relationship between human needs and culture?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
8.3
FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS OF THE
FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURALFUNCTIONAL METHOD
British social anthropology followed up the work of Radcliffe-Brown with that
of Edmund Leach, Raymond Firth, E.E. Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes among
others. Each one of them tried to modify the static structural-functional method
109
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
with some innovations from their own field experiences. Leach (1970) went on
to understand social structure at a level of abstraction, where it can be considered
as a ‘model’. In his study of the Kachin of highland Burma, he identified three
such model structures, and the individuals making choices between them. At the
level of the entire society, the sum of individual choices makes possible three
models of Kachin society that oscillate between, a highly centralised Shan
kingdom at one end, a completely anarchic, democratic Gumlao, system at the
other end and an intermediate system known as Gumsa, in between. Most scholars
who describe the Kachin, define the intermediate stable Gumsa system as the
reality, but if one observes the system over a time period, it is clear that the
Gumsa is either tending towards the autocratic Shan system or dissolving into
the anarchic Gumlao system. Therefore, what appears static is actually a system
that is tending towards one or the other extreme. Leach has termed this as an
oscillating equilibrium, a concept that he further explored when he became more
of a structuralist of the school of Lévi-Strauss.
Firth also found that the concept of social structure was too static and could not
identify any change. His restudy of Tikopia (1960), led him to discover that
societies do not remain static in time, they do change. He identified two kinds of
change, Organisational and Structural (1961). By organisational change he meant
the kind of change that does not affect the overall character of the system, like if
a different political party wins an election, there is likely to be much change in
society, yet the overall democratic nature will not change. But if a society converts
from a democracy into an autocracy, it will be a structural change. By his restudy
of Tikopia he developed a dual synchronic model of change, that while confirming
to the equilibrium model of the functional school, also accepted that change is
possible. He was of the opinion that societies move from one state of equilibrium
to another state of equilibrium.
E.E. Evans Pritchard (1940), made his study of the Nuer of Sudan, East Africa,
in the classical functional mode, but he analysed the Nuer social structure in
relation to the environment, using for the first time the term ecology (spelled as
oecology). He described in great details the way the Nuer society adapts to changes
in the environment and looked upon it as a cyclical process of change that the
society goes through every seasonal cycle.
Meyer Fortes (1949), introduced the concept of structural time, to show that any
static description of the kinship structure is bound to be erroneous as changes
such as life cycle changes, changes in the normal course of the family due to
existing rules of residence and biological life span of the individuals, makes
changes that if studied only in one time frame is bound to produce a description
of society that may not be true to reality. In his book Time and Social Structure
(1970), he has shown that time needs to be an essential component of the
understanding of social structure in the true sense.
Check Your Progress 3
9) Name some of the scholars who worked from within the StructuralFunctional School and modified it.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
110
.......................................................................................................................
8.4
CRITICISM OF FUNCTIONALISM
Functionalism and
Structural-Functionalism
The major criticism of functionalism was it ignored the historical realities not
only of the past but also of the present. Most of the classical ethnographies were
done in the hey day of colonialism and the societies studied in Africa, Australia
and other colonies had been severely impacted by colonial rule (Asad 1973). It
is noted that the Andaman Islanders about whom Radcliffe-Brown gave such a
tranquil picture were practically depopulated even at the time he did his fieldwork.
Most of his work is written from the memory reconstructs of the few informants
that were left. In their attempts to prove the theory of equilibrium and social
solidarity, they overlooked the conflicts and internal dissentions as well.
Moreover, the entire perspective of objectivity in doing analysis also underwent
great criticism as restudies revealed the subjective bias of the earlier
anthropologists, even those of great repute like Malinowski. By the end of the
twentieth century, the entire discipline of anthropology was undergoing great
changes in methodology and perspective with reflexivity taking the place of
objectivity and the ethnographies being more centred on narratives from the
informants and the intersubjective experience of fieldwork (Clifford and Marcus
1986).
The concept of a system also broke down with intensification of communication
across the globe and globalisation. But as Wolf (1982) had shown, the non-western
world was never isolated, there was active trade and migration going on among
them. It was European ethnocentrism that had made them begin to think about
history only when the first white men stepped in to these societies. Overall, the
criticism of Functionalism was directed towards its Eurocentric biases, its ignoring
of history especially of the effects of colonisation itself, and its subjectivity in
dealing with the native populations. This subjectivity was also white, male centric
and later criticised by women and non-white anthropologists. Methodologically
the very notion of function was seen as tautological, putting the effect as the
cause of an event.
Check Your Progress4
10) What are the major points of criticism of Functional theory?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
8.5
SUMMARY
Theory of Functionalism arose as a criticism of what was termed as ‘speculative
history’ of evolutionism, as well as the judgemental nature of the theory that
classified groups as high and low making a politically objectionable use of the
concept of the ‘primitive’. The word primitive denotes the past, yet the
evolutionists used it for contemporary communities, implying they were stuck
in the past, or being socially and culturally inferior to the more evolved people.
111
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
Direct implication of the evolutionary theory was the justification of colonisation
on moral grounds. The white Europeans, having been put on the highest scale of
civilization by the intellectuals of their own breed, justified their plunder of the
colonies in the name of ‘civilising’ them. Functionalism, which was an outcome
of the scholar’s direct involvement with the community through fieldwork,
emphasised the concept of ‘cultural ethnocentrism’; indicating that the natural
tendency to appreciate one’s own culture above all others, was not morally
justified. The political implication of functionalism was that it directed itself
towards equalising all cultures, by saying that all societies are in equilibrium
and all cultural elements and social institutions are relevant in their own context.
While recognising that some cultures are simple and some are more complex, it
demolished the value that was associated with some cultures, calling them
superior. In fact, it defended all kinds of customs and practices by saying
everything had a relevance in its own context. We see here a paradigm shift from
evolutionism; rejection of speculative reconstructions, a focus on the present
and conceptualising societies as systems. The evolutionists had treated social
institutions such as religion, economy and political as forming separate strands,
comparing them individually across cultures. Functionalists treated all institutions
and cultural elements as interrelated to other elements in that same society. They
compared entire societies and cultures and not individual traits across societies.
8.6
REFERENCES
Asad, Talal. (ed.) 1973. Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. Atlantic
Highlands: Humanities Press.
Axel, Brian Keith. 2002. From the Margins: Historical Anthropology and its
Futures. Durham: Duke University Press.
Barnard, Alan. 2000. History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Clifford, James and George E Marcus. (eds.) 1986. Writing Cultures: The Poetics
and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Durkheim, Emile 1938. The Rules of Sociological Method.(ed.) George E.G
Catlin, New York: The Free Press.
Evans-Pritchard, E.E.1940. The Nuer. London.
Firth, Raymond. 1969. Social Change in Tikopia, Restudy of a Polynesian
Community after a Generation. New York: Macmillan.
1961[1951]. Elements of Social Organization. Boston: Beacon Press.
1949. ‘Time and Social Structure: An Ashanti Case Study’ In Social
Structure: Studies Presented to Radcliffe-Brown. Edited, Meyer Fortes. Oxford:
Oxford University Press
1936. We the Tikopia: A Sociological Study of Kinship in Primitive Polynesia.
London: George Allen And Unwin.
Leach, Edmund. 1970 [1954]. Political Systems of Highland Burma: A Study of
Kachin Social Structure. London: Athlone Press.
112
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific, London: George
Routledge and Sons.
Functionalism and
Structural-Functionalism
1939. ‘The Group and the Individual in Functional Analysis’ The American
Journal of Sociology. 44(6):938-47; Reprinted in Anthropology in Theory: Issues
in Epistemology (eds.) Henrietta L Moore and Tod Sanders, Wiley
Blackwell(2014). pp 90-101.
1949. A Scientific Theory of Culture. Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina.
1992[1948]. Magic, Science and Religion and other essays. Illinois:
Waveland Press.
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1958. Method in Social Anthropology, Selected Essays
by Radcliffe-Brown. (edited) M.N. Srinivas, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
1950. ‘Introduction’. African Systems of Kinship and Marriage (ed) A.R.
Radcliffe-Brown and Daryll Forde. London: Oxford University Press
1940. ‘On Social Structure’ Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.
70(1):189-200
1922. The Andaman Islanders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolf, Eric. 1982. Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
8.7
ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
1)
Refer to section 8.0
2)
Refer to section 8.0
3)
Refer to section 8.1
4)
Refer to section 8.1.
5)
Refer to section 8.2
6)
Refer to section 8.2
7)
Refer to section 8.2
8)
Refer to section 8.2
9)
Refer to section 8.3
10) Refer to section 8.4
113
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
UNIT 9
STRUCTURALISM*
Contents
9.0 Introduction
9.1 Moving Towards Structuralism
9.2 Assumptions in Structuralism
9.3 Structural Ideas in Marx and Freud
9.4 Ferdinand de Saussure and his Influence on Anthropological Structuralism
9.5 Claude Lévi-Strauss
9.6 Edmund Leach (Neo) Structuralism
9.7 Summary
9.8 References
9.9 Answers to Check Your Progress
Learning Objectives:
After reading this unit, the learner should be able to:

understand the shifts in anthropological thoughts;

identify the basic assumptions in structuralism;

delineate the emergence of structuralism;

link structural ideas in linguistics to that in anthropology;

comprehend the works of Claude Lévi-Strauss’s; and

evaluate Leach and his critique of Lévi-Strauss’s.
9.0
INTRODUCTION
Till now we have been discussing about the early phases in the rise of
anthropological theories that looked at society and culture mainly from the
viewpoint of evolution, moving on to diffusionism and trying to understand the
relevance of the historical aspects in studying a society. This unit shall focus on
the works of the anthropologists who looked beyond evolution and tried to
understand the structures within a society for its emergence. The focal point was
a synchronic approach to study what was happening in the society at that particular
point of time (here and now) to understand its relevance. The unit thus, would
look at the works of Lévi-Strauss’s and Edmund Leach whose contribution to
structuralism is immense.
9.1
MOVING TOWARDS STRUCTURALISM
The discipline of anthropology and particularly socio-cultural anthropology has
shifted its agenda of research from time to time. This agenda hopping can broadly
be categorised into three domains. In the beginning, that is in the ninteenth century,
the dominant agenda of the discipline revolved around the establishment of various
stages that humans crossed in order to reach their present form. The agenda of
114
*Contributor: Dr. Prashant Khattri, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, Allahabad
State University, Prayagraj. UP.
social evolution occupied the centre stage in the discipline. This was reflected in
the theoretical premise of evolutionism that aimed at categorising various societies
and cultures into distinct stages according to their level of development and
evolution. This led to the study of the tribal societies that were considered to be
the relics from the human past. However, over a period of time it was realised
that in the presence of enormous field data it was becoming rather impossible to
arrange different societies into some clear-cut scheme. The methodology related
with this paradigm was also criticised for being conjectural in nature. Again, on
the methodological front, increased emphasis on positivism and empiricism led
to the emergence of synchronic study of the society which was more concerned
with studying the society as they are in the present (‘here and now’) rather than
a historical account which was aimed previously. This led to the emergence of
functional and structural-functional paradigms in anthropology.
Structuralism
These theoretical paradigms generated a huge amount of data on specific cultural
entities called communities or tribes that were presented in the form of
ethnographies. The major emphasis was on the functioning of different institutions
for the fulfilment of individual and societal needs and on the structure of
institutions themselves. The data from the field comprised of detailed account of
different aspects of the society like their kinship, family, political organisation,
economic organisation etc. that was later analysed in accordance with the
functional or structural-functional tradition to understand the basic structure and
laws that govern society. The basic assumption in the functional paradigm relates
to the collective understanding that there are certain laws that govern human
societies world over and the basic task of the anthropologists is to establish those
laws scientifically. Studying the observable was the basic aim of such a paradigm.
It was for this reason that Radcliff Brown named anthropology as ‘natural science
of society’, he even preferred the term ‘comparative sociology’ for what was
called anthropology (D’Andrade 1995). The more individually oriented functional
approach, based on human needs, as proposed by Malinowski, took a different
tangent, focussing more the contribution of institutions and practices to individual
needs and only indirectly contributing to social cohesion and stability. This school
did not focus on structure at all.
Another paradigm was taking shape in anthropology in the French tradition.
This was spearheaded by Claude Lévi-Strauss. The shift was from looking
outwards to looking inwards. In order to understand society and culture, the aim
was not to study it directly rather the aim shifted to understand how human mind
functions. It was assumed that the basic principles on which societies are
established are actually the principles on which human mind functions. The agenda
in anthropology now became to understand the functioning of human mind.
Principles that govern human ideas and thought process came at the centre of
investigation. Structuralism as a theory to understand culture and society comes
under this third paradigm. Therefore, when we talk about structuralism, or any
theoretical paradigm, we have to talk in terms of the shift in anthropological
thinking and analysis (Eriksen and Nielsen 2001).
The third anthropological agenda within which structuralism needs to be located
is the agenda of studying the ‘idea systems.’ More than being a theory,
structuralism is actually a philosophy. This philosophy has influenced not only
anthropology but also disciplines like linguistics, literature, art, psychology and
several others. Structural anthropology owes a lot to structural linguistics as it
115
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
has borrowed the ideas and applied those to understand culture. Ideas that were
applied by linguists to understand language through the relationship of words in
a spoken frame were applied by anthropologists to understand cultures. Thus,
structuralism is a broad philosophy that needs to be understood in all its
dimensions. We need to understand what this philosophy offers and tries to tell
us about cultures and above all our existence on this planet (D’Andrade 1995).
9.2
ASSUMPTIONS IN STRUCTURALISM
Structuralism in anthropology is a shift towards the inside or the inner logic or
grammar that defines our activities, behaviours and lot more. It was believed
that once we understand those principles on which human mind functions then
we will be able to understand the society and culture. Thus, the structure of
thought process became central for anthropologists. Pattern is given primacy
over the substance in structuralism. A particular phenomenon can be understood
not by looking at its different parts in isolation to one another but how they fit
together to form a pattern.
Another important assumption in structuralism is that, since human brain is
biologically similar therefore the principles governing human thought process
will also be similar. This is an important idea in structuralism that assumes that
there is an underlying similarity in all the cultures. Cultures may appear different
only at a superficial level but when we try to go deeper then we may find
similarities between all the cultures. This is a central idea in this theory. It aims
at projecting a common and shared existence of human beings on this planet.
The way human beings organise their thoughts is based on the principle on which
human mind functions and this is same everywhere since biologically human
brains are similar. Structuralism therefore is also talking about some innate
qualities in human beings. Structures are in-born, they are present right from our
birth and are a result of the way human brains are structured and programmed to
function. Structuralists are talking about an underlying similarity in all cultures.
Fundamental belief in structuralism is that whatever we observe is actually just
the surface and may not tell a great deal about the culture. In order to understand
it more clearly, we need to go beneath that surface. Reality according to
structuralism is not directly observable but it is something that needs to be
discovered. Reality for them is not visible but hidden. Thus, the aim is to reach
to this hidden reality. It is not through any empirical understanding or direct
observation that we are going to reach the reality. The question arises then how
we are supposed to reach or know about this hidden, underlying reality? The
answer is, through rationale or reason. Through the faculty of human reasoning,
we are able to reach the reality that is not visible to human senses. It is only
through reasoning that we are able to know what is really real. Human mind
again occupies a central place in this thought process as all the reasoning will be
done in the mind itself. It is through the faculty of human mind that we will be
able to reach reality through reasoning (Palmer 1997).
116
This can be seen as a shift in anthropology from empiricism to rationalism. The
British anthropology in particular was influenced more by empiricism.
Anthropologists in the structural-functional tradition were influenced by
Durkheim. The epistemology of positivism and idea of discovering rules that
govern social systems just like natural systems was at the core of this thought
process. For them, direct observation was the key to understand social reality.
On the other hand, the French tradition was influenced by the ideas of rationalism
and rationality. Rationalists were of the opinion that we have to train our minds
to reason as for them reality can be deciphered or reached only through reasoning
and not just by observing as realities are hidden and they lie underneath the
surface. Another way of understanding structural idea is through the route of
culture. The conception of the term culture is very different in structuralism when
compared with functionalism. Whereas, in functionalism, culture is seen as a
vast instrument that fulfils the needs of individuals, in structuralism, culture is
seen as a language. Like a language, culture has its own grammar. While speaking
or writing a language we are not always aware of the grammar but it lies beneath
the surface. Similarly, while practicing culture, we are not always aware of the
rules that govern it as they lie beneath our conscious thought and guide our
behaviour.
Structuralism
Check Your Progress 1
1) What are the basic assumptions in structuralism?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
2) Why French structural thought is considered to be based on rationalism and
not empiricism?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
9.3
STRUCTURAL IDEAS IN MARX AND FREUD
Now before we move on to understand the ideas and works of Claude LéviStrauss, we must discuss two very important figures in structural thought vizKarl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Both these figures have structural streak in their
thought. Although, both Marx and Freud, considered themselves and their ideas
within the fold of empiricism, but still, they have streaks of structural thought
that becomes very important to understand the idea of structuralism. Both these
scholars were interested in knowing what lies beneath the surface? Let us see
what Marx has to say. Marx is saying that whatever superstructures that we have
built up like law, polity, religion, etc. are actually builton an infrastructure of
economy. In other words, superstructures in the form of law, polity, religion etc.
have economy or economic relationships at their base, for example, means of
production, modes of production, relations of production etc.
117
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
In this sense when we see structuralism or a structural understanding then we
realise that it is a kind of a reductionist understanding. It tries to reduce the
social and cultural phenomena into few infrastructures or dimensions. The entire
social and cultural reality is reduced into few understandable terms or concepts.
With this understanding emerges the Marxian analysis of class. When we believe
that the social and cultural realities are guided by and influenced by or are based
on economic infrastructure then we also realise that superstructures in the form
of institutions like law, religion, polity, etc. are found to be guided by the bourgeois
interest. So, according to Karl Marx, there is an economic base that guides all
other superstructures. Marx said that social reality is not caused by the projects
of consciousness and the truth about social reality is not grasped by immediate
consciousness. According to Marx there are underlying structures that determine
social realities. And this underlying structure is an economic one and everything
else is built upon that foundation.
Now coming to Sigmund Freud, when we read psychoanalysis then we find that
Freud was of the view that in order to understand human behaviour we need to
understand the unconscious mind. This unconscious mind is hidden. All the
desires, disturbing thoughts, form part of this unconscious mind and play an
important role in influencing human behaviour. Therefore, Freud was also of the
view that whatever is visible in the form of human behaviour is actually guided
by or is generated by the unconscious thought that lies beneath the conscious
mind. As human beings we are unaware of these unconscious thoughts but they
still guide and influence our behaviour. This is an structuralist idea that we are
concerned with here in this unit. However structuralist ideas of both Marx and
Freud differ from that of Claude Levi Strauss. The basic difference lies in the
fact that in Marx and Freud there is an emphasis on history. However, for Claude
Lévi-Strauss history is not important. His ideas are more synchronic in nature.
His ideas are governed largely by the Prague School of structural linguistics
(Palmer 1997).
Prague School of Structural Linguistics- This is a school of linguistic
thought that was established in Prague in 1920s. Prominent figures of this
school includes Russian linguist Nikolay Trubetskoy and a Russian-born
American linguist Roman Jakobson. They gave emphasis on the elements
within the language that is the sounds of words and how human beings
differentiate between the sounds based on the system of contrast.
Check Your Progress 2
3)
What are structural ideas in Marx?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
4)
What are structural ideas in Freud?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
118
.......................................................................................................................
9.4
FERDINAND DE SAUSSURE AND HIS
INFLUENCE ON ANTHROPOLOGICAL
STRUCTURALISM
Structuralism
As already stated above that anthropological structuralism is influenced by
structural linguistics, it is important to understand the ideas of Saussure and see
how they were applied to study culture by Lévi-Strauss’s. According to Saussure,
words in a language do not name things but concepts and ideas. This idea was
similar to the ne put forward by Plato. For Plato, words have essence. For example,
the word triangle denotes what all triangles have in common. There can be
different kinds of triangles but all have three sides. Therefore, triangle has an
essence or the underlying property that is common to all triangles. This idea
when applied to culture mean that all cultures may look different but they all
have something in common. There is an underlying essence that is common to
all cultures. However, Saussure’s views were a bit different from that of Plato.
Saussure was of the view that the meaning of the word does not lie in the word
itself but in its relation to other words. This relationship is based on a system of
opposition. It means that a word means what the other word is not. He says, in
language, there are only differences. For example, the word ‘bat’ means what it
is by not being the words ‘bet’, ‘bit’, or ‘bot.’ For Saussure, important thing in a
word is the phonic difference it has with other words. Similarly, culture can be
broken down into its components and they stand in difference to each other,
which is in opposition to each other. For example, the system of caste can be
broken down into its components of purity and pollution and they stand in
opposition to each other.
Saussure further distinguishes between LA LANGUE (language) and PAROLE
(speech). Language denotes the entire linguistic system and the speech is the
acted-out part of language. Speech is based upon the language. Language can be
compared to a social structure into which individuals are born and speech can be
compared to their actual behavior. The actual behaviour is guided by the overall
structure. Saussure gives an analogy of the game of chess. He says that in chess
individual moves can be compared to the speech and the rules of the game can
be compared to the language. Individual moves are based on the general rules of
the game. Further he says that the basic rule or the underlying structure is based
on the principle of opposition or difference. For example, in a game of chess, the
pawn is not the queen, the queen is not the bishop and so on. When applied to the
study of culture, individual traits and behaviours are similar to individual moves
in chess that are based on the rules on which cultures are based. Further, the
underlying principle that governs culture and cultural systems is that of opposition
(Palmer 1997, Moore 2009).
Check Your Progress 3
5) How ideas from linguistics are applied to the study of culture?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
119
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
9.5
CLAUDE LÉVI-STRAUSS
Now, we move on to understand Lévi-Strauss’s in a very specific context of
growth of anthropological thoughts. We can very broadly and roughly divide the
anthropological thought process into two traditions viz- speculative and empirical.
The speculative tradition is associated with the classical evolutionists who
categorized various societies and cultures into stages of human evolution. Their
categorizations were based not on their own studies of various communities but
on the travel records, testimonies of the soldiers, missionaries and other such
documents. They were therefore labeled as armchair anthropologists as they just
speculated about human conditions. For example, if you see James Frazer then
he can be rightly called as a synthesizer. While sitting in his office or study he
would read report, documents about ‘primitive’ people and based on such study
he would produce theories about culture. However, by the beginning of the 20th
century, such armchair anthropology was criticised and a new form of
anthropology took shape. This was based on the fieldwork tradition and was
spearheaded by Malinowski. This is labeled as the empirical tradition in
anthropology. Within this tradition large number of monographs were generated
that described in detail the life and works of human populations at various places
on the globe. With such in-depth study of one particular culture or society, broad
generalizations were resisted within this tradition. However, Malinowski later in
his career attempted to come out with some theory on the functions of various
institutions (Barnard 2000).
Lévi-Strauss’s however wanted to attempt broad generalizations about human
conditions. He was opposed to the ‘sterile empiricism.’ He attempted
generalisations much like Frazer. He never did fieldwork in the way Malinowski
did. He looked for universal principals that govern all human cultures. One of
the central themes in his ideas is an underlying similarity among all human cultures
as culture for him is a product of human brain and the human brain is similar all
over.Lévi-Strauss’s was interested in geology during his youth. For him, ideas of
Freud and Marx are similar to the ideas in geology as all three talk about the
need to go beneath the surface and excavate the hidden. He later came in contact
with a Russian linguist Roman Jakobson who brought him closer to the ideas
and works of Saussure. Therefore, in Lévi-Strauss’s, we can visualise a synthesis
of the ideas of Freud, Marx, Saussure and Geology.
According to Lévi-Strauss’s, there are universal human truths, but they cannot
be deciphered just by observing the fact as they are hidden and one needs to
decode them or think rationally in order to reach the truth. Taking cue from the
structural linguistics, he further asserted that the human mind works on the
principle of binary opposition. This is the universal principle and all cultures in
the world have an underlying binary. He was of the view that “Human societies,
like individual human beings never create absolutely; all they can do is create
certain combinations (Palmer 1997: 33).” These combinations are binary opposites
of each other and are based on the principle of difference just like we saw it in
the case of words in a language.
120
The ideas put forward in the theory of structuralism worked against a western
prejudice about the ‘primitive people.’ When we start believing and establish it
by argument that cultures all over the world have underlying similarities then
the idea of ‘primitive’ takes a back-seat. In one of his books titled as ‘The Savage
Mind’ Lévi-Strauss argued that there is no such thing as the savage mind. Human
mind works on a universal principle of binary opposition. Such an argument
challenged those who propagated the image of primitive people as ‘child-like’
who are not capable of deciding for themselves.
Structuralism
Levis-Strauss was also inspired by the work of Marcel Mauss. More specifically
he was influenced by Mauss’s ‘The Gift’ (1924). Marcel Mauss argued that the
maintenance of social system or society as a whole is dependent upon the act
and the institution of gift giving. He said that there are three things that are
involved in a reciprocal relation of gift giving, they are:
a)
the obligation to give;
b)
the obligation to receive; and
c)
the obligation to reciprocate.
In other words, Mauss argued that social relationships can be understood by
looking at the underlying structure of exchange of gifts. Gift exchange for him
was the underlying reality on which social relations or society was based. Later
Claude Lévi-Strauss also wrote a book titled- “The Elementary Structures of
Kinship” (1949) in which he extended Mauss’s argument of gift exchange to the
exchange of women. Like Mauss, Lévi-Strauss argued that the exchange of women
is the underlying structure on which kinship is based. Women exchange is at the
base of kinship systems as it defined social relations between groups. He gave
the example of the universality of incest taboo that according to him was socially
ridiculous and not morally outrageous (Palmer 1997).
Lévi-Strauss is known for applying his structural ideas for the study of myths.
He wrote four volumes of Mythologiques between 1964 and 1972. He was of the
view that in order to understand human mind, study of myths is inevitable. Myths
reveal underlying structures of human thought process. He was also of the view
that since human mind is part of the larger cosmos or the universe, it reflects the
structure of the universe itself. Thus, products of mind like myths and languages
reveal the structure of the world. For example, the notion of binary opposition
that is central to Lévi-Strauss’s understanding of principle governing human mind
can be seen as the principle on which the universe is based in the form of binary
opposites like life and death, day and night, surface and sky, etc. It is this structure
of universe that informs and ultimately shapes the structure of human mind and
therefore human mind is governed by the principle of binary opposition. This
binary opposition is reflected in every aspect of culture since they are products
of human mind. This kind of logic is known as the deductive logic where we
assume that things are structured in a certain way and then our job remains to
look for those ways in each cultural phenomenon. In other words, we move from
general to specific. For example, in this case, we believe in the general principle
that human mind is based on the principle of binary opposition and now we
move to look for this structure in specific cases.
Binary Opposition- The concept of binary opposition is central to
understanding structuralism. The theory says that human mind works on
the principle of binary opposition. It means that our thought process is in
binaries for example, day and night, old and young, male and female, etc.
This is the underlying principle of human mind and since society and culture
are creations of human mind, this fundamental binary can be seen in every
aspect of society and culture.
121
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
Check Your Progress 4
6) How theory of structuralism worked against western prejudice about
‘primitive people?’
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
7) Which ideas in Marcel Mauss influenced Lévi-Strauss’s?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
8) What are Myths?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
9.6
122
EDMUND LEACH AND (NEO)
STRUCTURALISM
Leach was one of the leading advocates of French structuralism in Britain. He
was influenced by the ideas of Lévi-Strauss’s and wrote a lot on French
structuralism and Lévi-Strauss’s to popularise his ideas in Britain and elsewhere.
However, later, he also became one of the greatest critiques of Lévi-Strauss’s’s
structuralism. Leach is sometimes also labeled as Neo-Structuralist for making
changes in the ideas of structuralism and giving it a new form. Leach developed
a grounded and empirical idea of structuralism. He is best known for his work
among the Kachins of Burma (now Myanmar). He wrote a book based on this
work titled- ‘Political Systems of Highland Burma’ published in 1954. In this
book, he tried to understand the political system of Burma in terms of two opposite
poles or models and an intermediary model between the two, namely –an
egalitarian and democratic model called Gumlao, a hierarchical and autocratic
model called Shan and an intermediary model called Gumsa. When compared to
the Lévi-Strauss’s structuralism, there is an addition of an intermediary model of
political system. Further, these models were based on empirical data and not
based on rational thought process that was the case in structuralism (Gordon
et.al., 2011; Leach 1970, 1973).
Leach was of the view that the political system of Burma has been changing over
a period of time. Sometimes this political system is governed by and dominated
by the egalitarian gumlao model and on other occasions this was governed by
the hierarchical shan model. However, he further said that it will be a mistake to
think about the political system of Burma only in terms of these two opposite
poles as a third model also exists and that is a mixture of both the gumlao and
shan models. This understanding according to Leach was only possible in the
light of empirical field data. He gave importance to history that was absent from
the Lévi-Strauss’s structuralism. According to Leach, historical data ranging
between 100 to 150 years can give us important insights in developing models to
understand society. It was only due to the analysis of the historical data of the
Burmese political system that we could reach an understanding of an existence
of a third model in the form of gumlao. Thus, we can see that Leach is talking in
terms of underlying structures or models but these are generated on the basis of
empirical ground data.He also introduced the idea of dynamic structure. This
means that the structure is not static as it was supposed by Lev-Strauss but it
changes over a period of time. Leach has dealt with change within the notion of
structure. Lévi-Strauss’s talked about universal structures but Leach used his
idea to talk about local structures as explained in the example of Burmese political
system above.
Structuralism
Check Your Progress 5
9)
What are the similarities between the ideas of Leach and Lévi-Strauss?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
10) What are the differences between the ideas of Leach and Lévi-Strauss?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
9.7
SUMMARY
The above discussion can be summarised by saying that structuralism in
anthropology has to be seen as a paradigm shift in anthropological thought. This
shift was from understanding society as a natural system towards understanding
it as an idea system. Claude Lévi-Strauss was a pioneer in structuralism and his
ideas in turn were influenced by structural linguistics. Structuralism owes a lot
to the ideas of Ferdinand de Saussure. Structuralism is based on deductive logic
as it moves from general to specific. It generalises about all the cultures in the
world and then tries to find out those general principles in specific cultural contexts
123
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
and cases. It is a grand theory that is based on the premise that human cultures
throughout the world are similar because they all are products of human mind
that is biologically similar and works on the principle of binary opposition.
Anthropologists like Louis Dumont and Sherry Ortner used the ideas of
structuralism to study caste and gender respectively. According to Dumont, the
underlying principle that governs caste is the principle of binary opposition of
purity and pollution. Similarly, Sherry Ortner while working on the universal
subjugation of women was of the view that everywhere in the world women are
equated to nature and men are equated to culture. This nature-culture opposition
is at the base of universal subjugation of women because culture is considered
superior to nature as it is capable of taming the nature according to its will. Thus,
we see that the principle of binary opposition and excavation of underlying
meaning in terms of binaries are at the core of structuralism.
9.8
REFERENCES
Barnard, A. 2000. History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge. Cambridge
University Press.
D’Andrade, Roy. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Eriksen, T.H. and Nielsen F.S. 2001. A History of Anthropology. Virginia, USA.
Pluto Press.
Gordon, R.J, Lyons A.P. and Lyons H.D. 2011. (eds.) Fifty Key Anthropologists.
Oxon. Routledge.
Leach E. 1970. Lévi-Strauss. London. Fontana
1973. 'Structuralism in Social Anthropology'. In Structuralism: An
Introduction.
D. Robey (ed.). p-313-331. Oxford. Clarendon Press.
Moore J.D. 2009. Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories
and Theorists. UK. AltaMira Press.
Palmer D.D. 1997. Structuralism and Poststructuralism. Danbury. Writers and
Readers.
9.9
124
ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
1)
Refer to first and second paragraph in section 9.1
2)
Refer to third paragraph in section 9.1
3)
Refer to first and second paragraph in section 9.2
4)
Refer to third paragraph in section 9.2
5)
Refer to section 9.3
6)
Refer to fourth paragraph in section 9.4
7)
Refer to fifth paragraph in section 9.4
8)
Refer to sixth paragraph in section 9.4
9)
Refer to first paragraph in section 9.5
10) Refer to first and second paragraph in section 9.5
UNIT 10 CONFLICT THEORIES*
Structuralism
Contents
10.0
Introduction
10.1
Conflict: A Fundamental Social Process
10.2
The Manchester School: Background
10.2.1
The Manchester School: Major Ideas
10.2.2
Impact of the Manchester School
10.2.2.1
Victor Turner
10.2.2.2
F. G. Bailey
10.2.2.3
Edmund Leach
10.2.2.4
Fredrik Barth
10.3
Marxian Theory and Social Anthropology
10.4
Summary
10.5
References
10.6
Answers to Check Your Progress
Learning Objectives
After reading this Unit, you will be able to:

understand the significance of conflict in social life; and

discuss the major anthropological theories which explain conflict, namely,
the Manchester School and Marxian Theory.
10.0
INTRODUCTION
This Unit will introduce you to the way conflict has been addressed in
anthropological theory, with specific reference to the ‘Manchester School’ of
Anthropology and Marxist theory. The ‘Manchester School’ refers to the work
of scholars associated with the Department of Social Anthropology at the
University of Manchester, England, during the late 1940s and 1950s. The
‘founding father’ of the Manchester School of anthropological theory, as it came
to be called, was Professor Max Gluckman (1911-1975). We will begin with
locating the Manchester School against the background of structure-functionalism,
the dominant theoretical framework in British social anthropology, under the
influence of B. Malinowski and A.R. Radcliffe-Brown. We will then discuss the
contributions of the Rhodes Livingstone Institute (RLI) towards anthropological
studies of African societies under situations of profound change. We will also
explore some of the important concepts and ideas regarding social conflict and
social change that emerged from the work of Gluckman and others, and mention
the work of some leading anthopologists who were directly or indirectly
influenced by the Manchester School. This will be followed by a discussion on
the Marxist theory and its impact on anthropology. The work of important Marxist
anthropologists will also be talked about.
*Contributor: Dr Shubhangi Vaidya, Associate Professor, School of Inter-disciplinary and Transdisciplinary Studies SOITS, Indira Gandhi National Open University IGNOU, New Delhi.
125
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
10.1
CONFLICT: A FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL
PROCESS
The two major processes in society that have been discussed, debated and
theorised upon by social scientists, are cooperation and conflict. While cooperation
and consensus are essential for the diverse actors in any society to come together
and carry out the work of society and ensure its continuity, conflict is also bound
to arise as different people may have different interests and ideas. Let us look at
a simple example. The members of a family have to cooperate with each other in
order to keep the different activities of the household going and needs of the
family fulfilled. At the same time, there are members of the family that may feel
oppressed or exploited by the prevailing arrangements. They may feel that their
views or ideas are not given due regard or that they have to sacrifice more than
other members to keep the family functioning. There may be inter-personal
conflict between spouses, inter-generational conflict between elders and the
younger generation or conflicts between males and females. These differences
may disrupt or disturb the ‘normal’ or usual functioning of the family, causing
tensions and upheavals. As a result, the unhappy members move away, or they
may be punished for expressing their dissent. It may also happen that their
grievances are resolved and the family changes its way of doing things, and
creates a new form of cooperation or concensus.
Conflict is a universal feature of human existence. It may be at the level of interpersonal conflict, and it may also take place within or between groups, societies
and nations. It may take various forms, ranging from two people not talking to
each other, or having an angry debate, to violence and aggression between groups
and even organised warfare. Even though conflict has largely been regarded in
negative terms, it has been a focus of study in the social sciences, including
anthropology. Social science theories can be classified on the basis of their
understanding of conflict and concensus. While ‘consensus’ theories focus upon
the factors that hold societies together, such as shared values, beliefs and ideas,
‘conflict’ theories highlight the different interests, ideals and power relationships
that characterize social life. Marxist theories of class and class conflict are a
good example. However, as we have seen in the example above, conflict and
consensus are not mutually exclusive, and all societies have elements of both.
There can be no social life without consensus, and at the same time, conflict is
also very much a part of social life and is often the trigger of social change.
126
In this Unit, we shall discuss how social conflict was conceptualised and studied
by the anthropologists of the ‘Manchester School’, and Marxist theorists. Their
perspectives on conflict and consensus provided an important point of departure
from the tradition of structure-functionalism that dominated British social
anthropology, which emphasised integration and consensus. You have read about
the work of the structural-functional school of anthropology earlier. Simple
societies were studied in detail by anthropologists who attempted to understand
how different customs, beliefs and institutions worked to keep the equilibrium
of society and maintain social order. Social order was viewed as the most desirable
state of affairs, and anything that disturbed or challenged the social order was
seen as dysfunctional. Just as all the organs and organ systems in the body have
to be in harmony for the overall health of the body, it was also extrapolated that
for social health and order, all the institutions had to function in coordination
with each.
However, over a period of time, the limitations in this way of understanding
societies and cultures became more and more apparent to anthropologists. Many
scholars had started to feel that the ‘social consensus’ frameworks did not do
justice to the social realities and that it was time to focus on how individuals
coped in a system full of contradictions and inconsistencies. Gluckman and his
associates, played an important role in placing ‘conflict’ at the front and centre
of their studies of societies in Africa, which were undergoing tremendous social
change due to the impact of colonialism in the late 1940s. They attempted to
understand how societies and cultures managed to deal with the tremendous
contradictions and tensions that were present in them. As Nielsen and Eriksen
(2013: 112) put it, the Manchester school “was important in reorienting British
anthropology – from integration to process, from continuity to change”.
10.2
Conflict Theories
THE MANCHESTER SCHOOL:
BACKGROUND
The Manchester school was associated with the Rhodes Livingstone Institute,
which funded research on communities in Africa. The Institute was established
in the late 1930s in Northern Rhodesia, and was the first local anthropological
research institute to be set up in an African colony. Britain ruled over Rhodesia
during that time, and it was only in 1964 that Northern Rhodesia was liberated
from British rule and became ‘Zambia’. The first Director of the Institute was
the anthropologist, Godfrey Wilson. Along with his wife, Monica Hunter Wilson,
he examined the impact of the rapid economic, political and cultural change in
the British colonies in the region. After his departure from the Institute, Max
Gluckman, who had carried out important studies amongst African communities,
took over as its Director.
Reflection
Gluckman did field research in Zululand in the late 1930s and joined the
Rhodes Livingstone Institute. His work focused on political and legal
anthropology and his training in law can be seen in the meticulous use of
the case study method that became his trademark. His major works include
Rituals of Rebellion in South-East Africa (1954), Politics, Law, and Ritual
in Tribal Society (1965), and The Ideas in Barotse Jurisprudence (1965).
In 1947, Gluckman joined the University of Oxford, and then, a couple of years
later, the University of Manchester, where he gathered around him a group of
like-minded scholars who came to be collectively referred to as the ‘Manchester
School’that focussed on the interplay between traditional social structures and
relationships and the changes brought about by colonialism. Colonialism
subjugated huge areas of the world and exploited native populations, destroyed
traditional livelihoods, customs, political and legal systems. The researchers of
the Manchester School grappled with new material and realities that had not
been under the purview of the discipline earlier. Let us try and understand some
of their preoccupations and concerns.
Check Your Progress 1.
Fill in the blanks with suitable words:
1) The founding father of the ‘Manchester School’ of Anthropology was ...........
127
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
2) The Manchester School was preoccupied with understanding change in
societies that had experienced ....................................
3) The Manchester School reoriented Social Anthropology which was earlier
dominated by the theory known as ————-.
10.2.1
The Manchester School: Major Ideas
The distinctive approach of the Manchester school was to try and understand the
role of conflict in society. They focused on the impacts of urbanisation, labour
migration and the rapid growth of population in Africa. Many pioneering studies
in the area of social change were undertaken. Through their studies of rural and
urban communities, they tried to understand the emergence of multiple identities
and negotiations, against the backdrop of the colonial encounter. They tried to
understand how different mechanisms came into play to balance out these tensions
and conflicts, and restore equilibrium in society. The copper mining region in
Northern Rhodesia was the site of many of these studies.
Godfrey Wilson, the first Director of the RIL had predicted that colonialism
would lead to profound cultural change and ‘de-tribalisation’of the indigenous
communities that left their native villages and came to the mining towns to eke
out their livelihood. However, over the years, anthropologists showed that this
was not the case. In fact, they demonstrated how migrants in the new urban
environment were constantly reminded of their group identities, leading to ‘retribalisation’, or reclaiming their tribal identity. We can compare this to how
migrant labourers in India also retain a strong sense of their cultural roots and
connections with their regions and villages, even as they travel across the length
and breadth of the country to find work.
Their research showed how even under conditions of rapid social change,
traditional social bonds like kinship were maintained and sometimes assumed
new significance and importance. Some of the innovations they undertook, which
were quite new in British social anthropology, were the study of race relations in
the mining towns and applied research. Gluckman’s paper, ‘Analysis of a Social
Situation in Modern Zululand’ (1940) also known as the ‘Bridge’ paper, is a
classic example of detailed ethnographic observations based around a single day’s
events, the inauguration of a bridge in a tribal Zulu area. By minutely detailing
the events and interactions that he observed and participated in on that day,
Gluckman was able to theorise about the race relations between the natives and
the colonial rulers, the local elites and the ordinary folk, and paint a vivid picture
of social structure in a colonial set-up.
Manchester anthropologists also made many innovative contributions to
methodology. Nielsen and Eriksen (2013) argue that the methodological
contribution of the Manchester School was as important as Malinowski’s
contribution to fieldwork methods.The methods required to understand and
capture the social realities in such disorganised and conflict-ridden settings were
quite different from established anthropological methods used to study small,
isolated communities. Some of these include ‘Network analysis’ (tracing the
networks of changing formal and informal relationships between people); and
the idea of ‘scale’ through which data was sorted as per the relevance to the
levels of social organisation (local, regional, national, global). Social Network
analysis was deployed by Gluckman’s colleagues, John Barnes, Elizabeth Bott
128
and J. Clyde Mitchell. It is concerned with analysingthe structure of whole social
entities as well as explaining the patterns observed in these structures. One of
the most important contributions to anthropological method was Gluckman’s
‘situational analysis’, which came to be known as the ‘extended case method’.
This became the trademark of the Manchester school’s work. This method
emphasises rich and detailed accounts of the actions and choices of real people
so that social processes and everyday life may be understood. Gluckman was
also in favour of extending case studies over time, so that the social scientist
could understand how specific incidents affecting the same persons or groups
over a long period of time would show changes in social relations within their
social framework.
Conflict Theories
Gluckman also emphasised the role of ‘ritual’ as an important mechanism which
helped to resolve conflict and bring about equilibrium. Gluckman’s ideas on
conflict drew upon the theories of both, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, the
psycho-analyst. Like Freud and Marx he agreed that conflict occurs within the
individual, as well as within groups of people. Gluckman further argued that as
individuals and groups struggle against each other to achieve their own private
interests, conflict is bound to happen. However, unlike Marx who predicted that
this would lead to revolution, Gluckman held that conflict would eventually be
resolved, and that rituals and traditions would help to bring about this resolution.
Marx believed that the existing system would be overthrown and replaced;
Gluckman indicated that only the person in power would change. He paid due
attention to the wider historical context, and the influence of colonialism and
European settlement on the local level social dynamics. As mentioned above,
works like Analysis of a Social Situation in Modern Zululand (1940) clearly
demonstrated the interplay between communities and races and the power
dynamics and subtle assertions of power and privilege.
One of his most famous studies was on “rituals of rebellion” in southern African
societies (1954). In these rituals, various groups who challenged the authority of
the king, openly express their disagreement and opposition. Gluckman explained
that these controlled and ritualized forms of hostility actually are beneficial to
society and ultimately help to preserve the social order. In other words, they act
as a safety valve through which individuals can vent out their conflict in a socially
approved way. He argued that “whatever the ostensible purpose of the ceremonies,
a most striking feature of their organisation is the way in which they openly
express social tensions” (Gluckman 1963: 112).
One of the ceremonies he described took place in Swaziland, where the major
tension was between the king and his subjects. During the ritual, the king’s
subjects were given the opportunity to express their hatred towards him. “This
ceremony is…a stressing of conflict, a statement of rebellion and rivalry against
the king, with periodical affirmations of unity with the king” (Gluckman 1963,
125). However, it is important to note that these voices of rebellion were raised
against the king, and not on the idea or institution of ‘kingship’. While the subjects
are acting out their rebellion against the king, they are also bound within the
social order which is not challenged or opposed. In other words, the social
divisions or cleavages that produce conflict, are contained and managed such
that the system itself remains intact. The established social order thus remains
unchallenged, and is reaffirmed by this ritual.
Gluckman also put forth the concept of “cross-cutting” ties or alliances, based
129
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
upon the understanding that conflicts are unavoidable and actually help in the
maintenance of social systems. He noted that groups often break apart and then
come together again as a result of new alliances.Thus conflicts in one set of
relationships are offset by alliances elsewhere. This is a dynamic process, as
alliances are made, broken and remade; however, the unity of the society as a
whole is maintained throughout.
Gluckman’s studies viewed conflict in terms of how mediating mechanisms such
as rituals ultimately helped to maintain rather than overthrow the social order.
This was helpful in understanding conflicts in small-scale communities. He also
introduced the notion of the ‘critical event’, which he derived from the work of
Freud. The critical event referred to the ‘crisis’ or turning point in a conflict
situation, which would either be resolved or resist resolution and lead to an
irreversible change. To study this critical event, Gluckman and other scholars of
the Manchester school used the method of ‘situational analysis’ or ‘extended
case study method’, as mentioned earlier. The critical event was isolated and
examined in great detail, from the bottom-up, and in widening scales of context,
which accounted for both micro interactions and macro-social processes (Nielsen
and Eriksen 2013).
As we have seen earlier, the Manchester school anthropologists carried out most
of their work in Central and South Africa, under British colonial rule, and were
keenly interested in studying the impact of colonialism and capitalism in these
societies. The role of the ‘headman’ was very important in this regard. The position
of headman, institutionalised by the British, was the ‘point of articulation’ between
the native and the the imperial (colonial) cultures. He was an ‘intercalaryfigure’,who had to please and obey the imperial state as well as look after
his own people. Thus, when the people showed their anger against their rulers, it
was often the native representatives of the rulers who were attacked. A. L.
Epstein’s study, Politics in an Urban African Community,first published in 1958,
showed how Africans, rioting against the British when taxes were increased in
1935, also attacked the community elders who were seen as agents of the colonial
masters. The social problems and social cleavages caused by the colonial system
were thus highlighted, probably for the first time in anthropological studies.
The Manchester school also studied urban communities. They showed how
urbanisation in colonial Africa lead to multiple identities and how people
associated with or used various identities depending upon the situation. Thus,
they could come together as one ethnic community against another, or as one
category of workers against another, or as oppressed people as a whole, against
colonial authority. ‘Situational selection’ of identities based upon the social
situation in which people find themselves, was an important idea contributed by
the Manchester school. J. C. Mitchell in his work The Kalela Dance (1956)
argues that the same group of people can have very different relationships,
depending upon whether they are in the urban or tribal setting. Ethnic identity is
thus constantly being negotiated and re-defined by the people.
130
We have noted some of the important insights regarding conflict, continuity and
change that had a major impact on British anthropology, forcing it to contend
with the complex issues of colonialism, capitalism and their impact upon the
societies of Africa,Asia, the Pacific and other regions of the world that had come
under the clutches of colonial rule. In the next section, we shall look at some of
the select anthropologists and their work which also emphasized the role of
conflict and contradiction as fundamental social processes. While Victor Turner
and Frederick Bailey were students of Gluckman and were directly associated
with the Manchester department, Edmund Leach and Fredrik Barth were not
associated formally with it, however, their contributions towards understanding
the dynamics of social and cultural change and political power are very significant.
Conflict Theories
Check Your Progress 2
4) What is meant by ‘situational analysis’?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
5) What was the feature of urbanisation and identity in Africa that Manchester
anthropologists described?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
6) Describe the situation of the ‘headman’ in colonial African society.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
10.2.2 Impact of the Manchester School
As mentioned earlier, the Manchester School profoundly changed contemporary
anthropology and brought in new perspectives and field realities. Some important
anthropologists and their ethnographic works that captured the shift from structure
to process are briefly discussed below.
10.2.2.1
Victor Turner
(1920-1983) was a student of Gluckman and worked for a while at the RIL. It
was here that he started his study of the Ndembu people of Zambia. He completed
his PhD at the University of Manchester in 1955. He too was deeply interested
in conflict and developed the concept of the ‘social drama’ to describe the symbolic
dimensions of conflict and crisis resolution amongst the Ndembu. His
monograph, Schism and Continuity in An African Society (1957) is regarded as
an anthropological classic. He demonstrated how certain principles of social
131
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
organisation and dominant values are seen to operate through both conflicts and
their resolution. Individuals and groups involved in these ‘social dramas’ try to
manipulate these values and principles for their own benefit.
10.2.2.2 F. G. Bailey (1924- ) was a student of Gluckman, however, unlike most
of the Manchester School anthropologists whose work was in Africa, Bailey’s
work was in India, specifically in the highlands of Orissa. Bailey did his doctoral
fieldwork in the Kondmals in Orissa, which was subsequently published as a
monograph,Caste and the Economic Frontier (1957). He discussed social mobility
and change, and showed how through law, changing tax structures and education,
certain communities became prosperous and influential, while the wealth of others
declined, and how the new wealth led to mobility within the caste hierarchy.His
second book, Tribe, Caste and Nation (1960), focussed on the struggle for political
power and land between ‘tribal’ Kond and caste, Hindus, against the backdrop of
the changing political structures in Odisha in the post-colonial era. However, his
book,Stratagems and Spoils (1969), is his best-known work, and is more of a
general discussion on politics and power. Bailey shows how, across cultures and
societies, individuals manipulate and use similar strategies to reinforce their
power. Its sequel, Treasons, Strategems, and Spoils (2001), additionally discusses
how morality and the idea of ‘duty’ is also a factor in the struggle for power. He
gives the example of Gandhi’s use of morality to gain the upper hand over the
British colonial rule.
10.2.2.3 Edmund Leach (1910-1989) was not formally associated with
Gluckman or the University of Manchester, however, there are many strong
commonalities between his work and that of the Manchester anthropologists.
Leach did fieldwork in Burma, and his major work, Political Systems of Highland
Burma (1952), studied the social organisation amongst the Kachin community.
He highlighted the two models of Kachin social organization, ‘gumlao’, which
was more democratic and ‘gumsa’ which was more rigid and hierarchical, and
the way the community would move between one or the other. Leach’s analysis
of social structure and cultural change, conflicting ideologies and unstable political
environment, were very similar to the ideas of the Manchester School
anthropologists.
10.2.2.4 Fredrik Barth (1928- ), a Norwegian anthropologist and a student of
Edmund Leach, is best known for his study in the remote, isolated area of Swat
in the Nort-West Frontier province of Pakistan presented in his book,Political
Leadership among Swat Pathans (1959). Barth focussed upon individual choices
and decisions as being the prime movers in shaping the political system in Swat.
He studied how the local ‘Khans’ garnered political clout and influence and built
up a base of followers, and the tensions, rivalries and manipulations between
groups. He emphasised the role of individuals as agents taking actions as per
their self interest, rather than as mere cogs in the social structure.
As we can see from the above discussion, the Manchester school played an
important role in re-looking at society in a less static and more dynamic way,
and also at the role and agency of individual actors who both shape and are
shaped by the social realities in which they are situated. The next part of the Unit
will be devoted to Marxian theory.
132
10.3
MARXIAN THEORY AND SOCIAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
Conflict Theories
Karl Marx (1818-1883) is regarded as one of the greatest intellectuals of the 19th
century, who profoundly influenced every branch of the social sciences. The
impact of Marxian theory is most prominently seen in the disciplines of Sociology,
Economics and Political Science, and it entered Anthropology as a theory much
later. As Marxian theory dealt with the contradictions of capitalism and the class
struggle, it was not thought very relevant to anthropology which mainly studied
pre-capitalist simple societies where the class system was absent.
Marx’s general idea about society is based upon the notion that society evolves
as the material or economic basis changes. His theory is known as ‘historical
materialism’. The base or ‘infrastructure’ of society is the economic basis of
production and consumption, and the ‘superstructure’ or the other institutions of
society such as kinship, political system, social system, etc. are shaped by the
infrastructure or economic base. As the economic base changes and evolves,
there are changes in the superstructure as well. Marxian theory discusses the
various stages of society based upon their material conditions and the social
organisation that results.
These are:
Primitive Communism-a hunter-gatherer society where all are equal, and there
is no social hierarchy.
Slavery-Here, a section of society is able to make use of various techniques to
control nature and gain control over lands. Society is divided hierarchically into
‘Masters’ and ‘Slaves’.
Feudalism- Here too, a section of the society, the feudal lords exert control over
agriculture, which is the dominant economic activity, and the serfs or vassals are
subordinate to their lords.
Capitalism-The growth of the factory system and industrialisation leads to a
new type of society, and the emergence of two classes; the capitalists or
bourgeoisie who control the means of production, and the proletariat or labouring
class, who sell their labour to the capitalist for a wage. The struggle between the
two classes would intensify and lead to the ‘revolution of the proletariat’ and the
next stage, namely Socialism.
Socialism- this is the stage when ownership of the means of production passes
from the private ownership of the capitalists to the collective ownership of the
workers, the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’.
Communism- The ideal society of the future in which the contradictions and
class struggles of the previous stages would finally resolve and give way to
a‘classless society’ where private property would cease to exist the state would
wither away. The guiding principle of such a society would be ‘From each
according to their ability to each according to their needs’.
Marxian theory is anchored in the idea of ‘class’ and ‘class struggle’.The
Communist Manifesto, the famous document authored by Marx and Engels in
1848 states, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class
133
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
struggle”. Due to their ownership and control over the economic resources of
society, a certain class becomes extremely powerful and exerts great control
over the working class. It is the labour of the working class that produces wealth
and profits for the upper classes, but they themselves cannot access the products
of their labour. To give a simple example, a labourer in an automobile factory
may be working to produce expensive cars, but he can never dream of owning
one. The owner will make huge profits by selling the cars, but the one whose
labour has been poured into making the car, will get a wage and not partake of
the profits. This is a highly unequal system, which according to Marxist thinking,
is bound to result in social conflict and social unrest. Marx’s notion of the
‘revolution of the proletariat’ was an activist agenda and was very influential in
political movements of the time.
Anthropological theory engaged with Marxism in the late 1960s and early 1970s
through the work of structuralists. The social realities of the period demonstrated
that functionalism was inadequate to understanding them. The work of French
structuralists such as Maurice Godelier and Claude Meillasouxissignificant in
this context. The ‘New Economic Anthropology’ was based on Marxist
interpretations. Maurice Godelier tried to resolve the issue of applying Marxist
theory to non-capitalist societies. He showed that in these societies, the existing
institutions like kinship and religion actually provided the economic infrastructure
of the society, as well as the superstructure. For instance, the caste system in
India has an economic dimension as it is related with distribution of resources,
division of labour, property relations, etc. All of these are the infrastructure of
the society. At the same time, caste also has ritual and mythical dimensions that
act as the superstructure. Thus, the same institution has the structural possibility
of acting as both infrastructure and superstructure.
Claude Meillasoux in his classic work, Maidens, Meal and Money (1981), gives
a Marxist interpretation to hunting, food gathering and shifting cultivation,
showing how they differ from agricultural societies. He shows that kinship ties
in such societies are weak because kinship really does not play an economic
role.
Another important contribution of Marxism in anthropology was in bringing a
historical perspective into anthropology. Functional theory had not paid much
heed to the role of colonialism, imperialism, wars and conflict. Classical
anthropology depicted these societies as static and stateless, whereas in reality it
was the experience of colonialism that disrupted and dispersed them, thus making
them appear as though they had no political structure or organisation. Thus,
Marxist theory provided a corrective to the earlier understandings of societies
and cultures.
Check Your Progress 3
7) According to Marxist theory, how does a society change?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
134
.......................................................................................................................
8) What is ‘revolution of the proletariat’?
Conflict Theories
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
9) Why did Marxist theory make a late entry in Anthropology?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
10.4
SUMMARY
This Unit acquainted you with some of the major ideas of Conflict Theory, with
special reference to the contributions of the Manchester School and Marxist theory.
Specifically, it highlighted the changing concerns of social anthropology at a
very critical period in world history, when colonialism and capitalism had taken
a heavy toll on many parts of the world and profoundly altered them. Manchester
School anthropologists expanded their field from small isolated tribal communities
to the mining towns of the African copperbelt, where urbanisation, labour
migration and displacement created new situations and social problems. At the
same time, the role played by social actors in negotiating and selecting identities
for their own benefit and interests, and the new structures of authority and shifting
loyalties that emerged, were analysed. The role of ritual as a mediating factor in
resolving conflict and restoring equilibrium were also studied by the Manchester
School. They also pioneered new methods of study to understand these complex
phenomena, and attempted to decode the structural patterns of the society through
their study of ‘critical events’, by mapping social networks and understanding
the relevance of scale.
Marxism, a grand theory that has influenced all the social sciences, especially
sociology, economics and political science, entered anthropological theory rather
late. The core of this theory lies in the idea that the history of all societies is the
history of class struggles. It is a historical materialist theory which believes that
the economic infrastructure of the society lays the foundation for the other social
and political institutions of the society. Marx studied capitalist society in Europe
and wrote extensively on its contradictions and the class divisions between the
workers (proletariat) and capitalists (bourgeoisie). Marxism has a strong activist
agenda and is committed to the overthrow of exploitative social systems and the
emergence of a classless, stateless society where there would be perfect equality
of all human beings. Marxian analysis was adopted by the New Economic
Anthropology of the French structuralist school which posed a challenge to the
highly empirical tradition of functionalism. The work of scholars like Godelier
and Meillasoux attempted to understand non-capitalist societies with a Marxist
135
Theories of Social Structure
and Function
lens. Marxian theory also helped to historicise the discipline of anthropology by
looking at societies devastated by colonialism and imperialism in a more nuanced
way. Conflict theories thus helped to bring in a much needed change and rigour
into anthropological thought.
10.5
REFERENCES
Bailey, F. G. (1957). Caste and the economic frontier: A village in highland Orissa.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
(1960). Tribe, caste, and nation: A study of political activity and political
change in highland Orissa. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
(1969). Stratagems and spoils: A social anthropology of politics. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell
(2001). Treasons, stratagems, and spoils. How leaders make practical use
of beliefs and values. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Barth, F. (1959). Political leadership among Swat Pathans. London : The Athlone
Press.
Epstein, A. L. (1958). Politics in an urban African community. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Eriksen, T.H. and Nielsen, F.S. (2013). A history of Anthropology (2ndEd.) London:
Pluto Press
Gluckman, M. (1940). “Analysis of a Social Situation in Modern Zululand”.
Bantu Studies. 14,1-30.
(1954). Rituals of rebellion in South-East Africa. (The Frazer Lecture, 1952).
Manchester: Manchester University Press
(1963). Order and rebellion in tribal Africa. London: Cohen and West
(1965). Politics, law and ritual in tribal society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
(1965). The ideas in barotse jurisprudence. New Haven/London: Yale
University Press.
Leach, E.R. (1954). Political systems of highland Burma: A study of Kachin
social structure. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Marx, K. and Engels, F. (2004). [1848]. Manifesto of the Communist
Party. Marxists Internet Archive
Meillasoux, C. (1981). Maidens, meal and money: Capitalism and the domestic
community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell, J.C. (1956). The Kalela dance. Manchester: Manchester University
Press.
Patnaik, S. M. (2011). ‘Marxism’ in Social Anthropology(MAN-001).Unit 2,
Block 4. Anthropological Theories. II. New Delhi: Material Production
Distribution and Divison on behalf of IGNOU.
136
Stager, J. & Schmidt, A. (n.d.) “The Manchester School”. https://
anthropology.ua.edu/theory/the-manchester-school
Turner, V.W. (1957). Schism and continuity in African society; A study of Ndembu
village life.Manchester: Manchester University Press.
10.6
Conflict Theories
ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
1)
Max Gluckman
2)
Colonialism
3)
Structure-Functionalism
4)
Refer to section 10.2.
5)
Refer to section 10.2.
6)
Refer to section 10.2.
7)
Refer to section 10.3.
8)
Refer to section 10.3.
9)
Refer to section 10.3.
137
BLOCK 4
CONTEMPORARY THEORIES
Contemporary Theories
UNIT 11
Symbolic and Interpretive Approach
UNIT 12
Feminism
UNIT 13
New Ethnography and Contemporary Changes
140
UNIT 11 SYMBOLIC AND INTERPRETIVE
APPROACH*
Symbolic and Interpretive
Approach
Contents
11.0
Introduction
11.1
What is a Symbol?
11.2
Evolution of Symbolic Behaviour in Homo Sapiens
11.3
Classification of Symbols and Symbolic Behaviour
11.4
Some Classical Anthropological Works on Symbolic and Interpretive
Approach
11.5
Summary
11.6
References
11.7
Answers to Check Your Progress.
Objectives
In this unit you will learn about:

how is culture a symbolic behaviour;

Evolution of symbolic behaviour in Homo Sapiens;

Classification of symbols and symbolic behaviour; and

Some classical anthropological works on symbolism.
11.0
INTRODUCTION
That I am writing this unit that will be read by students are acts based on our
ability for symbolic behaviour that sets humans apart from all other animal species.
Only the human brain has the capacity for analogic behaviour or ability to think
beyond immediate and obvious correlations.Humans alone have the ability to
classify a diversity of objects and actions into abstracted, analogic categories
and to communicate using a complex and interrelated system of symbols we call
language. Just imagine how difficult or impossible communication would be if
there was no language, and also the almost unconscious process of classification
that language entails. Whenever we are talking to each other, we continue to use,
not reference to specific objects and actions, but to classes of objects and actions;
for example, ‘the boy is running’; uses two broad categories, that of boy, an
object, and running, that is an action. If you just reflect (another peculiarly Homo
Sapiens ability), you will realise that almost all words we use refer to classes and
not to specifics, of any kind. In this unit we shall discuss the evolution of symbolic
behaviour in human culture and how this work has been looked at by the
anthropologists through their works on symbolic behaviour and interpretation.
11.1
WHAT IS A SYMBOL?
The most basic requirement of a symbol is that it should have a material existence,
that is, must be grasped by the senses. It is also suspended in a web of meanings
*Contributor: Professor Subhadra Mitra Channa, Former Professor, Department of
Anthropology, University of Delhi. New Delhi.
141
Contemporary Theories
that constitutes a culture. A symbol is not a stand- alone entity, it connects to
other symbols and may also have different meanings in different contexts.It
signifies and stands for relationships that have meaning in their social and cultural
context. Symbols can be used metaphorically as well. It is not possible to
understand thesignificance of any symbol if one is not well versant with the
cultural milieu in which it is produced. Let us take for example, a ‘raakhi’, that
can be a simple thread, or an elaborate ornament, but what is symbolised is a
relationship contextualised within a broader culture, namely the bond between
brother and sister in South Asia.It may even cut across religions, but is definitely
regional. Also, symbolism has deeper reverberations, it has mythology and folk
lore that surrounds it. It also has emotional and historical significance and is
well publicised in popular media and literature. But most importantly, it is
meaningful to all who live or have familiarity with the culture.
Culture is not just an interconnected network of symbols, but of the meanings
that lie behind them. The brother and sister relationship that the raakhi symbolises
is embedded in a culture where kinship ties are very important. Society is
patriarchal so that sisters do not inherit the family resources. Since brothers inherit,
they are under moral obligation to support the sister.Here we are talking about a
social significance as well as the primacy of certain types of relationships in
particular regions. Again, these relationships and social significations may also
be tied to ecological and economic dimensions, to historical conditions and
sometimes extraordinary circumstances. For example, the Nuer, a pastoral
community, studied by E.E. Evans-Pritchard (1940), had a culture that revolved
totally around their cattle.Their daily routines and their sacred cosmology were
rooted in their relationship to their environment, that was mediated by their
dependence on their cattle as a mode of livelihood. For the Nuer then, the cattle
provided the base for most of their symbols and metaphors and one could
understand the Nuer culture through their cattle symbolisms alone. A major
catastrophe like the Second World War, created its own corpus of symbols and
meanings. For most of the western world, the Swastika, for example signifies
evil, suffering and racism; unlike its sacred meaning for the Hindus.
Symbols are in a very basic and simple way, representations, but not necessarily
actually representing what they stand for. The relationship between what is
represented (the signified) and what represents (the signifier); is highly arbitrary
and complex. Semiotics, as the study of symbols is attributed to the American
philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce (1931-35), defined as the study of ‘Signs’.
A sign is anything that conveys a meaning. The generalised category of ‘sign’
can be further subdivided into:
142
a)
‘Index’: The signified has an associational relationship to signifier; for
example, certain numbers are often projected as an index of growth, in other
words, these numbers have an association with a process called growth, in
whatever way it is defined. When we take body temperature, the movement
of the mercury in the thermometer has an association with, or is an index of
body temperature that in turn is an index of health. Therefore, symbols are
not isolated but related to larger associational relationships with other
systems and symbols.
b)
‘Icons’, that have a physical resemblance to what they stand for, like the
image of a deity, or something that resembles the deity, or thing that is
represented. Icon can also be used for a person or thing with a symbolic
association to something that it resembles or represents, like we can say
Sachin Tendulkar is an icon of cricket.
c)
‘Symbol’, where the meaning is totally arbitrary, like in a language, the
association of certain sounds with certain objects is totally arbitrary.
Symbolic and Interpretive
Approach
However, for the linguist, Ferdinand Saussure,‘signs’ is arbitrary and symbols
have an association with the object they represent. In anthropology, symbols are
used in the way they have been described by Clifford Geertz and others, as systems
of meanings, culturally ascribed. Firth, who tried to apply Peirce’s definitions in
anthropology, found that it was difficult to abide by Peirce’s classification as in
actual application, meanings differed, as cultural meanings are contextual, shifting
as contexts change. The same symbol or attribute may be interpreted differently
by different actors and by same actor, differently in a different context. For
example, to a devotee, an image may not be an icon, but a real person and he or
she may relate to it as such. Meanings that symbols have are not inherent in them
or in any quality that they may have. These are attribute to them by the
relationships that people have to them and to each other.These meanings are
experienced emotionally in a situation of social interaction,like the feelings of
sibling love that is evoked when a piece of thread is tied by a sister on her brother’s
hand. There is nothing in the thread or in the persons of the brother and sister
that evokes such a sentiment, yet it is evoked by the cultural interpretation and
the myth and ceremony that surrounds the social interaction.
Check Your Progress 1
1)
What is a symbol?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
2)
What is a sign?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
3)
Give the subdivisions of signs.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
143
Contemporary Theories
11.2
EVOLUTION OF SYMBOLIC BEHAVIOUR IN
HOMO SAPIENS
The earliest evidence of human culture is their tool making behaviour that began
from the middle Palaeolithic onwards and is evidenced in the form of stones,
flaked to form tools. As Foster (1994: 383) has pointed out, the making of tools
involves a pre-conceptualisation, a plan, a design, that is only possible through a
well- formed cognitive ability. According to Wynn (1979: 383) the Acheulian
period tool makers exhibited the capacity for whole-part relations, spatio-temporal
substitution, symmetry and other such capacities that indicate that their mental
organisational ability was no less than that of modern humans. In other words,
they achieved what any modern human would have, given the same resources
and technological know-how. There is evidence from the Acheulian times of
markings on stone that are deliberate representations like drawings indicating
alreadyemerged creative or art making ability, that is the most salient expression
of analogic thinking. Art is a way of representing ideas that exist in the mind of
the artist to the others in her or his group. What is chosen to be depicted and the
manner in which it is depicted depends upon the culture from which the relevance
of the symbols is drawn. For example, the graphic drawings found inside caves
in the pre-historic times often used only some part of an animal to depict the
entire animal, which means that the others in that culture were able to recognize
the animal from that part and also that particular aspect of the animal was
considered to be important at the level of the collective. Like if a reindeer was
depicted by its horns, then it must be a symbol that was recognized at the group
level, and hence culturally derived. Palaeolithic art is mostly representative of
animal symbols, mostly in motion. It also indicates that humans were more
interested in the action or process rather than in the objects in a static manner.
As theorised by Mary Douglas (1982), much of cultural symbolism, is derived
from the human body or from nature itself. The earliest representations, even in
the sacred texts, derive from the body. The Hindu Varna system for example, is
rooted in body symbolism, with the different varna, seen as originating from
different parts of the body of the cosmic being, Purusa. Douglas uses the term
Natural Symbols, to designate this paradigm. However, she makes it clear that
even when arising from the body, the systems of symbols vary over societies and
are coded by the community that has a common social experience, derived from
a shared history. They appear natural only because the social origins are obscured
in the past. However, from this assumption of deeper community origins of
symbols it also follows that similar communities, with perhaps similar histories,
may give rise to similar natural symbols, as nature, including the human body
remains a common factor for all societies. As societies change, their values change
and some symbols can be rejected, as the authority that backed up the meaning
of that particular symbol, is no longer seen as legitimate. Therefore, Douglas
considers symbols as capable of change in their meanings or becoming redundant
altogether, if the social context in which they had meaning, no longer exist. For
example, with the advent of modernity, the symbolism of the varna system is no
longer acceptable, in fact few young people are even aware of it.
A positivist and highly generalised theory of symbols is given by Lévi-Strauss
(1963) who associated the roots of symbols to the universal structure of the human
mind. Lévi-Strauss devoted much of his scholarship to show how the binary
144
oppositional character of the human mind is expressed in different system of
symbols, differently organised in various cultures, but which can all be reduced
to an essential dualistic character of the mind’s cognitive abilities. Put more
simply the human mind cognises things in terms of their opposite, like for example
light can only be understood in terms of its opposition, dark. A symbolic system
like Totemism, to Lévi-Strauss, offers a system of coding, in terms of a dialectical
process of understanding to understand relationships and basic structural
principles of society like marriage and kinship.
Symbolic and Interpretive
Approach
Check Your Progress2
4) What is the earliest evidence of human culture?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
5) Who used the term Natural Symbol?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
6) Who associated the roots of symbols to the universal structure of the human
kind?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
11.3
CLASSIFICATION OF SYMBOLS AND
SYMBOLIC BEHAVIOUR
Mary Douglas (1982) comments that since all communication depends on
symbols, they can be classified variously. Symbols can be single referents or
multi-referents, they can have single meanings or by polysemic (having multiple
meanings), they can be very diffuse to very condensed. Turner’s work on the
Ndembu (1968) is a classic example of condensed symbols, symbols where a
single signifier condenses a multitude of referents, encompassing entire
cosmologies and associated social organisations and value systems. The Ndembu
of Zambia have a society of strong descent groups as well as local groups, that
145
Contemporary Theories
are horizontally stratified by age groups and cult groups. The Ndembu have a
system of colour classifications drawn from nature and inscribed on the human
body. They believe there are active principles, or life forces within the human
body with different colour codes, black bile, red blood and white milk. They find
analogous colours in nature in the sap of the milk tree, black clay and red resins
and black of charred wood. These colours are used in a complex display in rituals
and body decorations to encapsulate the cosmological principles that integrate
the human with the environment and the supernatural world. They also integrate
the social world with the cosmos. Turner’s (1968) work on ritual and colour
symbolism are considered classics of symbolic studies.
Ruth Benedict’s work The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (1934), set the trend
to look for the symbols that would be representative of the core values and themes
of any culture. Benedict had identified the chrysanthemum and the sword as the
two key elements for the understanding of Japanese national character. Inspired
by her work, David Schneider (1968), in his analysis of American Kinship also
identifies the two “core” and opposed symbols of kinship in America as nature
and law; both of which he finds is expressed in the marriage or conjugal bond.
For Americans, the conjugal bond, which is a legal bond between two unrelated
individuals is realized in the sexual relationship that begets children, a natural
phenomenon that creates the primary blood relations of parents and children and
of siblings. All other relations are derivatives of these and express the same logic
of differentiation of blood and law. What Schneider calls ‘core’ symbols are
referred to as ‘dominant symbols’ by Victor Turner and Key Symbols by Sherry
Ortner.
In her article in the American Anthropologist (1972: 1338-1346), Ortner defines
what she calls Key Symbols as certain objects, themes or stories among other
possibilities that expresses the most core values and goals of a culture. She has
even given a methodology by which to identify the key symbols of a culture and
for which she gives five indicators; namely, they are mentioned as culturally
important by the people bearing that culture, they arouse emotions, both positive
or negative, but are rarely dismissed with indifference, they keep reappearing in
many different contexts, are referred to and represented in many ways, there are
narratives and cultural elaborations around them and they are also subject to
taboos and restrictions. All key symbols are in the public domain for they are
collectively shared. Anthropological literature indicates that key symbols can be
anything from animals, practices, folktales and narratives, religious and secular
symbols like the national flag and dominant religious icons like the Christian
cross, the Buddhist chakra and the Hindu ‘Om’.
146
Ortner further classifies the Key Symbols into a continuum from Summarising
to Elaborate, while actually focussing on the two ends. Summarising encapsulate
multiple ideas and emotions that represents to the members of that society, some
theme or themes, most pertinent and relevant to them, which form the core of
their existence and therefore are capable of provoking intense emotions and
actions. For those who consider the nation as a core aspect of their lives, the
national flag is a key symbol that evokes all the themes that the nation means for
them, like unity, identity, sacrifice and patriotism. Most religious key symbols
evoke the entire cosmological principles of that religion, like the Om for the
Hindus, the prayer wheel or Chakra for the Buddhists and so on. Summarising
symbols perform a synthesis of ideas and emotions and a single object or action
can therefore trigger a multitude of emotions, even actions.
The Elaborating symbols are those that deconstruct the complex and dense themes
to make them more comprehensible and communicable, and easier to follow.
They are marked by their recurrent appearance in various aspects of daily life
and do not command the high emotion and focus of the summarizing symbols.
They are necessary for successful social interactions and for the manoeuvring of
daily life.
Symbolic and Interpretive
Approach
These elaborating symbols can further be divided into Root Metaphors and Key
Scenarios. While the former is oriented towards thought, that is provides the
cognitive orientations, the latter provides the cues for action, like a screen play
or script. While the first help people understand the world around them in terms
of comprehension and analysis the latter tells them what to do and under what
circumstances. From the root metaphors one can identify the unifying principle
underlying a variety of experiences and also see the reflection of these experiences
in the metaphor itself. For example, cattle provide the root metaphor for the
Dinka, who use them to classify and understand other aspects of their world, like
colour classification, time schedules and seasons, aesthetics and visual experiences
and so on. The latter are roadmaps for action. An apt example of a key scenario
in India is the enactment of the Ramlila, where all the actions appropriate for
various categories of kin and also other status holders is society are elaborated
as ideal son, ideal husband, ideal wife, ideal brother and so on. These are also
frequently alluded to in daily conversation and narratives; like for example if
someone oversteps any restrictions it is referred to as overstepping the ‘Lakshman
Rekha’ and devotion is idealised as equivalent to that of Hanuman, and brotherly
duty as that of Lakshman. Thus, most Hindus find a guideline for future action in
this script that is a key scenario par excellence.
Check Your Progress3
7) Whose work is a classic example of condensed symbols?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
8) Name the two key elements in Ruth Benedict’s work used to define the
Japanese National character?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
9) Who used the term core symbol?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
147
Contemporary Theories
10) Victor Turner referred to Schneider’s ‘core symbols’ as ——?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
11) Whose work deals with ‘key symbols’?Identify some key symbols.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
11.4
SOME CLASSICAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL
WORKS ON SYMBOLIC AND
INTERPRETIVE APPROACH
Mary Douglas (1982) has devoted herself to analysing whether symbols are just
expressive, in a neutral sort of way or whether they actually act upon the social
situation to produce effects that may vary from society to society. Ritualism, is
defined as an empty symbol, that has no meaning but is enacted only as a routine,
as a habit by people in society, who otherwise have no inner connect with what
they are doing. For example, many people perform a daily ritual of worship,
more as a routine and as a deference to received traditions. They adhere to given
rules and regulations of performance of the rituals and are more attentive to
these details than to their emotional responses or even to the idea of divinity or
some entity for which the ritual is being performed. In other words, the ritual,
that has no ostensible function, is in itself taken as efficacious, if performed
correctly and is therefore a powerful symbol in itself.
148
On the other hand, there are groups and communities who perform rituals with
no such rigidity, not bothering about rules but about the emotional and devotional
content. For example, she quotes from the ethnography of David Aberle (1966)
that the traditional Navajo, were highly ritualistic, they believed that they must
follow all the rules and regulations of performance of rituals, they believed in
supernatural sanctions for the breach of taboos and rules of performance of rituals.
The pre-colonised Nahavo were closely knit community with close cooperation
and unity between matrilineal kinsmen, who had strong mutual support systems
with strong sanctions against any kind of disruption. People feared the breaking
of rules, not because they thought in terms of morality and values, but because
they were scared of the consequences of such a breach, that would primarily
lead to and which ultimately was a breach in social order. In this way her analysis
follows that of Durkheim, who had first pointed to the social functions of rituals.
However, under colonisation, the Navaho, moved away from their origin systems
of social control, when the Americans took over the legal and political roles,
earlier performed by their close- knit clan organizations. They lost most of their
livelihood of sheep herding and the cooperation of kin groups for tending and
grazing sheep was also gone. They were attacked by disease and loneliness in
the reservations and suffered socially, culturally and emotionally. Most of the
Navajo then switched to the Peyote cult, that involved a direct communion with
the divinity or supernatural, through smoking of an intoxicant plant. Here there
were no strict adherence to codes and to formal ritualism, but a loosely structured,
spontaneous and personalised form of communication, that was beyond rules
and based on emotions and faith. The ritualist symbolic system here was now
weak and did not exert any control. Douglas extends the discussion to include
other groups like the Bantu and the pygmies, who live in close association with
each other but have very different lifeways and social organization. Studied by
Turnbull(1961) in the Ituri forest, the pygmies are a classic study of a hunting
food gathering band. From a comparison of the two, the agricultural Bantu with
permanent village settlements have strong ritualistic behaviour, are bound by
many rules and follow strict procedures for performance if their rituals, whereas
the pygmies, who have loosely structured bands and wander around for hunting
and food gathering with a string emphasis on individuality in their culture, have
no rituals to speak of. They relate to their environment with inner faith and beliefs
that are more personalized than group oriented. Douglas then concludes, “that
the most important determinant of ritualism is the experience of closed social
groups. The man who has that experience associates boundaries with power and
danger” (1982:14), the opposite happens with groups with weak boundaries who
then place less emphasis on ritualism and are likely to be more individualistic.
Also, as she points out in the case of the Bog Irish and the English churchmen in
London, the marginalized and disadvantages are more likely to depend on their
own ritualism for comfort and support while the better placed have more
universalistic and individualistic values.
Symbolic and Interpretive
Approach
Since symbolism is at the base of all human behaviour, there cannot be any
ethnographic possibility without referring to some symbols or symbolic actions.
One cannot for example describe any ritual or any life cycle ceremony or religious
structure, without describing its symbolic meaning, what they mean to the
members of that culture. Edmund Leach’s article ‘Magical Hair’ (1958) has
received much attention, as he tried to combine psychoanalytical and
anthropological theories about the body. As we have seen earlier, body symbolism
is a core of symbolic theory. The body symbolism also provides a common ground
to explain similarities of symbolic expression across cultures. Leach had written
his article following upon the publication by Berg (1951) linking shaving and
hair cutting of the males to symbolic castration and the libidinous association of
hair with sexuality as a recurrent theme across cultures. In his article Leach
comes to the conclusion that in ritual terms long hair signifies uncontrolled
sexuality, short, tightly bound hair signifies restricted sexuality and shaven hair,
celibacy. In many religions but not in all, monks shave their hair, men generally
keep their hair short and even if kept long, it is bound.
In later analysis Leach (1976) has described the ritual symbolisms of time; how
certain annual rituals keep time and allow for the cosmological reckonings of
the cycles of the universe. He theorised that time is not measured as a continuity,
as a linear phenomenon that is irreversible, but in terms of intervals marked by
symbolic inversions, reversals from ordinary life. Take for example water running
from a tap, instead of viewing it as a continuous stream, one can also visualise it
149
Contemporary Theories
as one drop following another, so that there is a possibility of discontinuity
between one drop and the next. Annual rituals often have masquerades, role
reversals, and the flouting of social norms as an integral part of the performances
and rituals. Such ‘reversals’ are actually marking of the intervals, so that one
phase of time becomes separated from another to indicate that one phase is over
and another is going to begin. Often it is the same phase and not another, that is
time can be cyclical and reversible also.
Interpretive Approach
To understand interpretative approach, the student has to first refer to the work
of Max Weber, to whom sociology was a comprehensive science of social action,
but as Aaron (2020: 169) explains, the emphasis is on comprehension, by which
Weber meant the meaning given to the action by the actor. Here he deviated
significantly from the positivist approach, where any action was understood by
the meaning given to it by the observer, or the anthropologist, like Turner’s
explanations of ritual symbolism. To Weber, one needs to understand the action
in terms of the actor’s frame of reference and also when we understand something
as rational, it is again rational as per the knowledge of the performer. The
interpretative approach therefore looks at and comprehends the world from the
actor’s point of view. He defined rational action both in terms of a goal, and in
terms of a value, and there is always an interdependence of these aspects. For
example, if we consider science to be rational, then the goal of science, is that of
finding the truth, but this is rational only in relation to the value that the scientific
person puts on truth; if it were not so, the goal would have been different.
Therefore, the rationality of any action is dependent upon the value that is held
by the actor. To give another example, the value of a religious person lies in the
realm of the sacred, and therefore his or her action needs to be understood in
relation to that value. If the value is in the realm of devotion, then the goal will
be likewise and hence the action will be rational only in that context and not in
that of science. Geertz took off from Weber’s famous adage, that men are
suspended in webs of significance of their own meanings, and developed the
interpretative approach in anthropology.
The interpretive approach formed a bridge between the earlier positivist approach
and the later post-modern approach, by brining subjectivity into the analysis. It
raised question regarding explanation, by questioning the possibility of a purely
objective and externally situated analysis purely looked at from the point of
view of the analyst. Geertz brought in a paradigmatic change in methodology by
introducing the concept of thick ethnography. By this Geertz meant that the
ethnographer cannot be an impartial observer, but must try to get into the mood
and motivations of the people she is observing. His thick description of the
Balinese Cock Fight is often given as an example of thick ethnography, where he
tries to analyse , not the function of the cock fight, but the emotional and mental
involvement of the participants, their rationale for action as looked at from their
own perspective and the nuances of emotional by play that occurs during the
entire event. Geertz, following Weber, brought about a change in anthropological
methodology, where the observed was equally involved within the framework of
explanation. Culture was to be comprehended and not to be analysed. It was not
important to know the instrumental or functional aspects of any action but its
meaning and the role it played in the life of the actors.
150
According to Clifford Geertz (1973), while culture is a system of symbols, the
different subsystems within a culture are marked by their own system of symbols,
and the power of these symbols are linked to their motivational capacity.
According to Geertz the most powerful symbols are those that lie in the realm of
the sacred, as the sacred is the most esoteric of all cultural realms. To Geertz, to
understand a culture, one needs to interpret the symbols, for which one needs a
very deep understanding of the culture, possible only through what he calls as
‘thick ethnography’. The meaning of any behaviour is not manifested at the surface
but is obtainable by both the subjective interpretation of the actor and the external
contextualization within the broader meaning system of the culture that has to be
ascertained through in- depth qualitative fieldwork. Without reference to the way
the actors understand and interpret their actions, it is not possible to get a realistic
understanding of any culture. Since meanings are internal to the culture, they
can be accessed only through intensive interactions with the members of that
culture. Symbols are not just systems of meanings, but they are also associated
with deep seated emotions and may stimulate moods and motivations, especially
those that are associated with the sacred realm. Thus, symbols can stimulate
both a state of mind, what Geertz refers to as a mood, and motivation for actions.
The powerful symbols are situated in the realm of the sacred as the sacred
stimulates our inner most emotions and pushes us to cross boundaries. However,
religion is not the only source of sacred symbols that can be rooted in other
forms of non-rational behaviour like nationalism and ideology. For example, for
the Communists, the Red Book is comparable to the Bible.
Symbolic and Interpretive
Approach
Check Your Progress 4
12) Discuss Mary Douglas work on symbolism.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
13) Explain Clifford Geertz’s ‘thick ethnography’.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
11.5
SUMMARY
Symbolism is a vast area covering a large part of anthropological research and
theorization. Symbolism runs through all the various anthropological theories,
each of them having analysed symbols within their own framework of theory
and academic interest. Though more closely associated with the interpretative
field, symbols have been analysed within the positivist framework as in the works
151
Contemporary Theories
of Lévi-Strauss, Leach and Victor Turner and more interpretatively in the works
of Geertz, Christine Hugh-Jones, Pierre Bourdieu, and others who have taken
into account the intuitions and narratives of the informants into their analysis.
While Lévi-Strauss and Leach have attempted a universal, generalised structuralist
analysis, Turner, along with other functionalists like E.E. Evans-Pritchard and
Radcliffe-Brown have done symbolic analysis in the particularistic framework
of unique cultures. The interpretative framework that takes into account the
subjective interpretations of the actors and is done with an intense qualitative
depth looks for meanings within the cognitive map of the culture itself.
For more theoretical discussions on symbolism the student can look up the works
of Gluckmann (1962), Sperber (1974) and Wagner (1986), who have done
pioneering work in the area of symbolism. Gluckmann had analysed the symbolic
dimension of rituals. Symbolism remains a hall mark of anthropological analysis
and has been used by theorists of all genre.
11.6
REFERENCES
Aberle, David. 1966. The Peyote Religion among the Nahavo. London: Aldine.
Benedict, Ruth. 1934. Patterns of Culture. Boston: Houghton-Miffin.
Berg, Charles. 1951. The Unconscious Significance of Hair. London: George
Allen and Unwin, Ltd.
Douglas, Mary. 1982 [1970]. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. New
York: Pantheon Press
Firth, Raymond. 1973. Symbols: Public and Private. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Foster, Mary Le Cron. 1994. “Symbolism: The Foundation of Culture” In Tim
Ingold (ed.) Companion Encyclopaedia of Anthropology. London: Routledge.
pp 366-395.
Geertz, Clifford. 1966. ‘Religion as a Cultural System’ in Anthropological
Approaches to the Study of Religion. A.S.A Monographs 3. London: Tavistock.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Hallpike, C.R.1969. ‘Social Hair” Man. n.s.4:256-64.
Leach, Edmund. 1958. ‘Magical Hair’.Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute. 88(2):147-64.
1976. Culture and Communication: The Logic by which Symbols are
Connected: An Introduction to the Use of Structuralist Analysis in Social
Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1949. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Boston:
Beacon Press.
1963. Structural Anthropology. New York and London: Basic Books.
Ortner, Sherry. 1972. ‘On Key Symbols’.American Anthropologists. Vol 75: 13381346.
152
Sahlins, Marshall. 1981. Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities: Structure
in the Early History of Sandwich Islands Kingdom. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Symbolic and Interpretive
Approach
Schneider, David. M. 1968. American Kinship. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice
Hall.
Sperber, Dan. 1974. Rethinking Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Turnbull, Colin. M. 1961. The Forest People. London: Chatto and Windus.
Turner, Victor. 1967. The Forest of Symbols. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
1968. The Drums of Affliction: A Study of Religious Processes among the
Ndembu of Zambia. International Africa Institute. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
1962. “Three Symbols of passage in Ndembu Ritual” In Max Gluckman
(ed.) Essays on the Ritual of Social Relations.
Wagner, Richard. 1986. Symbols that stand for themselves. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wynn, T. 1979. ‘The Intelligence of later Acheulian hominids’. Man (n.s).14(3):
371-91.
11.7
ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
1)
Refer to section 11.1
2)
Refer to section 11.1
3)
Refer to section 11.1
4)
Refer to section 11.5
5)
Mary Douglas
6)
Lévi-Strauss
7)
Victor Turner in his work on the Ndembu (1968)
8)
Chrysanthemum and the sword as the two elements.
9)
David Schneider
10) Dominant symbol
11) Sherry Ortner. For the second part of the question refer to section 11.3.
12) Refer to section 11.4
13) Refer to section 11.4
153
Contemporary Theories
UNIT 12 FEMINISM*
Contents
12.0
Introduction
12.1
What is Feminism?
12.2
Early Evolution of Feminist Theory
12.3
Contemporary Critical Feminism
12.4
Challenging Heteronormativity
12.5
Summary
12.6
References
12.7
Answers to Check Your Progress
Learning Objectives
After reading the unit, learners would be able to:

discuss the concept of Feminism;

give a brief sketch of the evolution of feminist theories; and

critically analyse the Post-Structural Feminist Approach and Contemporary
Critical Feminism.
12.0
INTRODUCTION
In most of the literate world, the production of knowledge was almost entirely in
the hands of upper- class males, till almost the middle of the twentieth century.
The renowned English writer Virginia Woolf, even at the height of her fame was
denied entry into the library of Oxford University, just because she was a woman;
as women were not allowed into the precincts of any educational institution of
repute, as if their very steps would pollute these sanctified centres of knowledge.
Women lost all their privileges after the Renaissance and industrial revolution in
the West, as they became equated with nature, to be controlled and manipulated
by men, who controlled knowledge, especially the rational, scientific knowledge
for dominating nature (Ortner 1974). Even as the European societies extended
their political domination to their colonies, they extended their patriarchal
ideology to all parts of the world that they conquered (Etienne and Leacock
1980). In India, at least from the medieval period women had been denied
education and even till today many suffer from illiteracy or inadequate access to
knowledge. The close interrelation between knowledge and power indicates that
women, again almost globally but kept out of the domain of power, not only in
the public domain but even over their own bodies.
The first paradigm of feminist theory was therefore that of universal male
domination (Rosaldo and Lamphere 1974).
12.1
WHAT IS FEMINISM?
In its true meaning feminism is not just directed towards the inequality between
men and women, but is a critical perspective directed towards all forms of
154
*Contributor: Professor Subhadra Mitra Channa, Former Professor, Department of
Anthropology, University of Delhi. New Delhi.
discrimination and inequality. Since all forms of domination and subordination
involves power play and hierarchies, feminism is greatly involved with questions
of power and representation and has the possibility of developing into a critical
political movement. To understand what is feminism one needs to also differentiate
it from gender theory and women’s studies, two academic orientations often
confused with feminism. Margaret Mead (1935) was the first anthropologist to
challenge the theory of universal male domination by her ethnographic work
done in the New Guineas. In three separate communities studied by her, in the
same contiguous region, she demonstrated how men and women were very
differently constructed and expected to follow roles quite different from that in
the western world. In one society, both men and women were subdued and
peaceful, in another, they were both equally aggressive and women had no
nurturing characters, and in a third, they played roles diametrically opposite to
that of western men and women. Her work had a great impact upon American
society, especially on the women, who found themselves suddenly freed from
the shackles of biological determinism. This was also the beginnings of gender
theorythat views gender as a social construct independent of biological sex and
masculinity and femininity as culturally inscribed. Gender theory and feminist
theory run parallel to each other.
Feminism
Gender theory focuses on differential roles of men and women, the various
ideological and cosmological influences on the formation of culturally appropriate
gender models.Gender is appropriately a universal theme that forms the underlying
script of all social relations such as the economy, the politics and the legal. It
assumes difference but not necessarily a hierarchy or inequality. Feminism is on
the other hand a political ideology and a methodology that is set to uncover the
various ways patriarchy operates in society and the power relations involved; a
feminist is also a possible activist. A gender theorist is only an analyst. A third
pedagogical category is women’s studies, that is a specific application of gender
theory focussing only on women, their work, their lives, their problems and issues.
The need for a discipline like women’s studies was deemed necessary to make
up for the lack of specific knowledge about women, as most studies, scientific or
of the social sciences had focused on men.The realisation that women can inhabit
a world separate from that of men, has led to this impetus for separate women’s
studies that focus on women, their roles and activities and other aspects of their
lives. No doubt women’s studies have emerged from the feminist perspective
and follow a feminist methodology, that of prioritising the subjective point of
view rather than to take a positivist stand. Unlike both gender studies and feminist
studies, women’s studies focus on only one half of humanity. Gender is not on
the other hand a stand-alone category but is only understandable relationally.
Moreover, gender can be a study of masculinity also. But whether focusing on
men or on women, gender is always relational, for example Collier and
Yanagisako’s pioneering work on gender and kinship.
Here one must emphasise the methodological aspect of feminism, that is often,
though not always, applied to gender studies and women’s studies as well.
Feminism arose as part of a post-structural anti-establishment movement, within
and outside of academics. The Post World War II world was both critical of and
disillusioned with institutions and conventions of morality and ethics that were
deemed male centric, specifically white male centric, which eulogized aggression,
dominance, racism, divisiveness and essentialism. The feminist critique was side
by side with the anti-colonial and post-modern critique of modernist positivism
155
Contemporary Theories
and science without humanism. Many sectors of humanity wished to move from
their status as ‘objects’ to being subjects, to have agency both over their own
lives and in the production of knowledge. The white, male centric global structures
of dominance were being challenged, by those referred to as ‘natives’ of the
former colonies and all other sections of marginalised humanities, that also
included women.
The most salient criticism of positivism was its objectivism, its separation from
the emotional and subjective content of analysis. The havoc brought about by a
science devoid of ethics and morality put a question mark on scientific
epistemology. In the social sciences such as anthropology, there was a recognition
of the role of the knowledge producer in the creation and nature of knowledge
itself. Feminism specifically situated itself against such knowledge that was not
only produced by males but was also directed towards reproducing male
dominance. For example, there is a large corpus of feminist literature that reveals
how medical science reinforced patriarchy by using the most objective and
rigorous methods to prove pre-conceived notions about women’s physical and
mental inferiority (Gould 1980, Arnold 1993).
In anthropology, restudy by women scholars of the work of eminent male scholars
showed up the unconscious subjective bias to which even the best of scholars
was subjected. Annette Weiner’s (1976) visit to the Trobriand Islands revealed
how Malinowski had overlooked the contribution of women to the economy of
these islands. This was not a deliberate oversight but one that was a result of an
unconscious subjectivity. So, the feminist and post-structural methodology in
general accepted that no knowledge production is independent of the subjectivity
of its producer. Especially, where the subject matter of study are other humans
(anthropology, psychology etc) or living beings (primate behaviour, zoology etc)
there is bound to be an interactional situation between the subjectivity of the
scholar and the subjectivity of the person doing that study. Feminism accepts
that the intersubjective methodology is the only way of producing knowledge
and also that it is imperative to have knowledge production from multiple
locations. This decentralisation of knowledge, privileging the voices that had
earlier being muted is central to a feminist methodology. Feminists make extensive
use of the narrative method and also privilege marginal voices (Behar and Gordon
1995). In this way feminism situates itself against a dominant ‘other, with the
‘other’ assuming different forms in different spatial, temporal and historical
situations.
Check Your Progress 1
1) Define feminism.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
156
.......................................................................................................................
2) State how gender theory and women studies differ from feminism.
Feminism
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
12.2
EARLY EVOLUTION OF FEMINIST THEORY
The earliest feminist theories were bifurcated into the Radical Feminists and the
Marxist Feminists. The former believed in the dictum of universal male
domination, and traced the roots of male domination to biology and
heterosexuality. There was a strong influence of Freudian psychoanalysis around
the time feminism was taking shape in the west (Mitchell 1984[1966]).The
feminists criticised psychoanalysis as not just a theory but also a technology of
domination, emerging from the clinic. But Freud did not accept a biologically
reductionist theory that ‘biology’ determined sexual identity, for in his schema
there is a pre-oedipal phase of early childhood when boys and girls are identical
and they are both attached to the mother. It is in the later childhood (beyond
three years) that femininity appears in the form of ‘penis envy and castration
desires’; making the woman an incomplete being, defined in terms of a ‘lack’. In
other words, infants are not born gendered, but acquire these characters as they
grow up interacting with parents of both sexes. Here the feminists put a query as
to what would be the gender identity of children brought up by parents or
surrogates who are undifferentiated by sex. Will there be no oedipal complex in
that situation? One may recall Malinowski’s (1929) criticism based on his study
of a matrilineal society, where the authority figure is the mother’s brother replacing
the father in Freud’s Oedipal theory.
However, Jaquez Lacan, the French psychoanalyst, reinterpreted Freud to say
that the oedipal theory was not based upon biology, but the interpretation of
biology in language, replacing the term penis with phallus, a more abstract term
to designate sexuality. According to Lacan, kinship terms translate the norms of
sexuality and instil them in the growing child culturally. For example, in a society
with prescriptive marriage rules, terms appropriate for blood relations, like sister
is used for the womenwho are tabooed for marriage. The Oedipal complex then
expresses itself in the taboos which are internalised to form appropriately sexed
individuals who can reproduce society. The presence or absence of the phallus
creates social men and women, and since the latter are defined in terms of a
‘lack’; women remain dominated by men.To Lacan the phallus is more than a
sexual organ, it is a symbol of masculine status, that is also circulated through
women, by marriage. Women are exchanged between men, to reproduce the
phallus in another lineage. The phallus therefore symbolises several social rights
of men, including the rights over women. From Lacan’s theory one understands
masculinity not as just sexuality, but as an expression of all kinds of male social
privileges.
An anthropological theory, parallel to that of Lacan, was given by the French
Structuralist, Claude Lévi-Strauss (1969), who, from the perspective of the
157
Contemporary Theories
feminists, reduced women to objects of exchange between men. Lévi-Strauss
had defined women as the gift par excellence and the most basic object that must
be exchanged if society is to reproduce itself. He identified the universal incest
taboo as not derived from nature but from the social need to form relationships,
as the most basic relations are those of exchange. Marriage and kinship are the
primary building blocks of society made possible by the incest taboo and exchange
of women. There is much ethnographic evidence to show that men have been, in
most historical societies, the subjects with the agency to give and women have
been semi-objects to be given away. Among Hindus and Christians, it is the
father who ‘gives away’ the bride, symbolising the woman as a possession of her
father before she is transferred to another man by him. Yet as Rubin (2006)
points out, in hunting food gathering societies, no one gives a woman away. She
has full agency to make her own choice. It remains more of a matter of exploration
of kinship systems as to who has rights and over whom. Even if it is shown that
in most cases women have less rights than that of men; it cannot be reduced to a
universal, as suggested by Lévi-Strauss. The hunting food gathering societies
are also human societies formed without the exchange of women, which denies
his theory that exchange of women is the basis of all societies.
Again, this theory rests upon the universalisation of heterosexuality by making
the basic unit of social reproduction comprising of at least one man and one
woman, based upon the universal sexual division of labour to ensure that marriage
takes place between a man and a woman. The gendered division of labour is
therefore a social mechanism to suppress the similarity between the sexes and to
create social men and women (Rubin 2006: 95). If women are to be exchanged,
it automatically implies that her sexuality needs to be controlled. Both
psychoanalytic theory and theory of exchange as given by Lévi-Strauss put women
as disadvantaged with respect to men, thereby supporting the universal
subordination of women. Psychoanalytic theory also projects the development
of the feminine persona as based on ‘pain and humiliation’ (Rubin 2006: 99).
The famed feminist Simone de Beauvoir (1953) labelled women as the ‘second
sex’ in society as she believed that whatever is required for the progress of the
species-being is done by men while women do the mechanical/natural work of
reproduction.
The Marxist feminists, following the work of Marx and Engels (1972), pinned
the marginalization of women to the rise of capitalism and private property. It is
because men want their property should go to their sons, they place restrictions
on their women to ensure the purity of the offspring, and restrict inheritance in
the male line. This theory found favour with many anthropologists such as Eleanor
Leacock, who also linked the greater equality found in precapitalist societies
with the lack of sense of property and ownership among them, giving examples
from various indigenous societies especially the hunting and food gathering ones
(Leacock and Devore 1982). With specific historical instances Etienne and
Leacock (1980) also showed how colonisation and missionary activities promoted
patriarchy. Within the western intellectual framework, matriliny was seen as
inferior to patriliny and any society where women played an important role had
to be at a lower stage of civilisation. The colonising European countries, saw
imposition of patriarchy also as a civilising mission for them.
From a feminist Marxist perspective, all gendered activities are embedded in
larger economic and political systems. For example, in marriage exchange there
158
are two economic possibilities, either a woman can only be exchanged against
another woman, or there are material equivalents of women, like cows, pigs and
money or in other words bride wealth. There are possible political implications
of transfer of women, like among the royal families in the feudal period. Marriage
also involves a class or status hierarchy. In many stratified societies, marriage is
an integral signifier of status. Indian society is a prime example. Marxist feminists
ventured out in the larger political economic milieu to analyse the possible position
of women and there have been many successful analyses (Gunewardane and
Kingsolver 2008).
Feminism
As Brodkin’s (1989) discursive analysis on Marxist feminism describes, the most
crucial problematic faced by feminist Marxists was the reconciliation of the
notions of class, race and gender. In Marxist theory, the worker is an individual
selling labour in the capitalist market, and this identity is generalised to obscure
any other identity, that of gender or race. While first wave feminists thought that
women would gain power only if they functioned as men; the second wave
feminists, from the sixties onwards, paid more attention to women’s work in the
domestic sphere. This movement was born out of the grassroots movements of
women of colour and those opposing colonial rule around the world. When
feminists gave the now famous slogan, ‘The personal is political’; it soon
expanded to incorporate much more than just women to men relationships; such
as lesbianism, reproductive rights and domestic violence.In countries like South
Asia, the ‘personal’ is often a matter of bare survival, where female foetuses are
often eliminated at birth and girl children struggle to survive against all odds. As
more women from different locations joined in to produce knowledge for and
about women, patriarchy, earlier understood only in the context of western
capitalism, began to be expanded to include many more situations and forms of
women’s oppression.
While the first phase of feminism was directed towards more public issues, the
second phase focussed on the domestic and family. According to Margaret Benston
(1969) women played a key role in capitalist economy as the reproducers of
labour at a much-reduced cost than if the system had to pay for that reproduction.
This was made possible by the women’s unpaid domestic work. The hours spent
by a housewife in cooking, cleaning, caring for her husband and children, is
unrecognised as productive labourwithin the capitalist system, yet it is this work,
that helps reproduce the worker, and makes him available for productive work in
the public sphere. In addition, women form part of what is known as the reserve
army of labour that supports the formal organisation of the capitalist economy.
This reserve army also includes the productive activities being carried on from
home and the informal sector of the economy, at much cheaper rates than in the
formal sector. The capitalist sector derives considerable benefits from this shadow
economy while keeping it deliberately out of sight.
In the post- world war era, another dimension was gaining ground. Earlier, the
worker was viewed politically only as a worker, irrespective of other social
markings, like race, gender, ethnicity etc. But in the post-World War II era, the
differences of gender and race in particular were becoming evident. As soon as
women gained a voice, it became clear that they did not experience the capitalist
system in the same way as men did. For example, even today, women carry the
burden of caring and nurturing their families, even if they are working in the
public domain. The problems faced by the working woman, at home and at work,
159
Contemporary Theories
and even while commuting to work are not the same as men. Further on, as
women and men from erstwhile muted sections of society, like the AfricanAmericans, the indigenous and the non-western earlier colonized, entered the
fray as producers of knowledge, it became evident that race and ethnicity played
key roles in how a worker experienced the capitalist system. In other words, the
homogenised version of class in Marxist theory stood to be corrected. For example,
in an American company, while a white woman is more likely to be at a front
desk secretarial position, an African -American woman is more likely to be back
stage; both are more likely in supportive than in managerial positions.
Even class consciousness appeared in different ways in different people and they
negotiated power in different ways. Group identity and cooperation in the
community plays an important role, for example, for African American women
were studied by Patricia Hill Collins (1989) and Elsa Barkley Brown (1989).
According to them, African American women and even men, seek identity in
their community and family for a positive construction, as they are constantly
being evaluated negatively by the whites, in larger American society. Most
African-American women reacted to the feminist issues of white middle class
women, centred on their goals of liberation from men and the constraining
heterosexual family life. African-American women on the other hand wanted to
be freed from sexual exploitation and wished for normal family life with their
partners, who were more often than not in jail. Thus, all forms of feminism,
radical or Marxist, found a variety of expressions as feminism spread across the
globe.
Check Your Progress 2
3) Who discussed woman as a ‘gift par excellence’?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
4) Which anthropologist labelled women as the ‘second sex’?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
5) What was the slogan of the feminist’s ideology?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
160
.......................................................................................................................
6) Discuss Marxist feminism.
Feminism
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
12.3
CONTEMPORARY CRITICAL FEMINISM
Feminism emerged as an oppositional categorywith respect to both intellectual
and social constructs. Women were trying to rectify the age- old wrongs practiced
on them, both academically and culturally, related to the denial of full humanity
to them as a category. Like Gayle Rubin (2006) has pointed out, it was not that
there has never been any traffic in men, but they happen under specific conditions,
to specific persons, but women have been trafficked (exchanged) as objects just
because they are women. Similarly, psychoanalysis had doomed women to pain
and humiliation as an essential aspect of becoming a woman. But the modern
women do not believe in it. The new generation of feminists, have learnt to
celebrate the fact that they are women, and rejected much of the earlier theories
defining women.
The major issue for the contemporary feminists is that of identity denying the
essentialism of earlier feminists. Most of what was taken as feminist literature is
a derivative of the works and thoughts of western middle- class women. When
such an essentialised ‘self’ (the feminine self) is pitted against the ‘other’ (the
masculine other); there occurs a grave injustice and injury; to all those who do
not fit, ethnically, historically and spatially, into that category of self and whose
environment does not consist of the ‘other’ as understood in the middle- class
European context. In the West, the first to disagree, were the Euro-American
women of colour, the African-Americans for example. They came out strongly
to assert that their needs and their problems were very different from that of
middle- class white women.
When the first wave of feminism began in India, during the colonial period, it
also began from the upper class and caste of women, later to be rejected by the
lower castes and classes. Today in India we have a well -developed Dalit feminism.
As pointed out by Abu-Lughod, who also opines that when woman becomes
women, and gender has no specific referent, “feminism itself dissolves as a theory
that can reflect the voice of a naturalised or essentialised speaker” (2006:155).
From this we have to move on to the methodological perspective that all notions
of self are subjectively constructed and when pitted against an essentialised
‘other’; it performs an act of symbolic violence, that of silencing the others,
whose voices then become muted.
With these considerations feminism in the recent times has moved towards
methodological ‘positionality’ as an essential tool of analysis. There is no
monolithic category of woman opposed to a similarly constructed category of
man. Instead, we have multiple feminine identities, situated in specific time and
space contexts, fighting their battles against specific foes, that appear in the form
161
Contemporary Theories
of local norms, indigenous versions of patriarchy and also the immediate
technologies of domination (Rege 2006, Visveswaran 1994, Grewal and Caplan
2002, Channa 2013).
Feminists also find themselves in an uneasy relationship with the concept of
culture. Culture forms an essential component of identity- based politics of the
current times. Many nations contain subnational identities that are those of
marginal people and groups who are asserting their political social identity,
supported by their claims to cultural ethnicity. Yet as women have asserted, culture
is often a tool for the oppression of women, oppressions that appear in many
forms. For example, the women of the Naga communities of North-East of India,
vociferously complain against the central government’s policy to let the
indigenous people practice their own customary civil laws. They complain the
Naga customary laws are highly patriarchal especially as they deny inheritance
to women altogether. Naga women prefer the Indian Civil code, as they would
then get all the benefits of that law, of inheritance and legal personhood of many
kinds. In this way women’s interests are directly opposed to the identity politics
of the men.
Since traditions are mostly constraining for women, modernity was initially seen
as a potential liberating force for women, but that is not the way things happened.
Patriarchy reinvented itself in many forms especially in the form of capitalism.
As Rosaldo (1980) points out, women’s subordination in the capitalist system
has often been naturalised, even to their genes, as a lack of aggression and will to
succeed, so that their subordination in the capitalist system and patriarchy becomes
inevitable. Although the second wave of feminists were more concerned to counter
this kind of biological reductionism, the third wave, especially triggered by the
global environmental crises thought ahead.
In the twenty-first century, women have begun to celebrate femininity, rather
than thinking about it as an impediment. Feminism is also equated with action
and not just ideology. Harrison (2015:167) defines feminism as a theoretical
perspective that is ‘ultimately related to advocacy for women’s rights,
conceptualised as integral to an expanded notion of human rights.’ A broader
definition of gender is as a relation of power, opposed to patriarchy, in turn
associated with all forms of sexism. The entry of non-western feminists in the
discourse, like Kamala Visveswaran (1997) and Chandra Mohanty (2003),
expanded gender relations to an expanded universe of nationalism, Islamism,
Hindutva ideology, Pan-Africanism and all other kinds of ideological mechanisms
that along with numerous forms of divisiveness and marginalities, reinforce and
reproduce sexism and patriarchy in many forms in the modern globalised world.
162
The onslaught of globalisation and neo-liberalism has destroyed habitats, led to
deforestation and species elimination and caused environmental degradation to
result in global warming and climate change. As feminists have demonstrated
through numerous data- based studies, women often bear the brunt of climate
change and environmental degradation and consequently, it is women, assigned
to nurturance and care who have reacted to masculine domination of the globe
(Maathai 2003). Harrison (1997) has argued that the neoliberal forces causing
environmental destruction and deepening of structural inequalities are also
fundamentally gendered and project a form of masculinity that is directed to
super-exploitation of women’s productive and reproductive abilities to feed the
capitalist systems of profit. The characters of aggression and macho masculinity
that is so much eulogised in western cultures is directly related to all forms of
domination and exploitation, of women, of nature and of the marginalised,
especially of subsistence- based economies and indigenous people and their
environments (Shiva 1993).
Feminism
For its survival, the world needs to the values of nurturance and qualities of
preservation and conservation, peace and harmony that have been denigrated as
feminine and of less value in the capitalist system. Ecofeminist Karen Warren
(1997) is of the opinion that the closeness of women to nature as expressed in
women’s responsibilities for care and nurture, their reliance on food, water and
fodderopposes the masculine bias foreconomic developmentthat fails to take these
basic subsistence requirements into account. Health and economic welfare of
women are constantly being threatened by the loss of bio-diversity and climate
change and therefore it is women who are in the forefront to challenge capitalism
and the market forces. Thus, contemporary feminism does not deny that women
are analogous to nature, but rather highlight it as a way to show women as a
positive force to protect nature and saving it from capitalist forces destroying it.
In this way the new generation of feminists are loudly proclaiming that it is
feminine virtues and qualities that will save the world. Rather than being just
victims, women can also navigate themselves successfully in the face of
challenges (Gunawardena and Kingsolver 2008, Channa and Porter 2015). Backed
by data and strong ethnographies, this new generation of feminists are projecting
femininity as a virtue, at the same time interrogating the theoretical notions of
what femininity and masculinity stand for and represent.
Check Your Progress 3
7) What is the major issue for the contemporary feminists?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
8) Discuss contemporary feminism?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
12.4
CHALLENGING HETERONORMATIVITY
A radical challenge emerged out of the feminist movement at the end of the
twentieth century. A number of feminists coming out in critique of the
heterosexual model, that although criticised by earlier feminists, had always been
taken for granted. All the feminists had worked their analysis and their criticism
163
Contemporary Theories
taking the male-female duality as given. When feminists talked about
‘subjectivities’ they were speaking from a subjective position assumed to be
female, no matter how defined or conceptualised. A number of mostly homosexual
feminists critiqued this assumption, putting forth that there were many more
subject positions possible than that of male and female. Even from normative
women, there was a criticism of the essentialist and exclusionary nature of the
category or term woman; many women across the world did not agree with any
kind of given definition of what being a woman means. There has been
considerable debate and academic discourse on this issue, but basically it all
comes down to identity politics, the fact that the multiple sexual identities cannot
be forced into just a binary classification and as Judith Butler (1990) has argued,
even if we accept the now well- recognised definition of gender as being socially
constructed, then how do we also assume that this construction will mime the
biological binary of male and female? A construction can happen in many different
ways and generate multiple identities going beyond just two. At present
contemporary feminism is going beyond the essentialism of binary sexuality
and encompassing a multitude of identities such as lesbian, transsexual, gay,
queer and others as categories that continue to supper oppression and suppression
and many of the parameters of oppression that we have outlined are also applicable
to them. But there are dynamics that are unique to some identities and the scope
of this unit does not cover all the ensuing debates and discourses. But the student
can refer to Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble (1990) for an introduction to this
discourse.
Check Your Progress 5
9) Which are the multitude of identities that are being studied under feminism?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
12.5
SUMMARY
Feminism, is a theory, a methodology and a social movement, rooted in the
realization by one half of humanity that they had been suppressed and muted for
a very long period of human history. Although feminism as it is understood in
contemporary times, is seen as having its roots in the west, as we have seen in
this unit, its present- day ramifications are global. This is not to say that the same
feminism has spread everywhere, but that spatially distinct feminisms now exist.
We have traced the development of feminist theory from its early beginnings in
the twentieth century as well as examined some of its main branches and
proliferations. The twenty-first century has seen the emergence of a critical
feminism, that critical of the ideal masculine /capitalist system dominating the
world. Femininity, is celebrating itself, moving out of the melancholia of
psychoanalysis and positivist theories of being objectified and dehumanised.
Feminism is now a major critic of the environmental devastations caused by
neo-liberal policies and market domination, pointing to peace, nurturance and
164
care as the right ideologies in place of masculinist aggression and domination.
12.6
Feminism
REFERENCES
Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1991. ‘Writing Against Culture’ in Richard G Fox(ed.)
Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present, Santa Fe: School of American
Research Press, pp 137-62.
Arnold, David. 1993.‘Women and Medicine”: Colonizing the Body, Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Barkely-Brown, Elsa. 1989. ‘African-American Women’s Quilting: A Framework
for Conceptualizing and Teaching African American Women’s History’ Signs.
14(4): 921-9
Behar, Ruth and D.A. Gordon (eds.) 1995. Women Writing Culture. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Benston, Margaret. 1969. ‘The Political Economy of Women’s Liberation’,
Monthly Review. 21(4):13-27.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.
New York and London: Routledge
Channa, Subhadra. M. and Marilyn Porter (eds). 2015. Gender, Livelihood and
Environment: How Women Manage Resources. Hyderabad: Orient Black Swan.
Channa, Subhadra Mitra. 2013. Gender in South Asia: Social Imagination and
Constructed Realties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, Patricia. Hill. 1989. ‘The Social Construction of Black Feminist Thought’.
Signs 14(4): 745-73.
De Beauvoir, Simone. 1953. The Second Sex. New York.
Engels, Frederick. 1972. The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the
State. edited by Eleanor Leacock. New York: International Publishers.
Etienne, Mona. and Eleanor Leacock. (ed.). 1980. Women and Colonization:
Anthropological Perspectives. New York: Praeger.
Grewal, Inderpal. and Caren Kaplan. 2002. An Introduction to Women’s Studies:
Gender in a Transnational World. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Gould, Stephan Jay. 1980. ‘Women’s Brains’ in The Panda’s Thumb: More
Reflections in Natural History. New York: W.W. Norton. pp 152-59.
Gunawardena, Nandini and Ann Kingsolver. (eds.). 2008. The Gender of
Globalization: Women Navigating Cultural and Economic Marginalities. Santa
Fe: School for Advanced Research Press.
Harrison, Faye. V. 2015. ‘Conceptual and Theoretical Perspectives on Global
Apartheid, Environmental Injustice, and Women’s Activism for Sustainable Wellbeing’ In Channa, Subhadra, M. and Marilyn Porter. (eds.) Gender, Livelihood
and Environment: How Women Manage Resources. Hyderabad: Orient Black
165
Contemporary Theories
Swan. pp 166-199.
Leacock, Eleanor. and Richard Lee. 1982.Politics and History in Band Societies.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1969. The Elementary Structures of Kinship.
Lewin, Ellen. (ed.). 2006. Feminist Anthropology: A Reader. Blackwell
Maathai, Wangari. 2003. The Green Belt Movement: Sharing the Approach and
the Experience. New York: Lantern Books.
Malinowski, B. 1929. The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia,
Mead, Margaret.1935. Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies,
Mitchell, Juliet. 1984[1966]. Women: The Longest Revolution: On Feminism,
Literature and Psychoanalysis, New York: Pantheon Books
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 2003. Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing
Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Durham: Duke University Press.
Ortner, Sherry. 1974. ‘Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?’ In Michelle
Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere (eds.) Women, Culture and Society. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Rege, Sharmila. 2006. Writing Caste/Writing Gender: Narrating Dalit Women’s
Testimonies. New Delhi: Zubaan.
Rosaldo, Michelle. 1980. ‘The Use and Abuse of Anthropology: Reflections on
Feminism and Cross- Cultural Understanding’, Signs,5(3):89-417.
Rosaldo, Michelle and Louise Lamphere. 1974. Women, Culture and Society.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Rubin, Gayle. 2006. ‘The Traffic in Women: Notes on the “Political Economy”
of Sex’. In Lewin, Ellen (ed.).Feminist Anthropology: A Reader, Blackwell, pp
87-106; Org. 1975 in Rayna R Reiter (ed.) Towards an Anthropology of Women.
pp157-21
Sacks, Karen. Brodkin. 1989. ‘Toward a Unified Theory of Class, Race and
Gender’. American Ethnologist.16(3): 534-50.
Shiva, Vandana. 1993. ‘Colonialism and the Evolution of Masculinist Forestry’.
in Sandra Harding (ed) The ‘Racial’ Economy of Science. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press. pp 303-14.
Visveswaran, Kamala 1994. Fictions of Feminist Ethnography, Minnesota;
University of Minneapolis Press
Visveswaran, Kamala. 1997. ‘Histories of Feminist Ethnography’.Annual Review
of Anthropology. 26:591-621.
Warren, Karen. J. (ed.) 1997. Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
166
Weiner, Annette.B. 1976. Women of Value, Men of Renown: New Perspectives in
Trobriand Exchange. Austin: University of Texas Press.
12.8
Feminism
ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
1)
Refer to section 12.1
2)
Refer to section 12.1.
3)
Lévi-Strauss
4)
Simone de Beauvoir
5)
‘Personal is Political’
6)
Refer to section 12.2
7)
Refer to section 12.3
8)
Refer to section 12.3
9)
Refer to section 12.4
167
Contemporary Theories
UNIT 13 NEW ETHNOGRAPHY AND
CONTEMPORARY CHANGES*
Contents
13.0
Introduction
13.1
New versus Old Ethnography
13.2
Types of New Ethnography
13.2.1
Reflexivity
13.2.2
Autoethnography
13.2.3
Team Ethnography
13.2.4
Dialogical Ethnography
13.3
Summary
13.4
References
13.5
Answers to Check Your Progress
Learning Objectives
Once you have studied this unit you should be able to:

understand why New Ethnography appeared;

distinguish between different types of New Ethnography; and

write reflexive essays on different topics.
13.0
INTRODUCTION
In this unit we will be discussing the change that took place in traditional field
methodology and the emergence of ‘New Ethnography’. We will also see what
is ‘new’ about this kind of ethnography and how it differs from the ‘old’. We will
also discuss different types of new ethnography, how they arose and existed, and
their relevance in today’s world.
But first let us recollect on what ethnography is. The term comes from the Greek
words, ethnos meaning ‘folk, people, nation’ and grapho meaning ‘I write’. Thus,
‘Ethnography’ literally means ‘to write about culture’. Therefore, by definition,
it is a systematic study of a group of people and their cultures.
Some of the classic ethnographies include Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922)
by Bronislaw Malinowski, Coming of Age in Samoa (1928) by Margaret Mead,
The Nuer (1940) by E. E. Evans-Pritchard among many others.These
ethnographies were based on a long stay in the field usually for more than a year,
running into several years for many, trying to understand different aspects of
culture. Ethnographers before going to the field and after reaching it, spent months
learning the local language since they believed that the use of interpreters could
dilute their understanding of the people under study, and it could be antithesis to
what they were trying to achieve – which is an emic view of the studied culture.
Ethnographers selected people and locales far away from their own, usually in
underdeveloped countries and people who were far away from modernity and
168
*Contributor: Dr. Queenbala Marak, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, NorthEastern Hill University (NEHU), Meghalaya.
living in a state of ‘primitiveness’. They depended largely on participant
observation and key informants in their attempt to understand culture. In doing
their fieldwork and in writing about them, they tried to adopt the positivist
approach – trying to be scientific and objective – while trying to distance the
personal from the professional (i.e., writing ethnography).
New Ethnography and
Contemporary Changes
It was soon, however, realised that in writing about cultures scientifically, the
ethnographer covers up the truth and does not narrate the actual and real situations.
In the 1950s, anthropologists started writing bio-confessional ethnographies (also
referred to as confessional tales) that made public the actual situation of what
they had gone through – their personal feelings, dilemmas, discoveries, pleasant
and unpleasant encounters etc. One of the early triggers was the publication of
Malinowski’s field diaries in 1967. Similar confessional tales gave rise to much
discussions and newer forms of writing culture. This was the beginning of new
ethnography which brought in issues and variants like reflexivity, auto
ethnography, feminist ethnography, critical ethnography, political ethnography,
team ethnography, dialogical ethnography, collaborative ethnography among
many others. Four of these are explained in detail in the next segments.
While discussing new ethnography we cannot ignore one of the works that
influenced anthropology and ethnography –Writing Culture: The Poetics and
Politics of Ethnography (1986) edited by James Clifford and George Marcus. This
book helped to highlight the different political and philosophical predicaments
that many ethnographers went through while writing about people and their
cultures.
13.1
NEW VERSUS OLD ETHNOGRAPHY
Moving on from the brief introduction, let us now try to compare the differences
between Old (i.e., traditional) and New Ethnography.
1)
Old ethnography was written from the viewpoint of the so called ‘western
gaze’ towards the little known, simple societies located in far-off places.
Quite often these were part of the colonies or belonged to territories colonised
by Europeans.Today researchers also undertake ethnography in their own
social environment, although there is greater trend of still studying those
located elsewhere.
2)
Positivism was the basis of old ethnography, i.e., scientific knowledge based
on empirical data which was taken to be the only way to the ‘truth’. New
ethnography is post-positivist with the understanding that there are multiple
truths, multiple voices, multiple perspectives in the study of a people and
all of these needs to be taken into consideration.
3)
In traditional ethnography, data was collected from informants living in the
far-flung field areas. This data was then scientifically analysed and presented
in the form of a text. Today, the researcher is also the informant – since he/
she plays an ‘active role’ in the narration of the ethnography.
4)
Old ethnography was mostly text-based – with data from field areas presented
in prose form with first-person quotations (of the informant) interspersed
within the text, though infrequently. New ethnography takes multiple forms
– as dialogues, poems, songs, narratives etc., and is in some cases
collaborative in nature.
169
Contemporary Theories
5)
Old ethnography stressed on objectivity in its approach, data collection,
and in the writing process. On the other hand, newer forms of ethnography
are imbued with subjectivity, and challenge the conventional distinction
between objective and subjective writing.
Reflection
Western gaze – Earlier ethnographers were written by Western scholars on
little known communities living in a state of ‘primitiveness’. By extension,
western gaze refers to gaps that exist in studying cultures when researchers
from dominating cultures write about small scale societies and cultures.
Check Your Progress 1
1) What is ethnography?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
2) What is Positivism?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
3) List the differences between old and new ethnography.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
13.2
TYPES OF NEW ETHNOGRAPHY
13.2.1 Reflexivity
170
The word ‘reflexive’ comes from the Latin reflexus, meaning ‘bent back’, which
in turn comes from reflectere– ‘to reflect’. Reflexivity, thus, is the process of
reflection, which takes itself as the object; in the most basic sense, it refers to
reflecting on oneself as the object of provocative, unrelenting thought and
contemplation (Nazaruk 2011: 73). This process has given a focus on the
ethnographer’s proverbial self: self-examination, self-strategies, self-discovery,
self-intuition, self-critique, self-determination, and selfhood (ibid.p.74).
New Ethnography and
Contemporary Changes
Reflexivity in anthropology is an outcome of three critical episodes that took
place. First, the acknowledgement that the discipline of anthropology was
European-centric (or having the western gaze) in its approaches and researches;
and hence unwittingly it was involved in extending issues of inequality as a
result of European colonization. This approach was critically assessed by authors
such as Dell Hymesand Talal Asad. Second, the emergence of the feminist
movement had a strong impact on anthropology, which was accused of being
androcentric so far. The feminist intervention led to an emphasis on positionality
– a reflexivity that is enacted through the explicit acknowledgment and
theoreticisation of the “situatedness and partiality of all claims to knowledge”
(Marcus 1998: 198). Third, the 1967 publication of Malinowski’s field diaries
(A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term) revealed the subjectivity in Malinowski’s
fieldwork even though he had covered it up in his monograph. He was now
known to curse his subjects (the Trobriand people) in his diary, but he edified
their human condition in his ethnographic monograph (Nazaruk 2011).
In 1986, two important volumes were published which focused on different forms
of new ethnography and supported reflexivity in writing using unconventional
strategies such as dialogue, pastiche, and memoir – James Clifford and George
Marcus’s Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography and Michael
Fisher and George Marcus’s Anthropologyas Cultural Critique.
In anthropology, reflexivity has two different meanings – One, which refers to
the researcher’s awareness of an analytic focus on his or her relationship to the
field of study; and Two, that attends to the ways that cultural practices involve
consciousness and commentary on themselves. The first type of reflexivity is
not confined to anthropology alone, but is part of a more general self-critique
that took place in social sciences. The second type became an important part of
the critique of the colonial roots and positivist approach of anthropology in the
Writing Cultures movement. This has drastically changed the methodological
approaches in anthropology – with emphasis on reflexive understanding of the
ethnographer and his/her field study, and calls for collaboration with research
participants (and no more subjects or informants).
Important reflexive ethnographies include the following:
Deep Play: Notes on a Balinese Cockfight by Clifford Geertz (1972)
Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco by Paul Rabinow (1977)
The Headman and I by Jean-Paul Dumont (1978)
Tuhami by Vincent Crapanzano (1980)
Moroccan Dialogues by Kevin Dwyer (1982)
13.2.2
Autoethnography
The word auto in autoethnography refers to the ‘self’ (auto); therefore, in
autoethnography it refers to the turning of the ethnographic gaze inward on the
self (auto), while maintaining the outward gaze of ethnography looking at the
larger context wherein self-experiences occur (Denzin 1997: 227).
The term ‘autoethnography’ was first coined by Raymond Firth in his seminar
on structuralism in 1966 (Hayano 1979). In his lecture, Firth made a reference to
171
Contemporary Theories
Jomo Kenyatta’s study of his native Kikuyu people. He narrated how when
Kenyatta first presented his field material in Malinowski’s seminar, he touched
off a heated shouting match with another Kikuyu speaker a white African, L. S.
B. Leakey. Their argument raised the question of judging the validity of
anthropological data by assessing the characteristics, interests, and origin of the
person who did the fieldwork.
Now let us see how autoethnography as a genre of ethnography develop.
According to Hayano (1979), the three reasons for its development include the
following:
1)
Fieldwork under the wing of friendly colonial authorities was no longer
feasible, and the merging of formerly tribal peoples into peasant and urban
social systems made it impossible to study small, isolated tribal groups as
they were now merged with the larger social systems.
2)
Trained minority and foreign anthropologists started doing ethnography in
their home territories, either by choice or social restriction.
3)
Specializations such as urban anthropology, applied or action anthropology
and other interdisciplinary studies led many students to do at least some
pre-doctoral fieldwork in their own locales.
However, autoethnography, as known today, refers to much more than native
ethnography, i.e., ethnography written by native scholars.
Though it has several meanings, but today it largely refers to both the method
and the product of researching and writing about personal lived experiences and
their relationship to culture (Ellis 2004: xix). As a methodology it acknowledges
and accommodates subjectivity, emotionality, and the researcher’s influence on
research, rather than hiding from these matters or assuming they do not exist.
Auto-ethnographers research themselves in relation to others (Boylorn and Orbe
2014). It is a research, writing, story, and method that connect the autobiographical
and personal to the cultural, social, and political (Ellis 2004: page no).
So, is autoethnography completely different from traditional ethnography? Or,
are there points of convergence and divergence between the two?
1)
Like ethnographers, autoethnographers follow similar ethnographic research
process by systematically collecting data, analysing and interpreting them,
and producing scholarly reports.
2)
Like ethnographers, autoethnographers attempt to achieve cultural
understanding through analysis and interpretation, but through the self.
3)
Autoethnographers use their personal experiences as primary data, which
traditional ethnographers desist from.
Autoethnography began in the 1980s as a protest to the existing social science
methodologies. Even though experimentation with self-observation and analysis
started in 1960s, very few anthropologists ventured into this except an occasional
methodological note (in field notes and diaries), or in confessional tales. The
publication of two volumes in 1992 captured this trend and influenced its
subsequent development. These were –
172
1)
Anthropology and Autobiography (1992) by Judith Oakley and Helen
Callaway aimed to convey personal narratives about experiences in the field,
and open discussion on the role of the anthropologist as a person in the
construction of knowledge in the field.
2)
An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (1992) by Pierre Bourdieu who
delineated an intellectual stance that he called ‘anti-autobiography’ to refer
to an approach of social science research that does not privilege the
individualism of the author (like in autobiography), but, rather, required an
awareness of the researcher’s positioning in various social fields and social
spaces, as well as a broader critique of the ways in which social science
constructs its objects.
New Ethnography and
Contemporary Changes
Well-known books in autoethnography today include:
Evocative Autoethnography: Writing Lives and Telling Stories by Arthur
Bochnerand Carolyn Ellis(2016)
Fields of Play: Constructing an Academic Life by Laurel Richardson (1997)
Interpretive Autoethnography by Norman Denzin (2014)
The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology That Breaks your Heart by Ruth
Behar (2014)
Auto/Ethnography: Rewriting the Self and the Social by Deborah ReedDanahay (1997)
When we analyse the works of these authors and more, it becomes clear that
there is no single type of autoethnography. There are several variations or genres
which include the following:
1)
Native Ethnography – in which people who were formerly the subjects of
ethnography become the authors of studies of their own group.
2)
Ethnic Autobiography – personal narratives written by members of ethnic
minority groups.
3)
Autobiographical Ethnography – in which anthropologists interject personal
experiences into ethnographic writing.
4)
Evocative or Emotional Autoethnography –which include the use of
systematic sociological introspection and emotional recall; the inclusion of
the researcher’s vulnerable selves, emotions, body, and spirit; the production
of evocative stories that create the effect of reality; the celebration of concrete
experience and intimate detail; the examination of how human experience
is endowed with meaning; a concern with moral, ethical, and political
consequences; an encouragement of compassion and empathy; a focus on
helping us know how to live and cope; the featuring of multiple voices and
the repositioning of readers and ‘subjects’ as co-participants in dialogue;
and the seeking of a fusion (Ellis 2004).
5)
Analytic Autoethnography – this refers to ethnographic work in which the
researcher is a full member in the research group or setting, visible as such
in the researcher’s published texts, and committed to an analytic research
agenda focused on improving theoretical understandings of broader social
phenomena (Anderson 2006).
173
Contemporary Theories
6)
Critical Autoethnography – begins with an ethical responsibility to address
processes of unfairness or injustice within a particular lived domain.
This method of analysing culture through the self, however, is not free from
criticisms. Some of the criticisms refer to the use of intensive participant
observation, to the neglect of other research tools, in the undertaking of such a
research; and that in field selection the choice of a field location is often
determined by the researcher’s identity and group membership.
Reflection
Write an essay on a social incident from the past that has impacted you
greatly. Pay special attention to the context, the social actors involved,
how you felt and behaved, and how you feel looking back at it.
13.2.3
Team Ethnography
Have you ever played a team sport? When we look at the game of cricket or
football, we can understand the importance of all the players involved. Each
player has a role to play – in the former, the captain has to guide, the fielder’s
field, the batsman bats, the bowler bowls, the wicket keeper attempts to keep the
wicket etc. When a team wins, even though one or two players might have been
outstanding; it is taken as a team effort. If the whole team plays together according
to a plan, then the team wins. This is how team ethnography also works!
Ethnography is usually thought to be a solitary work, but much fieldwork and
eventual ethnography is team oriented. Ken Erickson and Donald Stull say:
“Teams are made up of players, and players have roles to play and jobs to do.
Roles must be defined, and players must accept and carry them out, no less in the
field than on the field” (1998: 61).
Team ethnography works in two ways – (a) a number of researchers work on a
project – each of whom have a defined role to play, and (b) collaborative research
in which the researched (i.e., subjects/ informants) are co-researchers or copartners or research participants in the conduct and writing of an ethnography.
The traditional ethnographer was a lone researcher. Today from single researchers,
there is a shift to multiple researchers – especially in the study of not one, but
multiple sites. These researchers could be co-workers from the same research
areas, or from different disciplines making it an inter-disciplinary work, or across
countries making the study a global ethnography. In such a research, there is
more than one researcher engaged in research and in writing about them.
The composition of a team (in team ethnography) and their roles were defined
by Diane Austin (2003) as follows:
174
1)
Resident ethnographers, non-resident ethnographers and teachers can
comprise the team,
2)
One lead researcher is responsible for the overall study and meeting the
needs of the sponsor and community, and another is dedicated to ensuring
that key aspects of knowledge methodology are followed and teachers’ needs
are met,
3)
Integration of non-resident researchers as a means to sharpen the team’s
focus on particular issues and include topics and populations that are revealed
during the study, and
4)
Clear expectations, boundaries, and job demarcation of all researchers.
New Ethnography and
Contemporary Changes
It is clear that in such a team effort, there will be several advantages and
disadvantages. The advantages include: (a) Ability to collect focused data in
several settings simultaneously within a short time-span, and (b) Sharing of
experiences and interpretations between researchers contribute to a more holistic
understanding of the research topic. On the other hand, the disadvantages include:
(a) Epistemological and methodological differences of team members could lead
to unending arguments, (b) Representation of diverse voices in the research
process, such as caste, gender, politics etc. could lead to badly constructed
ethnography, and (c) Conflicting roles as evaluators and critical researchers.
Therefore, though the multiple layers of collaboration can lead to greater
understanding through multiple meanings and through multiple layers of
cooperation; it could also lead to greater fragmentation, uncertainty, and chaos.
The second type of team ethnography refers to collaborative ethnography.
Collaboration in ethnography is neither new nor noteworthy in and of itself,
although what constitutes collaboration and indeed ethnography is subject to
debate (Mills and Ratcliffe 2012). To collaborate means, literally, to work together,
especially in an intellectual effort. While collaboration is central to the practice
of ethnography, realising a more deliberate and explicit collaborative ethnography
implies resituating collaborative practice at every stage of the ethnographic
process, from fieldwork to writing and back again (Lassiter 2005).
Collaborative ethnography highlights and focuses on collaboration specifically
between ethnographers and research participants. People who give information
are no longer called ‘informants’, rather they are now referred to as ‘research
participants’. This type of ethnography seeks to make collaboration an explicit
and deliberate part of not only fieldwork but also part of the writing process
itself. Community collaborators thus become a central part of the construction
of ethnographic texts, which shifts their role from ‘informants’ (who merely inform
the knowledge on which ethnographies are based), to ‘consultants’ (who cointerpret knowledge and its representation along with the ethnographer).
Historians of anthropology have elaborated a number of important collaborations
between ethnographers and their consultants in the discipline’s developmental
years – collaborations that built upon and extended the collaborative requisite of
fieldwork into the collaborative writing of ethnographic texts. American
anthropologist Franz Boas and George Hunt collaborated on The Social
Organization and the Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians (1897). This portrait
of a Native North American society was the result of Boas’ fieldwork among the
Kwakwa1ka1’wakw of British Columbia and a collaboration with his indigenous
research partner, George Hunt. Drawing on a Kwakwa1ka1’wakw metaphor,
Boas imagined his book as a storage box for ‘laws and stories’, preserving them
for science in case the culture vanished under colonial impact.
However, today, collaboration is stressed upon in researches undertaken by
Universities and Institutes. This has emerged due to issues of ethical concerns
and the need of giving credit to cultural informants who do much more than
merely provide information.
175
Contemporary Theories
Reflection
Confessional tales – These refer to the researcher’s true story or
confessions of how he/ she felt in the field, how he/she reacted to
situations, and how he/ she behaved. This is in opposition to the earlier
style of ethnography that was a formal, edited and impersonal account
of people and their cultures.
Emic – Opposed to an etic stance, an emic view refers to the insider’s
view, i.e., how a culture is looked at meaningfully from the perspective
of a person within that culture.
Global ethnography – Also referred to as multi-sited ethnography,
this refers to a research that is conducted across two or more countries.
These studies could relate to migration, Diaspora, global phenomena
etc.
Key informant – Key informants are people with specialist knowledge
who are consulted by researchers on a particular topic frequently.
Sometimes they are also consulted to check the reliability of data
collected from other sources.
Memoir – This is a historical or biographical account written from
personal knowledge.
Participant observation – This is a qualitative research method in
which the researcher not only observes the people under study, but
also actively engages in the activities of the people he/she is studying.
13.2.4
Dialogical Ethnography
What is a dialogue? Dialogue comes from the Greek dialogos. Dia in ‘dialogue’
refers to ‘across’ or ‘through’. It refers to a written or spoken conversational
exchange between two or more people. But what does dialogical ethnography
refer to? Does it refer to dialogues that take place between two or more people in
the field? How can dialogues be made into ethnography?
In traditional ethnography, there are records of dialogues among natives, dialogues
between fieldworkers and natives, and dialogues among returned fieldworkers.
Anthropology has always been about dialogues between researchers and natives,
but when we come back from the field and write about them, we do not let the
natives speak. We mute them, and we speak instead. When we insert brief
quotations, we do it as a means to support what we have written about, or theorised;
and even in doing so, we use abridged versions, or what we think they said or
meant. In confessional tales, which spearheaded the reflexivity movement, the
dialogue is internal – the ethnographer has the dialogue with himself or herself.
In the much quotedTristes Tropiques by Levi-Strauss (1955), not a single Brazilian
Indian ever utters so much as one complete sentence, not even with the help of
an interpreter. Conversations may be summarized or conclusions drawn, but they
were not often quoted.
176
The need for the voice of the ‘informants’ who was providing the information
and who in many instances were helping in decoding their culture, was strongly
felt in anthropology. In 1957, Paul Radin called for a more directly dialogical
approach citing two examples that were already published. One was a brief
dialogue between J. R. Walker and Finger, a priest of the Oglala Sioux religion
published in 1917. The other was a book-length dialogue between Marcel Griaule
and Ogotemelli a priest of the Dogon religion which appeared in 1948. Thus, if
we are look for pioneers in the area of dialogical ethnography, we can cite the
names of J. R. Walker, Finger, Marcel Griaule and Ogotemelli. This is also an
example of collaborative ethnography.
New Ethnography and
Contemporary Changes
Important works in this genre include:
Tuhami: Portrait of a Moroccan by Vincent Crapanzano (2013)
Moroccan Dialogues: Anthropology in Question by Kevin Dwyer and Faqir
Muhammad (1987)
The Dialogic Emergence of Culture by Dennis Tedlock and Bruce Mannheim
(1995)
There is a lot of variability in these authors’ approach, but in general each of
them were interested in the personal encounter of the anthropologist and the
‘informant’ and in examining how that encounter serves as the origin of the
material that would later be smoothed in to what would later be a seamless
ethnography (Golub 2016).
So how does dialogical ethnography differ from traditional ethnography?
1)
A dialogue is a speech between two people who are in some way opposed,
and a written ethnography (or a monograph) is a text that stands alone.
2)
Dialogue is agonistic, live and dramatic; while the other is pictorial, static
and authoritative (Crapanzano1990).
However, like all genres of new ethnography, this is also not free from problems.
One of the biggest issues is connected to the collaboration itself with the local or
native informant: (a) If collaborations are to be based through the medium of the
written word, research participants may not be equipped with the levels of literacy
required to represent their own experiences and reflections faithfully through
text, (b) How representative any accounts of a particular community or groups
of people are, will always be open to question, (c) A dialogical approach may
only be practical with a relatively small number of people, (d) Selection of
participants for such a dialogic ethnography is not only difficult but burdened
with bias.
The second challenge in such an approach is the actual dialogical process itself:
(a) How to go about the dialogue? (b) How many sittings will be required for the
dialogue? (c) How and in what manner to introduce the topic of interest? (d)
What to do if the participant does not talk or digresses from the topic of interest?
A third challenge concerns its appropriateness. As mentioned, working in this
way is not necessarily suitable or desirable in all cases. Though clearly researchers
and those involved in these projects may have different life projects, motivations,
worldviews and so forth, these products or encounters show that there is also
room for at least a partial overlap or a willingness to work together. Were such
willingness not to be found, it would not be possible or desirable to pursue such
an endeavour. What is important from these dialogues is the sense of mutual
learning and respect, and how through embodying different ‘projects’ (of
worldview, ethics, epistemology, ontology) the participants in many ways learn
about how much they share in common (Butler 2013).
177
Contemporary Theories
Check Your Progress 2
4) List the types of new ethnographies.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
5) Explain reflexivity.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
6) What is autoethnography?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
7) What should be the composition of a ‘team’ in team ethnography as given
by Austin.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
8) What is dialogical ethnography?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
9) List two works each in the genre of a. reflexive ethnography, b. auto
ethnography, c. team ethnography and d. dialogical ethnography.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
178
13.3
SUMMARY
New Ethnography and
Contemporary Changes
As we have seen in the foregoing sections, New Ethnography emerged as a protest
against the big-brotherly attitude of ‘Western anthropologists’ having an
androcentric view. What was earlier glorified for its positivist stance, ethnography
now was seen to be a monologue, untrue, and edited versions of the real story. It
also became clear that in doing and writing ethnographies there were multiple
voices, multiple identities and multiple actors – all of which needed to be given
space. This included not only the natives being studied, but also the ethnographer
himself/ herself, and his/ her own positionality and life experiences both in and
off the field. All these gave rise to reflexive ethnography and autoethnography.
The emergent issues of ethics and channels of trying to be ethical in the field and
while writing about a people gave rise to other genres of new ethnography – that
of team or collaborative ethnography and dialogical ethnography. Despite
criticisms of subjectivity and biasness levelled against new ethnography, it cannot
be denied that newer forms of representation has only enriched the discipline
and given voice to the once voiceless.
13.4
REFERENCES
Anderson, L. 2006. ‘Analytic autoethnography’. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 35(4): 373-395.
Austin, D. E. 2003. ‘Community-based collaborative team ethnography’. Human
Organization, 62(2): 143-152.
Boylorn, R. M and M. P. Orbe. 2014. Critical Autoethnography: Intersecting
Cultural Identities in Everyday Life. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Butler, U. M. 2013. ‘Notes on a Dialogical Anthropology’. In Sam Beck and
Carl A. Maida (eds.), Toward Engaged Anthropology. Berghahn Books, 99-117.
Crapanzano, V. 1990. ‘On Dialogue’. In TullioMaranhao (ed.), The Interpretation
of Dialogue. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press, 269-91.
Denzin, N. K. 1997. Interpretive Ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ellis, C. 2004. The Ethnographic I: A Methodological Novel about
Autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Erikson, K. C and D. D. Stull. 1998. Doing Team Ethnography: Warnings and
Advice. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage publications.
Golub, A. 2016. ‘Dialogical anthropology in an age of controlled equivocation’.
Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology. https://savageminds.org/2016/
09/17/dialogical-anthropology-in-an-age-of-controlled-equivocation/. DOA: 17/
6/2019.
Hayano, D. 1979. ‘Auto-ethnography: Paradigms, problems, and prospects’.
Human Organization, 38:99-104.
Lassiter, L. E. 2005. ‘Collaborative ethnography and public anthropology’.
Current Anthropology, 46(1): 86-106.
Marcus, G. E. 1998. Ethnography through Thick and Thin. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press.
179
Contemporary Theories
Mills, D and R. Ratcliffe. 2012. ‘After Method? Ethnography in the knowledge
economy’. Qualitative Research, 12(2): 147-64.
Nazaruk, M. 2011. ‘Reflexivity in anthropological discourse analysis’.
Anthropological Notebooks, 17(1): 73-83.
13.5
180
ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
1)
See section 13.0 para 1, 2, 3
2)
See section 13.1
3)
See section 13.1
4)
See section 13.0 para 4 and section 13.2
5)
See section 13.2.1
6)
See section 13.2.2
7)
See section 13.2.3 para 5
8)
See section 13.2.4
9)
See section 13.2