CLASSICAL-PERSPECTIVES-IN-CULTURAL-ANTHROPOLOGY-English-munotes

Page 1

1 1

EUROPEAN MODERNITY,
COLONIALISM AND ANTHROPOLOGY
AND ITS SUB DISCIPLINES

Unit Structure
1.0 Objectives
1.1 European Modernity
1.1.1 Meaning of Modernity
1.1.1 History
1.1.1 Modernity and social change
1.1.4 Sociolog ists view on modernity
1.2 Colonial Anthropology
1.2.1 Understanding Colonization
1.2.2 Literature produced
1.2.3 Problems with their work
1.3 Anthropology and its sub disciplines
1.3.1 Understanding Anthropology
1.3.2 Origin of Anthropology
1.3.3 Key scholars and schools.
1.3.4 Physical Anthropology subdivisions
1.3.5 Cultural Anthropology subdivisions
1.3.6 Perspective in Anthropology
1.3.7 Research Methodology in Anthropology
1.4 Summary
1.5 Unit End Questions
1.6 References and Future Reading s

1.0 OBJECTIVES
 To explore the development of different Schools of Sociology in
India.
 To learn about the historical development of Bombay School
 To learn about the different approaches followed in Indian
Sociology.

1.1 EUROPEAN MODERNITY Sociologists have dealt with Modernity as a subject more than
Anthropologists. As Sociologists often are associated with the study of
industrial society where as Anthropologists often study the simple munotes.in

Page 2

2
societies. The reason for sociologists to be more interested about
modernity or its consequences lies within the inception of the subject
itself. Sociology developed from the background of French revolution,
industrialization etc. To use Auguste Comte’s words, Sociology was
advanced to understand an d develop laws of the social phenomena 1(1).
On the other hand Anthropology was established with the background of
curiosity, understanding of religion, culture and evolution of human being.
Though in the later period Anthropology has evolved far from the
observing traditional societies to study a larger group and using news
methods and areas like visual anthropology, visual ethnography etc.

1.1.1 Meaning of Modernity:

Modernity can be seen as phenomena with several characteristics.
It is a distinctive constellation of intellectual tendencies, including the
propensity to subject established norms and practices to critical reflection,
to seek physical causes for disease, to believe both in universal human
rights and in cultural specificity, and to affirm oneself as an individual
even while lamenting the lack of community. The condition of modernity
also refers to a set of institutional structures, including popular elections,
rule by law, secular bureaucracy, an independent judiciary and free press,
public education, capitali sm, and monogamous marriage (3).

1.1.2 History:

Modern societies began to emerge in Europe from about 15th
century. However, the clear formation of modernity can be said after the
enlightenment period. Enlightenment was described as the age of reason,
science, progress. Before modernity came in the west, there was
renaissance followed by enlightenment. Both th ese movements were based
for a fight for social justice and development. The importance given to the
religious pra ctices, monarch and feudalism had declined. Modernization
came with the processes of urbanization and industrialization. Modernity
took over t wo centuries to develop.

Check Your Progress
1. List out few historical factors which led to the Modernity in Europe?
2. Discuss the meaning of Modernity? 1 Comte’s sense, meant abandoning absolute for relative truth, and the search for the real
nature or cause of things, in favour of discovering laws, defined as predictable regularities
in the behaviour of observable phenomena. munotes.in

Page 3

3
1.1.3 Modernity and Social change:

Modernity in the West in the first half of the 20th century meant
new formats for new thoughts —innovative ways of writing and thinking,
new fields of inquiry, the infusion of women into historically male -
dominated workforces, the emergence of new art forms (e.g., jazz and
silent film), and the development of new products and technologies. The
rationalization of processes led to schemes such as the intensification of
the division of labour , which improved work efficiency and provided work
opportunities for semiskilled individuals. Ford’s manufacturing system
greatly influenced the modern economy. Likewise,
technological innovations such as the telegraph and the advent of
photography also altered modes of inhabiting environments and daily
living for entire populations. Some scholars even go so far as to locate
modernity with the advent of the printing press and the mass circulation of
print information that brought about expanded literacy in a middle class
during the 15th century (9 ). Modernity is also associated with several
fields , processes like Industrialization and urbanisation, Development,
Democracy, Capitalism, Superiority of power, free market and optimism.
The search for the knowledge in science, technology, society and politics
and Rationality (2).

1.1.4 Sociologists view on Modernity :

Marx, Durkheim, Weber witnessed the consequence of modernity
but all of them viewed it differently. For Marx modernity was a process of
industrialization in terms of production relations. According to Durkheim
modernity creates differen tiation in society. This differentiation would
help the mechanical society to transform into organic society. In other
words for Marx Modernity was commodification. For Weber it was
rationality and for Durkheim it was differentiation and stratification for
Simmel it was city life and money economy which created change in
human behaviour . Today modernity, has become a global phenomenon
and has developed some parts of the world while has developed in equali ty
in others (2).

1.2 COLONIAL ANTHROPOLOGY
1.2.1 Understanding Colonization:

The oxford dictionary defines colonization as ‘ the act of taking
control of an area or a country that is not your own, especially using force,
and sending people from your own country to live there ’ (6). Colonization
can be sai d where people from specific races started to travel to other
countries. Thereafter they started ruling the other civilizations. They
exploited the natural resources, human too. This started around the 15th
century whereby people from Europe, Britain, Port uguese started
controlling the native inhabitants of Asian and African countries.
munotes.in

Page 4

4
1.2.2 Literature produced :

Colonizers had deep interest in the countries in which they
colonised. Colonizers encouraged research, writing monographs,
translation works and even sponsored scholars to a large extent. This was
done to understand the local customs, traditions, norms etc. so that it
would help them to rule the country which they made as colonies.
Secondly, to understand one’s own past as the ancient traditions,
civilization gives answers to problems of the modern world. This interest
where the Whites study the colonies continues ev en today. Even today
several scholars continue to study India and there are departments outside
the country which still produces a body of literature about India. For e.g.
South Asian Studies in Heidelberg.

1.2.3 Problems with their work :

One of the pio neering works where a researcher W.H. Whyte from
west studies about western world is that of ‘Street corner society’. Several
colonial writings about people from different parts of the world have some
form of euro centrism in their work. The proximity be tween those who are
researched and researcher is always seen in the work. In a way it was
studying the ‘other’. However, with times language too has changed. For
e.g. In the old texts like that of the father of Anthropology E.B. Tylor uses
the w ord ‘Primitive’ in his book titled ‘Primitive culture’ but now this
term is replaced with indigenous. Though it cannot be denied that
colonizers have contributed in creating a large amount scholarly work both
from the first hand field experience or as an A rm chair anthropologist. The
impact of colonial anthropology though can be still seen from the amount
of western theories which we still continue to use while studying the
subject.


Lewis points out that Anthropology emerged from the colonial
expansion of Europe. Colonialism structured the relationship between
anthropologists and non -Western peoples in the past. Fieldworkers
conducted their studies as a form of privilege as a dominant group. This
had a deep effect on the methodological and conceptual formulations in
the discipline. For example, the role of "objective outsider" resulted in
professional exploitation of subject matter which can be seen as an
academic manifestation of colo nialism . Hence, the biases in the
literature produced by colonizers needs deeper examination. In some way,
Anthropology and colonial racism can be seen as era of violence. In this
context, the advantages of a "native anthropology" are examined as one
possi ble alternative. Native should be encouraged, trained to conduct
research (Lewis, 1973) .






Check Your Progress
1. Write a note on the Sociologists view on Modernity? munotes.in

Page 5

5

2. Discuss in few lines what were the problems with work produced by
Colonizers??

1.3 ANTHROPOLOGY AND ITS SUB DISCIPLINES
Human bein gs have been always curious. This curiosity has led to
progress and search . Several disciplines have emerged out to understand
the human beings and its creation. For e.g. P olitical science which studies
power, politics; history which study’s past; economics which focuses on
demand, supply market etc. but all these disciplines study a specific area
connected to human beings. Anthropology on the other hand studies
human being f rom its origin to present form . In other words, it studies
human beings in its totality. This makes this Anthropology stand out
completely from other disciplines.

1.3.1 Understanding Anthropology:

Anthropology is the systematic study , science of nature of human
beings. The term is derived from two Greek words - anthropos which
means human and logos which means thought, reason and study.
Anthropology often studies simple societies. The subject of anthropology
ranges from tribal studies to langua ges, folklore; social behavior and even
physical structure of human beings (11). Anthropologists investigate the
whole range of human development and behavior, including biological
variation, geographic distribution, evolutionary history, cultural history
and social relationships (10). Hence it is can be called as the science of
humanity.

1.3.2 Origin:

The G reeks and the Romans can be said to have laid the foundation
of anthropolo gy. T hey also have developed other disciplines like eth ics
aesthetics; logic history. T he origin of anthropology can be seen as
associated with the growth of the civilization of Europe and Middle East.
The earliest statement of anthropology was made by Xenophanes in the
fifth century BC. He was a Greek philosopher who believ e that society
was created by human beings themselves. Another important person who
had contributed to anthropology is Herodotus. He described the lifestyle of
about home he visited during his Travels he discussed the physical
characteristics and language.
munotes.in

Page 6

6
Three sets of people who wrote about people from different parts
of the world w ere traders , missionar ies; travellers. They recorded the
differences of the o ther culture that travel accounts is also so and
important document for the anthropologist. The writings however cannot
be seen as anthropological work purely but to some extent it has been
used.

The background of the development of the discipline were also
several traditions like enlightenment , French revolution, the idea of
progress and the development of natural science. In other words the
scientific and technological revolutions had begun in the Europe in the
18th century which focus o n achievement wa s towards individualism.

1.3.3 Key scholars and schools :

In the second half of the nineteenth century anthropology became a
separate discipline. The colonizers who visited and other countries very
curious about the indigenous cultures. They started to collect data
regarding Technology language kinship religious practices of the other
culture in in which they visited. They also sponsored several scholars.

The first B ritish anthropologist was E W T ylor 1832 -1917. He in
his book primitive cu lture discuss about the religious beliefs and culture of
different society she was an. He was an evolutionist. There were also
another an thropologist Scholars like Tylo r, Morgan who developed
universal patterns of development of culture. These anthropologists w ere
arm chair (referred books and came to conclusion) as well as they used the
comparative method for or observing the culture of different societies.

Evolutionary theor y was criticized by the diffusionist and
functional school of thought which developed in the twentieth century. the
definition is to believe that culture diffused from one place to another
through migration extra the func tionalist there are more focused on
observing the functions of the society than the historical nature of it the
functionalist an thropology emphasized the concept of social system.

Check Your Progress
1. List out the few dominant schools in Anthropology ?

2.According to you what is Anthropologists key areas of study? munotes.in

Page 7

7

There are two disciplines within anthropology. T he first one is called as
Physical anthropology and the second one is ca lled as C ultural
anthropology.

Classification of Anthropology


Physical Anthropology Cultural Anthropology

Human Genetics Pre historic Archaeology
Palaeontology Folklore
Ethnology Ethno linguistics
Anthropometry Applied Anthropology
Biometry Inter disciplinary areas

1.3.4 Physi cal anthropology sub divisions:

1. Human Genetics : This field studies the genesis of man, human
heredity. It looks into the physical characteristics that are transmitted
from one generation to another through heredity. This field studies the
old human skeletons of different stages. It also looks into the history of
earth evolution. For e.g. It studies fossil humans.
2. Ethnology : This field looks into the races and cultures of mankind and
compares it from one society to another. It classifies human races and
studies their physical characteristics. Ethnology is based upo n
anthropometry, biometrics as both measure racial characteristics.
3. Anthropometry : This field measures observes as well as measures
human beings. It looks into the physical structures of living human
beings as well as human fossils. For e.g. Length of nose, hair breadth
of head, texture of skin, eyes, hair etc.
4. Biometry : Biometry is the statistical study of biological aspect of
human beings like di sease, birth, growth death etc. (2).

In other words, as the name studies physical anthropology looks
into the physical characteristics of human beings both past and present. In
the Bombay School of sociology, we study more of cultural anthropology.
If you were studying at medicine then that would be a subject of physical
anthropology. Several universities have a separate department of
Anthropology but in our University we have i t together. So, let us now
look into the Cultural Anthropology sub divisions .

1.3.5 Cultural Anthropology sub divisions :

1. Prehistory and Archaeology : Prehistoric studies refers to the
study of human beings, a period of human history before written records munotes.in

Page 8

8
existed. Archeology focuses on reconstructing, describes the human
behavior and cultural patterns through the material remains.

2. Folklore : Folklore focuses on the oral traditions narrated among people.
It could be proverbs, stories, myths, rituals, customs or any other form of
expressions like art forms. Understanding and recording these symbols are
very important to understand the timeline of growth of culture itself.

3. Ethno linguistics : Linguistic Anthropologists study language in its
social and cultural cont ext, in space and through time (4).

4. Applied Anthropology : Uses knowledge to identify, assess and solve
practical problems. It focuses on application, implications. For e.g.
Applied medical anthropology considers the sociocultural context and
implication of a disease. Development funds are often wasted if an
anthropologist is not asked to identity local needs, demands, priorities and
constraints (4).

5. Interdisciplinary areas : There are several sub disciplines or inter
disciplines like Urban Anthropology, Economic Anthropology, Medical
Anthropology, Psychological Anthropology, Anthropology of Religion,
Political Anthropology, Ecological Anthropology etc.

Check Your Progress
1. Write in brief about two sub disciplines of Physical Anthropology?

2. Write in brief about two sub disciplines of Cultural Anthropology?

1.3.6 Perspectives in Anthropology :

Two important dimensions through which Anthropology studies is
comparison and holistic perspective. Comparison here refers to comparing
one society with another. For e.g. New York being compared with
Mumbai and drawing out certain common features or differ ences like both
are metropolitan cities, over populated, fast moving economy etc. Holistic
perspective refers to whereby the problem or community which is being
studied is seen from its origin to the present form.


munotes.in

Page 9

9
1.3.7 Research methods i n Anthropology:

At the heart of anthropology is the field work tradition. Field work
means where by the researcher him / herself visits the community under
study and then records its practices and then comes to conclusions. The
two-research method very popular in anthrop ology is that of Participant
observation and that of Ethnography. In participant observation the
researcher becomes a part of the event under study and then makes his
notes and completes his work. For e.g. The researcher participates in a
marriage of a par ticular tribal group like Warli and then records its rituals
etc.

In Ethnography the researcher stays at a village/ tribal area for
around a year and then observes its day to day practices and then records
those observation and then publishes or submits his work.

1.4 SUMMARY
Thus, i n this chapter we observed the European modernity which
was an off shoot of French revolution, science, enlightenment period. We
also looked into the problems of colonial anthropology like distance
between the researched and researcher which is hierarchical. T his chapter
also gave an introduction to the field of anthropology, its sub branches like
Physical anthropology and Cultural Anthropology. We also looked into
what are the two perspectives through anthropology is studied i.e.
Comparative and Holistic. The research methods popularly used for
studying Anthropology i.e. Fieldwork – Participant observation ,
Ethnography. In the forthcoming chapters we would look into the different
pioneering theories connected to Anthropology.

1.5 UNIT END QUESTIONS
1. Explain the concept of Modernity. Elaborate on sociologist view of
modernity.
2. Explain the concept of colonial Anthropology.
3. What is Anthropology? Explain its link with other disciplines.
4. Explain the role of Research Methodology in Anthropology?

1.6 REFERENCES AND FUTURE READI NGS
1. Andrew Wernick (2016). Auguste Comte
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo -
780199756384/obo -9780199756384 -0163.xml
2. Doshi, S. L. (2003). Modernity, postmodernity and neo -sociological
theories . Rawat publications. munotes.in

Page 10

10
3. Goodin, R., & Bennett, J. (2011 -07-07). Modernity and its Critic s. In
The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. : Oxford University Press.
from
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/97801996
04456.001.0001/oxfordhb -9780199604456 -e-006.
4. Kottak, C. P. (1997). Anthropology: The exploration of human
diversit y. McGraw -Hill.
5. Lewis, D. (1973). Anthropology and Colonialism. Current
Anthropology, 14(5), 581 -602.
6. oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/colonization
7. Ritzer, G., & Stepnisky, J. (2017). Modern sociological theory . Sage
publications.
8. Sharma, R. N., & Sharma, R. K. (1997 ). Anthropology . Atlantic
Publishers, New Delhi.
9. https://www.britannica.com/topic/modernity
10. https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/anthropology/272896
11. https://www.britannica.com/science/anthropology



*****
munotes.in

Page 11

11
2

CLAIMS TO HOLISM, THE
COMPARATIVE METHOD AND THE
ORIGIN OF FIELD WORK, DEBATES IN
CLASSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

Unit Structure
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Chapter framework
2.2 Introduction to holism
2.2.1 Origin
2.3 Comparative method
2.4 Fieldwork meaning
2.4.1 Origin
2.5 Debates in Classical Anthropology
2.6 Summary
2.7 Unit End Questions
2.8 References and Future Reading s

2.0 OBJECTIVES
 To explore the development of different Schools of Sociology in
India.
 To learn about the historical development of Bombay School
 To learn about the different approaches followed in Indian
Sociology.

2.1 CHAPTER FRAMEWORK
In this chapter we would look into these topics. Firstly, Holism
which is looking the subjects from all perspective to get a complete
picture. Second section talks about how comparative method helps in
founding out the common grounds of different society. The third
section talks about the fieldwork tradition its meaning and its origin.
The last section d iscusses the classical debates in anthropology about
culture, origin through the theories.

2.2 INTRODUCTION
Every discipline grows with time, depending upon the need of
the hour. In terms of Anthropology too such things happened. Several
concepts have emerged; since its inception and has became a part of
the subject. On e such concept is that of holism or holistic perspective.
munotes.in

Page 12

12
The holistic perspective looks human beings from all
perspectives. It stresses the interrelationships among different aspects
of life and emphasis that every cultur e has to understood not only in its
local manifestation (context) but also from the global context or wider
perspective i.

2.2.1 Origin :

The term holism is associated with South African Statesman
Jan Christian Smuts (Harrington 1966: xxii; Smuts (1999) in the early
1920s. Before the use of this word the earlier anthropologists used
words like ‘complex whole’, the whole phenomenon’ ‘collective
representations’. There is no clear definition of holism as such. Nanda
and Warms ( 2009: 6) states that Anthropologists have been using this
since long time. In other words anthropology combines the study of
human biology, history, and several other disciplines. This is one of the
most unique feature too which separates anthropology from other
subjects which focus on only one aspect of human group. In other
words, holism provides holistic view of humanity, it provides a
vantage view point. The methods associated with holism perspective is
that of ethnography, fieldwork, participant observation. To understand
certain society at times we also have to give importance on the context
of the study. In a way it would help to makin g it more meaningful,
cultural and functional . This would even help to understand and
compare societies. Holism is like camera which allows to capture
“whole bodies, whole interactions, and whole people in whole acts
(Heider 2006: 6)ii

Check y our Progress
1. List out the points related to your understanding of Holism in
Anthropology?

2. Discuss the origin of holism?

2.3 COMPARATIVE METHOD
The basic operation in the comparative method is an
arrangement of social or cultural conditions observed among existing
peoples into a series that is then taken to represent a process of
evolutioniii.

The Com parative method was born in 1888 in a paper by
Edward Burnett Tylor which he delivered to the Royal munotes.in

Page 13

13
Anthropological Institute. It was developed out of the concern towards
Anthropological methods. To quote his words,
“For years past it has become evident that the great need of
anthropology is that its methods should be strengthened and
systematized.... Strict method has, however, as yet only been
introduced over part of the anthropological field. There has still to be
overcome a certain not unkindly hesita ncy on the part of men engaged
in the precise operations of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology,
to admit that the problems of anthropology are amenable to scientific
treatment.”

Tylor argued from a sample of 350 societies that the evolution
of cult ural complexity leads from matrilineal to patrilineal
institutionsiv.

In the book ‘The Methodology of Anthropological
Comparison ’, Sarana (1975) talks about three types of comparative
method - global sample comparison, controlled comparison a nd
illustrative comparison. Anthropologist when he makes a comparative
study, he/she makes three levels of comparison. 1. Comparison of a
single society with other societies. 2. He compares two institutions of a
society with similar institution of other so cieties. 3. He compares the
institutions within single society. Several Indian Anthropologists have
been using comparative method too like Karve, N.K. Bose, Srinivas
etc.

The compar ative method has two dimensions:
1. Synchronic : here the data is seen from a given point of time in a
society i.e. Past is not given much importance. This approach was
used by functionalists like Malinowski, Radcliffe Brown.
2. Diachronic : Observes society as they change through time in a
specific geographical location. In this appr oach historical
dimension is used, whereby old traditions, folklore is given lot
importance to build the past. Diachronic approach is important to
reconstruct the origin of mankind and his culture.

There is also cross cultural comparative perspective - A
scientific approach in Anthropology which tries to find out the
regularities, patterns, generalizations, rules or laws which deals with
human and social behaviour. The aim is to make macro analysis and
making generalizing things (Robben, Sluka, 2012) i.

Hammel, ( 1980) notes that by using comparative method Tylor
thought of comparing nineteenth century and trace the history. The
comparative method was initially used by the arm chair
anthropologists. They tried to look into the parallels, similarity in
different societies both in past and present. Till 19th century majority of
comparative studies were based on secondary source s. Comparison
method works on the basic idea of availability of basic notes and
documents. Historians have been using archival materia ls since long.
The early implementation of comparative method was accepted to
draw human behaviour and the function and conclusions about munotes.in

Page 14

14
historical development. He also points out that Reliable comparisons
cannot be made between data sets that are not gov erned by similar
theoretical intent, techniques of collection and types of classification.
So, following this method is difficult even with computation and
technological developmentv.

Boas (1896) on the other hand in his paper writes the problems
with comparative method . We have in this method a means of
reconstructing the history of growth of ideas with much greater
accuracy than the generalization of the comparative method will
permit. Boas also points out the processes of growth of small
geographical areas should also be made rather than just comparing
societies. Comparative method according to him won’t be successful
until we renounce the endeavour to make uniform history of evolution
of culturevi.

Through comparative method anthropologists try to d evelop the
past and learn about the laws of the social processes. It also helps to
make classification of the categories like caste, class and groups.

Check Your Progress
1. Write in brief about comparative method?

2. Discuss the Diachronic and Synchronic concepts

2.4 FIELDWORK MEANING
Powdermarker (1969) notes that fieldwork is the study of
people and of their culture in their natural habitat. Anthropological
fieldwork has been carried through the investigator who participated
and observed the society. The aim was to get an insider view of the
people and get an holistic perspective. Malinowksi’s study of
Trobriand Islanders, he stayed with peop le for almost three years. In
short fieldwork is immersion in a tribal society - learning, speaking,
thinking, seeing, feeling and acting as a member of the culture and at
the same time being a trained anthropologists and recording the
observations.

Difference between social sciences and nature science in terms of
fieldworkvii Humanities – Fieldwork as an art form Science – Fieldwork as a scientific method Humanistic Scientific Qualitative Quantitative Subjective Objective munotes.in

Page 15

15
Participant (emic) Observer (etic) Postmodernism Positivism/empiricism
Figure 1. The above figure describes the difference between fieldwork
in anthropology and other natural science discipline. It also clearly
shows the methodological differences for the same.

Accordin g to Malinowski, the fieldwork can be categorized
into three ways. Firstly, the student must possess real scientific aims
and know the values and criteria of modern ethnography. Secondly, he
has to put himself in good conditions of work, i.e. to live witho ut white
men and live among the natives. Finally, he (she) has to apply a
number of special methods of collecting, manipulating, and fixing his
evidenceviii. Malinowski cannot be completely taken into consideration
as there is ethical issue here like he is vi ewing the researcher as only
male when he uses the letter ‘he’ and researcher cannot be black or
other racial colors (white men) however, let us take only the core
intention of his words which is to guide the investigators.

2.4.1 Origin :

The pioneers of Anthropology like James Frazer were arm
chair anthropologists. i.e. they drew their references based on existing
books written by travellers, explorers, merchants, scholars who had
travelled to remote place. Some of the scholars were also i nspired by
other thinkers from other disciplines like Charles Darwin. The first
school of anthropology the evolutionists were arm chair
anthropologists. After some time, t he American scholar named Franz
Boas insisted on understanding and studying a culture from its own
point of view. He gave the theory called Cultural Relativism which
states locating a culture in its own context. So, in order to understand
and record the context and observing the practices one has to go
through rigorous fieldwork. Franz als o inspired his students to carry
out fieldwork like Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict. With this fieldwork
developing the methodology of ethnography was also born.
Ethnography is a methodology where the researcher resides in a place
for years and records everyd ay activities of the culture studied.

After Franz Boas, another renowned scholar named
Malinowski who belonged to the functionalism school insisted on
fieldwork in the place. He himself carried out fieldwork in different
places and published several book s.

Check Your Progress
1. Explain the origin of fieldwork tradition


munotes.in

Page 16

16
2. Discuss Powdermaker view of fieldwork?
2.5 DEBATES IN CLASSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
The science of anthropology developed as an outgrowth of
contemporary studies of the classification of human races; of the
comparative characteristics of human anatomy; of the history of human
settlements; of the classification of languages and the comparison of
grammars; of the comparison between primitive and ancient societies;
and of the historical development of man’s economy and industry.
Finally, about 1840, a principl e for the study of human facts was
proposed: the concept of evolution . This was even before Charles
Darwin had published his celebrated Origin of Species (1859). This
concept, arising in strong debates, provided the starting point for
anthropology.ix Anthropologists also enter the arena of theoreti cal
debate with far more than ‘data’. They come to it with a set of
intuitions, sensibilities and orientations that have been decisively
shaped by the field experiencex.

The debate in Anthropology start with understanding the origin
of culture and origin of human kind. Several theories have been
proposed for this. The first one to be proposed was that of
Evolutionists who formulated a uni -linear evolutionary theory.
According to this theory human being p assed through different stages
like barbaric, savagery, civilization. This theory was rejected by the
scholars from diffusionist school of German and British. The
diffusionists claimed that there are nine centers through which the
society moved and some s aw the origin from that of Egypt. This theory
was also rejected by the American Anthropologist Franz Boas. So, the
debates surrounds around understanding the origin of culture.

Check Your Progress
1. Explain the theoretical debate in Classical Anthropology?

2.6 SUMMARY
In this chapter we started with understanding the holistic
perspective which is looking a subject from multiple angles to get an
overall picture. The next topic is that of comparative method which
discusses that comparison should be made to understand patt erns,
commonalities. The third topic is that of fieldwork which talks about
the tradition of anthropologist who reside in villages and study subjects
for long duration. The last topic dealt with locating the theoretical munotes.in

Page 17

17
debates in the anthropology with ori gin, development and the different
theories.

2.7 UNIT END QUESTIONS
1. What is meant by holism? Explain its origin?
2. Explain Comparative Method
3. Explain fieldwork and its origin.
4. What is Anthropology? Explain debates in Anthropology.

2.8 REFERENCES AND FUTURE READINGS
 Robben, A. C., & Sluka, J. A. (Eds.). (2012). Ethnographic fieldwork: An
anthropological reader (Vol. 23). John Wiley & Sons.
 Bubandt, N., & Otto, T. (2010). Anthropology and the predicaments of
holism. Experiments in holism: theory and practice in contemporary
anthropology , 1-17.
 Bock, K. (1966). The Comparative Method of
Anthropology. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 8(3), 269 -
280. doi:10.1017/S0010417500004072
 Jorgensen, J. (1979). Cross -Cultural Comparisons. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 8, 309 -331. Retrieved December 11, 2020, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155622
 Hammel, E. (1980). The Comparative Method in An thropological
Perspective. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 22(2), 145 -155.

 Boas, F. (1896). The Limitations of the Comparative Method of
Anthropology. Science, 4(103), 901 -908.
 Robben, A. C., Malinowski, B. (2007). Method and scope of
anthropological fieldwork. Ethnographic fieldwork: An anthropological
reader , 4 -25. https://www.britannica.com/science/cultural -
anthropology/Historical -development -of-cultural -anthropology

 https://www.britannica.com/science/cultural -anthropology/Historical -
development -of-cultural -anthropology

 Ingold, T. (Ed.). (1996). Key Debates in Anthropology. London:
Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203450956

 Barnard, A., & Spencer, J. (2010). Encyclopaedia of social and cultural
anthropology . pg. 146, Rout ledge .

 https://www.encyclopedia.com/social -sciences -and-law/anthropology -
and-archaeology/anthropology -terms -and-concepts/anthropology#K VI.
The Comparative Method in Anthropology Edmund R. Leach

***** munotes.in

Page 18

18
3

EVOLUTIONIST PERSPECTIVES ,
DIFFUSIONISM : THE KULTURKREIS
SCHOOL, BRITISH DIFFUSIONISM

Unit Structure
3.0 Objectives
3.1 Evolutionist Perspectives
3.1.1 Introduction
3.1.2 Definition
3.1.3 History of Cultural Evolution
3.1.4 Types/Faces of Evolution
3.1.5 Evolutionism of Tylor And Morgan
3.1.6 Conclusion
3.1.7 Critical Evaluation
3.1.8 Summary
3.1.9 Unit End Exercise
3.1.10 References
3.2 Diffusionism: The Kulturkreis School, British Diffusionists
3.2.1 Introduction
3.2.2 Definition
3.2.3 German School of Thought
3.2.4 British School of Thought
3.2.5 Cultural diffusion
3.2.6 Cultural Diffusion in Technology
3.2.7 Economics and Cultural Diffusion
3.2.8 Exchanging Ideas, Increasing Knowledge
3.3 Summar y
3.4 Unit End Questions
3.5 References and Future Reading s

3.0 OBJECTIVE S
 To comprehend the earlier theories of Anthropology
 To understand the social and cultural evolution
 To examine the significance of contribution of Tylor and Morgan to
Theory of Evolution
 To explain the concept of Diffusionism
 To know various theories of Diffussionism

munotes.in

Page 19

19
3.1 EVOLUTIONIST PERSPECTIVES
3.1.1 Introduction:

In anthropology, as in any discipline, there is a continual addition
and flow of ideas. Early evolutionism in the early years of anthropology,
Darwinism had a strong impact on theory. The prevailing view was that
culture generally develops (or evolves) in a uniform and progressive
manner, just as Darwin argued species did. It was thought that most
societies pass through the same series of stages, to arrive ultimately at a
common end. The sources of culture change were generally assumed to be
embedded within the culture from the beginning, and therefore the
ultimate course of development was thought Although Darwin’s idea of
evolution by natural selection was strongly challenged when first
published (particularly, as illustrated here, the idea that humans and
primates shared a common ancestor), it has withstood rigorous testing and
is the foundation of many anthropological theories.

3.1.2 Definition:

HERBERT SPENCER [1862] defined evolution as ‘a change from
an indefinite ,incoherent homogeneity to a defini te coherent heterogeneity,
through continuous differentiations and integrations’. Later he modifies
his definition to means that evolution need not begin with absolute
homogeneity or heterogeneity.

3.1.3 History of Cultural Evolution:

The most influential evolution school of 19th C was called
‘universal evolution’ associated with Tylor, Morgan and Spencer.
According to this approach, the whole human society was understood in
terms of a sequence of stages compromising of
1. First stage of hunting and gathering.
2. Development of agriculture.
3. Development of some form of govt. i.e. chiefdom, kingdoms and
primitive stages.
4. Finally the emergence of industrial culture.

The German scholar Klemn, made a compilation of customs to show
how man had passed through successive stages of ‘savagery’ a
‘tameness ’ to ‘freedom’ .

Auguste Comte has shown man advancing from ‘theological stage’
to ‘metaphysical stage’ to the ‘positive or scientific stage’.
Theorists like Montesquieu proposed an evolutionary scheme consisting
of three stages.
1. hunting or savagery. 2. herding or barbarism.
3. civilisation. munotes.in

Page 20

20
3.1.4 Types/Faces of Evonlution :
1. Unilinear Evolution
2. Universal Evolution
3. Multilinear Evolution
4. Differential Evolution

3.1.5 Evolutionism of Tylor And Morgan :

Two 19th-century anthropologists whose writings exemplified the
theory that culture generally evolves uniformly and progressively were
Edward B. Tylor (1832 –1917) and Lewis Henry Morgan (1818 –1881).

Contribution of Tylor :

Edward B. Tylor was an English scholar who was associate of
Darwin, Galton and other leading thinkers. He is often called as the ‘father
of ethnology’. his outstanding work, Primit ive Culture [1871]offered the
first full length explanation of evolutionary point of view. The
evolutionary view point may he appreciated by quoting Tylor [1871]

By simply placing [the European] nation at one end of the social
series and savage tribe at the other ,[and]arranging the rest of mankind
between these limits……..ethnographers are able to set up at least a rough
scale of civilization…….[representing] a transmition from the savage state
to our own.

As it is undeniable that human have existed in a state of savagery,
other portions in a state of barbarism, and still other portions in a state of
civilization, it seems equally so that these here distinct condit ions are
connected with each other in a sequence of progress.

Tylor maintained that culture evolved from the simple to the
complex and that all societies passed through three basic stages of
development: from savagery through barbarism to civilization .
“Progress ” was therefore possible for all. To account for cultural variation,
Tylor and other early evolutionists postulated that different contemporary
societies were at different stages of evolution. According to this view, the
“simpler” peoples of the day had not yet reached “higher” stages.

Tylor developed the theory of ‘animism ’. He believed ‘animism ’
to be a dominated form of religion among the simplest of primitive
society. Polythetic religion implying belief in many gods characteristic of
agricultur al societies and monotheistic religion[belief in one god]of the
most advanced societies.

Tylor believed there was a kind of psychic unity among all
peoples that explained parallel evolutionary sequences in different cultural
traditions. In other words, because of the basic similarities common to all munotes.in

Page 21

21
peoples, different societies often find the same solutions to the same
problems independentl y. But Tylor also noted that cultural traits may
spread from one society to another by simple diffusion —the borrowing by
one culture of a trait belonging to another as the result of contact between
the two.

Contribution of Morgan :

Another 19th-century proponent of uniform and progressive
cultural evolution was Lewis Henry Morgan . A lawyer in upstate New
York, Morgan became interested in the local Iroquois Indians and
defended their reservation in a land-grant case. In gratitude, the Iroquois
“adopted” Morgan. In his best-known work, Ancient Society, Morgan
postulated several sequences in the evolution of human culture. For
example, he speculated that the family evolved through six stages. Human
society began as a “horde living in promiscuity,” with no sexual
prohibitions and no real family structure. Next was a stage in which a
group of brothers was married to a group of sisters and brothersister
matings were permitted. In the third stage, group marriage was practiced,
but brothers and sisters were not allowed to mate. The fourth stage was
characterized by a loosely paired male and female who still lived with
other people. Then came the husband -dominant family, in which the
husband could have more than one wife simultaneously. Finally, the stage
of civilization was distinguished by the monogamous family, with just one
wife and one husband who were relatively equal in status.

Morgans scheme places a lower stage of savagery as involving the
‘infancy’ of man. Middle savagery starts with acquisition of a fish
subsistence and knowledge of the use of fire, upper savagery with the bow
and arrow, lower barbarism with domestication of animals, upper
barbarism with smelting iron and civilization.

Morgan, believed that there was no marriage in the earliest human
society, where people lived in animal -like promiscuity; then there emerged
group -marriages than polygamy [marriage of one man with more women]
and polyandry marriage of one woman with more than one man and
finally monogamy. Monogamy accor ding to him was the highly involved
form of marriage, characteristic of modern societies. As a matter of fact,
some of the simplest societies like the Andamanes have had monogamy
whereas polygamy has existed among the 60-called ‘civilized or advanced
socie ties.

However, Morgan’s postulated sequence for the evolution of the
family is not supported by the enormous amount of ethnographic data that
has been collected since his time. For example, no recent society generally
practices group marriage or allows brother -sister mating. (In the chapter
on marriage and the family, we discuss how recent cultures have varied in
regard to marriage customs.)
munotes.in

Page 22

22
3.1.6 Conclusion:

There are two main assumptions embedded in social evolutionism:
psychic unity and the superiority of Western cultures. Psychic unity is a
concept that suggests human minds share similar characteristics all over
the world. This means that all people and their societies will go through
the same process of development. The assumption of Wester n superiority
was not unusual for the time period. This assumption was deeply rooted in
European colonialism and based on the fact that Western societies had
more technologically sophisticated technology and a belief that
Christianity was the true religion .

3.1.7 Critical Evaluation :

The evolutionism of Tylor, Morgan, and others of the 19th century
is largely rejected today. For one thing, their theories cannot satisfactorily
account for cultural variation. The “psychic unity of mankind” or “germs
of thought” that were postulated to account for parallel evolution cannot
also account for cultural differences. Another weakness in the early
evolutionist theories is that they cannot explain why some societies have
regressed or even become extinct. Finally, although other societies may
have progressed to “civilization,” some of them have not passed through
all the stages. Thus, early evolutionist theory cannot explain the details of
cultural evolution and variation as anthropology now knows them.

All evolut ionary theories reflect the meaning of human history,
growth and progress. Cultural evolutionary theories have been criticized
on the ground of their ethnocentrism and their indifference to the cultural
diversity .Most evolutionary theories are antievoluti onary, antihistorical,
antiadaptive and are essentially teleological and represent the continuation
of 2000 years of western self-praise.

Evolution was seen by these scholars as single or unilinear thread
throughout history. It was rooted in the psychic unity by which all human
groups were supposed to have the same potential for evolutionary
development, though some were further ahead than others because of
climate, soil and other factors.

3.1.8 Summary :

Social evolutionists identified universal evolutionary stages to
classify different societies as in a state of savagery, barbarism, or
civilization. Morgan further subdivided savagery and barbarism into sub-
categories: low, middle, and high. The stages were based primarily on
technological characteristics, but included other things such as political
organization, marriage, family, and religion. Since Western societies had
the most advanced technology, they put those societies at the highest rank
of civiliza tion. Societies at a stage of savagery or barbarism were viewed
as inherently inferior to civilized society. Spencer’s theory of social munotes.in

Page 23

23
evolution, which is often referred to as Social Darwinism but which he
called synthetic philosophy, proposed that war promoted evolution, stating
that those societies that conducted more warfare were the most evolved.
He also coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” and advocated for
allowing societies to compete, thereby allowing the most fit in society to
survive. With these ideas, Spencer opposed social policy that would help
the poor. Eugenicists used Spencer’s ideas to promote intellectual and
ethnic cleansing as a ‘natural’ occurrence.

Nineteenth -century evolutionists contributed to anthropology by
providing the first systematic methods for thinking about and explaining
human societies; however, contemporary anthropologists view nineteenth -
century evolutionism as too simplistic to explain the development of
societies in the world. In general, the nineteenth -century evolutionists
relied on racist views of human development that were popular at that
time. For example, both Lewis Henry Morgan and E. B. Tylor believed
that people in various societies have different levels of intelligence, which
leads to societal differen ces, a view of intelligence that is no longer valid
in contemporary science. Nineteenth -century evolutionism was strongly
attacked by historical particularists for being speculative and ethnocentric
in the early twentieth -century. At the same time, its materialist approaches
and cross -cultural views influenced Marxist Anthropology and Neo-
evolutionists.

3.1.9 Unit End Exercise :
1. Explain Evolution ist perspectives.
2. Explain the contribution of Tylor and Morgan to Evolutionism

3.1.10 References:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
 Barnard,Alan. 2000. History and Theory in Anthroplogy. United
Kingdom. The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
 Darnell, Regna. “Historical Particularism.” In Theory in Social and
Cultural Anthropology: An Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, edited by R. Jon
McGee and Richard L. Warms, 397-401. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Reference, 2013.
 Francisconi, Michael J. “Theoretical Anthropology.” In 21st Century
Anthropology: A Refer ence Handbook, Vol. 1, edited by H. James
Birx, 442-452. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference, 2010.
 Frey, Rodney. “Historical -Particularism -as exemplified by Franz Boas
(1858 -1942).” University of Idaho. Accessed February 27,
2015.http://www.webpages.uidaho. edu/~rfrey/220histpart.htm.
 Graber, Robert Bates. “Social Evolution.” In 21st Century
Anthropology: A Reference Handbook, Vol. 1, edited by H. James
Birx, 576-585. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference, 2010.
 Harris, Marvin, 2001. The Rise of Anthropological Theory : A History
of Theories of Culture, Jaipur, Rawat Publication. munotes.in

Page 24

24
 Kottak Conrad Phillip, 1997.Anthropology, The Exploration of Human
Diversity. New York The McGraw -Hill Companies Inc.
 MacGee R Jonand Warm Richard LAnthroplogical Theory and
Introductor y History (4THed) 2008, McGrawHill New York.
 MairLucy, 1965. An Introduction to SocialAnthropology (2nded),
1965, New Delhi, India.
 Moore Jerry, 2009. Visions of Culture an introduction to
Anthropological Theories and Theorists (3rded) United Kingdom .
Rowen and Little Publishers.
 Turner, Jonathan. “Spencer, Herbert.” In International Encyclopedia of
the Social Sciences, Vol. 8, edited by William A. Darity, 57-59.
Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008.

3.2 DIFFUSIONISM: THE KULTURKREIS SCHOOL, BRITISH DIFFUSIONISTS
3.2.1 Introduction:

Diffusionism refers to the diffusion or transmission of cultural
characteristics or traits from the common society to all other societies.
They criticized the Psychic unity of mankind of evolutionists. They
believed that most inventions happened just once and men being capable
of imitation, these inventions were then diffused to other places.
According to them all cultures originated at one point and then spread
throughout the world. They opposed the notion of progress from simple to
complex forms held by the evolution ists. They also held that primitive or
modern is also a relative matter and hence comparative method is not
applicable. They looked specifically for variations that gradually occurred
while diffusion took place.

3.2.2 Definition:

Diffusion may be simply defined as the spread of a cultural item
from its place of origin to other places (Titiev 1959:446). A more
expanded definition depicts diffusion as the process by which discrete
culture traits are transferred from one society to another, through
migration , trade, war, or other contact (Winthrop 1991:82 ).

Diffusionist research originated in the middle of the nineteenth
century as a means of underst anding the nature of the distribution of
human cultural traits across the world. By that time scholars had begun to
study not only advanced cultures, but also the cultures of nonliterate
people (Beals and Hoijer 1959:664). Studying these very diverse cultu res
stimulated an interest in discerning how humans progressed from primeval
conditions to “superior” states (Kuklick 1996:161). Among the major
questions about this issue was whether human culture had evolved in a munotes.in

Page 25

25
manner analogous to biological evolution or whether culture spread from
innovation centers by means of processes of diffusion (Hugill 1996:343).

This school of thought proposed that civilization spread from one
culture to another, because humans are basically conservative and lack
inventiveness (Winthrop 1991:83). An extreme example of this theory was
the idea proposed by English scholar Grafton Elliot Smith. He considered
Egypt as the primary source for many other ancient civilizations (Smith
1931:393 -394). This form of diffusionism is known as heliocentric
diffusionism (Spencer 1996:608). A wider concept, explaining the
diffusion of culture traits , was formulated by Leo Frobenius, through the
inspiration of his teacher, Freidrich Ratzel. This version is called “culture
circles ” or Kulturkreise (Harris 1968:382 -83). An even more expanded
version of diffusiionism was proposed in the United States, where
diffusionist ideas culminated in the concept of “culture areas. ” A. L.
Kroeber and Clark Wissler were among the main proponents of this
version (Harris 1968:373 -74).

Two schools of thought emerged in response to these questions.
The most extreme view was that there were a very limited number of
locations, possibly only one, from which the most important culture traits
diffused to the rest of the world. Some Social Evolutionists, on the other
hand, proposed that the “psychic unity of mankind” meant that since all
human beings share the same psychological traits, they are all equally
likely to innovate (see Social Evolutionism in this site for more on the
psychic unity of mankind). According to social evolutionists, innovation
in a culture, was considere d to be continuous or at least triggered by
variables that are relatively exogenous. This set the foundation for the idea
that many inventions occurred independently of each other and that
diffusion had relatively little effect on cultural development (Hug ill
1996:343).

3.2.3 German School of Thought:

German anthropologists were considered to be extreme
diffusionsists . This school of thought was dominated by the Catholic
clergy, who attempted to reconcile anthropological prehistory and cultural
evolution with the Book of Genesis. One of the best-known leaders in this
attempt was Wilhelm Schmidt, who had studied and written extensively
on the relationships between the religions of the world. Schmidt was a
follower of Fritz Graebner, who was also working on a world -wide scale
with “culture-circles” (Harris 1968:379 -83).

German and Austrian diffusionists argued that there were a limited
number of culture centers, rather than just one, in the ancient world.
Culture traits diffused, not as isolated elements, but as a whole culture
complex, due to migration of individuals from one culture to another
(Winthrop 1991:83).
munotes.in

Page 26

26
The Kulturkreise (culture circle) school of thought, even though
inspired by Friedrich Ratzel, was actually created by his student, Leo
Frobenius. This concept provided the criteria by which Graebner could
study Oceania at first and, two years later, cultures on a world -wide basis
(Harris 1968:383). The “culture circle” concept proposed that a cluster of
functionally -related culture traits specific to a historical time and
geographical area (Spencer 1996:611) diffused out of a region in which
they evolved. Graebner and Schmidt claimed that they had reconstructed a
“limited number of original culture circles” (Harris 1968:384).

3.2.4 British School of Thought:

Diffusionism occurred in its most extreme form in the ideas of the
British school of thought. W. H. R. Rivers was the founder of these ideas.
He confined his studies to Oceania, where he tried to organize the
ethnography according to nomothetic principles and sought to explain the
contrasts between Melanesian and Polynesian cultures by the spread of
original complexes, which supposedly had been spread by successive
waves of migrating people (Harris 1968:380). Rivers states that “a few
immigrants possessed of a superior technology can impose their customs
on a large autochthonous population” (Lowie 1937:174). He also applied
this extreme concept of diffusionism to Australian burial practices. The
obvious problem with Rivers’ explanations appears when questioned as to
why the technology of the “newcomers” disappeared if it was superior.
Rivers solves the problem with a rather fantastical flare. He claims that
because the “newcomers” were small in number, they failed to assert their
“racial strain” into the population (Lowi e 1937: 175).

G. Elliot Smith (1871 -1937) was a prominent British anatomist
who produced a most curious view of cultural distribution arguing that
Egypt was the source of all higher culture. He based this on the following
assumptions: (1) man was uninvent ive, culture seldom arose
independently, and culture only arose in certain circumstances; (2) these
circumstances only existed in ancient Egypt, which was the location from
which all culture, except for its simplest elements, had spread after the
advent of navigation; (3) human history was full of decadence and the
spread of this civilization was naturally diluted as it radiated outwardly
(Lowie 1937:160 -161).

Smith and W. J. Perry, a student of W. H. R. Rivers, hypothesized
that the entire cultural inventory of the world had diffused from Egypt.
The development began in Egypt, according to them, about 6,000 years
ago (Harris 1968:380; Smith 1928:22). This form of diffusion is known
as heliocentrism (Spencer 1996:608). They believed that “Natural Man”
inhabited the world before development began and that he had no clothing,
houses, agriculture, domesticated animals, religion, social organization,
formal laws, ceremoni es, or hereditary chiefs. The discovery of barley in
4,000 B. C. enabled people to settle in one location. From that point
invention in culture exploded and was spread during Egyptian migrations munotes.in

Page 27

27
by land and sea. This account was similar to the Biblical version of world
history (Harris 1968:389 -381).

3.2.5 Cultural diffusion :

Cultural diffusion is the spread of cultural beliefs and social
activities from one group of people to another. Through cultural diffusion,
horizons are broadened and people become more culturally rich.

Let's expand our horizons beyond those sushi dinners and daily tweets
with some examples of cultural diffusion in society today:
 The spread of music throughout the world also illustrates cultural
diffusion. For example, jazz started in the US as a blend of Afric an and
European musical traditions. Now, it's enjoyed across the globe, taking
on many different variations within the genre.
 Many people in European cities and former colonies speak both their
native tongue and English. In fact, almost 80 percent of Engli sh
speakers in the world are non-native speakers due to the spread of the
language through imperialism and trade.
 Japanese culture has often fascinated foreigners. The popularity of
sushi around the world, a traditional Japanese dish, exemplifies the
spread of Japanese culture and cuisine.

3.2.6 Cultural Diffusion in Technology :

They say knowledge is power. And, when one group of people
develops an important element of technology that can benefit people
across the globe, it's nice to see that information -sharing take place. Of
course, in today's world that can happen at lightning speeds.
Let's take a look at technological diffusion through the years.
 Paper was first made in China, eventually spreading to the Middle East
and Europe.
 Gunpowder also originated in China. Of course, nations all across the
globe went on to produce gunpowder, too.
 The fax machine was invented by Scottish inventor Alexander Bain , but
certainly didn't remain in the UK alone.
 The anti-lock brake system was developed in the United States, despite
many claims that the German manufacturer, Mercedes, got there first.
The Germans then perfected it.

3.2.7 Economics and Cultural Diffusion :
Even before the Middle Ages, when merchants traded their goods
by traveling from region to region, the benefits of cultural diffusion were
apparent. If one region didn't have the climate to produce one crop,
another did, and those goods were diffused acros s countries and nations.
One good was traded for another and communities enjoyed the benefits of munotes.in

Page 28

28
varied products. Sure enough, that benefit remains today, as world trade
continues to boom.

Let's take a look at the economics behind cultural diffusion.
 Trad e has been a means of cultural diffusion for centuries, dating back
to the Silk Road and beyond, when caravans would travel and
exchange goods between Europe and Asia.
 People learn of new products in other countries, like personal
computers or cell phones, demand increases, the product becomes
more affordable, and the product is spread around the world.

3.2.8 Exchanging Ideas, Increasing Knowledge :

In the end, cultural diffusion can be life-changing. When an
American woman in Wisconsin enrolls in salsa classes taught by an
Argentinian man, they might forge a lifelong friendship that would've
never happened if cultural diffusion wasn't a part of our reality.

As a man living in Los Angeles watches YouTube videos on how
to make his own sushi, he reaps the benefits of a healthy lifestyle offered
by the Japanese culture. One remark in the comments section might
introduce him to a Japanese chef, and there you have it. A new friendship
is formed and added morsels of knowledge are exchanged.

They say travel expands our minds and introduces us to
undiscovered worlds. Cultural diffusion, however, is a little more
permanent and steadfast. The learning opportuni ties continue, as entire
communities of people exchange ideas, goods, and knowledge. If
America's a melting pot, then we're sure to be on the winning side of
cultural diffusion.

3.3 SUMMARY
The German School of Diffusionism has chief proponents like
Friedrich Ratzel, Leo Frobenius, Fritz Graebner and William Schmidt.
There approach was through the analysis of culture complexes identified
gepgraphically and studied as they spread and developed historically. It
has both time and space dimensions. The first dimension of space was
explained in terms of culture circles and the second dimension of time was
explained in terms of culture strata.

The main proponents of British school of Diffusionism were
G.Elliot Smith, William J Perry and W.H.R Rivers. They held the view
that all cultures originated only in one part of the world. Egypt was the
culture centre of the world and the cradle of civilization. Hence human
culture originated in Egypt and then spread throughout the world. They
pointed to the Pyramid like large stone structures and sun worship in
several parts of the world. munotes.in

Page 29

29
The leading proponent of this extreme diffusionist school was Sir
G. Elliot Smith. He claimed that Egypt was the source of culture and that
every other culture in the world diffused from there, but that a dilution of
this civilization occurred as it spread to increasingly greater distances. His
theoretica l scheme claimed that man is uninventive, so culture only arises
under favorable circumstances. These favorable circumstances only
existed in ancient Egypt (Lowie 1937: 161).

The Diffusionist thought in America centered on Culture areas
which referred to relatively small geographical regions containing the
contiguous distribution of similar cultural elements. The term culture area
was first used by O.T Mason who identified 18 American Culture Areas.
His ideas were elaborated by scholars like Clark Wissler and Alfred
Kroeber and Robert Lowie.

3.4 UNIT END QUESTIONS
1 Explain in detail the evolutionary perspective as early theoretical
perspective of Anthropology.
2 Critically examine evolutionism in context of psychic unity of
mankind.
3 Briefly elaborate on contribution of Tylor and Morgan to Evolutionary
perspective.
4 Define Diffusionism. Examine various theories of Diffusionism.
5 Write a detail note on British and German School of Thought on
Diffusionism.

3.5 REFERENCES AND FUTURE READINGS
 https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples -of-cultural -
diffusion.html
 https://www.sociologyguide.com/anthropology/main -approaches -to-
the-study -of-society -and-
culture/d iffusionism.php#:~:text=Diffusionism%20refers%20to%20th
e%20diffusion,unity%20of%20mankind%20of%20evolutionists .
 Gail, King, Meghan Wright and Michael Goldstein. Diffusionism and
Acculturation:
 https://anthropology.ua.edu/theory/diffusionism -and-
acculturation/  Hugill, Peter J. 1996 Diffusion. In Encyclopedia of Cultural
Anthropology David Levinson and Melvin Ember, eds. Pp. 344-45.
New York: Henry Holt and Company.
 Harris, Marvin. 1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory. New York:
Thomas Y. Crowell Company. munotes.in

Page 30

30
 Kuklick, Henrika. 1996 Diffusionism. In Encyclopedia of Social and
Cultural Anthropology. Alam Barnard and Jonathan Spencer, eds. Pp,
160-162. London: Routledge.
 Lowie, Robert 1937 The History of Ethnological Theory . New York:
Farrar and Rinehart.
 Smith, G. E. 1928 In the Beginning: The Origin of Civilization. New
York: Morrow.
 Spencer, Jonathan 1996 Glossary. In Encyclopedia of Social and
Cultural Anthropology. Alan Barnard and Jonathan Spencer,
eds.London: Routl edge.
 Winthrop, Robert H. 1991 Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural
Anthropology. New York: Greenwood.


*****
munotes.in

Page 31

31
4

HISTORICAL PARTICULARISM,
STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM

Unit Structure
4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 Historical Particularism
4.1.2 Contribution of Franz Boas
4.1.3 Conclusion
4.2 Structural Functionalism
4.2.1 Introduction
4.2.2 Bronislaw Malinowski
4.2.2.1 Theory of Needs
4.2.2.2 The Function of Magic
4.2.2.3 Psychological functionalism
4.2.2.4 Criticism
4.2.3 A.R. Radcliffe Brown
4.2.3.1 Structure and Function
4.2.3.2 Organic Analogy and Functionalism
4.2.3.3 Joking Relationships and Functionalism
4.2.3.4 Exogamous Moieties
4.2.3.5 Andaman Islander`s ritual
4.2.3.6 Conclusion
4.3 Comparision between Malinowski and Radcliffe - Brown.
4.4 Summary
4.5 Critical Evaluation
4.6 Unit End Questions
4.7 References and Further Reading s

4.0 OBJECTIVES
 To understand the concept of historical particularism and Contribution
of Franz Boas
 To analyse the concept of functionalism and its significance in the
field of Anthropology
 To evaluate the contribution of Malinowski and Radcliff Brown to
functionalism



munotes.in

Page 32

32
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Particularism , also called historical particularism , school
of anthropological thought associated with the work of Franz Boas and his
students (among them A.L. Kroeber , Ruth Benedict , and Margaret Mead ),
whose studies of culture emphasized the integrated and distinctive way of
life of a given people. Particularism stood in opposition to theories such
as cultural evolution , Kulturkreis , and geographical or environmental
determinism, all of which sought to discover for the social sciences a
series of general laws analogous to those in the physical sciences (such as
the laws of thermodynamics or gravity).

The idea of historical particularism suggests all cultures have
their own historical trajectory and that each culture developed according to
this history. This idea was popularized by the anthropologist Franz Boas ,
who is widely considered a founder of the discipline of anthropology.

4.1.1 Historical Particularism :

The term historical particularism refers to the idea that each culture
has its own particular and unique history that is not governed by universal
laws. This idea is a big component of Boasian anthropology because it is
where Boasians put their focus on when studying cultures. Historical
particularism was deve loped in contrast to Boas’ rejection of Lewis Henry
Morgan’s idea of an evolutionary path and the use of the comparative
method. The evolutionary path used generalities and universal themes to
explain cultural similarities, but Boas “contended that cultur al traits first
must be explained in terms of specific cultural contexts rather than by
broad reference to general evolutionary trends”. Boas and his followers
would argue that cultures cannot be compared or be subjected to
generalities because each cultur e experienced a different and unique
history, even if it led to a similar cultural aspect. Historical particularism
and the concept of diffusion actually go quite hand in hand. Traits that are
similar between cultures may have diffused through interaction between
various cultures. However, while these traits are similar, they will develop
different and unique histories from their movement through various
societies.

This approach claims that each society has its own unique
historical development and must be understood based on its own specific
cultural and environmental context, especially its historical process. Its
core premise was that culture was a “set of ideas or symbols held in
common by a group of people who see themselves as a social group”
(Darne ll 2013: 399). Historical particularists criticized the theory of the
nineteenth -century social evolution as non-scientific and proclaimed
themselves to be free from preconceived ideas. Boas believed that there
were universal laws that could be derived from the comparative study of
cultures; however, he thought that the ethnographic database was not yet
robust enough for us to identify those laws. To that end, he and his munotes.in

Page 33

33
students collected a vast amount of first-hand cultural data by conducting
ethnographic fieldwork. Based on these raw data, they described particular
cultures instead of trying to establish general theories that apply to all
societies.

4.1.2 Contribution of Franz Boas :

Franz Boas and his students developed historical
particularism early in the twentieth century. The Historical particularists
valued fieldwork and history as critical methods of cultural analysis. At
the same time, the anthropologists in this theoretical school had different
views on the importance of individuals in a society. For example, Frantz
Boas saw each individual as the basic component of a society. He gathered
information from individual informants and considered such data valuable
enough for cultural analysis. On the other hand, Alfred Kroeber did not
see individuals as the fundamental elements of a society. He believed a
society evolves according to its own internal laws that do not directly
originate from its individuals. He named this cultural aspect superorganic
and claimed that a society cannot be explain ed without considering this
impersonal force.

Boas’s own work emphasized studies of individual cultures , each
based on its unique history. He held that the anthropologist’s primary
assignment was to describe the particular characteristics of a given culture
with a view toward reconstructing the historical events that led to its
present structure. Implicit in this approach was the notion that
resolving hypotheses regarding evolutionary development and the
influence of one culture on another should be secondary to the careful and
exhaustive study of particular societies. Boas urged that the historical
method, based on the description of particular culture traits and elements,
supplant the comparative method of the evolutionists, who used their data
to rank cultures in an artificial hierarchy of achievement. He rejected the
assumption of a single standard of achievement to which all cultures could
be compared, instead advocating cultural relativism, the position that all
cultures are equally able to meet the needs of their members.

Boas responded to a particular school of thought in anthropology,
known as the social -evolutionary perspective. This approach saw cultures
as following a linear trajectory. In other words, more traditional cultures
will eventually 'catch up' to the more developed cultures of Western
Europe.

The problem with the social -evolutionary perspective, according to
Boas, was that this led us to believe that Western European countries
should be the model for what culture should look like. This led to ignoring
the particularities of different cultures. This is where historical
particularism comes in.
munotes.in

Page 34

34
Boas felt that the only way to really understand cultures was
through in-depth research into their individual histories . We can't assume
any universal laws about cultures. This blinds us to the important ways
that cultures are different from one another. So historical particularism is
kind of like a research method, in a way.

Boas urged anthropologists to go directly to the place they wanted
to study, as opposed to trying to examine it from afar. This was a response
to a tendency at the time to simply write about cultures rather than
engaging with them. This lead to what many termed armchair
anthropology . Imagine it like this: a professor in the ivory tower making
judgments about cultures he never really explored.

Also, Boas didn't think that comparison was a very good way to
understand other cultures. Instead of trying to find similarities and
differences between two cultures, we should try and understand the
aspects of each of them in depth.

4.1.3 Conclusion :

Under Boas’s influence, the particularist approach dominated
American anthropology for the first half of the 20th century. From World
War II through the 1970s, it was eclipsed by neo-evolutionism and a
variety of other theorie s. However, the particularist approach, if not the
term itself, reemerged in the 1980s as scholars began to recognize that
distinctive historical processes differentiate peoples even in the era
of globalization .

4.2 STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM
4.2.1 Introduction :

Structural functionalism was a theoretical school in Great Britain
originally formulated to move away from evolutionism and diffusion. As a
new paradigm, functionalism was presented as a reaction against what was
believed to be out dated ideologies. It was an attempt to move away from
the evolutionism and diffusionism that dominated American and British
anthropology at the turn of the century (Lesser 1935, Langness 1987).
There was a shift in focus from the speculatively historical or diachronic
study of customs and cultural traits as “survivals” to the ahistorical,
synchronic study of social “institutions ” within bounded, functioning
societies (Young 1991:445).

Structural -functionalism's core concepts are, in harness, structure
and system. Structural -funct ionalism emphasized the formal ordering of
parts and their functional interrelations as contributing to the maintenance
needs of a structured social system. The function of any institution (or
‘recurrent social activity’) was the part it played in the main tenance of the munotes.in

Page 35

35
larger structural whole. This assumption attributed to social systems an
internal integration of parts similar to that found in organisms.

Modern sociological and anthropological theory has been
profoundly influenced by functional analysis. Its history can be traced to
Comte’s consensus universals; Spencer`s organic analogy, Pareto`s
conception of society as a system of equilibrium and Durkheim`s causal
functional analysis.

Functionalism was a reaction to the perceived excesses and
deficiencies of the evolutionary and diffusionist theories of the nineteenth
century and the historicism of the early twentieth (Goldschmidt 1996:510).
Functionalists seek to describe the differen t parts of a society and their
relationship by means of an organic analogy . The organic analogy
compares the different parts of a society to the organs of a living
organism. The organism is able to live, reproduce and function through the
organized system of its several parts and organs. Like a biological
organism, a society is able to maintain its essential processes through the
way that the different parts interact. Institutions such as religion, kinship
and the economy were the organs and individuals were the cells in this
social organism. Functionalist analyses examine the social significance of
phenomena, that is, the function they serve a particular society in
maintaining the whole (Jarvie 1973).

The term ‘Functionalism’ cannot be explained easily for the simple
reason that the term ‘function’ and ‘functional’ have been used to mean
different thing by different thinkers. The functional approach is much
older in biology, psychology and cultural anthropology than sociology.
Earlier, the term ‘function’ was commonly used in a positive sense of
contribution made by a part for the whole. Today it is used to mean
‘consequences’ which may or may not to be intended or recognized.

Functionalism, as a school of thought in anthropology, emerged in
the early twen tieth century. Functionalism in anthropology is generally
divided into two schools of thought, each associated with a key
personality. Bronislaw Malinowski and A.R. Radcliffe -Brown had the
greatest influence on the development of functionalism from their posts in
Great Britain and elsewhere. Two versions of functionalism developed
between 1910 and 1930: Malinowski’s biocultural (or psychological)
functionalism ; and structural -functionalism , the approach advanced by
Radcliffe -Brown.

Psychological functional ism is linked to Bronislaw Malinowski
(1884 -1942). Malinowski`s method was based on extensive in-depth
fieldwork during which he gathered evidence to support his theoretical
position.
munotes.in

Page 36

36
The second school, structural functionalism, is associated with
A.R. Radcliffe Brown (1881 -1955). He sought to understand how cultural
institutions maintained the equilibrium and co-hesion of a society.

4.2.2 Bronislaw Malinowski (1884 -1942) :

Malinowski is considered as one of the founding fathers of British
Social anthro pology. He was trained in physical sciences and received a
Ph.D in physics and mathematics in 1908. He was influenced by
Durkheim and Wilhelm Wundt at Leipzig. In 1910 he studied
anthropology at London School of Economics. Later at LSE he trained
many of the finest English Anthropologists including E.E. Evans -
Pritchard, Isaac Schapera, Raymond Firth, Fortes and Nadel, etc. He built
the anthropological program at the LSE and Cambridge.

Malinowski was interested in religion and folklore. He breached the
boundary between fieldwork and theory through his field work revolution.
His famous books are.
 Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922)
 Sex and Repression in Savage Society (1927)

Malinowski`s concept of culture was most stimulating contribution
to the anthropological thought of his day but his contribution has been
undervalued. His ethnographic concerns were with how culture met the
needs of the individual. It contradicted with the views of A.R. Radcliffe
brown who emphasized how culture met the needs of society. In order to
understand this difference and to evaluate Malinowski`s contribution one
must begin with his theory of needs.

4.2.2.1 Theory of Needs :

Malinowski`s theory of need is central to his functional approach
to culture. Through his theory he tried to link the individual and society.
According to him culture exists to meet the basic biological,
psychological, and social needs of the individual.

Malinowski viewed function in physiological sense. He defined
function as the satisfaction of an organic impulse by the appropriate act.
He developed his physiological analogy further. For e.g. he argued that if
we have to describe how normal lung operates we would be describing the
form of the process, but if we attempt to explain why the lung is operating
in a manner then we are concerned with its function.

Malinowski wrote that cultural institutions are integrated responses
to a variety of needs and to outline those needs he used a variant of his
synoptic chart.
Basic Needs Cultural Responses 1. Metabolism Commissarial munotes.in

Page 37

37
2. Reproduction Kinship 3. Bodily Comfort shelter 4. Safety Protection 5. Movement Activities 6. Growth Training 7. Health Hygiene
Malinowski described each of these needs are cultural responses in detail,
but few examples are as follows:
The first human need, “metabolism ” refers to
 the process of food intake
 digestion,
 the collateral secretions,
 the absorption of nutritive substances, and
 the rejection of waste matter.

The cultural response “commissarial ” (the military unit that supplies food
to an army) include.
1. How food was grown, prepared and consumed.
2. Where food was consumed and in what social unit.
3. The economic and social organization of distributing food.
4. The legal and customary rule for food distribution.
5. The authority that enforces those rules.

The basic need, safety, simply “refers to the prevention of bodily
injuries by mechanical accident, attack from animals or other human
beings” but the cultural response, protection, may include different
behaviour as placing houses on piling away from potential tidal waves the
organisation of armed responses to aggression, or the magical recruitment
of supernatural forces.

And growth which in human is structured by long dependency of
the infants leads to the cultural response of training by which humans are
taught language, other symbols and appropriate behaviors for different
stages unless they are socially and physicogically nature.

Malinowski summarized his theory of need with two axioms.
1. Every culture must satisfy the biolo gical systems of needs.
2. Every culture achievement that implies use of artifacts and symbols,
enhance human anatomy and thus directly satisfies bodily needs.

In short, culture is utilitarian, adaptive and functionally integrated
and explanation of culture involves the delineation of function. A classic
example is Malinowski`s approach to magic.


munotes.in

Page 38

38
4.2.2.2 The Function of Magic :

Magic was an integral element to Malinowski`s theory because
magic was central to Trobriand life. Magic was used to kill enemies and
prevent one being killed to ease birth of a child, to enhance beauty of a
dancer. Magic always appeared in those phases of human action where
knowledge fails man.

Malinowski argued that magic has a profound function in exerting
human control over those dimentions that are otherwise outside of our
control. Primitive man cannot manipulate the weather. Experience teaches
him that rain and sunshine, wind, heat and cold, cannot produced by his
own hands, however much he might think about or observe such
phenomena. He therefore deals with magic. He hypothesized that limited
scientific knowledge of illness and disease led “primitive” man to
conclude that illness are caused by sorcery and countered by magic.

Magic is organised in fishing too. In contrast, the magic is
associated with ocean fishing, sailing, and canoes is complex and
pervasive, because the dang and risks are greater.

Similarly magic surrounding gardening is extensive and is
considered an indispensible part of cultivation garden magic is public ,
direct and extensive ,the village garden magician is either the headman,
his hier, or closest male relative , and therefore he is either the most
important or neat most person in a community Magic is an indispensible to
the success of garden as competent and effective husbandry it is essential
to the fertility of the soil The garden magic utters magic by mouth , the
magical virtue enter the soil Magic is to them an almost natural element in
the growth of the gardens.

Malinowski believed that the essential function of religion is an
attempt to extend control over the uncontrollable elements of nature. In
this sense, his analysis of magic reflects his functional approach to culture.

4.2.2.3 Psychological functionalism:

Malinowski`s psychological functionalism is represented by “The
Essentials of the Kula” in Chapter 3 of his ethnography, Argonants of the
Western Pacifi c (1922). In this Malinowski offers a description of trade in
Kula. This chapter showcases Malinowski`s skill as an ethnographer and
also illustrates many of his fundamental ideas.

Example: The Kula Exchange of Trobriand Islanders.
Malinowski`s classic case of the Kula relates to an exchange of
ceremonial goods among a series of ethnically different communities at
east end munotes.in

Page 39

39


of New Guinea and on adjacent island groups. These form geographically
a rough “ring”. On every island and in every village, a more or less
limited number of man take part in the Kula - that is to say, receive the
goods, hold them for a short time, and then pass them on. Therefore every
man who is in Kula, periodically though not regularly, receives one or
several Ynwali (arm -shells), or a Soulava (necklace of red shell discs), He
than had to hand it on to one of his partners, from whom he receives the
opposite commodity in exchange. Thus no man ever keeps any of the
articles for any length of time in his possession. The partnership between
two man is a permanent and lifelong affair. And any given Ynwali or
Soulave is always found travelling and changing hands and there is no
question of its ever setting down. Thus the principle “once in a Kula,
always in a Kula” applies also to the valuable themselves.

Kula Exchange in Southeast New Guinea. Objects ceremonially
exchanged are armlets made of spiral tronchus shell (left) and necklaces
primarily of pink spondylus shell discs. After Malinowski Surrounded by
elaborate social and magical activities of traditional character, the
transactions are called ‘Kula ’. The ceremonial exchange of articles like
armshells and necklaces is the fundamental aspect of Kula, but side by
side the natives carry on ordinary trade, bartering from one island to
another. Thus “Kula ring” ties all these people by way of such ceremonial
gift between neighbours into a system of mutual interrelationships.

Kula activities tend tend to penetrate all aspects of their life:
visiting, feast s, ceremonies, art display, religious activities, the status of
Kin groups and individuals, opportunities for trade. An inquiry, therefore
into the function of the Kula i.e. what it does, calls for an examination of
its total meaning and content as regards each of the culture concerned and
also the intellectual relations involved.

4.2.2.4 Criticism:
Malinowski`s work has been criticized on numerous grounds. His
theory is considered as a rude theory in which all sorts of behavior are
munotes.in

Page 40

40
reduced to simplistic notion of utility. Yet Malinowski has been very
influential as he emphasised the adaptive significance of culture.
Malinowski`s most enduring contribution was his effort to understand the
subjective experience of another culture throu gh the immersive strategy of
ethnographic research.

4.2.3 A.R. Radcliffe Brown (1881 -1955) :

Radcliffe Brown was a British social anthropologist. He studied
anthropology at Cambridge under Haddon and Rivers. He was greatly
influenced by the work of Durkh eim. Although he did his fieldwork in the
Andaman Islands and Australia, he was more interested in comparative
study of different cultures than in field work in one culture. By deriving
his concept from Durkheim he tried to show how cultural systems functi on
to maintain a society`s equilibrium. His book The Andaman Islanders
(1922) become the vehicle through which French comparative sociology
shaped the course of British anthropology. Brown occupied a number of
academic positions and frequently established new anthropology
departments including University of Cape town, Sydney, Chicago, Oxford,
Cairo and South Africa.

4.2.3.1 Structure and Function :

Brown used the concept of social structure as early as 1914. The
notion of structure made his comparative approach possible. This was his
unit of comparison. According to him structures are the relations of
association between individuals, and they exist independently of
individual members who might occupy different positions, much in the
way that “hero”, “heroine”, and “villain” define a set of relationships in a
melodrama regardless of the actors who play the roles.

Although he used the term culture in his early work, he rejected the
concept later in his career. He believed that culture was an abstract
conce pt. As the values and norms of a society couldn`t be observed, a
science of culture was impossible. He preferred to study social structures
and principles that organize person in a society and the roles and
relationships that can be observed first hand Social structure includes all
interpersonal relations.

Radcliffe Brown considered social structure to be empirically
knowable and concrete. He used the term “Social structure ” in a different
way to make discussion difficult. For many, social structure has nothing to
do with reality but he regarded social structure as reality. For e.g. he
picked up a particular sea shell on the beach to recognize a particular
structure. He may find other shells of the same species which have similar
structure so that he could say there is a form of structure characterize of
the species.
munotes.in

Page 41

41
Thus, we can identify certain social structures exogamous
moieties, joking relationships, cross cousin marring an so on to compare
structures of different societies to understand principles of these social
structures

4.2.3.2 Organic Analogy and Functionalism :

Inevitably, Radcliffe - Brown`s explanation of social structure leads
to consideration of function. He believed the function of culture to be
maintenance of society rather satisfaction to individual needs as
Malinowski argued. His theory was based on organic analogy, referring to
activities meeting the needs of structure. And the continuity of structure is
based on the process of social life. The social life of the community is
defined as the functioning of the social structure. The function of a crime
or a funeral ceremony is the part it plays in the social life as a whole and
therefore the contribution it makes to the maintenance of structural
continuity.

This view implies that social system has a kind of unity which can
be called as functional unity. We may define it as a condition in which all
parts of the system wrote together with a sufficient degree of harmony or
internal consistency i.e. without producing any conflict.

Radcliffe Brown illustrated the concept of social structure by citing
example from the tribes of Western Australia. He said that tribes are
divided into number of territories and men, thus, connected with a
particular territory formed a distinct social group. One may speak that this
was the unit of fundamental importance in social structure. Among the
Australian tribes, class is known as Lorde. The internal structure of the
Lorde was a division into families each composed of a man with his wife
or wives and their young children. There is a continuous existence of a
Lorde, as the members of the death of the old ones the newly born
members enter the Lorde. Thus, continuity of the social group is an
important factor for the existence of the social structure. And this
contin uity of the structure is maintained by the process of social life.

4.2.3.3 Joking Relationships and Functionalism:

The goal of Radcliffe Brown was to provide a scientific
understanding of joking relationships. Following Durkheim and Spencer,
Brown`s main concern was to maintain social order. He understood
society as made up of institutions, which could be understood in terms of
its function (hence functionalism). Its function was the role it played in
maintaining social order.

Radcliffe Brown sees a critical contradiction at the core of
marriage. A husband does not be part of his wife`s family but neither is he
entirely separated from them. A wife doesn`t become a part of her
husband`s family, and her family of origin continues to have interest in her munotes.in

Page 42

42
and her children. This contradiction creates the preconditions for conflict
between the two families. For society to function smoothly there must be
an institution to resolve this conflict.

What is true within a group is also true between groups. Just as
potential conflict between husband and wife`s family can be resolved, so
too the conflict between tribes and clan can also be resolved by avoidance
and joking.

The social function of this is obvious. The social tradition is
handed down from one generation to the next. This results in organizing a
definite and stable system of social behaviour.

Thus Brown argues that structural relations between people in
certain position in kinship system lead to conflict of interest. Such conflict
could threaten the stability of society. However, this problem is solved
through ritualized joking or avoidance between people in such positions.
Thus when conflict threatens stability , society develops social institutions
to mediate oppositions and preserve social solidarity.

4.2.3.4 Exogamous Moieties :

Exogamous Moieties are kin system in which a population is
derived into two social divisions and a man of one moiety must marry a
woman of another moiety. He began his analysis with aboriginal groups in
New South wales where moieties were matrilineal, exogamous and were
name after their respective totems – eagle hawk (Kilpara) and the crow
(Makwara). Radcliffe Brown argued that neither conjectural history nor
diffusion provides satisfactory explanation and turned to comparison of
structure.

He examined cases from Australia and found many cases of
exogamous moieties, some patrilineal, others matrilineal named after
birds. Further other form of organization (such as generation division) are
also named after birds.

Radcliffe Brown analysed stories of eagle hawk crow and other
moiety to gain insight into native thinking. The similarity and differences
of animal species are translated into terms of friendship and conflict,
solidarity and opposition. In other words the world of animal life is
represented in terms of social relations similar to human society. Eagle
hawk and crow steals. Other example of oppositions are black cockatoo
versus while cockatoo, Coyote versus wildcat (in California), upstream
versus downstream and so on. They are all associated with exogamous
moieties. Thus brown concluded that whatever, in Australia, Melanesia or
America, there exists a social structure of exogamous moieties who can be
in “opposition ”.

munotes.in

Page 43

43
4.2.3.5 Andaman Islander`s ritual:

Radcliffe Brown contrasted between totemism and ancestor
worship. He defined ancestor worship as the worship of a deceased
ancestor or ancestors or clan. Offerings of food and drink are made to
ancestors, which are usually conceived of as sharing a meal with an
ancestor. The rite of ancestor worshi p also reflects a sense of dependency
between the worshiper and ancestor who will give him children and well-
being, provide blessings and illness.

For the individual, his primary duties are those of lineage. These
include duties to the members now living, but also to those who have died
and who are not yet born. In carrying out of these duties he is controlled
and inspired by the complex system of lineage itself, past, present and
future. The social function of rites is obvious by solemn and collective
expression rites reaffirm, renew and strengthen the sentiments on which
social solidarity depends. He also produced a broader theoretical statement
about “the social function of religions. i.e. the contribution they make to
the formation and maintenance of a social order”.

4.2.3.6 Conclusion:

Radcliffe Brown`s analysis of social structure and function
redirected anthropological inquiry to the institution of human life and to
the role such institutions play in the maintenance and reproduction of
society.

4.3 COMPARISION BETWEEN MALINOWSKI AND RADCLIFFE - BROWN
While Malinowski emphasized on individual need Radcliffe
Brown explained phenomena in terms of social structure specially its
‘need’ for solidarity and integration.

For Malinowski culture was the instrument by which human needs
were met. Brown emphasized more on social function rather than
individual function.

Malinowski`s method was based on extensive fieldwork whereas
Brown believed in comparative study of various cultures and societies.

Both Malinowski and Radcliffe Brown had much in common in
their early writing as they were both influenced by Durkheim. But later
Malinowski fell out of Durkheim influence whereas Radcliffe Brown
remained loyal to Durkheimian tradition.


munotes.in

Page 44

44
4.4 SUMMARY
Historical particularism was a dominant trend in anthropology
during the first half of the twentieth century. One of the achievements of
the historical particularists was that they succeeded in excluding racism
from anthropology. The nineteenth -century evolutionists explained
cultural similarities and differences by classifying societies into superior
and inferior categories. Historical particularists showed that this labeling is
based on insufficient evidence and claimed that societies cannot be ranked
by the value judgment of researchers. Historical particularists were also
responsible for showing the need for long-term, intensive fieldwork in
order to produce accurate descriptions of cultures. One important part of
doing that was to learn the language of the study group.

Boas stressed the apparently enormous complexity of cultural
variation, and perhaps because of this complexity he believed it was
premature to formulate universal laws. He felt that single cultural traits
had to be studied in the context of the society in which they appeared. In
1896, Boas published an article entitled “The Limitation of the
Comparative Method of Anthropology,”19 which dealt with his objections
to the evolutionist approach. In it, he stated that anthropologists should
spend less time developing theories based on insufficient data. Rather,
they should devote their energies to collecting as much data as possible, as
quickly as possible, before cultures disappeared (as so many already had,
after contact with foreign societies) . He asserted that valid interpretations
could be made and theories proposed only after this body of data was
gathered. Boas expected that, if a tremendous quantity of data was
collected, the laws governing cultural variation would emerge from the
mass of information by themselves. According to the method he
advocated, the essence of science is to mistrust all expectations and to rely
only on facts. But, the “facts” that are recorded, even by the most diligent
observer, will necessarily reflect what that individual considers important.
Collecting done without some preliminary theorizing, without ideas about
what to expect, is meaningless, for the facts that are most important may
be ignored whereas irrelevant ones may be recorded. Although it was
appropriate for Boas to criticize previous “armchair theorizing,” his
concern with innumerable local details did not encourage a belief that it
might be possible to explain the major variations in culture that
anthropologists observe.

Functionalism: In Europe, the reaction against evolution was not as
dramatic as in the United States, but a clear division between the
diffusionists and those who came to be known as functionalists emerged
by the 1930s. Functionalism in social science looks for the part (function)
that some aspect of culture or social life plays in maintaining a cultural
system.
munotes.in

Page 45

45
Two quite different schools of functionalism arose in conjunction
with two British anthropologists —Bronislaw Malinowski (1884 –1942)
and Arthur Reginald Radcliffe Brown (1881 –1955). Malinowski’s version
of functionalism assumes that all cultural traits serve the needs of
individuals in a society; that is, they satisfy some basic or derived need of
the members of the group. Basic needs include nutrition, reproductio n,
bodily comfort, safety, relaxation, movement, and growth. Some aspects
of the culture satisfy these basic needs and give rise to derived needs that
must also be satisfied. For example, culture traits that satisfy the basic
need for food give rise to the secondary, or derived, need for cooperation
in food collection or production. Societies will in turn develop forms of
political organization and social control that guarantee the required
cooperation. How did Malinowski explain such things as religion and
magic? He suggested that, because humans always live with a certain
amount of uncertainty and anxiety, they need stability and continuity.
Religion and magic are functional in that they serve those needs. Unlike
Malinowski, Radcliffe -Brown felt that the various aspects of social
behavior maintain a society’s social structure rather than satisfying
individual needs. By social structure, he meant the total network of
existing social relationships in a society. The phrase structural -
functionalism is often used to describe Radcliffe -Brown’s approach. To
explain how different societies deal with the tensions that are likely to
develop among people related through marriage, Radcliffe -Brown
suggested that societies do one of two things: They may develop strict
rules forbidding the people involved ever to interact face-to-face (as do the
Navajos, for example, in requiring a man to avoid his mother -in-law).
They may also allow mutual disrespect and teasing between the in-laws.
Radcliffe -Brown suggested that avoidance is likely to occur between in-
laws of different generations, whereas disrespectful teasing is likely
between in-laws of the same generation. Both avoidance and teasing, he
suggested, are ways to avoid real conflict and help maintain the social
structure. (American mother -in-law jokes may also help relieve tension.)
The major objection to Malinowski’s functionalism is that it cannot
readily account for cultural variation. Most of the needs he identified, such
as the need for food, are universal: All societi es must deal with them if
they are to survive. Thus, although the functionalist approach may tell us
why all societies engage in food-getting, it cannot tell why different
societies have different food-getting practices. In other words,
functionalism does not explain why certain specific cultural patterns arise
to fulfill a need that might be fulfilled just as easily by any of a number of
alternative possibilities.

4.5 CRITICAL EVALUATION
A major problem of the structural -functionalist approach is that it
is difficult to determine whether a particular custom is in fact functional in
the sense of contributing to the maintenance of the social system. In
biology, the contribution an organ makes to the health or life of an animal munotes.in

Page 46

46
can be assessed by removing it. But we cannot subtract a cultural trait
from a society to see if the trait really does contribute to the maintenance
of that group. It is conceivable that certain customs within a society may
be neutral or even detrimental to its maintenance. Moreover, we cannot
assume that all of a society’s customs are functional merely because the
society is functioning at the moment. Even if we are able to assess whether
a particular custom is functional, this theoretical orientation fails to deal
with the question of why a particular society chooses to meet its structural
needs in a particular way. A given problem does not necessarily have only
one solution. We must still explain why one of several possible solutions
is chosen.

4.6 UNIT END QUESTIONS
1. Explain Historical Particularism
2. Explain Structural Functionalsim with special reference to
Malinowski / Reginald Radcliffe Brown

4.7 REFERENCE S AND FURTHER READINGS
 Darnell, Regna. “Historical Particularism.” In Theory in Social and
Cultural Anthropology: An Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, edited by R. Jon
McGee and Richard L. Warms, 397-401. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Reference, 2013.
 Francisconi, Michael J. “Theoretical Anthropology.” In 21st Century
Anthropology: A Reference Handbook, Vol. 1, edited by H. James
Birx, 442-452. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference, 2010.
 Frey, Rodney. “Historical -Particularism -as exemplified by Franz
Boas (1858 -1942).” University of Idaho. Accessed February 27,
2015.http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~rfrey/220histpart.htm.
 Graber, Robert Bates. “Social Evolution.” In 21st Century
Anthropology: A Reference Handbook, Vol. 1, edited by H. James
Birx, 576-585. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference, 2010.
 Goldschmidt, Walter. 1966. Comparative Functionalism in
Anthropological Theory. Berkeley: Universi ty of California Press.
 Jarvie, I. C. 1973. Functionalism. Minneapolis: Burgess
Publishing Company.
 Langness, L.L. 1987. The Study of Culture -Revised Edition. Novato,
California: Chandler & Sharp Publishers, Inc.
 Lesser, Alexander. 1985. Functionalism in Social Anthropology.
In History, Evolution, and the Concept of Culture, Selected Papers by
Alexander Lesser (ed) Sidney W. Mintz. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
 Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An
Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of
Melanesian New Guinea. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co. munotes.in

Page 47

47
 Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1926. Myth in Primitive Psychology.
New York. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
 Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1926. Crime and Custom in SavageSociety .
New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, Inc.
 Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1929. The Sexual Life of Savages in North -
Western Melaneisa; An Ethnographic Account of Courtship,
Marriage and Family Life Among the Natives of Trobriand Islands,
British New Guinea. New York: Halcyon House.
 Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1939. “Review of Six Essays on Culture
by Albert Blumenthal.” American Sociological Review, Vol. 4, pp.
588-592.
 Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1944. A Scientific Theory of Culture
and Other Essays. Chapel Hill: Universit y of North Carolina.
 Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1944. Freedom and Civilization. New
York: Roy Publishers.
 Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1954. Magic, Science and Religion,
and Other Essays. Garden City, N.Y.:Doubleday.
 Malinowski, Bronislaw . 2001. Sex and Repression in Savage Society.
New York: Routledge.
 Radcliffe -Brown, A.R. 1933. The Andamen Islanders.
Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
 Radcliffe -Brown, A.R. and Daryll Forde, eds. 1950. African Systems
of Kinship and Marriage. London: Oxford University Press.
 Radcliffe -Brown, A.R. 1952. Structure and Function in
Primitive Society: Essays and Addresses. London: Cohen and West.
 Radcliffe -Brown, A.R. 1958. Method in Social
Anthropology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 Turner, Jonatha n. “Spencer, Herbert.” In International Encyclopedia
of the Social Sciences, Vol. 8, edited by William A. Darity, 57-59.
Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008.
 Young, Michael W. 1991. Bronislaw Malinowski. In
International Dictionary of Anthropologists.
 Lewis Henry Morgan:
https://rochester.edu/College/ANT/morgan/bio.html
 http://anthrotheory.pbworks.com/w/page/29518607/Boasian%20Anth
ropology%3A%20Historical%20Particularism%20and%20Cultural%
20Relativism
 https://www.britannica.com/science/particularism -anthropology
 https://study.com/academy/lesson/cultural -particularism -definition -
examples.html
 https://anthropology.ua.edu/theory/functionalism/


*****
munotes.in

Page 48

48
5

CULTURE AND PERSONALITY,
CULTURE HISTORY

Unit Structure
5.0 Objectives
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Culture and personality
5.2.1 Methods
5.2.2 Scholars
5.2.3 Ruth Benedict
5.2.4 Margaret Mead
5.3 Culture History
5.3.1 Understanding Culture
5.3.2 Understanding History
5.3.3 Material and Non -Material culture and history
5.4 Summary
5.5 Unit End Questions
5.6 References and Future Reading s

5.0 OBJECTIVES
 To help learners to understand to get a basic understanding about
culture and personality school.
 To know about the key thinkers of the culture and personality.
 To know about culture history and its importance for the society and
understanding the concep t too.

5.1 INTRODUCTION
The present chapter deals with two topic the first one is Culture
and Personality an important school/tradition of Anthropology. Second
topic is an concept called Culture history. Let us now look into the first
one.

5.2 CULTURE AND PERSONALITY Culture and personality is also seen as psychological anthropology
is an important field in anthropology (ii). This field of study emerged in
1930s in United States. It is an interdisciplinary field of study (1). munotes.in

Page 49

49
5.2.1 Methods :

Culture -and-personality studies apply the methods of psychology
to the field of anthropology, including in -depth interviews, role playing,
elaborate biographies, studies of family roles, and dream interpretation.
Ethnography, participant observation, l ong span of fieldwork were also
some of the methods of scholars (1).

5.2.2 Scholars:

The Culture Personality study was predominantly dominated by
students of two scholars namely Franz Boas and Kroeber. The pioneers of
this school were Ruth Benedict, Ma rgaret Mead, Cora Du Bois, Edward
Sapir (2). There are other scholars like Sigmund Freud who have also
carried out work merging anthropological concepts and psychology. For
example – Totem and Taboo. However, several anthropologists tried even
testing Freu d in their own field and they disproved it. In this chapter we
would focus on two important scholars which is Margaret Mead and Ruth
Benedict .

Check Your Progress
1. Discuss the few scholars associated with Culture and Personality
school.

2. State some of the methods used in the Culture and Personality school.

5.2.3 Ruth Benedict :

Patterns of Culture :

One of her important work was Patterns of Culture. In the book she
argues that every culture selects along an ‘arc of traits,’ choosing from a
universal span pieces that at once fit together and create a distinct
character: the Apollonian Pueblo Indian, th e paranoiac, Dobu Islander, and
the megalomaniac Kwakiutl. Her own society constituted the fourth
character, subject of a stern critique for rampant greed and overweening
ego, and intolerance of the individual who lacks those traits. The last
chapters of P atterns offer a brilliant analysis of the relativity of
‘abnormality’ and the production of deviance through the imposition of
rigid demands on conformity (3). munotes.in

Page 50

50
The Chrysanthemum and the Sword :

The book is a model of national character studies, beautifull y
written and persuasive. For Benedict, Japan exemplified a ‘high synergy’
society, in which institutions fit together coherently and personality
coincides with culture. Benedict indicates the methods by which
‘integrity’ comes about, the details of behavi or that reinforce the pattern
and the methods of childrearing that guarantee successful integration of
individuals into social institutions. She maintains the crucial tenet of her
anthropology: bringing contrasting cultures into illuminating relation, in
this case Japan and the US. The contrast was explanatory: one culture was
driven by shame, the other by guilt. A book written to help the US
understand its enemy established a comparative approach in the discipline
premised on the diversity of emotional dri ves across cultures (3).

Benedict and other proponents of culture -and-personality studies
directed the attention of anthropologists to the symbolic meanings and
emotional significance of cultural features that had hitherto been
considered primarily throu gh functional analysis; at the same time, they
led psychologists to recognize the existence of an inevitable cultural
component in all processes of perception, motivation, and learning (1).

5.2.4 Margaret Mead :

Mead pioneered fieldwork on topics such as childhood,
adolescence, and gender and was a founding figure in culture and
personality studies (4). Mead was well known for her studies on
nonliterate people of Oceania, on psychology, culture, cultural
conditioning of sexual behavior, natural characte r, cultural change. She
not only studied but frequently gave lectures on a range of serious topics
like women’s rights, child rearing, sexuality morality, nuclear
proliferation, race relations, drug abuse, population control, environmental
pollution and wo rld hunger (5). Coming of Age in Samoa, Growing Up in
New Guinea, and Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies are
some of the important works of Mead.

Coming of Age in Samoa :

This book is one of the important work of Margaret Mead. Mead
conducted her study among a small group of Samoans in a village of six
hundred people on the island of Tau, Samoa. She got to know, lived with,
observed, and interviewed 68 young women between the ages of 9 and 20,
and concluded tha t the passage from childhood to adulthood (adolescence)
in Samoa was a smooth transition, not marked by the emotional or
psychological distress, anxiety, or confusion seen in the United States.
Portraying a society characterized by a lack of deep feelings and by a lack
of conflict, neuroses, and difficult situations, the book offered Samoa as a
clear example supporting the thesis that teenagers are psychologically
healthier if they engage in sexual activities with multiple partners before munotes.in

Page 51

51
marriage. The book was much more than a report of research conducted. It
included an insightful introduction, a popularized opening chapter on "A
Day in Samoa," and two popularized concluding chapters drawing lessons
from the Samoan culture that Mead thought could be applie d to improve
the adolescent experience in the U.S. (6)

After her death Mead’s account of Samoa was challenged by
Derek Freeman’s book, Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and
Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth (1983) stating that the account of
Mead was only one version of Samoa.

Thus, culture and personality school had made an important contribution
to the field of anthropology.

Check Your Progress
1. Explain in brief the work of Margaret Mead?

2. Explain in brief about Ruth Benedict and her work?

5.3 CULTURE HISTORY
5.3.1 Understanding Culture :

The history of a culture reconstructed through comparison with
closely -related cultures. The idea was prominent among diffusionists and
students of Franz Boas (7). Jacob Burckhardt and John Huizinga, two
founding figures are the two people associated with the founding of the
concept Culture history. Although studies on culture and hi story has been
existing since long. However, merging these two individual disciplines has
brought new ideas and fields of study. Let us now look into both of them
individually first.

Culture in lay person terms can be associated with two simple
categories . Firstly, Agriculture – in a way meaning growth, fertility. The
second is culturing in the lab again signifying growth. So, in other words
some of the characteristics of culture since long is – Culture is cumulative,
Culture is learnt Culture is shared et c. Tylor said that culture is "that
complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals,
custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a
member of society." munotes.in

Page 52

52
5.3.2 Understanding History :

Some important questions can be rais ed like whose history?
History from below or from top? History can be seen from two areas one
recorded in terms of written and another which exists in forms of oral.
Even today due to multiple reasons the written tradition is seen as more
reliable than the oral tradition. There are several issues with the history too
like the powerful generally constructed and sponsored the writing of
history. So, the authenticity of the historical information about a given
population is too biased in several cases.















Figure 1 This is a crown made out of clay. The image has been captured
from Indonesia, Bali. There are hands in the top of the crown which can be
seen as symbols of people approval towards the king. This also shows that
before the advent of minerals like gold, diamond mud was being used.i


Figure 2 This image is that of
Meghalaya double decker
root bridge. This is an
example of culture history.
This bridge is more than
three hundred years old. The
villagers gave the rubber tree
direction and thereafter the
trees grew on its own. These
bridges were t hen used by
locals to go from one village
to another. It stands as a symbol of nature, culture and history passed on
to generation after another. The best part it is it is indigenous, nature
friendly. Earlier the bridge was only one level, when the flood c ame into
the village Figure 2
the second level was also constructed. So now it is popularly called as
Double Decker Root Bridgeii.

munotes.in

Page 53

53
The record of history and the existence of culture goes hand in
hand. For example - The symbols, arti facts, languages gives us a picture of
cultural history of a given time period. It helps us to draw a picture of the
society. However, in this too for several generations there is the other
factor which is involved which is the colonizer or the first world countries
have been studying the other (third world countries like India, Africa etc.
to a large extent. This pattern is even today continued. Although the third
world countries researchers have also been writing about their own land
too.

The contributi on of the European and Western scholars however
cannot be denied in documenting several important customs, traditions
like some important contributions are like by Sonthemier Folk Culture,
Folk Religion, and Oral Traditions as a Component in Maharashtrian
Culture (1995).

Check Your Progress
1. State the definition of Culture as given by Tylor.

2. Why is it important to record History according to you?

5.3.3 Material and Non material culture and history :

Culture can be studied from both material and non -material
objects. For example – oral stories, proverbs they act as important rich
heritage which talks about multiple things like flora, fauna of a given time,
symbols of a given time. Example of material c ulture are pots, records
inscribed in stones, temples etc. For example – If you visit Leh / Ladakh
there exists a museum where there is a 19th century momo steaming
utensil. This utensil helps us understand that momos have been existing
since long. There a re also photograph of different nomads, traders who
have walking from the silk routes. The leather bags images which they
used for carrying water, the purse made on animal leather etc. All these
traditions have vanished today however it explains the beauty of evolution
of culture.

Documenting cultural history becomes very essential as it gives a
sense of identity, togetherness, affiliation, heritage to our roots. In the
changing globalization this becomes even more important.
munotes.in

Page 54

54
Check Your Progress
1. Give some examples of culture history from your own villages or
observation.

5.4 SUMMARY
In this unit we started with understanding the culture and
personality school. The key prominent thinkers associated with the school
are that of Ruth Benedict and that of Margaret Mead. The school had
begun from the year 1930s and its popularity was till 1 960 and 1970. The
scholars some important works were Coming of Age in Samoa and
Patterns of Culture. The second part of the chapter was that about Culture
History. Culture History we looked into the understanding of culture
which starts from agriculture an d the culturing in lab. Culture definition of
Tylor we also looked in this chapter. In addition, we learnt how
importance of culture exists as it acts as a record, historical evidence, a
proof of how society has grown and as an identity of one selves or gr oup.

5.5 UNIT END QUESTIONS
1. Explain relationship between culture and Personality
2. What is culture? Explain Material and Nonmaterial aspects of culture.

5.6 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGS
1. https://www.britannica.com/science/culture -and-personality -studies
2. (2016). Culture and Personality. obo in Anthropology. doi:
10.1093/obo/9780199766567 -0144
3. Gordon, R. J., Lyons, H., & Lyons, A. (Eds.). (2010). Fifty key
anthropologists. Routledge.
4. https:/ /www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo -
9780199766567/obo -9780199766567 -0014.xml
5. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Margaret -Mead
6. https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Margaret_Mead#Comin
g_of_Age_in_Samoa
7. Barnard, A., & Spencer, J. (1996). E ncyclopedia of social and cultural
anthropology. Taylor & Francis. P. 889. i Photo – Personal collection captured during travel by the author. ii Source - http://northeasttourism.gov.in/cherapunjee.html#sthash.Lr1t8RQ1.dpbs image,
story collected during personal visit by the author.

***** munotes.in

Page 55

55
6

ETHNOLINGUISTICS,
VILLAGE STUDIES

Unit structure
6.0 Objectives
6.1 Meaning of Ethnolinguistics
6.2 History of Ethnolinguistics
6.3 Importance of Ethnolinguistics
6.4 Variables of ethnolinguistic studies
6.4.1 Lifestyles
6.4.2 Rituals
6.4.3 Communicative Acts
6.5 Saphir Whorf Hypothesis
6.6 Village Studies
6.6.1 Introduction
6.6.2 Importance of Village studies
6.6.3 Themes
6.6.4 Caste
6.6.5 Methodology
6.6.6 Interdisciplinary and Present times
6.7 Summary
6.8 Unit End Questions
6.9 References and Future Reading s

6.0 OBJECTIVES
 To understand the field of ethnolinguistics
 To learn about the importance of ethnolinguistics and its role in the
culture and Anthropology.
 To explore the background of village studies.
 To learn about the growth of village studies in India from start to
present.

6.1 MEANING OF ETHNOLINGUISTICS
The term ethnolinguistics comprises of two words ethno derived
from Greek language meaning nation, people and linguistics which means
the scientific study of the structure and development of language in
general or particular languagesi. Ethno linguistics is a part of
anthropological linguistics which is concerned with the study of the munotes.in

Page 56

56
interrelation between a language and the cultural behaviour of those who
speak it. This field of knowledge raises several important questions like -
Does language shapes culture or vice versa? What influence does language
have on perception and thought? How do language patterns relate to
cultural patterns?

6.2 HISTORY OF ETHNOLINGUISTICS
The founder of Ethnolinguistics was that of Edward Sapir he
suggested that man (human) recognizes the world principally through
language. He wrote many articles on the relationship of language to
culture. A thorough description of a linguistic structure and its function in
speech might, he wrote in 1931, provide insight into man’s perceptive
and cognitive faculties and help explain the diverse behaviour among
peoples of different cultural backgroundsii.

6.3 IMPORTANCE OF ETHNOLINGUISTICS
Ethnolinguistics try to find out the underlying patterns and
structures of cultural characteristics (such as language, mythology, gender,
roles, symbols and rituals etc.) especially with regard to their historical
development, similarities, and dissimilarities. (3).

Bartmiński (2009:10) views ethnolinguistics as a discipline which
deals with manifestations of culture in language. “It attempts to discover
the traces of culture in the very fabric of language, in word meanings,
phraseology, word formation, and syntax and text structure. It strives to
reconstruct the worldview entrenched in language as it is projected by the
experiencing and speaking subject”. (3)

Documenting language is very important as it has a close relation
to culture. For example - A folklorist in on e of his interview said this point,
if certain words are not documented the history behind it would vanish.
For example, in Indian society earlier before the tap water systems, and
water bottle. This was used for drinking, cleaning. So, there was a time
when a caste group was involved and they had specific name to the
profession. With time, these things have vanished in practice. However,
the words and terms used can explain the growth of society.

Check Your Progress
1. Discuss the origin and history of Ethnolingu istics in few lines?

munotes.in

Page 57

57
2. State the importance of ethnolinguistics ? You can add your own
examples.

6.4 VARIABLES OF ETHNOLINGUISTIC STUDIES
6.4.1 Life Style :

Different communities have different styles of living. The type of
houses, dwellings, food habits, and living habits constitutes the basic
question when it comes to an ethno linguistic study. Thus, a study of life
style will include the study of sources of income, the standard of life, the
type of houses where they live, the kind of food they take, etc. For
example – Britishers funded lot of scholars for translating the ancient
Indian texts into English so that they could understand the lifestyle,
psycholog y of Indians.

6.4.2 Rituals :

The study of different rituals which are practiced in a given
community is one of the variable of ethnolinguistics. It includes a study of
both religious and secular rituals. It is sometimes very difficult to separate
a rel igious ritual from a secular one as many of the rituals have both
religious as well as secular dimensions. Rituals form an important part of
the lifecycle of an individual, and different rituals constitute a part of the
essential basic setup of different c ommunities e.g. birth ritual, marriage
ritual and death ritual. All have their unique features in each and every
community. By focusing on different rituals one can get a lot of
information about the ethno linguistic setup of a community. Similarly, a
study of religious rituals will foreground a lot of information about the
ethno linguistic setup of a community.

6.4.3 Communicative Acts:

Communicative acts in different communities are carried in
different ways depending on a number of other factors. In some
communities silence form an important part of communicative act whereas
in others noise is important. The way people interact with each other, the
way people provide linguistic respect varies from one community to
another community and this study of s peech acts, conversation implicates
provides a rich source of informationiii

6.5 SAPIR –WHORF HYPOTHESIS American anthropological linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin
L. Whorf noticed, that Eskimo had many words for snow, whereas Aztec munotes.in

Page 58

58
employs a single term for the concepts of snow, cold, and ice. With this
they developed the hypothesis that the structur e of a language conditions
the way in which a speaker of that language which is known as
the Whorfian hypothesis .iv This hypothesis is also called as linguistic
relativity; in other word s, it proposes that the language in which one
speaks influences the way one thinks about realityv.

Check Your Progress
1. Explain the Sapir and Whorf hypothesis?

2. Explain rituals as a variable of ethnolinguistics?

Let us know look into the section of the chapter i.e., Village studies.

6.6 VILLAGE STUDIES
6.6.1 Introduction:

In India still more than 70 percent of population resides in villages.
So, studying villages has become s very much important. Studying villages
will give a larger per spective of the Indian society. Villages are the lifeline
of the Indian society. Beteille states that Indian village are not merely a
place where people live, it has a design in which the basic values of Indian
civilization gets reflected (Beteille, 1980: 108)vi.

The origin, development, and functioning of the various customs
and traditions, t he Hindu systems of caste and joint family, and the
economy and polity of the village/tribal community were some of the
prominent themes of study by the British administrators and missionaries
as well as other British, European, and Indian intellectualsvii. To rule the
country the colonizers had to understand the customs so they sponsored,
invested on the translation of work.

The situation with regard to village studies underwent a radical
change after the end of World War II when Indian social anthropolo gists,
trained abroad, and their foreign counterparts, began making systematic
studies of villages in different parts of the cou ntry (Srinivas, 1975)viii.
There were even debates in journals by scholars like : (i) whether or not a
village in India has a "sociological reality", (ii) can such a village be
satisfactorily comprehended and conceived as a whole in itself, and (iii) can munotes.in

Page 59

59
understanding of one such village contribute to understanding of the universe
of Indi an civilisation?ix Such discussions also have periodically emerged in
the context of Village studies .

Check Your Progress
1. Write in brief the background of Village studies carried out India?

6.6.2 Importance of Village study :

Dube explains the importance of village study. He points out
village communities all over the Indian sub -continent have a number of
common features. The village settlement, as a unit of social organizaiton,
represents a solidarity different from that of the kin, the caste, and the
class. Each village is a distinct entity, which has some individual more and
usages. Different castes and communities live in the village and are tied
together through economic , social, ritua l patterns through mutual and
reciprocal obligations. To an outside world it looks like a compact whole,
organisedx.

6.6.3 Themes :

In the 1950s and 1960s, several micro -level studies of caste, joint
families, and village communities, mostly from the viewpoint of
structural -functional aspects and change, were carried out (encylopedia) .
Studies were in the area of marriage, family, and kinship. The village
studies focused on stratification and mobility, factionalism and leadership,
the jajmani (patron –client) relationship, contrasting characteristics of rural
and urban communities, and linkages with the outside world (ii).

6.6.4 Caste :

Several villages studies brought the caste and location dimension
too. For example - Beteille in her study of Tamil Nadu village points out, it
is possible to study within the framework of a single village many forms
of social relations which are of general occurrence throughout the area.
For example the relations between Brahmins, non - Brahmins a nd Adi -
Dravidas and between landowners, tenants and agricultural labourersxi.

6.6.5 Methodology :

River explains the importance of fieldwork in village. According to
him, a typical piece of intensive fieldwork was one in which the worker lived
for a year or more among a community of perhaps four or five hundred people
and studied every detail of their life and culture; in which he came to know
every member of the community personally; in which he was not content with munotes.in

Page 60

60
generalized information, but studied every feature of life and custom in
concrete detail and by means of the vernacular language (River in Beteille and
Madan, 1975: 2)xii

There are several important works by Sociologists on Indian
villages like Village India by Marriot, Rural Sociology by A. R. Desai,
Religion among Coorgs by M.N. Srinivas, Indian village by S.C. Dube.
Several universities which had also started training students of sociology
with field work with UG and PG.

Check Your Progress
1. Write in brief the different themes in the village studies carried out in
India?

2. State the dominant methodology in village studies?

6.6.6 Interdisciplinary and Present times :

Since the early 1950s, government and other institutions have been
encouraging and sponsoring research in the field of population and family
planning (Visaria and Visaria 1995, 1996). Policies and programs
concerning urban and rural community development, Panchayati Raj,
education, abolit ion of untouchability, uplift of weaker sections (scheduled
castes, scheduled tribes, and other backward castes), and rehabilitation of
people affected by large -scale projects (constructions of large dams,
industrial estates, capital cities, etc.) have bee n some of the other
important areas of research by sociologists. Interdisciplinary research has
also been encouraged and sponsored by Indian Council of Social science
research. In 1975 –1976 the Indian Space Research Organization
conducted a one -year satell ite instructional television experiment in 2,330
villages spread over twenty districts of six states (Agrawal et al. 1977); the
ICSSR sponsored a nationwide study of the educational problems of
students from scheduled castes and tribes (Shah 1982) (ii, xiii).

6.7 SUMMARY
In this chapter we looked into two topics. First was
Ethnolinguistics and second was Village Studies. Ethnolinguistics
comprises of two words ethno derived from Greek language meaning
nation, people and linguistics which means the scientific study of the munotes.in

Page 61

61
structure and development of language. The founder was Edward Sapir he
suggested that man (human) recognizes the world principally through
language. The importance of ethnolinguistics studies are many and it acts
as a historical symbol for the society. It’s a rich heritage. There are
different variables in ethnolinguistics like lifestyle, rituals, communicative
acts. An important discussion with ethnolinguistics even today is whether
language influences culture or vice versa, this is called as Saphir -Whorf
Hypothesis.

The second section of the chapter is that of Village studies. Even
today, more than 70 percentage of our population resides in villages. The
earlier studies were sponsored by Britishers for their own purpose so that
they could understand the customs. Through that they could rule the
population. The re were several scholars who were also initially trained
abroad but continued their fieldwork and documented several important
works. Field work has been the methodology used by scholars. Several
important aspects of Indian society like Caste, Gender, Tribes have been
studied even today. Indian government, ICSSR has been sponsoring such
studies. Even the Indian space research organization has observed 2,330
villages this shows the importance of villag e studies even today. As it is
the essence of Indian society.

6.8 UNIT END QUESTIONS
1. What are E thnolinguistics ? Explain its importance.
2. Explain variables of E thnolinguistics studies
3. Explain Saphir -Whorf Hypothesis.

6.9 REFERENCES AND FUTURE READINGS
 i https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/linguistics
 ii https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edward -Sapir
 iii
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/147641/8/08_intro
duction.pdf
 iv https://www.britannica.com/science/ethnolinguistics
 vhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/sapir -whorf -
hypothesis in J.A. Lucy, in International Encyclopedia of the Social &
Behavioral Sciences , 2001
 vi Béteille, A. (1980). Indian village: past and present. Peasants in history,
essays in honour of Daniel Thorner, edited by EJ Hobsbawm...[et al.] . vii https://www.encyclopedia.com/social -sciences/encyclopedias -almanacs -
transcripts -and-maps/indian -sociology
 viii Srinivas, M. N. (1975). Village studies, participant observation and
social science research in India. Economic and political weekly , 1387 -
1394. munotes.in

Page 62

62

 ix Sharma, S. (1969). Indian Village as a Unit of Study —I. Economic and
Political Weekly, 4(33), 1347 -1354.
 x Dube, S. C. (2017). Indian village . Routledge.
 xi Jodhka, S. (2000, April). Sociology/anthropology, nation and the village
community. In Sociology Unit, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi,
National Workshop (pp. 19 -21).
 Shah, Vimal P. 1982 The Educational Problems of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe School and College Students in India . New Delhi: Allied
Publishers.
 xii Béteille, A., & Madan, T. N. (1975). Encounter anã Experience:
Personal Accounts of Fieldwork. Delhi , Vikas.
 xiii Instructional Television Experiment: Social Evaluation —Impact on
Adults, Parts I –II. Bangalore: Indian Space Research Organization.
 Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) 1972 –1974 A Survey of
Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology , 3 vols. Bombay: Popular
Prakashan. Visaria, Leela, and Pravin
 Visaria 1995 India's Populationin Transition . (Population Bulletin 50: 3).
Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau.
 ——1996 Prospective Population Growth and PolicyOptions for India,
1991 –2101 . New York : Population Council.
 Agrawal, Binod C., J.K.Doshi, Victor Jesudason, and K.K.Verma
1977 Satellite Instructional Television Experiment: Social Evaluat ion—
Impact on Adults, Parts I –II. Bangalore: Indian Space Research
Organization.
 Reddy, D. Narasimha, (2012), “Studying Village Society in India, “Review
of Agrarian Studies, vol. 2, no. 1.
http://ras.org.in/studying_village_society_in_india


***** munotes.in

Page 63

63
7

CLASSICAL STUDIES IN KINSHIP
AND STRUCTURALISM

Unit Structure
7.0 Objectives
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Classical Studies in Kinship
7.3 Structuralism
7.4 Summary
7.5 Unit End Questions
7.6 References and Further Readings

7.0 OBJECTIVES
 To understand the history of kinship studies in anthropology
 To explore the importance of kinship studies.
 To know the origins of structuralism

7.1 INTRODUCTION
Kinship is the system of social organization based on family ties.
By 1850s, the modern study of kinship was prevalent, which by the end of
nineteenth century, came to be a full -fledged field in anthropology.
However the field of kinship has been very conf using as well as
controversial from the beginning. Kinship can refer to blood relationships,
consanguine relationships and those that are established by marriage.
Within all cultures , we see this form of organization that is, categories of
kins and affine s, and its association with certain rights and o bligations,
make up what anthropologists call kinship system.

Kinship thus remained the most universal and basic underpinning
of all human relationships, that are known by various names. According to
Encyclo paedia Britannica, if the study of kinship was defined largely by
anthropologists, it is equally true that anthropology as an academic
discipline was itself defined by kinship and that until the last decades of
the 20th century, for example, kinship was re garded as the core of British
social anthropology, and no thorough ethnographic study could overlook
the central importance of kinship in the functioning of so -called stateless,
nonindustrial, or traditional societies.
munotes.in

Page 64

64
Lewis Henry Morgan, the American eth nologist and
anthropologist, is regarded as the founder -cum-principal investigator for
the kinship systems. His approach and studies laid the foundation of the
system of kinship studies in anthropology. He states different types of
kinship systems, in his book, ‘Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the
Human Family’ . Other famous theorists and scholars include the English
scholar Radcliff Brown, Evans Pritchard, Fortes, G.P. Murdock and Levi -
Strauss.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Structuralism as a school of
thought developed by the French anthropologist Claude Lévi -Strauss, in
which cultures, viewed as systems, are analyzed in terms of the structural
relations among their elements. According t o Lévi -Strauss’s theories,
universal patterns in cultural systems are products of the invariant
structure of the human mind. Structure, for Lévi -Strauss, referred
exclusively to mental structure, although he found evidence of such
structure in his far -ranging analyses of kinship, patterns in mythology, art,
religion, ritual, and culinary traditions.

7.2 CLASSICAL STUDIES IN KINSHIP
The nineteenth century American anthropologist Lewis Henry
Morgan (1818 -1881) was interested in the evolution of culture as a general
human phenomenon and held a strong belief that there were universal
evolutionary stages of cultural development that characterized the
transition from primitive to complex societies and because of this belief,
Morgan is known as unilineal evolutionists (McGee et al. , 2017 ). He is
thus best regarded for his contribution on the human social institutions,
known as the kinship system.

Morgan’s theoretical insights, Barnard et al. (2002 ) highlights, rest
principally on the comparative study of North American Indians, and most
especially on his work on the Iroquois, the tribal confederacy in the
northeastern United States among whom he conducted both field and
archival research. Morgan’s s tudies, principally published between 1851
and 1877, provide landmark accounts of systems of kinship and marriage
in general, and in particular the shape of matrilineal descent structures.
Thus the Iroquois matrilineal system, though not matriarchal, was r evealed
by Morgan ‘as permitting women to exercise exceptionally high levels of
political influence’.

The Iroquois kinship system surprised Morgan. For example, as
mentioned in Moore (2004 ), collateral kin were classified as lineal kin —
the same te rms are used for “father” and “father’s brother,” for “mother”
and “mother’s sister,” and for siblings and parallel cousins. Descent
among the Seneca was reckoned through the mother’s line, and thus a
child is a member of his or her mother’s lineage, not h is or her father’s.
Morgan further observed that Iroquois political organization was an
extension of kinship. munotes.in

Page 65

65
In 1859 Morgan discovered that similar kinship systems were used
by the Ojibwa of upper Michigan and possibly among the Dakota and
Creek (White 19 59:6–7). This led Morgan to a new approach to
ethnographic data. Rather than solely document the folklore of the
Iroquois, Morgan began to explore the relationships between different
societies as reflected in shared systems of kinship. Morgan’s greatest
discovery, as anthropologist Leslie White put it, was “the fact that customs
of designating relatives have scientific significance” (1957:257).That
discovery was documented in Morgan’s (1871) magnum opus, Systems of
Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Fa mily (Moore, 2004 ).

Morgan's studies of kinship were based on extensive
questionnaires . Morgan sent a printed questionnaire requesting
information about kinship terms to consular officials, missionaries, and
scientists around the world This cross -cultural s urvey, combined with
Morgan’s own field research, resulted in kinship data from 139 different
groups in North America, Asia, Oceania, and ancient and modern Europe
(Moore, 2004 ).

While in Fiji in 1869, Lorimer Fison (1832 -1907), a missionary,
journalist, and anthropologist, received one of these questionnaires. It
drew his interest to anthropology and he became an ardent follower of
Morgan, with whom he corresponded extensively. Fison's research into
Australian abori ginal kinship systems, based on interviews with European
settlers, provided important data for E. B. Tylor, J. G. Frazer, and E mile
Durkheim as well as Morgan (McGee & Warms, 2017 ).

The landmark publication in the twentieth century studies of social
organization , Social Anthropology of North American Tribes, edited by
Fred Eggan (1937), developed Morgan’s approach to the study of North
American Indians, though it eliminated its evolutionary dimens ion.
Influenced by the British structural functionalist, A. R. Radcliffe -Brown,
the contributors attend mainly to the social and political organization of a
large variety of societies, especially the various Plains Indian societies of
the north -central United States (e.g. Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapaho) . The
focus is principally on kinship organization, although other types of
relationship, such as the ‘joking relationship ’ famous among many North
American Indian peoples, are considered as well (Barnard & Spencer,
2002 ).

Morgan’s goal was to trace the connections between systems of
kinship and to explore their “progressive changes” as man developed
through “the ages of barbarism” (Morgan 1871:vi). At this point, Morgan
had not outlined the evolutionary scheme that forms the explanatory
structure of his Ancient Society . Rather, Morgan approached kinship
systems as if they were languages and modeled his analysis on the
comparative method (Moore, 2004 ).
munotes.in

Page 66

66
Alfred Reginald Radcliffe -Brown, a Br itish social anthropologist
famously associated with str uctural functionalism, who drew heavily on
Durkheim's work, sought to understand how cultural institutions
maintained the equilibrium and cohesion of a society. Al -though he did
fieldwork in the Andaman Islands and Australia, Radcliffe -Brown was
more inter ested in deriving social laws governing behavior from the
comparative study of different cultures than in cultural description based
on intensive fieldwork in one culture (McGee & Warms, 2017 ).

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Radcliffe -Brown’s theory
had its classic formulation and application in The Social Organisation of
Australian Tribes (1931). Treating all Aboriginal Australia known at the
time, the work cataloged, classified, analyzed, and synthesized a vast
amount of dat a on kinship, marriage, language, custom, occupancy and
possession of land, sexual patterns, and cosmology. His later works
include Structure and Function in Primitive Society (1952), Method in
Social Anthropology (1958), and an edited collection of essays
entitled African Systems of Kinship and Marriage (1950), which remains a
landmark in African studies.

Radcliffe -Brown’s study of kinship began in 1904 under Rivers,
who himself followed the method of conjectural history, first under the
influence of Mor gan and later in the form of what he called ethnological
analysis as exemplified in his History of Melanesian Society , in which
Rivers highlighted the importance of investigating the behaviour of
relatives to one another as a means of understanding a syste m of kinship
(Radcliffe -Brown, 1941 ).

Radcliffe -Brown conducted ethnographic research among the
Kariera and other aboriginal groups in western Australia from 1910 to
1912. Radcliffe -Brown’s impact is evident in the writings of his students.
When he left the University of Chicago, his students presented Radcliffe -
Brown with a volume titled Social Anthropology of North American
Tribes (Eggan 1962). That group —including Fred Eggan, Morris Opler,
and Sol Tax —all became important figures in American anthropology
(Moore, 2004 ).

According to Radcliffe -Brown (1941 ), the unit of structure from
which a kinship is built up is the group which should be identified as an
‘elementary family’, consisting of a man and his wife and their
child/children, whether living together or not. Children may be made
members of an elementary family by adoption or by birth. Further, there
also exists compound families such as polygynous and monogamous.

The existence of the ele mentary family creates three special kinds
of social relationship – that between parent and child, between children of
the same parents, and that between husband and wife as parents of the
same child/children. These three relationships that exist within the
elementary famil y constitute as the first order, whereas the relationships of munotes.in

Page 67

67
the second order depend on the connection of the two elementary families
through a common member such as father’s father, mother’s brother, or
wife’s sister and so on. In the third order, relationships are such as father’s
brother’s son and mother’s brother’s wife. Thus, with the genealogical
information, one can trace relationships of the fourth, fifth or nth order
(Radcliffe -Brown, 1941 ).

An important figure in kinship literature is, no doubt, Claude Lévi -
Strauss a French anthropologist and ethnologist , a significant contributor
to the theory of structuralism. Lévi-Strauss’s work on cross -cousin
marriage clearly owes a considerable debt to Radcliffe -Brown’s work on
Australia. He both adopts Radcliffe -Brown’s three types of cross -cousin
marriage as the three possible elementary structures of kinship, and re -
analyses Australian material in the first of the ethnographic sections of
The Elementary Structures of Kinship . While Radcliffe -Brown regarded
kinship as an extension of familial relationships to the tribal community in
such a way as to achieve progressively higher levels of social i ntegration,
Lévi-Strauss regarded kinship as the product of a mode of thought which
operated at a global (tribal) level, ordering people into opposed
relationship categories such as ‘father’s father’ and ‘mother’s father’
(Barnard & Spencer, 2002 ).

Lévi-Strauss argues that “social anthropology is devoted especially
to the study of institutions considered as systems of representations”
(1963a:3). Lévi -Strauss uses “representations” as Durkheim did, to refer to
beliefs, sentiments, norms, va lues, attitudes, and meanings. Those
institutions are cultural expressions that are usually unexamined by their
users; in that narrow but fundamental sense anthropology examines the
unconscious foundations of social life. This search for the underlying
structures of social life led Lévi -Strauss to explore three principal areas:
systems of classification, kinship theory, and the logic of myth (Moore,
2004 ).

Levi-Strauss used the notion of the binary structure of human
thought to analyze kinship, applying the work of Marcel Mauss, who in
The Gift (1967, orig. 1925) had tried to demonstrate that exchange in
primitive societies was driven not by economic motives but by rules of
reciprocity upon which the solidarity of society depended. In Elementary
Structures of Kinship (1969, orig. 1949) Levi -Strauss took Mauss' concept
of reciprocity and applied it to marriage in primitive societies, arguing that
in those societies women were a commodity that could be exchanged.
Levi-Strauss contended that one of the first and m ost important
distinctions a human makes is between self and others. This "natural"
binary distinction then leads to the formation of the incest taboo, which
necessitates choosing spouses from outside of one's family (McGee &
Warms, 2017 ).

Check Your Progress
1. What is the contribution of Lewis Henry Morgan? munotes.in

Page 68

68

7.3 STRUCTURALISM
According to Pettit (1975 ), ‘Structuralism’ claims to provide a
framework for organizing and orientating any semiological study, any
study concerned with the production and perception of meaning. This
school of thought has developed through many theorists and scholars
across disciplines and its thus become very complicated, with a variety of
it available in sociological and anthropological discourses . It is important
to understand that these are not with neat boundaries and therefore are
likely to be overlapping.

Most accounts of Structuralism tend to portray it as the radical
enemy of any philosophy of consciousness, therefore of phenomenology, a
study of the way in which consciousness constitutes a world (Sturrock,
1993 ). Under the influence of structural -functionalism and structuralism,
material culture had ceased to be a focus of serious interest for most
sociocultural anthropologists (Barnard & Spencer, 2002 ).

As Lechte (1994 ) highlights, the structuralist movement was set in
motion by factors including the works of Marcel Mauss or Georges
Canguilhem had already begun to de -stabilize the presuppositions of
phenomenology and positivism. It has also been stated that two aspect s of
the structural approach stand out: (1) the recognition that differential
relations are the key to understanding culture and society; and, (2) that, as
a result, structure is not prior to the realization of these relations. Although
one can easily see structuralism as a universal philosophy in the tradition
of the philosophes, with its emphasis on the global nature of human
thought, it also can be seen as a version of Boasian diffusionism
(Wiseman, 2009 ).

'Structuralism' is associated more with a set of names: Lévi -
Strauss, Althusser, Foucault, and Lacan (and, perhaps, Barthes, Derrida,
Tel Quel) , than with a clearly defined programme or doctrine. It is indeed
the case that there are many differences between these thinkers, and that
each has developed the basic ideas of structuralism in his o w n way.
However there is a basic theme at the heart of structuralism and it is
largely from the work of Lévi -Strauss that this theme comes (Clarke,
1981 ).

Lévi-Strauss’s structuralism opened the door again to European
ethnology. From the New School of Social Research in New York city,
where he spent his wartime exile, Lévi -Strauss launched the structuralist
movement that was to sweep the discipline in the 1950s and early 1960s
(Barnard & Spencer, 2002 ). For structuralism any attempt to understand munotes.in

Page 69

69
the human world must be based on an implacable opposition to the evils of
'positivism' ('naturalism' or 'realism') and 'humanism', marked by the naive
belief in the existence of a reality independent of human apprehension or
in the existence of a humanity that could create its own world (Clarke,
1981 ).

Louis Pierre Althusser, a French Marxist philosopher, was also
famously known as a structural Marxist. According to Encyclopedia
Britannica, For Althusser, historic al change depended on “objective”
factors such as the relationship between forces and relations of production;
questions of “consciousness” were always of secondary importance. His
emphasis on the historical process over the historical subject in Marx
comp lemented efforts by French structuralists —including Claude Lévi -
Strauss, Roland Barthes (1915 –80), Michel Foucault (1926 –84), and
Jacques Lacan (1901 –81)—to vanquish the “subjectivist” paradigm of
existential phenomenology represented by Jean -Paul Sartre ( 1905 –80) and
Maurice Merleau -Ponty (1908 –61).

Claude Levi -Strauss (b. 1908) almost singlehandedly founded the
field of structural ism. He began with the assumption that culture was, first
and foremost, a product of the mind. Since all human brains are
biologically similar, he reasoned, there must be deep -seated similarities
among cultures. The goal he set for anthropology was to disc over the
fundamental structure of human cognition, the underlying patterns of
human thought that produce the great variety of current and historical
cultures. Pursuing this quest, he has spent his career conducting cross -
cultural studies of kinship, myths , and religion (McGee & Warms, 2017 )

Lévi-Strauss was mystified by the intense popularity of
structuralism in the 1960s and 1970s. Part of the intensity was created by
the verbal jousting between Lévi -Strauss and Jean - Paul Sartre, a debate
that began in the last chapter of The Savage Mind (Lévi -Strauss 1966) but
quickly spilled into the pages of intellectual journals and personified the
conflicts between existentialism and structuralism as reigning systems of
thought (Moore, 2004 ).

Examination of Lévi-Strauss' work not only has the advantage of
directing our attention to the foundations of structuralism in this sense. It
has two other advantages as well . Firstly, the work of Althusser, Lacan
and Foucault is often extremely ambiguous, if not obscure , and is full of
the most sweeping generalizations that make their claims very difficult to
pin down. Lévi -Strauss, by contrast, developed the structuralist approach
in the examination of particular symbolic systems, above all those of
kinship and of myth, that makes his claims concrete and specific, and so
amenable to rational evaluation (Clarke, 1981 ).

After his structural approach to kinship , as seen in the previous
section, Lévi -Strauss expanded his search for structure , Moore (2004 )
notes, by turning to the study of myth because “the elements of mythical munotes.in

Page 70

70
thought . . . lie half -way between precepts and concepts” (1966:18),
relying on both concrete situations and the notions to which they refer.
Mythical thought “builds up structured sets, not directly with other
structured sets,” but by using the odds and ends of experience, building
“ideological castles out of the debris of what once was a social discourse”
(Lévi -Strauss 1966:21 –22). For Lévi -Strauss, if basic unconscious
structures were foun d in myth, then that might reflect the existence of
fundamental mental structures that provide the organizing categories of
cultural phenomena.

Check Your Progress:
1.What is ‘Structuralism’ ?

7.4 SUMMARY
For modern anthropology the most influential of the evolutionary
theorists was Lewis Henry Morgan. While other 19th -century
anthropologists generally based their work on library research, Morgan
carried out fieldwork among the Iroquois and other Native Ame rican
peoples. Morgan’s theories thus suggested a mechanism for the evolution
of the family: technological developments and the concomitant changes in
the ownership of property drove the development of new kinship
institutions.

Inspired by Morgan, Eggan and others, the social organization of
the North American Indians has continued to fascinate anthropologists. In
particular, the matrilineal societies, though not numerically preponderant,
have received considerable attention. As well as the Iroquois, exa mples
range from the Tlingit and Haida, hunters and fishermen of coastal and
island southeast Alaska, through to the Hopi, pueblo dwellers of Arizona,
and also the Navajo, a people noted for having taken up livestock herding
in place of hunting and agricul ture (Barnard & Spencer, 2002 ).

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the rise of feminist and
Marxist scholarship in the 1960s and ’70s was among several
developments that challenged the basis of earlier kinship scholarship. The
American Marxist -feminist anthropologist Eleanor Leacock a nd others
brought to the fore the extent to which supposedly holistic practices of
ethnography were actually concerned with men only, often to the point of
excluding most or all information on the lives of women. The relative
foregrounding of men in anthro pological studies became less acceptable,
and women’s experiences became a legitimate topic of scholarship.
Meanwhile, materialist studies of so -called traditional and industrial munotes.in

Page 71

71
societies were increasingly able to show the political and economic
inflectio ns of the “private,” “domestic” domain of the family.

The anthropologist Claude Lévi -Strauss (b. 1908) occupies a
unique position in the development of anthropological theory and the
intellectual life of the twentieth century. In anthropology Lévi -Strauss is
known as the founder of structuralism, an approach that emerged uniquely
in his work . In The Elementary Structures of Kinship , Lévi -Strauss
provides an encyclopedic summary of kinship systems but focuses on a
central theme: kinship systems are about th e exchange of women, defining
the categories of potential spouses and prohibited mates (Moore, 2004 ).

The unconscious mediating between us and the world - creating
the twin illusions of reality and subjectivity – is a theme that pervades
structuralism and is developed rather differently in the work of different
structuralists. Althusser has developed the structuralist arguments largely
in epistemological terms, reca pitulating the neo -positivist critique of
naturalism and of humanism. Foucault has developed it in a sustained
relativist critique of the ideological pretensions of contemporary society.
Lacan has developed it in a linguistic idealist reinterpretation of F reud. A
comprehensive critical examination of structuralism would therefore
require several volumes. However these different variations are
developments of a common theme, and it is a theme that was introduced,
at least in the structuralist form, in the wo rk of Lévi – Strauss (Clarke,
1981 ).

7.5 UNIT END QUESTIONS
1. Write a brief note on various classical studies in kinship.
2. What has been the contribution of The Elementary Structures of
Kinship , to the kinship studies?
3. Explain ‘structuralism’ vis -à-vis kinship systems.
4. What has been Lévi -Strauss’s contribution to ‘S tructuralism’?

7.6 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGS
 Assiter, A. (1984). Althusser and Structuralism. The British Journal of
Sociology, 35(2), 272 -296.
 Barnard, A., & Spencer, J. (2002). Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural
Anthropology: Taylor & Francis.
 Clarke, S. (1981). The Foundations of Structuralism - A CRITIQUE
OF LÉVI -STRAUSS AND THE STRUCTURALIST MOV EMENT.
Sussex: The Harvester Press.
 Dube, L. (2000). Doing Kinship and Gender: An Autobiographical
Account. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(46), 4037 -4047. munotes.in

Page 72

72
 Eister, A. W. (1972). An Outline of a Structural Theory of Cults.
Journal for the Scientific Stud y of Religion, 319 -333.
 Fortes, M. (2017). Kinship and the Social Order: The Legacy of Lewis
Henry Morgan: Taylor & Francis.
 Kronenfeld, D. B. (1975). Kroeber v. Radcliffe -Brown on Kinship
Behaviour: The Fanti Test Case. Man, 10(2), 257 -284.
 Lechte, J. ( 1994). FIFTY KEY CONTEMPORARY THINKERS -
From structuralism to postmodernity. London: Routledge.
 McGee, R. J., & Warms, R. L. (2017). Anthropological Theory: An
Introductory History: Rowman & Littlefield.
 Moore, J. D. (2004). Visions of Culture: An Introdu ction to
Anthropological Theories and Theorists: AltaMira Press.
 Pettit, P. (1975). The Concept of Structuralism: A Critical Analysis.
California: University of California Press.
 Radcliffe -Brown, A. R. (1941). The Study of Kinship Systems. The
Journal of t he Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and
Ireland, 71(1/2), 1 -18.
 Sturrock, J. (1993). Structuralism. USA: Blackwell.
 Trautmann, T. R. (2008). Lewis Henry Morgan and the Invention of
Kinship: UNP - Nebraska Paperback.
 Wiseman, B. (2009). The Cambridge Companion to Lévi -Strauss:
Cambridge University Press.


*****

munotes.in

Page 73

73
8

STRUCTURALISM IN INDIAN
ANTHROPOLOGY
AND
DIVERSIFICATION OF ANTHROPOLOGY:
WORLD ANTHROPOLOGY

Unit Structure
8.0 Objectives
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Structuralism in Indian Anthropology
8.3 Diversificat ion of Anthropology
8.4 Summary
8.5 Unit End Questions
8.6 References and Further Readings .

8.0 OBJECTIVES
 To understand the structural approach in the anthropological studies in
India.
 To understand how anthropology got diversified globally.

8.1 INTRODUCTION
Structuralism, as a school of thought, has remained influential in
the various anthropological contributions of various scholars. However, its
application and interpretation has differed from one scholar to another.
Within the Indian society, anthropological studies have has a niche in the
pre-independence as well as post -independence periods. ‘Structuralism’ as
a tag largely fits the contribution of the French anthropologist, Louis
Dumont, for his single major work known as Homo Hierarchicus .

Dumont’s contribution, as we shall see ahead, has left a mark on
the Indian anthropology f orever. As Berger (2012 ) puts it, Dumont’s
theory of hierarchy and his view of Indian society provided the ground for
a great deal of debate in the 1970s . Not only were Dumont’s daring
arguments discussed and many weak points in his theory exposed, his
contribution also served as a foil for new theoretical developments. An
indicator of the continuing relevance of Dumont’s work —not only of
Homo Hierarchicus , but also beyond the anthropology of India —is the munotes.in

Page 74

74
ongoing flow of publications dealing with his theory of value, which has
been put into dialogue with many new ethnographic contexts.

While the strand that reached India with Dumont was that of
French stru cturalism, anthropology has indeed spread globally. The ‘the
study of man’ – anthropology – that gained currency in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, became increasingly elaborate and relevant to human
living . The major exponents of anthropology – the intellectual tradition –
came mainly from France, Germany, Britain and America.

Since the beginning, anthropology has witnessed grand
diversification in its focus and specializations. This diversification
includes structuralism, evolutionism, neo -evolu tionism, hermeneutics,
neo-Marxism, feminism, and so on, with many new minute specializations
coming up globally. Anthropology thus remains an importance science of
humankind.

8.2 STRUCTURALISM IN INDIAN ANTHROPOLOGY
Mainly since its independence in 194 7, trained anthropologists
have conducted ethnographic research in all corners of India, though
anthropological attention has not been distributed evenly (Berger, 2012 ).
While doing ethnographic and anthropolo gical research in India, scholars
employed certain general perspectives, the analysis and interpretation of
the data then, depended highly on these perspectives adopted.

Apart from the study of what were variously termed “scheduled
tribes,” “aborigines,” “adivasis,” “animists,” or “backward Hindus,”
anthropologists did not pay much attention to Indian society prior to
Independence ; it was not, in fact, until the 1950s that the discipline
adapted its field techniques and theories to the study of a “civiliza tion”
such as India (Clark -Decès, 2011 ). Structuralism, as a theoretical
approa ch or perspective, was imported and adapted to understand Indian
social structure and culture.

The profound contribution for bringing the structural approach to
the Indian society can be credited to Louis Dumont, a French
anthropologist and Indologist. H imself a student of Marcel Mauss,
Dumont was further tremendously influenced by Lévi -Strauss’s
Structuralism. The entire Indian social structure was eventually reworked
with the advent of Dumont on its anthropological research’s scene.

According to Parkin (2002 ), although a structuralist, Dumont was
far from being a slavish imitator of Lévi -Strauss , even though this equally
great figure was an early influence on Dumont’s work on both kinship and
India. But also, however structuralist and ideologically focused his
anthropology may have been, Dumont kept a place for the empirical as
well as the ideolo gical: indeed, his model of hierarchical opposition can be munotes.in

Page 75

75
seen as a means of relating the two. A significant part of Dumont’s
achievement has therefore been to retain and develop structuralism by
incorporating rather than excluding the empirical, as Lévi -Strauss often
does quite explicitly.

Homo Hierarchicus , Dumont’s classic analysis of caste and the
book for which he is best known, followed in 1966 -7 and marked a
turning -point in his research. For this, Dumont had been outlining his
approach to the Indian society from the mid -1950s. Although Dumont’s
book was taken being analytic, deductive, theoretical, and at times
difficult to digest, it nonetheless signaled the end of the village studies era
of 1950s and 1960s (Berger, 2012 ). From 1950s onwards, anthropological
developments took new turns. Till then, it was the American and British
anthropologists that were influential, but after 1950s, the French
Structuralists, particularly through works of Levi -Strauss, became highly
influential.

For Dumont, caste – not the village – was to be the focus of the
anthropology of India. As early as 1957, he and the Indian anthropologist
D. F. Pocock explained: “Whether a man is speaking of his own village or
of anot her village, unless he positively specifies another caste by name, he
is referring to his caste fellows” (1957:26). To these two scholars, the
Indian village did not even have a “sociological reality” (1957:26). The
dwelling -place of diverse and different castes, it was more an
“architectural and demographic fact” than a strictly social one (1957:23).
Having thrown the village out of anthropology, Dumont (1980) went on to
raise the debate about caste and Indian civilization to a n entirely new level
(Clark -Decès, 2011 ).

For Dumont, by contrast, caste is not an observable reality in the
first place but a “state of mind” (Dumont 1980: 34, original emphasis).
This means that caste cannot be explained merely as a particular form of
social structure or a particular type of social behaviour but primarily in
terms of ideas and values. Like Dur kheim’s “collective representations,”
such ideas and values are basic categories of thought that are social in
nature. Moreover, adopting Lévi -Strauss’ structuralism, Dumont stresses
the relational properties of such ideas and values, which are integrated into
the general cognitive systems he calls ideology. He therefor e speak s of
“hierarchy” as a structuring principle, which he claims to have detected in
classical Vedic texts dealing with the fourfo ld societal model of the varna
(Berger, 2012 ).

Religious status as expressed in the opposition of pure/impure is
for Dumont the key value of Indian society, and it is represented by the
Brahman priest in the varna model. Within the ideology, this value does
not mer ely stand in opposition to its antithesis —power, represented by the
kshatriya varna or the king —rather it encompasses the latter. Religion, the
pure, and the Brahman thus represent society as a whole. While, according
to Dumont, on the ideological level th e religious is thus always superior to munotes.in

Page 76

76
power, on the empirical level the reverse may be the case: the king
being —in terms of power — superior to the materially dependent Brahman
priest (see Dumont 1980, esp. introduction, chs. 2 and 3).

Dumont situated ant hropological understanding of Indian
civilization at the confluence of ethnography and classical Indology. Since
key Sanskrit texts promoted the Brahman priest as the center of the social
order, Dumont saw the “value” of the caste system to be what the
Brahmans embodied and stood for: purity. He suggested that all of Indian
society actively supported and surrendered to this purity, and that even
those castes that had secular power (like the ancient Khastriyas) willingly
subordinated themselves to the Brahma ns. For Dumont, then, the
continuity of Indian civilization was not a function of geographical
networks between various localities and far -flung “culture areas.”
Continuity was in the heads of Indian people, consisting of categories that
were ideological, structured, and, of course, internalized (Clark -Decès,
2011 ).

In identifying non -modern societies as those which fuse fact and
value and modern ones as those which separate the two, Dumont was
clearly following this Durkheimian trend. Dumont’s dichotomy differs,
however, in that it is ultimately resolved as another h ierarchical
opposition, because even modern societies, though thinking of themselves
as egalitarian, are ultimately compelled to recognize the hierarchies that
are inevitably contained within them. This is partly because modern
societies are themselves not entirely free from all manifestations of non -
modern thought. This is also one respect in which Dumont recognizes the
empirical as distinct from, though valued less than, the ideological
(Parkin, 2002 ).

The superior encompassing value of purity and the clear distinction
between religious status (Brahman) and power (the king) are the main
conclusions Dumont draws from his analysis of the varna model. Having
postulated this ideological structure as basic for understanding the caste
system, he confronts his theory with ethnographic findings relating to
marriage, commensality, and local authority. Not only does Dumont argue
that all these social fields and relationships can be explained as
manifestations of ideological structure, he also claims that hierarchy, as
defined by him, is a general feature of systems of ideas. As such, he
claims to have added another dimensio n to Lévi -Strauss’ model of binary
opposition (Berger, 2012 ).

Clark -Decès (2011 ) further states that Dumont’s anthropology
(1970; 1980) was also deeply structured around the imagination of
difference – that is, engaged with differing conceptions of religion, self,
kinship , political authority, morality, and worldview in East versus West.
As he methodically and tirelessly repeated: “The castes teach us a
fundamental social principle, hierarchy” (1980:2). Indian social categories
and groups are framed in terms of either “sup eriority” or “inferiority” to munotes.in

Page 77

77
one another. Dumont, however, insisted that these hierarchical
classifications were made with regard to rank, importance, and seniority,
but not power status or authority, as is the case for Western structures of
stratificatio n. The opposition of the pure and the impure “encompassed”
the social and the political, a fact that explained why in Indian tradition the
king (less pure) ranked below the Brahman (more pure).

As Parkin (2002 ) puts it, for Dumont, Hierarchy thus refers to the
articulation of the fundamental values of a society’s ideology, not to their
expression in social forms per se , though this also occurs. In non -modern
societies, ideology is the unity of fact and value. Mo dern man, conversely,
habitually separates them (Dumont 1979: 809; 1980: 244) and thus
‘equates ideology with “false consciousness”’ (1971a: 61 -2). In Dumont’s
own words:

I call ideology a system of ideas and values current in a given social
milieu. […] W hat is a predominant ideology? It is not exactly the ideology of a
majority of the people nor something stable that would be seen to underline
historical changes. It is rather something that comes spontaneously to the mind
[sic] of people living in the cul tural milieu considered, something in terms of
which those people speak and think, and which is best revealed by comparison
with other cultures. (1992: 259) .

The composition of Homo H ierarchicus suggests that the argument
is deductive in nature —a general theoretical hypothesis being confronted
with empirical data — which might also lead to the assumption that theory
comes first and ethnography, the empirical, second. There is much in
Dumont’s writings that supports such a view, for instance the way in
which he delegates empirical aspects to the “residual level.” However,
Homo H ierarchicus was the end product of three to four years of
ethnographic research in South and North India and a consequence of an
intensive engagement with the ethnographic literature of his time. As the
successor of Srinivas at Oxford in the early 1950s, Dumont becam e a
close associate of Evans -Pritchard and David Pocock, and closely aligned
with the British empirical tradition of anthropology in gene ral (Berger,
2012 ).

It is fair to say that throughout the 1970s and m uch of the 1980s
American anthropologists working in India devoted themselves to the
project of rebuking Dumont’s “ Homo Hierarchicus .” In his review, Gerald
Berreman, for example, wrote: “The characterization of caste in this book
accords well with account s provided in the written traditions of India’s
elites and reported by their contemporary representatives but not with the
experiences and understanding of the lowly (1971b:515). For their part,
anthropologists McKim Marriott and Ronald Inden (1977) conten ded that
Dumont’s comparative sociology was ethnocentric and that dualistic
categories of purity and pollution, status and power, did not do justice to
the cognitive assumptions prevalent in South Asia. Thus the Judeo -
Christian notion of a unity of body, s oul, mind, and conscience, thought, munotes.in

Page 78

78
and action, which is summed up in the concept of the person that Dumont
calls the “individual,” does not apply in India.

Check Your Progress:
1. What is Homo Hierarchicus ?

8.3 DIVERSIFICAT ION OF ANTHROPOLOGY
With reference to the rise of anthropology, Harris (1968 ) states that
the a nthropology began as the science of history. As the scientific method
became successful in the physical and organic domains, the nineteenth
century anthropologists started believing in the discoverable laws or
principles of sociocultural phenomena. This in terest, together with earlier
aspiration of Enlightenment and the vision of a universal history of
mankind, was carried forward that resulted in significant contributions.
However, with the twentieth century, efforts were made to alter the
strategic premis e upon which the scientism of anthropological theory was
based. Almost simultaneously, there arose in England, France, Germany
and the United States, schools of anthropology that in one way or another
rejected the scientific mandate. it Hence came to be wi dely believed that
anthropology could never discover the origins of institutions or explain
their causes.

The diverse trajectories of anthropology , subsuming fields such as
ethnology and ethnography, as well as folk lore, museum studies, and so
on, have i ndeed been deeply marked by their “national” settings, that is,
by different intellectual contexts as well as different social and political
environments. German scholars developed pioneering research agendas
and coined numerous key terms in the eighteenth century, long before the
forging of a unified German state. Here, as elsewhere in Europe, the
anthropological field has been strongly marked by nationalism. Even
where this legacy was later modified by the imposition of Soviet Marxist
theories, the contin uities remain substantial (Barth et al. , 2005 ).

Currently, as we look at it, anthropology has diversified and
specialized in diverse fields such as political, economics, ecological,
psychological amongst others. Its association with sociology is but
obvious and hardly needs any explanation. With this di versification,
anthropological sub -divisions tend to concentrate on specific human living
conditions and experiences. This specialization has helped anthropology
gain focused understanding of human action and thought. As modern
human culture as well as hum an behaviour undergoes changes, the
anthropologists of diverse fields, remain occupied in understanding and
interpreting them. munotes.in

Page 79

79
The ambition of anthropological thought – to think humankind in
its unicity and variation – has historically placed anthropologis ts in the
midst of cosmopolitan ideologies and utopias. It is difficult to know
whether people are attracted to anthropology because they are
cosmopolitans or whether abstract notions such as culture(s), society,
kinship, and humankind turn them cosmopolit ans. In fact going to faraway
lands has played a central role in the discipline's constitution and
consolidation, especially after ethnography, in the first half of the
twentieth century, became central t enets (Ribeiro, 2014 ).

Indeed, since th e nineteenth century, and more so in the past three
decades, when the discipline increasingly globalized itself, anthropologists
have woven innumerable transnational webs of scholarly exchange and
influence. Anthropological cosmopolitanisms are sometimes s et in motion,
and anthropologists attempt to deploy their international agency.
International conferences, for instance, are opportunities to connect with
colleagues from countries an d to set international agendas (ibid).

Within the purview of British anthropology, Barth et al. (2005 )
state that this field arose on the fringes of a scholarly world that regarded
other topics as far more important and interestin g than the study of human
social and cultural diversity. To the extent that curricula in the humanities
looked beyond British topics, their focus was overwhelmingly on the
Greco -Roman tradition, as part of a conscious effort to make that tradition
foundati onal to British thought and civilization. Inevitably, Britain’s role
in exploration, overseas trade, and colonial expansion during the
nineteenth century led to a growing scholarly and public curiosity and
interest in more global knowledge.

From early days, British anthropology liked to present itself as a
science which could be useful in colonial administration (Kuper, 1983 ). In
fact with the rise of anthropology in Britain, we come across works of
scholars such as Edward Tylor, Andrew Lang, Sir James George Frazer,
Bronislaw Malinowski and Claude Levi -Strauss, A. R. Radcliffe -Brown,
Raymond Fi rth, Edward Evan Evans -Pritchard, Max Gluckman, Edmund
R. Leach, moving on to Victor Turner, and so on, all of which together
have left a lasting mark on the Bri tish anthropology.

With this, one must add the effects of Marxism and feminism that
have insp ired anthropology in Britain to reach varied heights. However,
with reference to colonialism, a strong internal criticism has come from
the British cultural anthropologist, Talal Asad, who talks about the
unequal power interaction between the West and thos e that became its
colonies – in the ways that anthropology was used to make the colonizers
more powerful in their quest to conquer more and more places (Asad,
1973 ).

Roughly between the 1780s and the 1980s, the anthropological
legacies from the German -speaking countries have been highly influential. munotes.in

Page 80

80
Barth et al. (2005 ) argue that there was a strong current of intellectual
Enlightenment in the German -speaking countries at first, both before and
after the French Revolution. For political as muc h as for intellectual
reasons, however, the Enlightenment legacy in German subsequently
became confined to narrow limits. This nuanced general approach allows
us to focus on the intellectual tension zone between Immanuel Kant and
Johann Gottlieb Herder as one of the very first laboratory spheres for the
formation of pre -academic, modern anthropology.

The work of the Forsters, that is, father Johann Reinhold Forster
and son Georg Forster, usually is considered to be the outstanding
empirical contribution from the German language zone to the travel -report
side of Enlightenment anthropology. The overseas travel reports of Ida
Pfeiffer, the first woman writing in this genre, who wrote a few years later,
also belong to the late Enlightenment period. And last but not least, also
belonging to the same Enlightenment genre are the subsequent works of
Alexander v on Humboldt, who had traveled with Georg Forster along the
Rhine —that is, his monumental thirty -volume report on five years of
travel (1799 –1804) in Southern and Central America, and his less known
travelogue on Russia and Siberia ( ibid).

The study of uni versal history was also of great importance in the
German Enlightenment. Here a new area of study came to the fore:
Völkerkunde, or the science of peoples (in contrast to Volkskunde or the
science of the people). In Germany the ‘philosophy of history’ (dev eloped
by Voltaire and others) divided into two branches. One studied the actual
history of humankind and its diversity and customs in what could be called
a ‘culture conscious’ manner; the other branch was more interested in
principles of history at the l evel of humanity, instead of peoples, and
worked with the concept of ‘spirit’ (Geist) instead of ‘culture’ (Kultur) .
Kroeber and Kluckhohn claim that the first of these branches resulted in a
‘somewhat diffuse enthnographic interest’ (1952:19), but in fact it
produced a genuine Völkerkunde that was not ‘diffuse’ but descriptive,
historical and universal (Barnard & Spencer, 2002 ).

From the 1760s to the 1780s various authors in the German -
speaking countries and in Russia formulated, classifi ed and practiced a
discipline called ethnographia (1767) or Ethnographie (1771). These
terms appeared as neo -Greek synonyms of Völkerkunde (1771), in the
works of German historians working mainly at the University of
Göttingen. The term ethnologia came lat er, in the work of the Austrian
scholar A.F.Kollár (1783), followed by ethnologie in the work of A. -C.
Chavannes (1787). From the 1770s onwards, Völkerkunde (ethnography
and ethnology) grew into a discipline that developed in relation to history,
geography , natural history, anthropology, linguistics and statistics. In 1781
the first issue of the 27 -volume journal Beiträge zur Völker - und
Länderkunde appeared in Leipzig. In 1787 a young scholar -translator,
T.F.Ehrmann, published the first overview of aims an d contents of
Völkerkunde in a popular magazine for women ( ibid). munotes.in

Page 81

81
No matter how critical one may consider the work of Marx and
Engels today, a presentist approach to anthropology in German cannot
deny the profound and profoundly ambivalent impact of Marx a nd
Engels’s work on our field in the decades subsequent to its completion.
This ranged from the impact of their wider social theory to that of their
narrower interests in core topics of anthropological concern. The effects of
their work would later range f rom encouragement for the pursuit of critical
research questions in new ways to quite the opposite, namely the
legitimization of dictatorial state terror in the twentieth century (Barth et
al., 2005 ).

For Barnard and Spencer (2002 ), It is almost impossible to treat the
anthropological traditions of Germany, Austria, and the German speaking
parts of Switzerland independently before the 1960s. To take a few
examples, key figures in post -World War II Swiss anthropology were
German or Austrian citizens; most leading members of the former ‘Vienna
school’ (1924 –57) were German priests, and R. Thurnwald, perhaps the
most prominent ‘German’ anthropologist, was an Austrian by birth and
academic education.

However, as Barth et al. (2005 ) presents a critical examination of
the state of anthropology in German before World War I and asserts that
Classical evolutionism had been largely marginalized from academia,
while historical diffusionism and social Darwinism were on the rise, also
academically. Folklore studies were about to become established as the
historicist study of a superior, Germanic self, set apart from the study o f
the Herderian Naturvölker. German -language anthropologists’ research
was still strongly embedded in the objectifying forum of the exoticizing
museums of an empire that was an aggressive colonialist newcomer.

Moving to the moderate positivists, signific ant names include Max
Schmidt, Theodor Koch -Grünberg, Karl von den Steinen, Ernst Grosse,
Eduard Hahn, Alois Musil, and Julius Lips. From a presentist perspective,
the vast majority of sociocultural anthropologists in Germany were more
or less active suppo rters of the Nazi regime. Assessment of the practices
and discourses of anthropologists in the Third Reich reveals profound
parallels to other academic fields of that period, though with a number of
qualifications and modifications (Barth et al., 2005 ).

After 1945, financial constraints and political and intellectual
factors were the main reasons why anthropology in these major parts of
the German language zone took an extremely long time to reorient itself. It
took anthropologists of the German language zone one or two decades to
fully understand how much the post -1945 world had changed for them in
terms of language and status. Anthropology from the German -speaking
countries came to occupy a relatively self -contained world of its own, less
isolated, of co urse, than it had been during the war years, but still cut off
from the international mainstream to a greater extent than, say, sociology
or philosophy in German ( ibid). munotes.in

Page 82

82
The modern tradition of French anthropology, which dates from
the beginning of this cent ury, has always been stretched between the two
poles of grand theory, on the one hand, and the minute and exacting study
of data on the other. At the pole of specific data, French anthropology has
been characterized by penetrating thoroughness of descripti on,
exhaustiveness, and craftsmanly care. At the theoretical pole, it has been
centrally concerned with human societies as wholes, with a particular
leaning towards the analysis of systems of social †representations. A
characterization of the ‘French schoo l’ before 1935 may be taken for the
tradition as a whole: The French school maintained the primacy of the
whole over the parts, the functional interdependence of the elements of a
system, and the importance of establishing correlations among these
elements ’ The central thrust of French anthropology has thus been quite
distinct from that of both British and North American anthropology
(Barnard & Spencer, 2002 ).

Barnard and Spencer (2002 ) further, also state a few characteristics
of French anthropology that deserve particular mention. Firstly France
possesses a general intellectual culture which involves the educated public
in a way unknown in Britain or North America. Secondly, much of French
anthropology, parti cularly that which has been most influential outside
France, has been theory -driven and field research. Thirdly French
scholarship takes place in a web of institutions, each with its own
character, history, responsibilities, and centres of power, that is u nique in
the world.

However, Barth et al. (2005 ) opine that France has no parallel to
Britain’s Bronislaw Malinowski in Britain, who at a key point in the
development of his adopted national anthropological tradition invented
enduring fieldwork methods, generated less enduring theories at least
partly o n the basis of them, and taught anthropology through both. As far
as teaching and inspiring fieldwork are concerned, the nearest parallels in
France are the two Marcels, Mauss and Griaule. As a colonial power, of
course, France had its share of amateur eth nographers — administrators,
missionaries, military officers, and the like.

The nineteenth century was one of institutional foundation and
consolidation. Until midcentury, new efforts were made to carry out an
essentially philosophical agenda, incorporat ing the information coming in
from around the globe. By mid -century, the philosophical agenda was
being incorporated into a colonial one, requiring information that would
be of use to administrators of empire. This shift is marked by that from the
term ethnologie, the study of specific languages and cultures for the
purpose of understanding humanity, to an anthropologie générale, an
overall science that would include physical anthropology and human
geography along with culture and language (Barnard & Spencer, 2002 ).

At the turn of the twentieth century, Émile Durkheim and his
collaborators created a comparative sociology that was to become the munotes.in

Page 83

83
basis of modern French anthropology. The Durkheimian school was
decimated by World War I.Marcel Ma uss, the most important survivor,
continued to promote sociology and particularly ethnology, playing a role
comparable to that of Boas in North America. The institutionalization of
French ethnology continued between the wars with the 1925 founding of
the I nstitut d’Ethnologie by a phil osopher Lévy -Bruhl , a sociologist
Mauss , and an ethnographer/phys ical anthropologist Paul Rivet (ibid).

The structuralist paradigm that took shape in the 1950s, after Lévi -
Strauss’s return to France, linking his work in anthropology with that of
Lacan in psychoanalysis and Barthes in literary studies . Currently, much
of French anthropology is being carried out in regionally -defined research
teams, which now exist for most parts of the world. The field is also
undergoing a process of Europeanization and internationalization, with
increasing collaboration in the context of multilingual conferences and
publications. (ibid).

The American tradition is the youngest of our four traditions, with
a shorter history and more to repo rt on for the twentieth century . The
American anthropologists come in at least four varieties: the subfields of
cultural or social anthropology, today less often called ethnology; physical
or biological anthropology; archaeology; and linguistic anthropolog y.
With reference to the beginnings of American anthropology, its father was
Franz Boas, who trained the major figures of the first half of the twentieth
century. With Boas came the antievolutionist critique; historicism of the
trait-distribution variety; and the institutionalization of anthropology in
university departments, museums, and professional entities (Barth et al.,
2005 ).

The fact that American anthropology has included sociocultural
anthropology , linguistics, physical anthropology, and archaeology —the
so-called four fields approach —is partly a reflection of Boas’s broad
interests. Eventually, the antievolutionary position would dominate
American anthropology until the 1940s, when an evolutionary approach
would be reformulated in the work of Leslie White and Julian Steward .
Varying assessments of Tylor and his American contemporary, Lewis
Henry Morgan, led Meyer Fortes (1969) to suggest that Morgan gave birth
to British social anthropology, while t he very British Tylor fathered
American cultural anthropology (Moore, 2004 ).

A particular concern of American anthropology has been the study
of complex societies. The term complex societies has long been used in
anthropology to refer to state -organized systems, including those of pre -
modern times (civilizations of the Old and New World), those of the
modern industrialized era, and those whose states stem from postcolonial
or other recent political transformations. Because American anthropology
began with and for a long time remained concentrated on the American
Indians, our venturing out onto new ethnographic terrain marked a
definitive transition . Ethnicity studies blossomed in American munotes.in

Page 84

84
anthropology in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a period that some h ave
described as A.B., “after Barth” (Barth et al., 2005 ).

Check Your Progress:
1. How did anthropology got diversified in the world?

2. Explain the contribution of French anthropology

8.4 SUMMARY
Dumont highlights the state of mind which is expressed by the
emergence in various situations of castes. He calls caste system as a
system of ideas and values which is a formal comprehensible rational
system. His analysis is based on a single prin ciple -the opposition of pure
and impure. This opposition underlies hierarchy which means superiority
of the pure and inferiority of impure. This principle also underlies
separation which means pure and impure must be kept separate.

According to Dumont the study of the caste system is useful for the
knowledge of India and it is an important task of general sociology. He
focused on the need to understand the ideology of caste as reflected in the
classical texts. He advocated the use of an Indological and structuralist
approach to the study of caste system and village social structure in India.
Dumont in his Homo Hierarchicus has built up a model of Indian
civilization based on non -competitive ritual hierarchical system.

As we briefly saw the diversificati on of anthropology globally, it is
clear that different scholars, in different contexts, emphasized on certain
aspects more than others. Their emphasis and their focus thus became the
defining characteristic of that tradition. In all, these four trends in
anthropology continue to contribute heavily towards the postmodern
understanding of the discipline, besides further encouraging and
facilitating research elsewhere in the world.

8.5 UNIT END QUESTIONS
1. Explain briefly ‘structuralism’ as an anthropological approach in India.
2. What is Dumont’s contribution to the study of Indian social structure? munotes.in

Page 85

85
3. Explain Dumont’s binaries, while understanding the caste system in
India.
4. What are the four major traditions in the world for the diversification
of anthropology?
5. How has British anthropology been significant?
6. Anthropology in Germany has contributed heavily towards the
understanding of human societies. Explain.

8.6 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGS
 Asad, T. (1973). Anthropology & the Colonial Encounter: Ithaca
Press.
 Barnard, A., & Spencer, J. (2002). Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural
Anthropology: Taylor & Francis.
 Barth, F., Gingrich, A., Parkin, R., & Silverman, S. (2005). One
Discipline, Four Ways: British, German, French, and American
Anthropology . United States of America: The University of Chicago
Press.
 Berger, P. (2012). Theory and ethnography in the modern
anthropology of India. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 2(2),
325-357.
 Clark -Decès, I. (Ed.). (2011). A Companion to the Anthropology of
India. USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 Dumont, L. (1969). Homo hierarchicus. Social Science Information,
8(2), 69 -87.
 Freeman, L. G. (2009). Anthropology without Informants (1977)
Anthropology without Informants (pp. 5 -18): University Press of
Colorado.
 Gupta, D. (1981). Caste, Infrastructure and Superstructure: A Critique.
Economic and Political Weekly, 16(51), 2093 -2104.
 Harris, M. (1968). The Rise of Anthropological Theory. United States
of America: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
 Kuper, A. (1983). Anthropology and Anthropologists: The Modern
British School. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
 Moore, J. D. (2004). Visions of Culture: An Introduction to
Anthropological Theories and Theorists: AltaMira Press.
 Parkin, R. (2002). LOUIS DUMONT AND HIERARCHI CAL
OPPOSITION. United States: Berghahn Books.
 Ribeiro, G. L. (2014). World Anthropologies: Anthropological
Cosmopolitanisms and Cosmopolitics. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 43, 483 -498.


***** munotes.in

Page 86

86
MODEL QUESTION PAPER
PAPER 3
CLASSICAL PERSPECTIVE IN CULTURAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
Total Marks : 60 Duration : 2 Hours
N.B
1) Attempt All Questions
2) All Questions carry equal marks
Q1. Explain the concept of Colonial Anthropology 15 marks
Or
Explain Comparative Method 15 marks
Q2. Explain Diffusionism and its various theories 15 marks
Or
Elaborate on Historical Particularism 15 marks
Q3. Explain the importance of Ethnolinguistics and various
variables of Ethnolinguistic studies 15 marks
Or
Explain the relationship between cult ure and personality 15 marks
Q4. Write a note on Various Classical Studies in Kinship 15 marks
Or
Explain Structuralism in Indian Anthropology 15 marks

****
munotes.in