Anthropological Theories - Revision Note

Basic & Anthropological Theories

Origin & Why :- In the mid 19th Century with starting of the origin of the Cycle of exploration→ Conquest → Colonisation → Expose to a wide variety of Culture → Vast possession of data → Try/efforts to explain variations & diversity among cultures → development of cultural anthropology
What is Anthropological theory/Thoughts -Theory is a reflection of
- Author’s mind
- Time period in which it emerged.
- Social Condition
Different Anthropological Theories – Division Based on Time
- Classical Anthropological Thought (19th C & Early 20th)
  - Classical Evolutionism (Tylor, Morgan & Frazer)
  - Historical Particularism (Boas) ; Diffusionism (British, German & American)
  - Functionalism (Malinowski) ; Structural-Functionlism (Radcliffe Brown)
  - Structuralism (L’evi – Strauss & E. Leach )
- Modern Anthropological Thought (In Late 20th)
  - Culture personality (Benedict, Mead, linton, Kardiner & Cora – Du Bois)
  - Neo evolutionism (childe, white, Steward,Sahlins & Service)
  - Cultural Materialism (Harris )

Significant change occur here

Symbolic & Interpretive Theories (Turner, Schneider & Geertz)
Cognitive theories (Tyler, Conklin)
Post-Modernism in anthropology
Organisation of Theories
- Introduction
- Historical Background
- General aim
- Methodologies
- Basic Postulated to understand the theory
- Principal concept
- Accomplishment
- Point of Reaction
- Criticisms
- conclusion
- Leading Figures & their Key works (i.e source & Bibliography)
- Tribes on which the study was done

As Change is deviation from Normal hence cultural change is change in existing culture. These theory is systemic study of culture wrt to different aspect like change is studied with the help of 3 theories

Evolutionism
Diffusionism
Cultural Materialism

Evolutionist School of Though

Evolution can be defined as a process in which different forms are produced or developed orderly in system.

Julian Steward provided a different typology of the Evolutionary School

based on the assumptions & approaches employed in explaining cultural evolution by the school
- Unilinear Model
- Universal Model
- Multilinear Model

Classical Evolutionism

CE is the first theory in anthro,originating in later half of 19th century

Historical Background

Evolutionism is intimately related to the emergence of anthropology. The root of evolutionism lie in other tradition i.e sociology & biology. The disciple was heavily influenced by pre-Darwinian & Darwinian thoughts.
Pre-Darwinian scholars include Augusta Comte, Herbert Spencer etc who existed in the after-math of French Revolution. They talked of Social Evolution for ex
- Augusta Comte gave 3 stages of progression like Theosophical → Metaphysical → Positivism
- Herbert Spenser gave 2 stages of society & culture evolution e.g Military → Industrial society
- Their discussion was philosophical not give any kind of proof that’s why they were not accepted in any scientific disciple.
- However they influenced the thought pattern of Darwinism.
Darwininan Thoery – origin of species by Natural Selection in 1859 was a major break through for the development of anthropology. Although it didn’t discuss the evolution of society & culture, it provided sufficient proof regarding the evolution of biological being. Therefore anthropological scholars believed that evolution must have taken place in society & culture also. As a result evolution came into existence in anthropology in 1860.
Hence pre-Darwinian scholars & darwinian are responsible for the emergence of evolution school in anthropology.

Meaning of Evolution & Evolutionism

Evolution – It is a gradual process of change from simple to complex, homogeneity to heterogeneity & from uncertainty to certainty.
Evolutionism – means perspective to analyse the process of evolution. In other words. It is an interpretative strategy regarding evolution of society & culture.

General Aim –

To explain diversity among people of world – indicating stand i.e mankind was a unity & not diversity.
Primitive societies were ancestors of more modern & civilised societies.

Basic premises/ principles / Assumption

Evolution is a gradual process of change & not all of a sudden
Evolution is a ceaseless process as env don’t come to a half as far as society exists.
The idea of evolution can be applied to entire society or an institution or a cultural trait. And it evolve in
It includes tracing origin & sequence of evolution of human society & culture. That is the flashing Approaches of classical evolutionism

Culture evolutions in unilinear & sequential manner of evolution thr definite stages which is always progress hence is from stages of homogeneity to complex state of heterogeneity.
Psychic unity of Mankind explain +nce of cultural parallels.

diversity in human culture arise b/c differences in environments & situations. So, acc to schools, are of 2° significance in the analysis of evolution of culture.
Tylor formulated concept of survivals to explain symbolic meaning of certain social customs, which has lost significance but had in past.

Methodologies

data collection from secondary sources except LH Morgan(did fieldwork)
applied comparative method
- to present the similarities in culture & justify the fact that primitive cultures evolved into more formal civilised ones.
- Even survivals were also compared to explain this fact
historical Explanation Method – help analysing cultural varieties & is adopted to study & justify the fact that human cultural had under gone progressive change

Point of Reaction

Countered degeneration theory of savagery(that primitive regressed from the civilised state)as an indication of the fall from grace
Reaction within Evolutionist thought: particularly concerning of the most primitive stages of society. It was highly debated as the order of primitive promiscuity, patriarchy & matriarchy.
Reactions to Evolutionism : Karl Marx & Engel extended Morgan’s evolutionary scheme & included further stages of cultural evolution in which monogamy, private property & state (which were chiefly responsible for exploitation of the working class modern societies) would cease to exist & communism of primitive society would once more come into being.

Principal concept – Postulated evolutionary scheme of culture as a whole and also of social institutions

Tribes on which the study was done

Accomplishment

First theory in Anthropology
Made anthropology an independent academic discipline
Whatever was the data available,they worked meticulously on it and attempted to draw convincing conclusions
Left legacy which become an integral part of anthropological thought & research methodology
- Dictum that cultural phenomenon are to be studied in naturalistic fashion
- The premise of the Psychic unity of Mankind i.e that cultural differences b/w groups are not due to differences in psychological equipment but due to differences in socio-cultural experience
- The use of comparative method as the surrogate for the surrogate for the experimental & laboratory techniques of physical sciences.

Criticisms – theory of social evolutionism was denounced by both modern & post modern ear anthropologist

the theory of universal evolution based on psychic unity of mankind could not account for cultural variations & differences so were disapproved by anthropologist like Franz Boas, Margret Mead & other of American school
- Polynesian chiefdoms showed complex political system , but with no trace of pottery – that bring Morgan’s theory of evolution based on technological progress under scanner
- Even many different culture can develop in similar geographical setting – so assumption is wrong
- Wastermarck – simple societies have monogamy & nuclear families but acc to evolutionist these features should be characteristic of civil society only.
Could not explain why some societies have regressed or even become extinct
Unilinear and sequential manner of cultural evolution failed to explain why some societies have not passed through all the stages
Lack of fieldwork & adopting a weak method of study – so the follower of social evolutionary theory was referred by as “Arm chair Anthropologist” by Next gen. (Franz boas) who emphasised on primary data collection thr field work & introduced empirical approach in anthropology.
- James Frazier’s work Golden bough – was entirely based on secondary date – no filed work no direct interaction with people under study
Used comparative method (based on mere encounter with other) to enhance greatness of anthropologist’s own society.
- Equated contemporary primitive societies with prehistoric societies. But as evolution happened how can be they equated ?
As reference point was the civilisation of the whites or considered Victoraina society as highest stages of development , these theories have been condemned as ethnocentric
Gordon Childe, an American diffusionist, criticised it for their neglect of human invention & creativity. Evolutionists also overlooked diffusion & migration.
Ignorance of other process of social change e.g diffusion of culture, so criticised by Diffusionist.
Criticised by functionalists -for indulging in congecturalism, as no evidence
Criticism against Progressive Evolution – Evolution should be seen as change rather progressive or retrogressive.

Source & Bibliography

conclusion – Thus classical evolutionism had its fair share of merits & demerits. However being the first theory in anthropology it paved the way for future research

Leading Figures & their Key works

Baron de Montesquieu

in his book De l’ esprit des loix (The spirit of laws), a Comparative cross cultural study of legislative systems.

proposed on evolutionary scheme consisting of 3 stages for society : Hunting or savagery, Herding or Barbarism, and civilisation.
Tylor & Morgan also adopted this scheme.

E.B Taylor (Edward Burnett Tylor)

First British Professor of Anthropology, at the university of Oxford (1896) &
- was first professional anthropologist who was offered the post of curators in London museum
- He was one of the pioneers in systemic study of anthropology of world
- He also regarded as “father of British Anthropology”
Worked on the theory of evolution of culture.
Contribution
- Evolutionary contribution
  - Proposed the theory of Unilinear Universal Evolution of society which state culture evolved from simple to complex.
  - To evolutionary study thr his study on origin of religion
  - Others includes origin & evolution of plough,
    - Plough has evolved from a simple plain digging stick according to Taylor
- Contribution other than evolution
  - His definition of culture is very popular & widely accepted. (Mainly remembered for it – first to define) 1871 in primitive culture
    - By his definition he ruled out the concept of genetic transmission of culture & he focused on social transmission of culture.
  - Study of happiness in society : linking Happiness with montesquieu’s three stage classification of society
    - First to use montesquieu’s classification. Accepted it but he didn’t offered any details of stages as he was not interested in total Marco-cultural evolution.
    - But he said classification should not be typo-technological & linked with acceleration in happiness with civilisation marked by most happiness (not marked with writing)
    - also related it with some moral qualities i.e ↑ in morality as one moves from savagery to barbaric to civilised society.
    - Criticisms
      - Such idea were totally rejected as happiness & moral qualities are subjective in nature
      - Psychological research shows that primitive people are much happier than modern one.
      - Also criticised for not giving detail analysis of these tree terms.
  - Statical study of anthropology ; highlighted its role in anthropology
    - 282 societies date that time
    - It proves to be very uself to compare different societies of the world to arrive to some universal conclusion
    - This method was used by G.P Murdock
Books
- “Mexico and Mexicans” (1861) – after exploration of peningrad caves
- “Primitive culture” (1871) – completely devoted to origin & evolution of religion
  - In it he coined the term Animism

Taylor on culture History

his opinion; culture study = historical study & Anthro= Study of man’s development in course of history.
In primitive culture he defined culture which till date is regard as the most complete definition of culture as “culture or civilisation, taken in it’s wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom & any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as member of society” (1871)
- Acquired → thus part of social learning rather than biological heredity.
- diff in culture dev → Not due to degeneration but due to progress in cultural knowledge.
- complex whole → includes all socially leamed behivour, even if trivial.
Unilinear line of evolution
- Study of culture = historical study of man’s development in society, from Savagery → Barbarism → civilization.
- Did not agree with Auguste Comte’s trio scheme of social evolution Viz Theological stage, Metaphysical s. & Positive stage
- Taylor presented possible order of evolution, though not forced specific culture into any of 3 stages, though believed that victorian society achieved civilisation.
- Techniques used for such construction:
  - Survivals : Various processes, customs & opinions that persisted by force of habit even when they lost their utility and thus, remained proofs of earlier condition.
Basic idea of Taylor’s ethnological theory → Continuity of cultural history as invaving a process of development from lower to higher degree of culture
Based on principle of psychic unity of mankind, Tylor explained the parallel evolutionary stages in different cultures

Taylor on Primitive Religion

Began with defining religion as simple as “The Belief in Supernatural Being”
All religious phenomena were taken out of their cultural settings
For Taylor, Religion was mainly attempt to understand events of human experience
Began with premise – perhaps there was no religion ; so started system c/l religion.
Primitive man was inquisitive in nature & sensitive to nature ; observed & asked a large no of question.
considering early man as “Savage philosopher” → who does’t possesed adequate knowledge to reason scientifically,
- must have noted differences in living & dead ; life & phantom.
After death → soul leaves body, but Sometimes appear in dreams, acting as if alive & also had hallucinating experiences . Thus belief developed that human soul continued to exist even after life. So though of some kind of dual existence.
- This belief extended to non living objects also (b/c they also appeared in dreams)
- Then primitive man started debating & form this though process he arrived to a conclusion that existence is first bodily & secondly in term of soul (anima)
Thus, Acc. to tayor, early man’s belief that everything posses life & soul was early phase of Religion called “Animism” in which they worshiped plants & animals
Another belief → mobility of soul → Soul protected tribe → attempts to communicate with soul led to dev. of prayer & active worship.
Spirits → in course of time → elevated to status of gods → each god controlling specific aspect of nature or life as soul exist every where → dev of Polytheism
As all gods were not imp.→ hierarchy of gods emerged > minor gods thrown back to background → Rise of Monotheism
- Or “Notion that although soul belong to diff entities ; in fact all those Souls are one.”
Hence origin of religion is summaries as : animism (Totemism) → Polytheism → Monotheism

Criticism
- Relied on secondary sources of data.
- didn’t deal with Religion as a whole
  - only considered origin & dev. of various beliefs.
- Neglected Social dimension of religion.
- As it accept primitive man as philosopher (hence c/l as theory of savage philosopher” – but critique couldn’t accept primitive man as logical as accepted by Taylor
- Acc to criticisers he gave no scientific date

Taylor on matriarchal form & couvade

Taylor: society passed from matriarchal to patriarchal.
collected data from 282 societies
- On basis of this data he shouted correlation b/w different institutions.
- For ex. patrilineal Societies are often associated with patrilocal residence. He c/l this type of r/l adhesion.
Analysed post martial residence patterns & cuftom of in-law avoidance → Concluded that matrineality & matrilocality preceded P & P.
- Gave ex. of couvade : custom of men to imitate habits of women especially during pregnancy & labour pains. which is not at all practised in matriarchal Society. But in patri-matrilinealty (20 societies in Taylor’s study) stage societies & few (8) partiarchal Sodleties as lost utility in patriarchal society).
- Covade as cultural Survival

Cultural Survivals – Tylor explained survivals

as those processes, customs, & opinions, which by compulsion of habit are carried forward into a new realm of society, and they thus continue as living ex of an earlier condition of a culture which at present has evolved into a new one.
Spencer’s theory of social evolution & survival of the fittest was accentuated by Tylor’s theory of cultural survivals.

James Frazer

Book
- “Golden Bough” (1890) on the study of magic & religion
  - Gave detailed description of religious beliefs of societies & cultures from various parts of globe.
- “Totemism & Exogamy” (1910)
- “Folklore in old Testament (1911)
Contribution
- Also offered theory pertaining to totemism. He wrote extensively i.e about 10 volumes in form of golden bough & 4 volumes on “totemism & exogamy” in which he described theory of evolution of science & totemism respectively.
Given 3 stages of development thr which all societies pass viz. Magic, Religion & science

earliest society → dominated by Magic which viewed nature as “series of events occuring in an invariably order w/o the Intervention of personal agency.
- 2 principles – “law of similarity” & “law of contact”
- Law of Similarity → like produces like → magicians were convinced that they could control nature by imitating it. Ex rain → pour couter out, harm anyone & doll.
- Law of contact → Connections remain in force even after seperation.
However, when human mind progressed, people realized that they were fairly helpless ⇒ thus belief arose that some higher, non human powers ruled universe → birth of Religion
- Magicians turned priest → whose soul after death was worshipped as god.
Highest stages → Science (as religion turned into illusion)
criticism criticised by many including Malinowski.
- though true that science appeared late, but primitive man was not wholly Ignorant of natural causation as Frazer sald.
- Ethnographic evidences: Magic & Religion coexists in some societies. eg- Trobrianders.

Conclusion – Thus he didn’t make any significant impact on evolutionary study at that time as by the time evolution was discredited b/c of est of museums in diff parts of world & commencement of filed work tradition in anthropology.

Henry James Summer Mainel(1822-1888)

Books
- “Ancient law” (1861)
- “Early History of Institutions” (1871)
- “Early law & Custons” (1875).
Maine & Law
- in “Ancient Law” (1861) – examined some earliest ideas of mankind as reflected in ancient laws.
- attempted to study evolution of law in western world.
- Applied method of reconstruction in collection of data on ancient law.
- study on Roman law → pointed out that older forms continued to exist as “legal fictions” and thus pointed Pointed out to earlier times when they were real functional laws.
  - Maine used this legal fictions as tool for reconstruction.
- thr method of reconstruction : found number of sequences of development specially from kinship to territorial org”, Status contract; civil law ⇒ criminal law.
- Thr it he established that the laws of the people are integrated with the social heritage particular to a society and negated the laws of universalism which was being postulated during the time.
- Maine based his work on the ancient legal systems of Rome, Islamic law and the Brahmanical laws.
Maine & Patriarchy
- Maine: Patriarchal family is original & universal form of social life and that Patria potestas (absolute authority of Patriarch) base on which patriarchal family is based.
- absolute power of father- even of life & death of wife, children, servents.
- as patriarchy earliest form of org in family
  - must have been form of political org.
- Further, when groups began to unite around common land holdings → territorial notion developed → But patrilineal kinship remained organising Principle and societies thus remained Kinship based until dev. of nations where emerged concept of “territoriality”

R.R. Marret (1866-1943) – British

student of Taylor, wrote his biography.
wrote on all works of Taylor, but deeply interested in study of primitive religion
in his book “The Threshold of Religion” (1909)
- modified Taylor’s concept of Animism.
- Argued that instead of soul, as suggested by Taylor, “nature” guides destiny of primitive people.
- coined word Animatism in the context of his teleological theory of the evolution of religion.
- Marett argues that certain cultures believe “people, animals, plants, & inanimate objects were endowed with certain powers, which were both impersonal & supernatural.

John Ferguson Mclennan

special focus- marriages.
Book : “Primitive Marriages” (1865) – endogamy, exogomy.
Mclennan & bride capture.
- MicLennan- attempted to explain social facts behind bride capture.
- Conclusion – must be due to shortage of women.
- Primitive people – female infanticide,
  - cruel, but functional necessity as groups were small. & men were hunters & food providers thus immature coaman were burden upon Subsistence economy.
- this shortages led to polyandry
  - dev. of polyandry provided more regulated form of promiscuity and in course of time fraternal polyandry emerged which gave rise to Patrilocality
  - evidence custom of Levirate (younger brother marry)
McLennan: Matrilineality had preceded patrilineality
His work accentuated Bachofen’s view on mother right.

L.H. Morgan (1818-1881)

Regarded as father of American Anthropology –
- He was adopted by one of the Iroquois clans & named Tayadaowuhkuh “he who builds bridges”

Contribution

He contributed to evolution of society & culture thought study of kinship terminology, whole society, marriage system & political org.

Books:

“Legue of Iroquois” (1851) – classificatory method of kinship Terminology
- He introduced distinction b/w classificatory & descriptive Kinship
Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of Human family” (1871) –
- In it he described Evolution of Kinship terminologyas follows .
  - Classificatory Kinship Terminology (Lineal merging with collaterals) – 2 types
    1. Malayan Type – lineal merging with all collaterals eg. mother, mother’s sister, father’s sister are called mother.
    2. North American Type – when lineal merge with some collaterals not all. E.g Only mother & mother’s sister is called mother.
  - Descriptive Kinship Terminology – different term for different kins e.g in North Indian kinship terminology such father – Papa, father’s brother – Tao, Mother – Maa.
- Evolution – Malayan → North American → Descriptive kinship terminology
A Conjectural solution to origin of both ♂♀classificatory system of Relationship” (1868)
- traced history of human family (evolution of marriage) from Primitive sexual promisculty to modem Monogamy
  - Horde living in promiscuity
  - sexual r/l still b/w bro & sis : consaguineous m’age
  - Group m’age (prohibited bro-sis r/l) : Punaluan m’age
  - loose relationship b/w ♂& ♀(Bombamic Stage) :Syndasmian m’age
  - Polygamy (♂ dominance) : Patriarchial m’age
  - Monogamy (both equal) – Monogamous M’age
“Ancient Society” (1877)
- divided all history into 3 main evolutionary stages of society : Savagery → Barbarism → civilisation
  - correlated by developments. economic & intellectual development
  - Explained changing dimension by introducing three sub stages each for savagery & barbarism
- Tried to link the shift thr technological shifts like in
  - Savagery → use of fire, bow & pottery
  - Barbarism → begin with ceramic age ; to domestication of animals, agri & metal working
  - Civilisation → after invention of alphabets & writing.
- he says that each of these periods has distinct culture & exhibits a mode of life, special & peculiar to itself.
- Thus he attributed technological progress as the source behind social progress & change (in institutions, org or ideologies)
- Unlikce Taylor, he assigned various known cultures to his framed stage of development.
- Ex : Lower savagery – does not exist >
  - Australian & Polynesian → middle savagery
  - American Indians → lower barbarism

Evolution of Political Org

Societus (Political system depended on kinship) → Civitus (political system independent of kinship)

Morgan’s theory was important as it supported the conviction that materialistic factors—economic and technological—are decisive in shaping the fate of humanity.

Achievement – he is one of the first few anthropologist who did some approximating field work.

Criticism

method of analysis shows confusion b/w Synchronic & diachronic reconstructions.
correlation of contemperory cultures in terms of his historical stages → did not fit.
Not touched many aspects of culture e-g- Religion
Based on secondary date
Conjecturalism

Johann Jacob Bachofen) (1815-1877)

Contribution lies towards the advocation of mother right. In his work he associated the rule of women during the early stages of dev of society which later gave way to father rights.
Book – Das Mutterrecht (Mother rights, 1861)
- like Morgan, Maine & McLennan → believed that matrilineality preceded patrilineality
- But his arguments were more mystical and speculative.
- He proposed 4 phases of cultural evolution
  - Hatareism
    - Wild nomadism
    - Communistic
    - Polyamorous
  - Das Mutterecht
    - matriarchal lunar phase based on Agriculture
    - emergence of mystic cults & law
  - Dionysian
    - emergence Patriarchy
    - earlier traditions started to masculin,
  - Apollonian
    - patriarchal Solar phase
    - eradication of all phases of matnarchy
    - emergence of modern civilisation.
Scheme of evolution of human society
- Earliest period → “Hetarism‘ (sexual promiscuity)
  - women mere as sex objects
  - kinship line → through females) (becoz as random mating → impossible to trace father)
- later, Women revolted against submissiveness and managed to get upper hand in Social affairs ⇒ Period of Amazonian Assertiveness‘ → evolution of mother Rights
  - Thus acc to Bachofen: motherhood is source of human society, religion, morality, & decorum
- later, women tried of all these & wanted husbands to take care for them → evolution of father rights. (patriarch)
he, like many evolutionist wanted to throw light on importance of evolution of social insti. & for that, used “Historical method“

The beginning of 20th century brought the end to evolutionism’s reign in cultural anthropology due to establishment of museums & introduction of fieldwork tradition in anthropology. Boas pointed out that these 19th century scholars lacked sufficient date to formulae many useful generalisations. Thus, Historicism & later functionalism were reaction to 19th century evolutionism.

Neo Evolutionism

According to Leslie White – Energy was the key component which humans beings learned to harness in the course of cultural evolution & this energy conversion spurred cultural evolution.

Also called as

contemporary trend in evolutionary study
New theory of evolution
Universal cultural evolution

Historical Background – Early 20th century anthropologist like Leslie white & Julian H. Steward felt that evolution was a real fact & societies become more complex over time. As According to Leslie White, Taylor was correct in every respect except for his methodology. So they attempted to overcome the failings of the classical evolutionary theorists in their researches & methodological approaches

by incorporating the methodology of empiricism and also
trying to develop rational criteria of measuring evolution.

General aim – Neo evolutionist tried of 20th century tried to study evolution of culture unlike 19th century classical evolutionist, thr new research & methodological approaches.

reaction against functionalism

Methodology

all scholars conducted fieldwork & followed an empirical approach.

Basic Postulated to understand the theory

Believe that culture develops in the form of a parabolic curve
- A social institution in first born in specific form
- It then gradually develops in different form in different direction & finally
- Moves towards its original direction but in new developed form
- Can be exemplified by the evolution of property which when stared off communal property, later evolved into private property & finally goes into communal property on common ownership, but thr state.

They consider both diffusion & migration of culture traits

Principal concepts / contribution – Individual concepts

VG Childe
- suggested 4 fold evolutionary scheme & substantiated evolutionary idea with archaeological findings & periods
- Savagery → Barbarism → Higher Barbarism → Civilisation
- at each stage human aggressiveness towards their environment increased due to advancing technology
LA White
- technological aspects determine cultural system → technological determinism
- E*T=C
JH Steward
- gave 3 fold classification of evolutionary approaches
- gave cultural ecology model-culture change induced by adaption to the environment
Sahlins & Service
- combined White’s and Steward’s approaches to give 2 types of evolutions-general & specific

Tribes on which the study was done

Accomplishment

Neo-evolutionists through empirical findings were able to address the shortcomings of 19th century classical evolutionism by following scientific & technological approaches
It was largely throught their efforts that evolutionary theory regained acceptance from 1960s onwards

Point of Reaction

Criticisms

Leslie white’s too much emphasis on the material dimension of life was criticised by Marshall Sahlin.
Besides individual shortcomings neo-evolutionists were criticised mainly by funtionalists for studying cultural traits in isolation and not as an integrated whole

Conclusion – Despite the criticism they helped develop several new concepts in cultural studies thus paving the way for future research

Leading Figures & their Key works

V.G Childe

Introduction – Neo evolutionist who tried to study evolution from materialistic perspective. As he was an Australian Archeologist, made large no of excavations.
He divided archeological period into Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, copper age, bronzes age & Iron Age.
- Can seet the progress from one stage to another & can arrive at conclusion
- Initially artifacts were of stone ; over period crude stone implement became smaller in shape & size & become more refined as gradually all these were replace by metal tools
Books
- Man Makers himself (1936)
- What happened in History (1946)
- Social Evolution (1951)
Scheme of Evolution : (Universal Evolution Scheme) described evolution in 3 major events : called them Revolutions
1. Invention of food production
2. Urbanisation
3. Industrialisation
he substantiated evolutionary idea with archeological findings & said one can relate each of the stage with particular kind of society. As he related
- Palaeolithic → Stone Age → Savagery
- Mesolithic / Neolithic → Mirco-tools & Animal Domestication → Barbarism | 1st Revolution : Rural Revolution
- Bronze Age → Metallurgy, Political institution institution, scripts → emergence of Civilisation | 2nd Revolution : Urban Revolution
He also opined that even during prehistoric period → migration took place & thus cultural traits diffused from one place to other → thus believed upto some extent in principle of diffusion
He attempted to apply Darwinian formula to cultural evolution → He equated:
- genetic variation ⇒ technological inventions.
- Heredity ⇒ learning (transfer of traits)
- Biological adaption ⇒ cultural adaption
- Selection ⇒ choices.
- Migration ⇒ diffusion of traits

Thus he concluded that it’s a universal evolution taking place, with each stage having higher capability & efficiency to utilise energy → it will head to increase in population i.e. index of evolution Ultimately leads to civilisation.

Thus he tried to explain classical theory of evolution with archeological remains and gave it name of neo evolution.

Stages	Period	Characteristics
Civilisation	Present	• Progressive exploitation of env• use of high technology
	Early Bronze Age	• con diff action of religion, writing & math
Barbarism	Copper Age	• Use of simple tools, food production
	Neolithic Age	• domestication of plant & animals• Population growth
Savagery	Mesolithic	• Intensive food gathering, fishing
	Palaeolithic	Crude tools, hunting gathering

Criticism

too much reliance on archeological data to explain Cultural evolution.
Like Classical evolution, he too was not able to distinguish b/w old hunters & hunters and food gatherers of today
Rejected idea of universal precedence of matriarchy w/o giving much details
Neglected non material aspects
Comparison with darwinism seems deductive approach rather than inductive.
Also undermined innovation of human mind thereby dehumanizes it with psychic unity. of mankind.

Contributions

scientific methoddogy & proofs given also sound possible, a considerable departure from early evolutionist.
proponded new school of thought “Neo evolutionism”
Interlinked various fields from archeology to biological evolution, giving holistic picture of evolution.

Conclusion – Thus he substantiated evolutionary idea with archaeological date. However data regarding only material culture was available. Therefore we should not evaluate the evolution of non-material culture & We should talk only about material or economic aspect of man.

Julian Steward

Steward, an american anthropologist who is best known as father of cultural ecology. One of leading Neo evolutionist In mid 20th century.

He conducted studies on social org of Peasant villages, ethnographic research on N. American Shoshanian Indians & various S. American indians, was one of early proponent of area study.
Critic of Leslie white for considering environment as constant
He was basically interested in particular evolution env rather than human society in general.
Steward’s focus was mainly On cultural ecology i.e particular evolution.
Books & Work
- Theory of Cultural Change (1955)
- origin of Agriculture
  - He described various sequences & each one was motivated by ecological factors
- Shosonian Indian
  - In this study he the concept of r/l b/w culture & environment

Distinction b/w 3 types of Evolution

Julian Steward provided a different typology of the Evolutionary School
based on the assumptions & approaches employed in explaining cultural evolution by the school

Unilinear Model	Universal Model	Multilinear Model
19th Cultural / classical Evolutionists like Morgan & Tylor explained evolution as unilinear evolution.	Neo-evolutionist models of Lesslie White & Gordon Childe.	Julion Steward‘s theory of parallel dev. It believe there are no one line of evolution, rather there are many lines, parallel
Focus on evolution of Particular Culture	Cultural evolution of mankind as whole. B/c obsession with various culture stage remains.	Emphasizes on Particular evolution (Specific & Limited occurance) but in stages
Successive dev. stages in one direction Simple stage of homogeneity→ Complex stage of Heterogeneity ; same sequence all over world due to psychic unity of mankind	General evolution occurs thr successive stages.	Each one of these line has its own characteristics due to impact of env. And Env should not be treated as passive entity.
Always progressive	doesn’t think evolution is always progressive.	doesn’t think evolution is always progressive.
it disregards any cultural variation or diversity.	Discarded any variations & distinct cultural traits as irrelevant.	it accepts cultural variation & diversity ; Cultural Parrlels
		Empirical than deductive

Multi-evolutionary Theory in his “Theory of cultural Change’ (1955) propose this theory of parallel development

All cultures not passed thr same devlopmental Stagel, rather diff dev. stage due different environment → thus particular env plays imp role as humans tries to adapt to envi.
cultural evolution of diff. areas can be studied by choosing limited parallel of env & Comparing with each other; i.e Cross culture analysis
Thus, multilinear env is (methodology to study cultural change ) based on assumption that parallels occurs in cultural change & it is concerned with determination of cultural laws.

Mulit-evolution As a Method

Steward defined it as methodology concerned with regularity in social change & establishing sequences of parallel dev & studies them empirically , the goal of which is to develop cultural laws empirically.
Its methodology is based on Twin Concepts of Parallelism & Causality.
- The study of parallelism, involves a search for causality which has to be investigated in empirical reality.
The assumption (also the thesis) of steward is that societies that exist in the similar env & with same tech would parallel one another in their form of political, economic & other social org also.
Thus there exists an interaction b/w env & tech , & tech is only variable in hands of env & hence is definitely not an ultimate factor responsible for evolution.

Thus all these it lead to study of particular cultures & then making cross cultural generalisation i.e how to combine particular with general.

Cultural Ecology

He says there are two ways in which ecology is treated in anthropology. These are:
1. Human & Social ecologist sought universal ecological principles & relegated culture a secondary place.
2. Cultural anthropologists who offered historical explanation of culture for e.g. Kroeber said – “culture derives from culture”. He completely disregarded extra cultural factors namely env.
Steward disagreed with both the views.
- first view is incomplete b/c it gives low place to culture &
- second view also incomplete b/c they disregard env.
The empirical reality tells us that culture cannot be seen independently of env & env-changes b/c of impact of culture.
Therefore critical problem is not to disregard any of the above views.As Acc to him principle mean of ecology is adaption to environment. So his method is c/l as Cultural ecology i.e particular evolution which help him explain the r/l & make systematic cross -cross cultural generalisation ; as – Cultural ecology is science dealing with interrelation b/w cultural system & environment
In his “Theory of cultural change” he proposed social org is reaction to environmental factor i.e culture is induced by adaption to environment.

Steward criticised white for treating envi. constant but he regarded env as very important factor in cultural change , as envi. is dynamic entity

Methodology : Culture Core & Superstructure

Acc to cultural ecological model, not all features of a given habitat & ecology are relevant to given soci-culture system nor all aspects of a it are affected or equally affected by man-env interaction.(Some more closely related than other parts to socio-cultural system).
So only evolutionary aspects of sociocultural system to be analysed i.e c/l cultural core by Steward.
- Technology of the system is basic component of core b/c as in every r/l b/w culture & env, the technology is required to exploit the env to fulfil the material needs ⇒ r/l, b/w people & Tech, are concerned with economic value that constitutes the economic & subsistence activities.
- Thus acc to Steward, core of culture is more closely related to economic & subsistence activities &
Other institutions are r/l to economic system as they are not directly related to env e.g. political, religious institutions etc. For these institutions, he used term superstructure.

Cultural core shows how 1° institution of culture (tech, DoL) affects 2° Institution (social org, eco system, political system)
Piddocks too observed this in Potlach Study of Kwakiutl (N-American)

Hence at methodological level he explored relationship between man & environment by studying economic system. Hence we study relation both other systems and economic system.

Environment is even changing & man has to survive in this condition. Hence he has to keep on changing the cultural materials, such as tools, equipment, weapons for destruction of material resources, for his survival. Thus over the period of time, society and culture evolved. According to Steward, society and culture evolve in a multilinear manner. He says that environment is not homogenous across the world. It varies from place to place. Hence differential environments lead to differential evolution of society and culture.

Change in env → Man need to adopt → change in cultural material → evolution of society & culture

Thus Steward’s Methods was to

Document tech & Methods used to exploit env for survival.
Examine pattern of human behaviour / Cultural pattern associated with exploitation of particular area / environment by means of particular tech.
Assess how the extent to which the above behaviour pattern affect other aspect of culture.

e.g drought prone area have rainfall at Central place → thus religious system finds prominent emphasis on rain, which we may not find in good rainfall area.

Criticism

concept of multilinear evolutionism is unexplained b/c the question of the how many is multilinear still remains.
Marvin Harris criticised steward while not accepting Multilinear view, that (link b/w ) cultural ecology (& cultural materialism) is spurious (false or fake) & the theory a “core of confusion.”
Leslie white criticised steward for confusing History with evolution b/c History is concerned with particulars(i.e fall into trap of historical particularise) , while evolution seeks to generalise.
criticised by his students who found that in many societies the direct relationship with env is not in the form of economic system rather it is in the form of religion.
- Roy Rappaport studied Tsembaga Maring tribe in Papua New Guinea of Melanesia and wrote a book c/l ‘Pig for Ancestor.’
- He found that there was direct r/l b/w religion & environment. I.e rituals regulated the ecological cycle
- concept of pig feast, in some societies in Melanesia – Those who offer more pigs in feast won the title of big man in Melanesia.
  - religion had direct r/l with env thr the process of pig feast which is a ritual in Melanesia, to commemorate their env.
  - latent function of this practice is to regulate ecological cycle.
- Hence it can be said that economic system cannot always be the core of culture. Other Institutions can also be a core of culture.

But steward did not say that one should follow the strict order i.e. economic factor as core of culture. He said that we should look on those aspects which are directly linked with environment.

Later, cultural ecology was Central tenet in Procedural Archeology where archeologist understood cultural symbols & related environment.

Conclusion: Steward gave the concepts of cultural ecology & multilinear evolution which make study of anthropology holistic.

Leslie White’s Technological Theory of Evolution

Introduction –

Brought up under Boasian approach, but not satisfied with his quest for data.
White, best known for his theories of evolution of culture & scientific theory of culture that he called “culturology“
influenced by writings of Taylor & Morgan
- identified that problem with them is that – they did not knew “universal standard of measuring evolution”
- So he put forwards universal standard of measurement in terms of energy & technology.

Premises

given his scheme of evolution in his “science of culture” (1949)

Evolution has definitely occurred at biological & sociocultural world.
Basic law of cultural evolution : culture evolves as amount of energy per capita per year increases.
Not interested in evolution of particular culture or institution → interested in most fundamental principle b/c of which evolution occurs in culture i.e energy
Societies as entities that evolved in relation to amount of energy captured & harnessed by each member. This energy is directed towards production of resources for their survival.
3 cultural subsystems : Technological, sociological and ideological
- The way technology hamess energy devlopes sodological & ideological system.
Energy can be measured in terms of harvesting per capita individual. With passes of time, quality & quantity of energy harnessed increases.
- Thus civilisation is not a stage marked by writing but it is Stage marked by increase in the amount of energy harnessed by individual.
Energy is not hamessed by itself, requires technology or set of techniques e.g-
- Hand axe 🪓
  - Axe → technique
  - Manual force → energy.
- Thus manual energy is harnessed with help of technique without technique the energy remains free floating.

Thus white hypotheses cultures s kind of behaviour & behaviour is treated as a manipulation of energy.

Example / illustration

Stage	Energy	Characteristic	Tools
Energy Revolution	Nuclear Energy	Atomic Revolution
Civilisation	Coal, Petroliyam	Industrial revolution, factory production	Machine Tools
Barbarism	Muscle + Animal Energy	Animal & plant domestication, Agricultural revolution, specialisation of labour	Plough, Plots
Savagery	Muscle Energy	huting gathering, limited energy capture (1/20th of HP per capita per year)	Stone tools

Methodology

Said Energy ✗ Technology = Culture (give rise to)
For this, we have to take into consideration three possibilities of energy for analysis of culture.
- Low Energy ✗ Low technology = Low culture i.e Tundra
- High Energy ✗ low technology = Low culture i.e Africa
- High Energy ✗ High technology = High culture i.e Western countries

Laws of evolutions

On the basis of technology & energy White gave two laws of evolution, later merged into one.

1st law: Other things remaining equal the degree of cultural development varies directly as the amount of energy per capita per year harnessed & put to a work
2nd law : Other things kept equal the degree of cultural development varies directly as efficiency of technological means with which the harnessed energy could be put to work.

In the first law, the emphasis is on energy & in the second law the emphasis is on technology. Both were combined by White and he gave the law of evolution which is law of cultural development.

The Law of Cultural Development: When the amount of energy harnessed by man per capita per year is increased or as the efficiency of technological means of putting energy to work is increased or both the factors increased simultaneously then that is called cultural development.

He put much emphasis on technology that is why his theory is known as technological theory of evolution.

But it does not mean that evolution of society does occur only on level of technology.
Rather emphasis is on harnessing energy by technological apparatus.

Critical evaluation of Leslie White

Positive

White’s theory was quite convincing since it had shown that over a period of time there is an incremental growth in the quantity and quality of energy. Naturally one can say amount of energy harnessed in simple societies is far less than complex societies. Similarly technology has grown from simple to complex.

Criticism – However White was criticised

for giving a negligible place to the role of evolution of particular society as he talked of universal evolution of the world. That is why he is c/l universal cultural evolutionist.
To much emphasis on techno-economic factors.
He denied env, psychological & historical factors
Unable to explain why some culture go extinct.
considered environmental factors as constant. But Julian Steward → imp role of env in cultural carnage his his culture ecology.

Conclusion: Though White was criticised for ignoring particular culture & environmental factor, his concept of energy & technology gives clear idea about evolution of society & culture.

Sahalin & Service’s Contribution to Evolution

Introduction : Marshall D. Sahalin & Elaman Service were students & colleagues of Steward & White.

Sahlin is American scholar best known for ethnographic work among Pacific (Fiji & Hawaii)
Service, American Cultural Scholar, researched at in American Indians, studied cultural evolution in Pragya & studied cultures in Latin America & Caribbean.

General & Specific Evolution : Premises

By reconciling white’s view & steward’s view following an integrated bio cultural approach. They developed the concepts of General & Specific evolution to fill gap of theory of White & Steward.
Acc to them evolution in cultural sphere move simultaneously in 2 directions:
- Specific Evolution – It creates diversity through adaptive modification (under the impact of env) (Steward’s view)
  - As a result new forms originate from old ones.
  - It is sequence of particular cultures & their lines of Development
  - Implies phylogenetic classification concerned with line of dissent.
- General Evolution – Evolution generates progress b/c of which higher forms arise & surpass lower forms. (White’s view)
  - Successive emergence of new levels of all round Development
  - Higher form surpass lower form.
  - More emphasis on character of progress itself

These seems to be different but in reality they are aspects of same total process. Thus Ex
- General Evolution ⇒ H&G → Agri → Industrial Revolution → Atomic age
- Specific Evolution ⇒ Evolution of Indian Culture

In general evolutionary perspective, all diversity (Specific evolutions) merge into larger pattern that unfold in progressive fashion. Thus are aspect of same total process.

Both of them considered evolution & diffusion in order to explain the process of social change.
Sahlin & Service considered keynote of specific evolution is the cultural diversity brought up by local factors such as environment, diffusion, invention etc.

Compare & contract Evolutionism & Neo-Evolutionism

Similarity : Both share common premise but they differ in all other aspects

Evolution is a gradual process of change
- from simple to complex,
- from homogeneity to heterogeneity and
- from uncertainty to certainty.
This concept can be applied to a cultural trait, an institution or on a whole culture.
Evolution is a ceaseless process.
The job of anthropologist or evolutionist includes tracing origin and sequence of evolution of society and culture.

Differences

Features	Classical Evolutionism	Neo Evolutionism
Nature of Studies	• Evolution of culture & society• synchronic (@ particular time in history	• Rejuvenation of evolutionary studies• diachronic(throughout time)
Historical Background	Contribution of Pre-Darwinian scholars & influence of Darwinism	Reaction against functionalism, inspired by CE
Time Period	Mid 19th century	3rd decade of 20th century
Scholars	British – Taylor, FrazerAmerican – LH MorganGerman – JJ Bachofen	British -VG ChildeAmerican – White, steward, Shalins & service
Evidence	Study without any evidence	study with evidence
Date	2° date / No dateimagination/ conjecturalism	Primary & First hand dataNo imaginationNo Conjecturalism
Idea of Diffusion	Didn’t considered	considered diffusion in the study of evolution
Types of Evolution	unilinear	Unilinear – Childe, whiteMultilinear – StewardGeneral & specific – Sahlins & Service
Cultural Diversity	Absent due to unilinear evolution	Present b/c of idea of multilinear evolution.
Concept of Psychic unity of mankind	Accepted	Rejected
Parallelism	Comparative method (tribals with prehistoric)	din’t use the comparative method
Approach	Ethnocentric (Victorian society is highest stage)	Cultural Relativist(multilineal evolutionists)
Criticism	Due to conjecturlism, psychic unity , lack of culture diversity, ethnocentric, ignoring functionalism & diffusions	due to individual scholars• white – macro-culturist, ignored env• Steward – core other than economic system

Historical Particularism

Introduction – Historical Particularism is an approach popularised by Franz Boas which emerged as a reaction to classical evolutionism & used for fieldwork to understand nature of culture & change in particular culture & people

bring out primary authentic date across world so that scientific generalisation of human behaviour would be possible.

Historical Background –

Rejected classical evolution model of single unilinear evolution
Need of Primary date : Geographer studied Eskimos (Buffin Island) → read works of classical evolution → stuffed from great paucity of date → Sweeping generalisation. Thus if science → true proper data
Criticised psychic unity & comparative method → which says same phenomena always furthers same cause. For example
- Cause diff but result same : eg
  - Navaljo tribe → fusion & N W tribe (America) → fission.
  - Mask
Criticised comparative methods 1896 “Limitation of comparitive method in Anthropology” → Evolution is ubiquitous ; then how simple societies not changed

Premises of HP

to understand culture & to overcome empirical problems , one should undertake longitudinal ethnographies ;
He wanted to reconstruct their history ;
- By having detailed data from many different cultures as a common frame of reference, individual culture traits may be singled out as being borrowed or invented. Crucial element of reconstitution of of history
Stressed meticulous date collection & organisation of ethnographic data on all different aspect of many different human societies.
Detailed description of cultural group without comparison ; &
Don’t generalises about cultural Development till sufficient data

General aim / Theme of study – Only after collecting first hand data and then reconstruction of histories of particular cultures,can generalisation be made about cultural development as a whole

Principal concept / Contribution

Independent study of particular culture rather than cross cultural comparison
study societies/culturies from their own perspective → approach c/l as Cultural Relativism
- respect their culture
- no stages of evolution
no generalisations by anthropologists (as did by CE)
do not believe in Unilineal evolution but believe in multilineal evolution(start and end anywhere)

Thus, Harris ; “distinctive sense of in-distinctive curiosity” → postpone generalisation till sufficing data – “Pragmatic avoidance of theoretical synthesis.”

Female Ⓟ should be introduced to collect data from diff perspective. Broad data analysis to form generalisation of certain traits. Generalisation can help in building “Theory of Culture”

Methodologies ; Approaches to field work for data collection

Comparative method replaced by historical method
Great emphasis was given on collection of ethnographic data on all aspects of human society
Studying local history
- Not only written, but also oral
- Looking for local / particular culture, not universal culture → Historical particularism
Long stay with locals
Learn long language
Role of respondents
- Uneducated → transcribing date.
- Educated → collect valuable data
Role of Garrulous (Chatty, forthcoming) & Reticent (marginal man, shy)
Role of Female Ⓟ
- Should be introduced to data collection from diff perspective
- To convert partial view → compete view
- As Simple societies are sexually segregated →Male Ⓟ not able to communicate truly with females.
- Thus inspired many many women Ⓟ → Mead, Benedict
Four filed Method of Anthropology : Boas also stressed the importance of all sub-filed of anthropology in reconstructing history. Ethnographic evidence must be used with linguistic evidence.

Accomplishment

stressed that each culture is an integrated way of life,valid and meaningful in its own context
established fieldwork as firm necessity for anthropological research
Historical particularism & cultural relativism have basically oriented the anthropological analysis to specific cultural areas & divergence therein from grand theories of evolution & diffusion.

Boas’s Contribution

Foundation of fieldwork in Anthropology
Female point of view
Language, responded
Detailed study of American society
No of concept E.g Culture (Zero in Math)
Cultural Relativism (own context)
Used psychic Unity to fight Racism

Criticisms

For excessive & un-required data collection led to data wastage & broad theories.
Even data collection of entire world is grandiose task ; Wissler,, in particular, attacked boas’s insistence on tireless collection of data
No theory
Furthermore, if the investigators were reluctant to generate broad theories on cultural dev & change, what was the point of gathering so much detailed work ?

Conclusion – Despite the criticisms, the school helped to establish 2 hallmarks of anthro –fieldwork approach & cultural relativism. The emphasis on importance on the collection of data has paid dividends for modern scholars, also provided raw information for countless subsequent studies & investigation, much of which would have been lost to time had “oral cultures” not been recorded.

Leading Figures & their Key works (i.e source & Bibliography)

Boas’ theories were carried on & developed by Scholars who were contemporary with or studied under him at Columbia university. The imp of these included Alfred L. Kroeber, Ruth Benedict, Robert Louie, Paul Radin & Edward Sapir

Franz Boas

Introduction – He is described as “Darwin of Socio-Cultural Anthropology.” Historical Particularism is an approach popularised by Franz Boas which emerged as a reaction to classical evolutionism & used for fieldwork to understand nature of culture & change in particular culture & people

Important Contribution of Franz Boas

As a Ethnographer & cultural Anthropologist – As known as father of American Ⓐ , Boas did intense fieldwond among American tribe:
- Central Eskimos : first expedition of Boas
  - Published a Book 📕 “central Eskimo (1888)” depicting all socio-eco- problems, archeology, folk tales, myths.
- kwakiut tribe – intense fieldwork.
  - special mention must be made of “POTLATCH” system. which Boas described with great care along with it’s degeneration in his book “The Kwakiutl Text”(1905)
- Book “The Mind of Primitive Man” (1911) – Socio psychological approach to study tribal ethnography.
  - Later this psychological & behavioural aspects were picked up by his student Ruth Benedict who gave ‘culture personality school“

Idea of cultural Relativism
- In his book “Race, Language and Culture” (1940) he advocated not to rank or judge one culture acc. to Std. of other another.
- Thus opposed ethnocentric’ stand taken by 19th centure classical evolutionist.

Boas and Historical Particularism –
- Boas suggested that each culture has it’s own independent history, thus all groups cannot & should not be compared in one scale of excellence.
- thus Boas in his work Limitations of Comparative methods in Anthropology(1896) , discarded comparative method
- Adopted Historical method” as this should be based on particular geographical area in historical term, thus Boas called it as historical particularism.

Boas’s concept of Natural History Approach
- Boas: 2 approaches to understand social regularities
  - Natural History Approach
  - Social Philosophical Approach.
- Boas preferred NH approach that indicates knowledge of History for dealing with social problems.
- He believed that History influences the philosophy and laws of philosophy are moulded with growth of history. Thus he talked about historical determinism

Boas as folklorist
- Boas : folklore is an oral history of folk society. Folklore societies are generally religious oriented and have homogenous features. Thus, on basis of folklore, one an visualise origin & function of that oral tradition.
  - 1888- published folklores of tribes in washington State.
  - 1890- folk tales on American Indians.
  - esta seperate research unit in Columbia. university.

Boas as physical Anthropologist
- Introduced concept of “Tempo-growth”
  - said that ‘tempo’ of Individual changes till death & varying growth.
- relationship b/w growth of mind & body was highlighted in his work “The Mind of Primitive People” (1911)
- studied impact of environment on cephalic Index

To sum up, Boas was father of American Anthropology who not only made original Contributions to dev. of world Ⓐ but also trained a band of anthropologist like Kroeber, Ruth Benedict, Malinowski, Brown who also distinguished themselves in this field.

Diffusionism

Introduction- Diffusion & Diffusionism

Diffusion – Cultural borrowing ;
- defined as a process by which a discrete cultural traits are transferred from place of origin(Central place) to other places (diffuse to diff area)
- Thr Coming in contact – integration, trade, war or other contact.
Diffusionism – Interpretative strategy woven around idea of diffusion.
- Process of analysis of socio-cultural change through cultural borrowing.
- It emerged as anti-evolutionist school of Though, which is highly critical of the evolutionary School & its premise psychic unity of mankind.

Thus, Diffusionism is an anthropological school of thought which attempted to understand nature of culture in terms of origin of culture traits and their spread from one society to another.

Schools of Thoughts & Leading Figures/ Scholars –

based on nationally & also the approaches / assumption chosen to explain diffusion, diffusionism is further classified into following three schools

Subject Matter / Theme of Study -Ulitmate Goal to find out

how did culture evolve ?
Why there are cultural differences & similarities

Basic Premises / Assumption – Character of Diffusion

Rejected CE concepts of unilinear & sequential development of culture & PUM
Humans are mainly immitators than inventors
Unequal inventiveness – i.e Important inventions are made only once at particular place(s) from where they spread to other places.This is known as cultural diffusion.
- Depends upon “favourable area”
Factors for spread of invention :
- Migration / Displacement for better opportunities lead to cultural contact & diffusion
  - Fertile land
  - Pilgrimage
  - Escape Calamities
  - War
  - ↓ carrying capacity
- Lack of transport & communication faculties operate as obstacles in cultural diffusion.
Any culture group adopt cultural trait of other if meaningful & useful either socially or economically
In course of diffusion, cultural traits may not remain in original form, but changes due to diff environments.
Process of diffusion always follow from developed culture into underdeveloped culture
Borrowed traits sometimes get assimilated, but sometime responsible for many change.

Process of Diffusion

Direct & indirect : By German School

Symmetrical (equal contribution : give & take) & Asymmetrical (Unequal)
Active(lending of traits) & Passive (receiving end)
- Dilution – time & space
Reaction – depends on meaningfulness of trait → economically or socially.
- Total rejection
- Total Acceptance
- Modification

Methodology

Empirical data from fieldwork
German diffusionist – used historical facts
American diffusionist – used cultural area approach – geography based

Contribution / Concepts : School wise

Accomplishments

idea of diffusion is of great calue in several fields to explain spread od ideas and how they motivate innovations
Requested into creation of concept of culture areas
Though replaced in mid 19th c° still has value in ethnological science.
Studies involving diffusion of ideas and how they affect and motivate innovations have been of great value in many other fields, such as agriculture, business studies, geography, history and rural sociology.
Acculturation studies have helped to give insight into problems encountered when people from diverse cultures come into a dominant culture.
Studies could identify the problems of acculturation & assimilation of a mortality individual on a group and how to establish better relationships b/w various groups and the dominant society.

Criticism

criticised for narrow scope
German School -unable to explain how & why diffusion takes place
Americans School culture area -was criticised for difficulty in tracing cultural centres and margins of an area
CA can’t be adopted where the distribution of people is characterised by social stratification.
criticised for studying cultural traits in isolation and not as an integrated whole ; and can’t explain world-wide diffusion of culture.
To much emphasis on metrical culture
Only emphasis on geographical area ignoring other aspects that also influence diffusion.

Conclusion – Despite the criticisms,diffusionism introduced several new approaches and paved the way for future research in cultura studies

Contemporary Relevance – Diffusion helps in understanding processes such as interplay of Great and Little traditions and Sanskritization

Differences between Cultural Evolution & Cultural Diffusion

Features	Cultural Evolution	Cultural Diffusion
Definition	process of social & cultural change in a definite direction from single to complex, homo to heterogeneity	process where cultural elements, complexes & aspects pass from one group to another.
Nature	is more complicated in nature as compared to diffusion	is simple in nature as compared to cultural evolution
Process	occurs by alteration or invention or diffusion or borrowing of cultural elements	it occurs by only by borrowing of cultural elements
Aid	May or mayn’t aid diffusion	diffusion definitely aids evolution
	Nature of evolution to change existing simpler items & complexes in a society to more complex order.	Diffusion adds more new items to a culture or a society

British School of Diffusion

Was pioneered by G.E Smith, W.J Perry & W.H.R Rivers. It is further subdivided into

Extreme School – 1st to study diffusion & single source origin
Rivers School – muliple source of diffusion
Though as an whole, it is considered extreme diffusionist & anti-evolutionist
As these scholars considered Egypt 🇪🇬 as cultural cradle of world (i.e one culture Centre) so -it is designated as Pan-Egyptian School or Heliocentric School from where culture traits diffused or migrated to rest of the parts of World.

Weakened of British School of Diffusion

Anti -evolutionary stance
Conviction on non-inventiveness of human mind
Extremely biased & heliocentric as didn’t even consider non-Egyptian centers of civilisation at all.
Ignored the analysis of non-material culture

Conclusion : There narrow approach resulted in making this school of diffusionism short lived.

G.Eliot Smith

anatomist, University of Cambridge.
went egypt, observed civilization

found similarities b/w egyption stone monuments with British megaliths.
Also, further → Mayan pyramid, Japenge Pagoda, Cambodian & Balinese temple, American Indians burial mounds.
concluded all civilisation originated at Egypt 🇪🇬 & Spread all over from 4000 B.C i.e Egypt is cradle of civilisation
“In the Beginning the origin of civilisation” (1928) – basic premises
- Man uninventive & Culture rises only at exceptionally favourable circumstances.
- such favourable circumstance→ ancient egypt. Thus centre of diffusion.
- Civilisation is diluted when spread to outposts
- similarities in culture by imitation only.
Smith’s scheme of diffusion – in his ” The diffusion of cultures” (1933)
- Egyptians → invented navigation ⇒ travelled far → spread culture → diffusion

W.H.R. Rivers

Introduction – Rivers, medical doctor by profession, was persuaded by extreme scheme of diffusion towards end of his life.

Works of Rivers

Torres Strait Expedition (1898) – analysed psychological capabilities of natives (particularly their pure sense acuity)
Monograph “The Toda” (1906) → we do not find any hind of scheme of diffusion In this work.
in 1911, his lecture @ British Association at Portsmouth → announced his amibition of diffusionism
“Disappearance of useful Art” (1912) – degeneration of traits + also focused on un-inventiveness of huma minds.
“History of Melanesian Society” (1914)– here he gave proof of degeneration. He showed that present melanasians have no canoes, which must have been part of their survival.

But, Rivers was not as successful to explain other phenomenons.

ex- In Austrelia → he noted 5 different types of burials in a small homogenous population within small geographical area
- as simple uninventive aboriginel Could not develope so much variation by themselves → Rivers pointed out that Small successive migration had occured.
- Nature of migration → Males came, who let go all their cultural traits except burial practices to which they were emotionally attached.”

Thus Rivers, along with perry & Smith was convinced that inventiveness was rare and similarities in culture could be explained by imitation only.

In “History of Malenetian Society”
- Gave basic postulates of diffusionism
  - Man is basically uninventive.
  - culture spreads thr migration & diffusion.
  - In process, some cultural traits may disappear or degenerate
- list of factors influencing diffusion
  - Presence of communication
  - Need and desire of new trit
  - Opposition to alien cultures
  - respect for new proponents.
- List of characteristics of diffusion (write premises of diffusionism)

Austrian-German School of Diffusion

Introduction – Opposed oversimplified evolutionary scheme put by classical Evolutionists, unlike Pro-Egyptian, German diffusionist estd. multiple form of dev of culture. The cultural historical movement (use of historical data to understand migration) came to known as Kulturkriese or “Culture Circle/District”. This school also questioned psychic unity of mankind & inventive captivates of man. Though they majorly emphasised on migration rather than diffusion.

Considered more refined in approach & methodology compared to counterpart British school.

wasn’t extremist & completely anti-evolutionist
Though propounded diffusionism, it also touched the evolutionary schemes.

Premises – Concept of culture Circles

Rejected Egyptian theory – many Centre of origin.
- development of culture occurs at several different places at several times.
Inventions & discoveries were continuous processes and they reach to other areas by migration.
- Thus, the German school has given importance, if not equal, to both evolution as well as diffusion.
Culture spread – ripple of water.
- Area close to centre → more elements of pure culture ;
- Tends to deteriorate at periphery.
- Each cultural trait complex had a circle or a district from where they migrated to other places. different cultural circles or districts develop at different places due to diffusion. Hence W. Schmidt → “Culture Circle theory”

Analyses diffusion in time & space
- Migration of a trait can be easily understood thr study of historical data. Hence this school aka Culture Historic-School.
- Thr scientific analysis, one can identify & examine migration of different traits in different layers.
Theoretically against conjectural Study.
Concerned Material & non material culture

Important proponents in this school of anthropological thought were

Frederick Ratzel,
Frietz Graebner and
Father William Schmidt.

Method of Study – Two Criteria

Criteria of Form –
- given by Ratzel, discussed by Grabner & called it Criteria of quality
- When similarities→ not explained on basis of nature, material or purpose → due to diffusion
  - Ratzel : not every similarity can be taken as proof of historical connection b/c objects of material culture, in order to have utilities, must posses some characteristics. Ex – Arrow of spear must be pointed, paddle of canoe must have blade.
    - If however, there are similarities in other traits, unrelated to use → then evidence of historical connection. Ex – feathers 🪶 attached to spear
- Here Ⓟ had to eliminate all identical factor which may Cause similarities.
- Ratzel applied this in his study of Mangoliya 🇲🇳 – e.g Mongia → Lotus flower, as Buddhism symbol, originated in India.
Criteria of quantity
- Frobenius: “Geographical statistics” Graebner c/l it criteria of quantity
- Similarity b/w 2 culture → substantiated by no. of cultural items found together.
- ↑ in no. of similar items → ↑ in similarity

German diffusionist made use of two tests & applied to both material & non material.

Primary diffusion & secondary diffusion- by Graebner

out of his 6 centre of cultures, & (from oceania) Graebner argued Tasmanian & as oldest & thus typical ex. of primary diffusion.
Also argues that element of complex occur probably over Australia b/c of 2° diffusion. e.g in oceania, Totemism was very rare. but now widely diffused..

Weaknesses of German School

empirically not a single cultural circle could be established.
The premise that cultural differences enacted from four or five bands migrated to other areas is purely speculation.
Some times, psuedo historical– they tried to avoid conjecturalism but they imagined
methodology was considered barren b/c it did not completely explain the dynamics of culture change.
- Basically being a descriptive method, it at best gave insight on spread of culture but overlooked reasons behind their acceptance, rejection and modification.
- never explained why diffusion & migration take place but only focused on what diffusion is…
Lowie: German diffusion faced problem of degree of complexity i.e. could not show complexity of diffusion. e.g- catheter element in Kalahari Bushman
too much emphasis on “trait complex” too much on material cutture
talked about multiple dev. of culture’ but didn’t elaborated
Derived impetus from “museum methodology” thus talked more about typology of traits rather than meaningful spread & diffusion.

Conclusion : Improved upon Egyptian school, gave concept of multiple centre of origin of culture. Rejected Imagination & gave imp. to material facts. But inadverently Imagined for which they were criticised

Comparison b/w British & German School of Diffusionism

Share common Historical background & some common premises but they differ on many grounds.

Similarities

emergence – as a reaction to classical evolutionism against its neglect of considering change in society.
Both said that diffusion & evolution go hand in hand
Common premises
- Unequal inventiveness of human mind
- Displacement of people for better opportunities leading to cultural contact & diffusion.

Differences

Features	British	German
Nature	Extreme diffusionism by Smith & Perry, Rivers School	Multiple centres of diffusionism
Source	Heliocentric -acc to Smit & Perry ;• Multiple sources acc to Rivers	Multiple sources of Origin ; at server also times
Criteria	No criteria	criteria of forms & quantity
objectives	to show & trace unfettered path of diffusion from centre to parts of world	to demonstrate occurrence of diffusion
Attention	They paid attention to material culture & not to non material	Paid attention to both
Typology	No typology	Made distinction b/w two types of diffusion , direct/primary & indirect / secondary
R/l with evolution	Just gave importance to evolution (some place mentioned as anti-evolutionist)	They tried to intercaste evolution & diffusion of culture i.e they talk of socio-Cultural change from simple to complex & also about diffusion of cultural traits.

Friedrich Ratzel

originally a zodogist, who later turned to geography & eventually to Anthropology.
wrote many works on “anthropo-geography” Thus, he is said to be founder of anthropo-geography discipline
German school: owes it’s origin to Ratzel.

Contributions

Made distinction b/w Territorial geography (TG) & Social geography(SG). Ratzel focussed on SG, particularly trait distribution. He was convinced that though environment play imp role, but people were more influenced by each other than climate.
He believed that Ⓟ should discover from where traits came & where they disappeared
- He said: single cultural trait → diffused & whole culture complex → transplant due to migration.
Criteria of form – He substantiated criteria of form by his Study on Mongdia & Africa
- Mongolian people have adopted lotus as symbol of Buddhism, though lotus is essentially a Indian flower.

Conclusion – Thus it is said that he was influenced by Concept of adaptive radiation of biology, which he applied in study of history of cultural traits. He said that culture traits may become either Simplified or elaborated in diffusion / migration depend on local conditions & relative level of technology.

Fritz Grabner

Introduction : originally a museum curator in Germany, but emerged as main figure in German diffusionism.

Works

“Method der Ethenologie” (1911)→ highlighted methodological aspects. & discussed
- Ratzel’s criteria of form called it → criteria of quality‘
- Frobenius’s geographical statistics’ → criteria of quantity“

Scheme of diffusion – Pointed out that:

Early Man → invented basic of culture (Lang, tool) → Soon formed small bands isolated → dev. distinct culture → with time, spread out to all directions 🧭
Unlike pro Egyptians, he ested multiple development of cultures
studied oceania & recognised 6 main succesive layers of culture
- Tasmanian Culture (Ancient)
- old Australian culture
- Totemic Culture
- Moiety complex
- Malenesian Bow Culture
- Polynesian culture (Recent)
said: as method of travel improved → Influence of cultural centres increased. Hence he Believed that during thousand years of culture history → people have been exposed to various alien traits.

Graebner’s idea of 1° & 2° diffusion

Graebner: Tasmanian: ancient one → Primary center of diffusion
- While spread of culture traits all over austrelia due to 2° diffusion.
In his “Ethnologie’ (1923): Totemism very rare in oceania, but it has widely diffused thr 2° diffusion.
Grabner also shows how borrowed elements acquire novel significance among recipients.
- ex – lunar myths in oceania turned into vegetation myth.

Criticism

not clear from Graebnel’s analysis that how fundamental complexes are estd. as historical realities.
Some elements may very well arise independently
laid too much emphasis on material culture.
Complexity of actual events is too great to be described by interaction of Small no. of cultures.

Conclusion : The sum up, Graebner recognised Interrelation of cultural phenomena which is of great Ⓐ significance.

Leo Frobenius

Introduction ; one of students of Ratzel, took his teachers idea several steps ahead. He was of opinion: Migration was more Imp factor of explanation than diffusion in Study of cultural similarities.

Frobenius’s ‘Geographical statistics’

add on to ‘criteria of form’, in which frobenius added one more factor to no. of similarities → biological / developmental criterion
He said, internal changes due to migration to needs to be taken into a/c → b/c as people migrate to new env → their culture needs to be adjusted.
also argued that some traits will change, while others with no utility will disappear. ⇒ Thus he pointed out that not only similarities, but also differences related to ecological adaptions could become Indicators of historical connections.
He didn’t confine his research to material Culture, but also studied mythology study of similarity of myth in Indonesia & Africa.
- Indonesia → myths were all related & formed an epic.
- Africa → remained isolated.
- Thus he believed that Indonesia have been homeland of those myths.

Conclusion : first to talk about differences of traits

Father Wilhem Schmidt

Bom In Austria, formed a big subschool of diffusion with father koppers known as “Vienna school of diffusion!”

Contributions

esta world famour research journal “Anthropos”
though influenced by evolutionism & evolutionist like Bachofen, Schmidt differed from true sense of evolution.
- ex- criticised Morgan’s universal parallelism & unilinear ev.
Schmidt & culture circle
- criticised Graebner’s culture circle & Tasmanian as oldest culture circle.
- claimed to have found earliest Culture circle in African Pygmy
- distinguished 4 major grades in culture circle
  - Primitive
  - Primary
  - Secondary
  - Tertiary
Schmidt & Religion – In his “Origin of Idea of God” (1926-55) → tried to este origin of religion of pygimies.
- Acc to him → earliest form of religion cous belief & worship of “All father‘
- later addition of other gods &spirits for him was indication of degeneration.

Conclusion – although lacked to personal fieldwork, but encouraged few schlors to take up fieldwork.

American School of Diffusionism

It was influenced by German school. Connecting link was Franz Boas. Boas & his student Clark Wissler was supposed to advice on the display of exhibits of American Indians in Museum.

Influenced by “museum methodology ‘ of German
Accordingly, classified cultural element from same geographic area together & observed : close areas = similar traits
Thus origin of cultures Area
- term first used by O.T. Mason, later by Kroeber,
- But Clark Wissler devloped it & he said similarities in cultural areas are due to diffusion.

Premises/ Features of Culture Area

It can be defined as Geographical zone having no. of groups living together & all these groups show cultural similarity when they are grouped together.
Each culture area has a centre, which wissler: “culture centre”

Role of culture centre – control entire area politically & socially. I.e economy, politics & religion
At centre – all cultural traits appear & greatest concentration of traits exists
- dilute when spread outward.
- Spread centrifugally, in all directions
Diffusion b/w two culture areas. –Not only within area, but b/w areas.

Construction of culture area : Food As criterion

Clark wissler elaborated his concept of “culture & food Areas” in his book “Man & Culture” (1992) – took food as criteria as it influence other aspects of culture & also related to env condition.
Divided native america into 6 basic ‘food area’.
- Food Area – Cultural Area
- Caribou Area – Eskimos
- Bison area – Great Plains
- Salmon (fish) A. – N. Pacific coast to Plateau
- Wild sea Area – Californian
- Maize – E. Part of America
- Intensive agri -Indian group of S.E & S.W America & Peru
with tech → people of culture area’ exploit their given envi. & tech. is invented by driving force of their envi
Since food represent envi:, which is one of basic need, people therefore invent cultural equipment accordingly. Thus food → criteria for culture Area.
Conclusion – cultural areas can be charted out depending upon close economic or ecological similarities. wissler related each cultural area with ethnology archeology, Iang But relationship is more in terms of ecology or economic org. Also showed interconnectness of cultures by means of diffussion.

Age Area – Wissler drive it from cultural area → to understand CA in historic perspective.

if a culture trait , found in wider area → inferred that ,has diffused long time ago → older element. I.e “lesser the distribution newer is the element”
Thus wiser concluded – compete study of diffusion possible only when we combine time & space. I.e CA & AA

Clark Wissler’s Law of Diffusion -The Cultural Traits need to diffuse or spread outward in all direction from a point of origin in a pattern of concentric circles.

Typology of diffussion by wissler

Natural diffusion – long process, slow diffusion, no cultural imposition. e-g- Maize culture in US borrowed from Mexico.
Organised diffusion – quickly transmitted by organised agency thr imposition. e-g-military imposition on colony ; American Indians due to contact with americans.

Views on Psychic Unity : American school of Diffusionism embraced psychic unity as an ideology. It was not used as an explanatory principle but as a tool to combat racism.

Criticism & Evaluation

Evaluation / Positives –
- wissler’s approcch more historical, combined with variables like economy, ecosystem.
- Quite empirical → as begins with CA in particular time which is not abstract.
- Showed steps which should be taken for constructing CA.
Criticism of Culture Area Approach
- CA Concept → static w/o historical depth
- too narrow → as based on food what if another criteria taken into a/c.
- CA → more to be method of classification preliminary to analytical studies, than actual theory of diffusion.
- Trait diffusing to all dirn from centre → NOT correct.
  - observed that diffusion often went in one dirn.
- today lost relevance due to transport & Communication.
- Emphasis on geographical areas ignoring other aspects that also influenced diffusion.

Conclusion – gave CA & AA which strengthened theory of diffusionism but criticised for narrow application of theory.& fault in definition of CA.

Kroeber’s Contribution To American Diffusionism

Using the culture areas proposed by Otis T. Manson, Kroeber published his well known work book, “Cultural & Natural Areas of Native North American”, 1939

He was More interested in understanding macro change. So did Not used culture area concept rather began with some Ideas regarding erise an fall of Civilisation
He said : civilisation = cultural Complex which emerges from lot of borrowing from other cultures.
- borrowed elements are systematised, modified & transferred so that they become chain of culture.
Diff. cultures are carried forward. They all evalve into civilization & reach final point called cultural climax. Concept was very similar to wissler’s cultural centre.
- New culture, which remains open for change emerges & replace original civilisation.

Hence Kroeber says that diffusion is exceedingly important for building a civilisation.
Krober’s macro level approach have been substantiated with a no. Of ex
- later substantiated by Robert Redfield who made distinction b/w high & low culture. = GT & LT.
- found it very useful to study peasantry.
- Regarded GT &LT as two dimensions of civilian where GT= urban society, LT=rural peasant
- In Indian context, Milton Singer, McKim Marriot & L.P Vidyarthi showed the nature of diffusion at different levels of Indian society.

Conclusion – Thus Kroeber used the concept of diffusion to explain his theory of rise & fall of civilisation. Later this model was used in different cultures across the world.

Acculturation

Kroeber (1948) stated that acculturation comprises those changes in a culture brought about by another culture and will result in an increased similarity between the two cultures.

This type of a change may be reciprocal, however, very often the process is asymmetrical, and the
result is the absorption of one culture into the other.
acculturation is gradual rather than abrupt.
connection with process of diffusion : diffusion contributes to acculturation & that acculturation necessarily involves diffusion.
separation b/w the two processes : diffusion is a matter of what happens to the elements of a culture, whereas acculturation is a process of what happens to the whole culture.

Acculturation then, is the process of a systematic cultural change of a particular society carried out by an alien, dominant society.

This change is brought about under conditions of direct contact b/w individuals of each society.

Relevance – Individuals of a foreign or minority culture learn the language, habits, and values of a standard or dominant culture by the cultural process of acculturation.

Assimilation – process by which these individuals enter the social positions, as well as acquire the political, economic & educational standards of the dominant culture

These individuals thr the social process of Assimilation become integrated within standard culture.

Accomplishments

Acculturation studies have helped to give insight into problems encountered when people from diverse cultures come into a dominant culture.
Studies could identify the problems of acculturation & assimilation of a mortality individual on a group and how to establish better relationships b/w various groups and the dominant society.

Functionalism

Each aspect of society depends on each other & each contributes to the overall stability & functioning of the society. When one part experiences a crisis, others must adapt to fill the void in some way.

Functionalist analyses examine the social significance of phenomena, that is the purpose, they serve a particular society in maintaining the whole. I.e This approach points towards synchronic studies

Two version of functionalism developed b/w 1910 & 1930

Bio-cultural (or Psychological) Functionalism – approach advocated by Malinowski
Structural Functionalism – approach advanced by Radcliffe Brown

Historical background

It has it origin in sociological works of Emile Durkheim, who especially interested in how social order is possible or how society remains relatively stale.
- functioning of society is based on social facts
- Theory focus on Marco -level of social structure rather than micro-level of everyday life.
Later Malinowski & Brown examined how these social facts operate in society.
functionalism emerged as strong reaction against classical ev. & diffusion
functionalists – evolution definitely taken place & diffusion occured, But study of both in terms of spare & time requires authentic data.
- Unfortunately – we don’t have data → we should shift from diachronic to Synchronic study (study of present). – This study of present society → help in changing society by restructuring it.
- Also help in administration to know characteristics of society.
Major Shift from speculative historical, diachronic study of culture & cultural traits to a historical , synchronic study of Social institutions within bounded functioning society.

Premises of functionalism

functionalism – study of how human society functions based on study of simple society.
Society / culture → as a system
Society /culture → consist of parts. → interdependent, interrelated, integrated.

change in one part → subsequent change in other / Affect functioning of other.
S/C cannot be reduced to any one part.
- Greater than mere summation of parts.
Assign equal imp. to all parts. → all should be studied in system of r/l.
Study of society → here show thus fieldwork – central method of inquiry in functionalism.

Accomplishments

Declining by 1970s, but their contribution still constitute to inspire Ⓐ
Functionally analyses gave value to social institutions by considering them not as mere customs , but as active & integrated parts of social system
Contributed to shift in the assumption of ethnology from a concern with isolated traits to the interpretation of social life.
Contributed to concept of culture the notion that traditional usages, whatever their origin, have been shaped by the requirement that human being must live together in harmony, & the demands of interpersonal r/ls are therefore a causative force in culture.
Important methodologically contributions.
- Emphasis on intensive field work
- Investigation of functional interrelationship of customs & institutions provides a readymade Framework for the collection of information.
Functional methodology – savage customs are superstitious, & that savage societies are chaotic, in essence that savage societies are “savage”

Criticism

Interactionist theories criticized functionalism for failing to conceptualize adequately the complex nature of actors and the process of interaction.
Marxist theory argued against functionalist’s conservatism and the static nature of analysis that emphasized the contribution of social phenomena to the maintenance of the status quo.
Advocates of theory construction questioned the utility of excessively classificatory or typological theories that pigeonholed phenomena in term of their functions.
for its negligence of the historical process and for its presupposition that societies are in a state of equilibrium.
Functional analysis has also been criticized for being circular; needs are postulated on the basis of existing institutions, that are in turn used to explain their existence.
Furthermore, functionalism’s anti-historic approach made it impossible to examine social processes, rejection of psychology made it impossible to e to understand attitudes and sentiments, and the rejection of culture led to lack of recognition of the ecological contest.

Bio-cultural / Psychological Functionalism

Malinowski defined functionalism as the theory of transformation of organic i.e individual needs into derived cultural necessities & imperatives.

He suggested all individuals have physiological/biological needs & the social institutions develop to meet these needs.
There are also culturally derived needs & four basic needs (economic, social control, education & political org) require institutional devices.
Each institution has personnel, a charter, a set of norms, activities, technology & a function.
Satisfaction of these need transformed the cultural instrumental activity into an acquired drive through psychological reinforcement.

Thus acc to his view – Culture should be understood as a mean to an end i.e instrumentally or functionally

Brief History

Given by Malinowski – Native → Poland, studied → psychology.
T.B. → Austrelia → frazel’s ‘Golden Baugh’ – Thus changed discipline.
WWI → PNG → field study on Tobriand islanders w/o translater.
family amongts Austrelian Aborigins’ → Theory of Bio-Cultural Functionalism
Theory of functionalism in terms of ‘needs.

Premises of bio cultural functionalism : Roots in “The Family among Austrelian Aborigines”

He suggested All ‘individuals → have Needs.
Needs → primarily biological
Needs → satisfied by cultural mechanism
When primary meeds satisfied → others arise thr psychological reinforcement Thus, culture > Need satisfying & fulfilling mechanism.
- If individual needs full filled → Society’s needs fulfilled..

Malinowski related psychological & social function to biological ones thus core of his theory : function serving biological needs.
As he gave importance to individual Needs → Psychological functionalism“.
& Needs → Biological, satisfied by → cultural thus : biocultural functionalism.

Methodology – (write Theory of Need & Theory of Function)

In his “A scientific Theory of Culture” (1944) Malinowski reiterated his conviction that functional method of investigation is best suited to give picture of cultural realities.
Understating behaviour in terms of the motivation of individuals, including both rational, scientifically “validated behaviour & “irrational”, ritual, magical or religious behaviour.
Recognising the interconnectedness of the different items which constituted a “culture” to form some kind of system
Understating a particular item by identify its function in the current contemporary operation of culture

Thus, he gave “Theory of Needs” in his “a scientific theory of culture & other essays” → first discussed vital sequence of life → then delineated basic needs of individual , which require organised, collective responses from the member of society.

Evaluation

No other @ → given much imp to biology
Very scientific framework for study of cultural dynamics.
first to use idea of systematic approach.
sociologist became interested in his writings as they said → idea of system came from Malinowski

Criticism

Not explained “change in society”
- predominantly concerned with social order or solidarity.
- regarded change as `purely adoptive’ in nature.
Merton criticised Brown for ignoring conflict in his history – i.e the negative effects of cultural items.
- conflicts as disrupting social order
- E. Durkheim ⇒ type of social sickness
Dogmatic
- whatsoever exists → functional. otherwise society → cease to exist.. – thus became teleological.
Not generated hypothesis
- whatsoever exists has the role → Thus conservatism? justified Status quo.
- Because of this → loosing grip rise of new evolutionism.
Too focused on Individual needs & not on social function
Unable to explain cultural variation if need of individuals are same everywhere → diff ways of fulfilling same needs
Doesn’t explain why certain specific cultural patterns arise to fulfil a need that might be fulfilled just as easily by any alternative possibility.
Overemphasised bio & psychological needs & neglected structural concept of society.
Malinowski termed any attempt to study culture traits in isolation as non-scientific. But, highly criticised by Ⓟ , as Kroeber said can be studied in isolation.

Conclusion – To sum up, Mali. functionalism studied culturee as a whole, & correlated cultural forms with bio, pscho & social needs & imperatives. Thus gave very scientific approach. And lead to development of holistic view in anthropology.

Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942)

Introduction -was one of founding father of British social anthropology. Bom in Germany, Malinowski was intially a physicist, mathematician & Philosophy. who turned later to Anthropolgy under influence of “The Golden Bough’ of Frazer.”

Books

Argonauts of the western Pacific” 1942
Scientific theory of culture & other essays
The Family among Austrelian Aborigines
A scientific Theory of Culture” (1944)
Description of Trobriand Social life – Most comprehensive in world ethnography

Contributions

The concept of Sociological Paternity – In areas of Kinship & Marriage
Idea of Myth as Social Charter – in area of magic ritual lang & myth
Concept of Reciprocity – in economic anthropology
Fieldwork method – his 3 expeditions to New Guinea, to study Trobiand Islanders, revolutionised fieldwoork method.
- Local Language – Malinowski prefered to Collect data in local languages & thus learn native
  - which he did in his 2nd visit to Maily of Toulon Island (NG)
- Fieldwork methods – used methods as participant observer, “statistic documentation of concrete evidences” → collection of concrete cases, genealogies, village census, maps.
  - He also considered it crucial to consider the observable differences b/w norms & action,
    - I.e what people say they do & what they actually do.
- Ethnographic diary – raised problem of Personal equation of observer
- Kula system – Studied in trobiand islanders, this was most significant work by malinowski which point out complete interlinkage b/w economic, social myths, magic & traditions.
  - Ceremonial exchange system
  - In his book “Argonauts of the western Pacific” 1992
  - This later proved to be supportive to idea that economy in simple society lies in social matrix, thus origin of substantivist school.

Malinowski’s concept of culture – defined culture as “Culture comprises inherited artefacts, goods, technical process, Ideas, habits and values”
- Integration theory of Malinowski – Culture trait Should not be studied in isolation, but to Integrative manner,
- Imperative theory – imperative conditions which must be fulfilled to ensure community survival.
  - Instrumental Imperative – Eco, org, Primitive law, edu
  - Integrative Imperative → Magic Religion, Art
Malinowski’s Theory of Needs
- In his work “Scientific theory of culture & other essay” –
- ToN is broad conception of biological & cultural determinants of human behaviour.
- Malinowski presented 3 kinds of needs:

7 biological needs/Imperatives → essential for bio survival & satisfied thr cultural mechanism

4 Instrumental / Derived Needs/Imperatives – social needs required to maintain cultural apparatus, regulate behaviour, socialisation etc – & these are seen by Malinowski as responses to the problem of adaptation posed by the basic psychosocial needs of man. These response are
- Economic Institution – cultural apparatus required to produce, distribute & consume – consumer goods
- Political Institution – Define Authority within Institution & equine with power
- Social Control – Codify & regulate human behaviour (laws, customs) in terms of actions & sanctions.
- Education – Maintain, review & transmits Human material → with full knowledge of total tradition.
Integrative or Synthetic of Symbolic Imperatives/Needs
- All institution above must be integrated i.e integrative needs ; i.e concerned with integration of diff parts
- Essential character of social life by which habits → custom, Parental care → deliberate training ; impulses → values
- These result in creation of systems of sciences, magic, myth, religion & art.
  - Science – serve to organise & integrate human activities
  - Myth – enhances social tradition by endowing it with Wisdom & thus promoting appropriate social behaviour
  - Religion – promotes Individual security & social cohesion by sanctifying cooperative existence
    - Norms
    - Values
  - Art – Satisfies the craving of human organism for sensual impressions
Criticism of ToN
- Malinowski never provided hierarchy of basic derived & integrative needs.
- not adequately dealt with complex form of Std. of living
- not cleared stated r/l b/w his needs. & blological survival of individual & group.
- Not relevant in contemporary Ⓐ
Conclusion – can provide avenue with which vital social problems before humanity can be approached.
- Though he assumed basic of every society as biological system but doesn’t reduced everything to biological needs.
Malinowski’s Theory of Function
- Malinowski opined that all cultural components have functions to perform. Thus, he interpreted culture in terms of function & thus became Champion of functional school.
- Integrative theory of culture – cultural trait, which is functionless, would not surive & thus no cultural Survival. One trait is integrated to other & thus if disturbed, it paralyses other. Thus, all traits in culture are interconnected.
  - Ex – Kula Ring – Economic, social, Political & Social
- Charter– Malinowski demonstrated his scheme of functionalism thr charter i.e Aim & purpose of society.
  - Malinowski said : first aim of every society / Institution → SURVIVAL (i.e continuing life & normality of an organism)
  - defined ; charter of an institution → as system of values for the pursuit of which human beings organise.
  - Personnel → group organised on different principle of authority & division of function
  - Values / Norms inspire personnel for material apparatus
  - Which create activities
  - Activities finally lead to a function.
- Function as Primary basis of Differentiation within culture – i.e institution differ in that they are organised around different functions.

Malinowski’s ethnolinguistic theory” & “pragmasemantics”
- In his paper “classificatory Particles in Language of kiniwina” (1926)
- Said : Meaning of word lies in situational context (thus lang as mode of behaviour & it’s culturally determined meaning.
- He also said that “Mental states of member of Community receive certain stamp, certain stereotype by very Vehicle of thought🚗 i.e. by languages.
- He developed his theory of language while studying Trobriand Islanders’ magical formulae → believed that Islanders have belief in power of words
  - magical words → impact on ritual of Islanders,→ Belief → Control of nature by magic → thus thus influence their culture & lives
- thus Malinowski : Meaning of Lang = pragmatic function ; Thus Meaning of word lies in it’s use.
- thus study of words /sentences not in isolation, but in situational Context.

Conclusion – With Radcliffe Brown, Malinowski pushed for a paradigm shift in British anthropology, a change from the speculative, historical to a historical study of social institutions. This theoretical shift gave rise to functionalism & est. filed-work as the constitutive experience of social anthropology.

Structural Functionalism

Radcliffe brown suggested that a society is system of relationships maintaining itself through cybernetic feedback, while institutions are orderly set of relationships whose function is to maintain the society as a system. I.e

Acc to Radcliffe Brown, function is “The contribution an institution makes to maintenance of social structure.”
As concept of structure is wedded with concept of function, this school is came to be known as Structural Functional School.
In his opinion theory of society in terms of social structure has noting in common with theory of culture & biological need
Unlike Malinowski’s emphasis on individual – Radcliffe brown believed that the individual were replaceable, transient occupants of social roles.

Historical Background – R.C. Brown → student of rivers.

Studied Andamanese tribe → Saw them practicising Nuclear family & Monogamy despite being of savage → Thus contrast with Morgan’s clam
Result → Brown quits evolutionism
He → found explanation by diffusionist → conjecturalism
Thus, later → influenced by functionalist School of sociology in france – Comte, Simon & Durkheim
Result → started studying society “here” and “now”. i.e Synchronic study
- This knowledge can be applied to
  - Administration
  - Socio-Economic development
Thus R.C. Brown → founding father of functionalism in Britain
First work: “ The Andamanese Islander” → beginning of Anthropological functioning in Britain.

Premises of Brown’s functionalism

R.C. Brown influence of E. Durkheim but not followed all his ideas. however, structural fun” approch → extension of Durkheim’s idea.

Sociological explanation about society
- casual historical explanation → like evolution & diffusionism → require authentic historical data
- Functional explanation → if casual historical explanation didn’t work/ applied.
Durkheim → functionalism: contribution a part makes to whole for maintenance & welfare of society.
- Contribution for continuation of society.
- why part work → to meet ‘needs of society → thus continuation of society.
R.C. Brown – Broadly agreed.
- “But ‘need” → too biological ; thus necessary condition of existence” appropriate for social needs. –
- Diff parts → work to satisfy NCO
one of necessary condition is integration of society
Work of Ⓟ → study part from view of contribution they make in social integration.

Methodology / Approach

Durkheim : Organism analogy
- Interlinked & integrated parts → social Morphology
- Activity of Parts → Social Physiology
Brown didn’t agree with term as too biological ; Thus
- Social Morphology ⇒ Social Structure : Arrangement of Persons in r/l to each other
- Social Physiology ⇒ Social Function : contribution of SS in maintenance of social continuity.

Add here social structure + social r/l & social structure points from value added notes 📝

Though dev on organism analogy → Brown said at places, organism analogy breaks down. Ex – structure of organism can be studied even when not functioning ; but society only when functioning

Thus Brown: social structure cannot be studied when people are not functioning. (Thus continuity of social group is an imp factor for existence of S. Structure)

Ie. Structure & function are Inseparable. That’s why his approach is called Structural Functionalism

Criticism of RCB’s functionalism

It was alleged that concept of SS was more or less, wartime concept
many Ⓟ especially American Ⓟ , almost omitted word SS in their writings (Kroeber, Linton)
RCB totally disapproved word “culture‘ thus strongly opposed by culturologists.
RCB was not a good field worker considered as good theoretician, but.
difficult to determine if custom / practice is truly functional in service of maintaining SS
Assumption that every social item makes +ve contribution is criticized by many Ⓟ
Historical aspects are ignored.
Does not explain cultural variation
Merton criticised Brown for ignoring conflict in his history ie the negative effects of social items
unable to explain existence of cultural variation

Radcliffe Brown (1881-1955)

He was founding father of structural functionalism. During his moral science studies in Cambridge he was nicknamed as Anarchy Brown due to his political interests & affiliations.

History

Conducted field work in Andaman island & Western Australia

Contrition

He was particularly focused on the institution of kinship & descent & suggested that, at least in tribal societies they determined the charter of family org, politics, economic & inter-group Relations.
RB’s theory of social structure
- 1st time used concept in 1919 while delivering lecture on social Ⓐ in Birmingham.
- refers structure as arrangement of Parts or components related to one other. The Social structure → ultimate components are human beings → thus arrangement of Persons in institutionalised roles & relationships wrt each other.
- Brown illustrated concept by citing example of tribes of Western Australia
- There is continuous existence of horde: members are replaced due to death & birth Thus continuity of social group imp factor for existence of social structure.

Social Institution (S.I) – Brown defined Social institution as socially established norms or patterns of behaviour.
- Institution Provide status & roles which are guided by the norms & values of those institutions.
- Thus according to RCB – Social structure has to be described by the institutions.
RCB‘s Concept of Function – function is “The contribution an institution makes to maintenance of social structure.”
- As concept of structure is wedded with concept of function, this school is came to be known as Structural Functional School.
- He used an analogy b/w social life & organic life to explain this concept.
  - emphasis on examining the contribution of phenomena maintaining social order , which reflects influence of French sociologist Emile Durkheim, & his disregard for individual needs, is apparent in this analogy.
- Like the biological organism, the continuity of social structure is not destroyed by change in units (cells) ; unaffected by individual’s life, SS is maintained by social life, which consists of activities & interactions of individual human beings & organised groups into which they are united.
  - Thus social life of community, function of recurrent activity, makes contribution to structural continuity
Structural continuity – SS undergoes change, but there is an underlying Continuity in relative Constance – Brown called it “Structural Continuity.”
- Since individuals & groups , constitutions the SS constantly change, structural continuity, is dynamic
- In it matter(individual) changes , the form (supplied by S.I) remains the same
Types of Social Structure
- Actual Social Structure→ Social r/l that change from yr to yr, day to day
- General Social Structure → relatively constant over long period of time.
Co-Relations with importance of Iang, Religion & economics with SS
- Language & social structure
  - RUB: existence of speech community & their Sizes are features of social structure. There is, very general r/l b/w SS & Iang
  - However, RUB also points out that special characteristics of particular lang (vocabulary, phenolgy, etc) are not related to SS & thus can be studied w/o reference SS.
- Social structure & Economic institution.
  - RUB suggested that members of society carry out apportionment of activities (i.e. Division of Labour) b/c they provide some sort of gratifications.
  - Economic system is studied in 2 aspects
    - as mechanism of exchange of G&S
    - as relation b/w people who maintains this system
  - latter view is subject matter of social Ⓐ & thus integrated aspect of social structure.
- Social relations & Social Structure
  - RUB: Social r/l are purposive and are result from
    - Similarity of interests
    - mutual Interests
    - or combo of both
  - as group of person may have common interest in observance of law & law has a social value, thus social r/l are subject matter of SS.
- Religion & Social structure
  - RCB : Ritual values, which consists of Rites, Rituals & Myths can be studied in tems of Religion which holds society together.
  - Acc to him, best way to understand religion is thr rites & rituals not beliefs.
  - As ritual values binds member of society together study of Religion is imp in SS.

Conclusion – Despite the criticisms the school is of huge contemporary relevance,It has given us a conceptual framework on the basis of which observation and explanation of social events is possible scientifically,like for instance,origin of marriage

Compare & Contrast Functionalism & Structural Functionalism

Radcliffe Brown & Malinowski both belonged to school of functionalism in anthropology. Yet, they differ from each other in approach, premises & methodology of their thoughts.

Similarities

Common historical background of functionalism as a reaction to evolution & diffusionism
Both (scholars) were influenced by functionalism in contemporary sociology.
Common premises of functionalism
- both conceptualise culture & as an integrated & interrelated system of parts
- Change in one part of society brings about change in other parts.
- both describe the different parts of a society & their relationship through organic analogy
- Both stress that cultural institutions exist to fulfil vital functions
(scholars) opposed diachronic studies and were supporters of synchronic studies,even while using the comparative method
Both (scholar) emphasised on fieldwork

Differences

Context	Functionalism	Structural Functionalism
Introduction	Functionalism is a school of thought propounded by Bronislaw Malinowski in 1920s	Structural Functionalism is a school of thought propounded by Radcliffe Brown in 1920s
Leading Figures	Bronislaw Malinowski	Radcliffe Brown
Subject Matter	deals more prominently with culture	deals with society
Concept	• institutions operate to fulfill biological and psychological needs of an individual and society• there 3 /4 types of needs-> In his book Scientific Theory of Culture(1944)	• suggests that institutions reflect socially established norms & patterns of behavior• Institutions thus define and control social structures with their role being to maintain the unity and continuity of society
Example (function of institutions of m’age ) from Perspective	is to fulfill sexual and reproductive needs of human	is to protect the mother-child combine through a permanent association of a man thus leading to the continuity of the society
Sociocultural laws	is not concerned with discovery of socio-cultural laws	concerned with discovery of socio-cultural laws

Common Conclusion – Despite the differences both schools have contributed immensely to cultural studies.They have led to the development of holistic view in anthro,along with gicing a conceptual framework to explain social events scientifically

Structuralism

Introduction – Structuralism is an anthropological school of thought that originated in 1930s.Its main proponents include Claude-Levi Strauss and Edmund Leach. It is set of principles for studying the mental superstructure.

Historical Background – social Structure

term social structure – coined by Herbert Spencer, a French sociologist in his book ‘principles of sociology.’ He spoke of structure of society as present in organic and inorganic things. He gives of building & also-organism analogy.
Later on Emile Durkheim, also used organism analogy for showing social structure. – society as an organism & preferred term social morphology. His idea was borrowed and modified by A.R.R. Brown,
acc to brown it is concerned with interrelatedness of parts & there is no consensus what these parts are.

As per all inclusive views, social structure consists of institutions, groups etc. i.e. virtually every aspect which are components of society for e.g. Robert McIver said that society has large number of components but certain components are more important than others.

About the issue of parts, several scholars considered parts of society differently as follows:

A.R.R. Brown – parts are interpersonal relations
Evans Pritchard – says parts are group
Mainforte : social structure should be defined as all classes of social relations’ which are found in all societies but we must incorporate time in terms of social structure. Hence Mainforte is very popularly known for ‘Time Social Structure’
Nadel-Parts are role

Another debate – whether social structure was empirical reality or abstract.

R. Brown considered social structure as empirical reality whereas
Claude L. Strauss regarded social structure as an abstract model or idea.

Aim of Structuralism : search for deep structures & find out orderly principles that are underlying any culture → thus unravel human mind

Thus its, aim is qualitatively different from other approaches
- Ex. Difference in approach of study by functionalism & structuralism
is also to cut across the boundaries of traditional disciplines & to promote inter-disciplinary approach.

Basic Premises / Assumption

objective of structuralism to search for deep, innate, orderly principle underlining analysis to discover any system. Thus unravel the human mind.
Society has basic structure – which varie from society to society due to permutations & combinations of elements of basic structure.
The basic structure of society ⇒ Mind
Job of structuralist → unfold various layers human mind.
Human thought & culture based on universal human tendency to observe binary opposition in world.
Culture is an attempt to reconcile B.O. e.g Birth & death – Religion
Cross cultural analysis to discover those structures of though (Deep structure) those structures, of thought
Universality – exists in deep Structure.
so we have to understand how mind has been structured. So we study its products.
The products of mind may be language, myth, totem etc. There must be some kind of similarity in human mind so that same products are generated.
- Ex similar myths are found in different regions of world completely unrelated where elements of diffusion are ruled out
- There for their is uniformity in human mind & this must be due to psychic unity of mankind.

Schools/ Types & Scholars

Structuralism – Levi Strauss
Neo- structuralism – Edmund Leach

Methodology

heavily applied methods of structural linguistics
Principle of Binary opposition -their essential techniques to analyse social realitie
- Eg : Strauss study on kinship(Alliance theory) & Leach study of traffic signals
In it, structures are models, the formal properties of which can be compared independently.
The task of structuralist is to identify & isolate levels of reality (in terms of ideal types & statistical models)
The essential value of these studies is construction of models, compare their properties & explains.
Language as Model

Contribution /Concepts

Structuralism as an analytical model
Structural Linguistics – Language as a Mode
Levi Strauss -concerned with establishing facts true about human mind,rather than about any particular society
Edmund Leach -applied structural analysis to particular societies & institutions

Criticism

criticised for being over dependent on observer
Cultural Relativists criticised it for depicting human thought as uniform & invariable & i.e lack of concern with human individuality
Structural analysis doesn’t allow external validation i.e can’t be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
This synchronic approach, which advocates a psychic unity of all human minds, has been criticised b/c it doesn’t a/c individual human action historically
He didn’t talk about social change – so was criticised

Conclusion – Despite the criticism the elements of structural methodology continue to be used in symbolic & cognitive anthro even today

Levi Strauss

Introduction – Born in Belgium, but of French origin, Strauss was French Origin, Strauss was French structural anthropologist. Structuralism, Acc to him, is study of human society. & Acc to him, the study of language & formation of words was essential to know the socials structure.

Premises of Structuralism

concepts & Contributions

Structuralism as an analytical model
- Structuralism assumes the universality of human thought to explain the deep structure or its underlying meaning. Thus Structuralism is a set of principles to study mental superstructure
- Strauss discovered that one of the most common means of classifying is by using binary opposition
his concept of structure differs from R.C. Brown. Though he agrees with Brown that ‘structure is ordered arrangement of parts’, But differs in aim
- Brown – examine ss to discover social function
- Strauss – discover human thought process.
Strauss talked about diff kinds of theoretical models. A str is a model which fulfils certain specified criteria & exhibits the characteristics of a system
- Conscious Model – Not much dept
- Unconscious Model – Much depth which can be found in various studies like Myth)
- Mechanical Model – No diff b/w scale of Model & scale of social phenomena.
  - are qualitative rules of behaviour supported by social sanctions
  - E.g Prescriptive m’age rules , model of law or kinship in primitive society in which unions are generated on the bassi of certain defused principles.
- Statistical Model – much diff in scale of model & scale of social phenomena ;
  - statistical average of individual behaviour
  - eg-preferential medet rulles many choices – thus difficult to Put into a model, kinship in our society b/c m’age are not governed by set of generative rules but by diverse factors like change, social mobility, social class etc.
Structural Linguistics – Language as a Model
- He says Society can be be conceptualised as communication, therefor he emphasised on lang.
- he drawn most imp methodological tool from Linguistic, with particular reference to phonemics, Under Influence of Prague school of linguistics, he proposed that to study linguistic to discover rules (or grammar) acc. to which phonemes (words- units of lang) are arranged.
- He applied this model to society. Acc. to him, we must find out units of society, rules acc. to which units are arranged. Thus he proposes Construction of society on model of Iang.
- He used this model to kinship terminology, b/c theory are linguistic terms & can be analysed with linguistic models.
- Acc.to Levistrauss, structural linguistics is based on 4 operations & while studying the language , the linguistshould
  1. transverse attentions from conscious to subconscious level as it is product of mind.
  2. shouldn’t consider linguistic terms as isolated entities but rather need to find relation b/w them
  3. try to discover general laws -so that they can be applicable to society as a whole
  4. Language should be studied as a system
- Likewise there are 4 basic operations in study of society as below
  - Like phoneme, Kin terms are also having elements of meaning
  - When they are integrated to system, only then they acquire meaning i.e one kin term is related to another.
  - Kinship system is build by the mind on the level of subconscious thought.
  - All lead to conclude that the observable phenomena results from action of laws which are General.
Study of Myths
- Functionalism is also interested in study of muth but ; approach- how muth contributes to functioning of society . But for structuralism it is – how it is structured & what does it mean.
- Strauss’s study of unconscious mind led him to study of myth. Myth is activity of human mind which is least concemed with functional necessities.
- Acc to him myth is the production of mind in the same way as rule of m’age, cooking dressing etc are production of mind. – so we have to understand how mind has been structured. So we study its products.
- In his “The structural study of Myth” (1963) Strauss propose to analyze myth by breaking down into it’s basic constituent elements, mythemes & relationship b/w them is examined. They represent Nature-culture dichotomy.
- In his “The Raw & the Cooked’ (1969) he andlysed 167. 5. American & 600 Indian myths. He demonstrated that their underlying structure show significant similarities. Thus such similarities in far fetched societies show some similarity of though in human mind.
Study of kinship
- In his “The Elementary structures of kinship” (1949) he proposes to analyse kinship based on reciprocity & exchange thr marital bonds.
- He says: – fig
- Thus, binary opposition b/w Kinship groups, i.e transformation of binary oppo. b/w kh Self Vs other, is mediated by exchange of women. In structuralism, b.o. is part of integrated system of logically connected categories of meaning that structure social activity.
- Reciprocal → two types
  - Restricted
  - Generalised
- Universality to Incest Taboo

“The Tolemism” – Key 🔑 Work
- critique of evolutionary, Historical particularist & functionalist approach to Totemism.
- Studied totemic phenomenon, not totemism.
- Defined totemism as r/l b/w 2 series: natural & cultural. Both series have 2 methods of existence as below:fig
- In case of totemism, Strauss was deeply influenced by R.C.Brown’s second theory of totemism:
- For strauss, binary opposition that formed structure of mind, were
  - Nature
  - culture

Study of primitive Mind
- In his “The Savage Mind”
- At unconscious level ⇒ Human mind works on a logic that is universal
- Primitive are thus not inferior to westerns

Evaluation

Levi strauss wanted to construct universal proposition of human mind. British anthropologist analyse that it is very diffult to construct universal law.
He did not talk about social change. So, structuralism lost it’s imp. to emerging fields like applied & action anthropology
His undue emphasis on binary opposition was criticised by some.
Though structuralism is useful to give limited generalisation & study of human mind.
Douglas used & structuralism at local level.
It influenced literature, since literature is also production of mind.

Conclusion – in spite of criticism, contributed to structurall Study of society which is imp to study various socio-cultural phenomenon.

Edmund Leach on Social Structure

He was opposed to synchronic functionalism. He dealt with change w/o abanding useful notions of structure & function

Levi Strauss – used structuralism to understand universal structures of human thought.
Edmund leach – used structuralism to understand (local / regional) structures & Study how they changed over time. E.g his studies in Burma & Ceylon
- Thus sometimes leach’s structuralism known as Neo-structuralism.

Social Structure Model

As far as it is , He was very Similar to Strauss – logical construct in minds of Anthropologist ⇒ social structure

However, the concept of models, scales & distinctions b/w them is unclear. Leach tried to explain the problem by taking resort to Jural rules (mechanical model) & statistical norms

2 types of model
- Mechanical – calls it Jural Rules , are qualitative rules of behaviour supported by social sanctions
- Statistical – calls it statistica norms, statistical average of individual behaviour
Analytical value of Models –
- for leach → statistical norms must have priority over jural rules.
  - Statistical norms → No coercive
  - Jural norms → coercive.
- for strauss, both have equal analytical value.

Thus this distinction of Leach doesn’t solve the problem b/c the r/l b/w them is not resolved.

Wrt to Levis Strauss

Though admired the work of Levistrauss
- But criticised his myth study in his (leach’s) – Genesis of Myth
Criticised “Structural analysis of kinship done by Levi Strauss
- On basis of his FW in higher Burma & Ceylon

Conclusion – E. leach was Link B/w British Structural Functionalism & French Structuralism

Tried to incorporate both in his work.

Compare & Contrast B/w Radcliffe Brown & Levi Strauss

Similarities

Both Levi & RCB agreed that structure is ordered arrangement of parts, However
- Brown → examine SS to discover social functions
- Levi → Un-revival human though process
Both adopted scientific approach to study society.

Differences

Feature	Radcliffe Brown	Levi Strauss
School of Though	structural Functionalism	Structuralism
Focus of study	social level	Psychological level
Basic Premise	• Social Structure composed of parts• each part stands in relation with other• Parts perform social function that help in overall sustenance of Social structure	• cross cultural analysis to discover deep structures of human mind• human mind works on binary contractions with universal logic of duality• culture → tool to resolve B.O
social Structure Reality or Virtuality	SS is concrete reality which is observable, empirical & can be studied by methods of natural & biological sciences	Ss in no reality, Social Relations are reality which are observable
Way of Study	Organic Approach in study of social institution	Linguistic Study to study of society
Approach	Teleological Approach in study of social institution	Psychological approach to study social phenomena Ex. Myth → helps to discovers human mind
Function	Everything exists for a purpose	Everything need not exists for definite purpose
Study of Kinship	Descent theory to study kinship	Alliance Theory to study kinship
Reasoning	Inductive Reasoning	Deductive Reasoning

Post Structuralism

Grew as a reaction to the critique of structuralism. Were very much influenced by structuralist. However, the works of post-structuralists has more reflective quality.

Scholar –

Pierre Bourdieu

Concept

Acc to Pierre Bourdieu, structure is production of human creation, even though the participants may not be conscious of the structure.
Unlike universality of human though process of structuralist, Bourdieu propose that dominant though process are a product of society & determine how people act.

Methodology

in these Methods, the person describing the Though processes of people of another culture may be reduced to just that – description.
Interpretations other’s though is more or less disallowed.

Culture & Personality

The Culture Personality School originated in 1920s after WWI with an aim to study relationship b/w culture & personality by an anthropo- psychological approach (born out of Sigmund Freud’s psycho-analysis)

The pioneers of the school were influence by Gestalt Psychology and Malinowski’s theory of Cultural evolution

Aim to study

To examine inter -relationship b/w culture & personality by an anthropo- psychological approach
I.e it is the study of cultures as it in embodied in the personality of individual members

Historical Background

reactions against 19th century classical evolutionism & diffusionism
against the hierarchical evolutionary system (SBC)
tried to understand psychological aspects of individual and culture
Research interest emerged in USA after WWI to know influence of culture on individual or group personality.

Schools & Thoughts : Leading Figures & Scholars

Personality Influences Culture
- aqdvocated by Ruth Benedict (Patterns of Culture 1934)
Culture influences Personality –
- given by Margaret Mead (Coming of Age in Samoa 1928)
Both influence each other ie both are interactive
- given by Ralph Linton, Abraham Kardiner, Cora du bois

Basic Premises / Assumption

The cultural practices of people are reflection of their personality
Differences in personalities of peoples are b/c of differences in cultures
Culture influences to a great extent the personality traits of the people
Every individual → Unique personality + they share a common personality as a member of same nation.

Meaning & Features of Personality

Personality – integrative, dynamics & organisation of Physical, mental & social quality of individual.
But his definition → not adequate to understand personality → thus better to study thr set of features
- It is not rooted to bodily structure alone
- P – individual Unit
- P – Neither good nor bad, but unique
- P – refers to persistent quality of an individual
- P – acquired or learned
- P – individual as well as collective
Factors Affecting
- Temperament
- Attitude
- Aptitude
- Physiology
- Interest
- Morphology
- Need Values

Relation b/w Culture & Personality

Culture – determine type of personality in particular group
- Teaches individual to behave in society in systemic way
Individual adopts culture by
- Acculturation
- Assimilation
Some American Ⓟ distinguish Individual Personality & collective Personality
- Study of Individual Personality- Psychology
- Study of collective Personality – Anthropology
Time of Learning – early years of children → Most imp → shapes personality. Thus Ⓟ intensive study of Child training in different societies (e.g Brest Feeding, Mode of Punishment, toilet training) e.g
- Erik Ericson – study of ‘Siona Indians’ (i.e American Red Indians)
  - Treat children with great indulgence fed only when hungry
  - But when behaved improperly → pick children soon → punishes → child cries → then only fed.
    - He believes this makes child stronger
- Strict Toilet Practice in Japan → Mares children mentally very strong
- Kanjar Tribe In Indian → teaches children to steal (MP, Western UP, Eastern Rajesthan)
- Swaddling Practice in Russia – by Geoffrey Gorer in his “The People of Great Russia” (1949)
  - Children → tied to strip streak of cloth & kept in cradle → Immovable → this makes children aggressive

Methodology

Extensive Fieldwork &
Psycho-analysis

Contribution/ Concepts

Ruth Benedict
- Culture Patterns
- Genius of culture
- National Character Studies
Margaret Mead
- Study on Personality
  - Adolescent personality – Samoans
  - Childhood Personality – Manus Society
  - Manus Society -3 societies(AMT)
  - National Character Studies
Ralph Linton
- Covert & Overt Culture
- Types of Personalities 4
Kardiner
- Kardiner’s Psycho Dynamic Approach
- Basic Personality
KarCora du bois
- Modal Personality

Accomplishments

developed new methods & technique for qualitative data collection Eg
- Content Analysis Method by Benedict
- Photographic Techniques by Mead
Promoted interdisciplinary approach to study society
their studies on national character was of immense value during wars and later to understand countries and their people
Concepts like culture pattern,basic personality and modal personality gave new insights in understanding influence of culture on human behavior i.e linking anthropology & psychology → from this bridge wealth of info → distributed across disciplines
Culture & Personality structures have greatly limited the number of racist, hierarchical description of culture types that were common in the early part of 20th century.
Through these studies, we have began to realise that humans are basically the same & that we as a whole are evolving, instead of a series of stages of culture or society.

Criticism

criticised for narrowing role played by cultural institutions by relegating it to merely shaping of personality

Conclusion – It was instrumental in paving the way for future work on cultural studies

Approaches

Configurational Approach – Ruth Benedict & Margaret Mead
Basic Personality Structure Approach – jointly by Abraham Kardiner & Ralph Linton in response to Configurational Approach
Modal Personality Approach – Brain child of Cora Dubois

Ruth Benedict

Benedict, a worthy pupil of worthy teacher Franz Baas, made significant contribution to enrich word anthropology. And was a culture personality scholar.

Acc to Benedict, Culture is analogous to an individual in that it is more of less a consistent pattern of though & action. Hence any analysis of culture requires a psychological approach.

Configurational Approach, -analyse the impact of personality on culture.

Books

Famous monograph – Pattern of Culture
The Chrysanthenum & the Sword (1946)

Historical Background

She was not interested in generalising human society as a whole i.e didn’t believe in similarity of culture.
So to understand the way culture is patterned, She gave concept of “Culture pattern” in her book named “Pattern of Culture” & also to study the effect of culture on personality.

Personality – integrative, dynamics & organisation of Physical, mental & social quality of individual.

But his definition → not adequate to understand personality → thus Pattern necessity to understand function.

Concept of Culture Pattern – Configurational Approach

Though she didn’t gave the term ‘Culture Pattern’ which is given by Kroeber, but she provided Methodological Model for studying human culture in term of patterns rather than social content.
In her “Patterns of Culture (1934), She proposed that All basic institution, which are part of culture tend to mirror overall Pattern of that culture.
She says that every culture consists of culture traits. They are grounded into a complex & all these cultural complexes when integrated in functional whole they form a cultural pattern.
Many cultural patterns integrate themselves into a functional whole they form a special design of a whole culture which is c/l Configuration of Culture.
The integration of culture is on the basis of tendency seen in all aspect of culture. This tendency is called by Benedict ”special Genius of culture”that brings about Integration of society & define it’s general nature.
- two types of geniuses found in human society –
  - Apollonian – in this pattern, one will see existence of peace, discipline & kindness
  - Dionysian – characterised by great deal of changes & aggressiveness.
- These two mold the personality of the members of their group. Thus it will lead to formation of special cultural characteristics for the group concerted. In this way personality influences culture
Benedict emphasised that culture must be taken as whole, one each one integrated on it’s own principles. The cultural pattern are cause of personality shared by all members of culture.
Example (Not to Quote) – Indian Culture pattern can be divided into large no. of traits such as dowry, age at marriage etc.
- these traits can be grouped in complex of Marriage.
- Complex of Joint Family – traits common property, common residence, common kitchen etc
- Similarly other institutions or complexes like religion, political system, and economic activities are also made of their individual traits.
- When these cultural complexes are linked together, what emerges is called ‘culture pattern’ by Benedict.
- When we speak of Indian culture we talk of cultural pattern which is the cause of personality shared by all the members of a culture.

Methodology

In her cross-cultural studies, she looked at various societies & described them in terms of their “basic personality configuration”
Based on her Field Work she wrote book, “A comparative study of no of Cultures” she depicted her studies on 2 North American groups : Zuni Indians south west USA & Kwakiutl Indians of NW coast – & said one can broadly discus two kind of pattern in study of Amrican Tribes : Apollonian & Dionysian

Feature	Apollonian	Dionysian
Term Origin	this personality k/n after the name of Sun ☀️ god ‘Apollo’ who is regarded as ‘God of Peace’.	It is named after Greek god ‘Dionysius’ – ruthless, leading a luxurious life, drink lot
Personality characteristic	• Docile Personality,• very co-operative• don’t seek to express individuality	• Frenzied outlook• Very Excessive• Individuality & competitive & aggressive
Unity	Person who sought to blend in group no superiority	Ambitious & striving
Child Training	Designed to suppress individuality	Individuality in every aspect → promote individual achievement
Marriage	Relatively casual	Tremendous celebration
Leadership	was declined wherever possible, accepted only with great reluctance	contact struggle of power
special Position of Power	Delegated to group ex – medicine society rather than medicine 옷	to person Ex – Shaman
Death	Little focus on mourning	major event much mourning.
Example	Zuni south west USA	Kwakiutl of N. America

Thus, her study suggest how numerous aspects give example of life in culture reinforce basic pattern of culture. Acc. to her, these are not the only patterns, but individual are like to follow one of such celeb patterns. Her main point was to recognise Cultural differences as valid, and not to impose our own morals & values on people.

Benedict was of interest to study effect of personality on culture .Thus she observes culture as ‘personality with large’

National Character Study By Benedict

Criticism

Morris oppler– her belief that every cutture has pattern of itself, which affects all parts of society is incorrect. we must look at “plurality of themes’ of culture, (not only two bases of cultural integration)
Clyde Kluckhohn there exist distination – between Configuration & pattern
Very narrow patterns of personality.m

Conclusion – Rich Contribution to theory as well as methods. Her work certainly laid down the foundation of different kinds of personalities which emerged under the impact of culture. She was also supported by Margaret Mead.

Margaret Mead

Introduction -most well known lady anthropologist in world. Student of Boas & Benedict, she laid foundation of culture-personality school (along with Benedict)

Historical Background

She along with Benedict began with the configurational approach her book ‘Coming of age in Samoa’ reveal this fact.
She thr her work Sex & Temperament in Three Primitive societies”explains the impact of culture on the personality formation. She opines that it is culture which shapes the personality of group..

Books /Work

Coming of Age of Samoa
Sex & Temperament in Three Primitive societies
- tribes of New Guinea

Study of Personality structure

Mead argued : Culture of an area or nation is depicted in formation of personality of individual. Thus , She was interested in study of “Personality Structure”

Case Studies

In her First book: “Coming of Age in Samoa” (1928) where she studied Adolescent stress & it’s Reason whether biological or cultural. She found that for somans, bodily changes are inevitable, thus society allows premarital sex and facts of birth, sex, death are not hidden from children. Thus, No crisis of Adolscence in samoa as in USA.
- She concluded: human nature is not rigid & unyielding rather it is product of culture.
In her The “Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies” (1935) she compared: 3 societies (tribes of New Guinea) & central values around which cutture was woven
- Arapesh → food & children
- Tshambole → Art
- Mundugumor → Competition
- also observed range of temperament from submissive to oppressive
- conclusion – each culture has central value ground which social life is centered.
- Though these three lives in same geographical area, represent diff personality structures b/c culture are different. (Diff has diff socialisation process)
Compared personality of children of manus society who were observed to be lacking in creativity & expression as compared to American.

She concluded that difference in personality arises from diff. in cultural Practices, interactions b/w members of Society & norms.

That’s why interaction b/w people differ along with tehrir behaviour.

After study of the impact of the process of socialisation of children & behaviour of adult of Samoa – she opined that socialisation process is mediated by close personal relations of child with adult. Mediation thr symbolic modes of community play a role Thus, it may said that individual must acheive Some kind of patterned integration which may be called as personality structure. While structure may take various forms, content elements which are characteristics of personality structure are generic sense. Thus, culture becomes part of individual

Evaluation

Her work was more ethnographic in nature
She tried to show that personality of people differ from each other due to cultural practices.

Conclusion – Thus Mead’s theory of personality was widely accepted by Ⓟ as one of belt theoretical models to study society, culture & Individual. Her thesis that personality is an attributed which human nature acquires the participation in given culture is considered as best model to cultural- personality studies.

Mead Researched national character of England & compared it to US.
Mead determined that in each society the norm for interaction b/w the sexes differed leading to many misunderstandings b/w the two otherwise similar cultures.

National Character Study

Introduction – NCS, as per Mead, is attempt to delineate regularities in character among members of national group attributable to factors of shared nationality & institutional correlation”

There are types of culture & personality studies that was developed during a WWII times with some political bias.
This involves the identification of people, ethnicity & races according to specific, indomitable cultural characteristics.
Purpose of NCS –to guide govt & military policy, to further co-op among wartime allies, & to plan for a post war world.

National character study : Technique

Study utilise premises of field of Personality & cultures. As most imp resources for national building is people, are backbone & give distinct character.
Historically, 2 distinguishing feature –
- Group of person with shared social character (nationals) is selected.
- If society less accessible → then less direct methods of research have to use.
  - In addition (if societies to study literate & mass means of communication, novels, cartoons & NP articles & photographs ) – systemic analysis – for recurrent themes or other clues

Case Studies

Ruth Benedict & NCS – Asked by US office of war information during WWII to undertake research on enemy nations
- selected Japan as first target & wrote “The chrysanthemum and the sword’ (1946)
- used “content Analysis method‘ and fieldwoork-at-distance method
- I.e largely through indirect method rather than by travelling to those countries → so sometime c/l “Studies of culture at distance”
Mead & Metraux –
- on r/l b/w British & American in WWII
- On Germany wrt Post war Problems
Geoffrey Gover
- wrote “The people of Great Russia : A Psychological Study ” (1949) in which the hypothesized that Russiam technique of swaddling their infants led them to devlop personalities that are cold and distant.
Margaret Mead & NCS
- “And keep Your Powder Dry : An anthropologist looks at America (1942)
- Acc to her, NCS → focussed on how human beings embody their culture.

Assumptions in NCS

Psychic unity of mankind -No known differences among diff races.
Cultures have systematic aspects.
Human culture → Historically patterned system of Community which influences personalities
Human culture → have holistic characteristics
Cultures → inherited / carried to successive generations → perpetuation & reintegration of cultural form.
Though unique, but cultures shows comparable features when cross cultural categorise are applied to them.

Acc to Mead NCS must take into al considerations of degree of local govt, regionalisation, etc.

Contribution to National Character Studies

to show that, socialisation continued beyond infancy & early childhood & national discourses could have an effect on personal character
Contribution to the modern anthropological understanding of the rise of nations & international relations.

Criticisms

methods suitable for small simple societies are not applicable to complex modern society.
Psychologist Klineberg (1944) : Difficult to integrated diff sections in cultural character.
Sampling problems in Anthropological study.
National character studies in the war & post war periods were subsequently criticised by scholars for their homogeneity & over -generalisation.
Swaddling hypothesis of Geoffrey Gorer’s was regarded as unworkable, simplistic & hastily determined

Ralph Linton

Introduction – Famous Ⓟ who began as archeologist, but shifted to cultural Ⓐ. Primarily interested in personality structure, social & cultural processes & material culture.

Theoretical Contribution

Core periphery hypothesis
- Culture
  - Overt → which is seen &public
    - Material Culture – including tools, artefacts , houses etc
    - Kinaesthetical culture – consisting of behaviour among people
  - Covert → hidden, people unaware of
    - everything is hidden in Psychological aspect or element which gives real meaning to culture. I.e it is Cultural core consisting of Central Values
      - It consists of values, ideas, norms & beliefs etc – which are not seen
      - Have to be inferred from human behaviour
    - It is around this core, entire personality is build up.
    - Benedict called this core → cultural complex & cultural pattern
- Linton notes 3 types of culture
  - Real culture – (Actual behaviour)
  - Ideal Culture (philosophical & tradition culture)
  - Cultural construct (what is written on cultural elements)
- He believes every culture is centred ground CORE around which personality is build up
  - if core affected → culture disintegrates
  - changes in superstructure → more acceptable.
- Thus, this hypothesis is very imp study of social change.
- Evaluation – theoretical work based on abstract , introduced psycho-dynamism to school of culture & personality.
Personality
- In his “The Cultural Background of Personality’ (1945) he defines personality as “organised aggregate of psychological process & stages pertaining to individual”
- He believes personality to be organised aggregates of habits → thus tried to examine from functional point of view.
- 3 stages in personality structure
  - dev of behavioural responses to situations
  - reduction of these responses to habitual forms
  - production of already estal habitual forms.
- He suggest that, there is aggregate of needs in society ⇒ to satisfy this ⇒ individual has to make response in stimulus way => also as Stimulus Response
  - Suggested 3 ways of making responses
    - Imitation
    - Trial & Error
    - Intellectual Method
  - Classified Responses as
    - Emergent Response
    - Established Response
  - Also as
    - Specific Response
    - Generalised Response

Concepts by Linton

Basic culture

Status Personality

Social Inventor

Status & Role

given by Linton in 1936
Role, Acc to Him = rules of behaviour appropriate to given status or social position
- Definition useful in functional analysis with synchronic framework
- Criterium for Role (prescribed by linton)
  - Ascribed
    - By birth
    - Based on age, sex, kinship, caste, class
  - Achieved
    - Based on qualities / capacities
    - Need to significant training or efforts
- Linton points out Role conflicts due to conditions of disjunction ie. when interacting members of role pair category have learnt diff roles & have diff expectations.
  - becoming increasily frequent in complex Societies are traditional roles are challenged.
  - Simple Societies → ascribed roles.
  - modem societies → acheived roles.

Conclusion – Thus due to treatment of culture & personality in very sound a scientific manner, Linton introduced psycho-dynamism in C-P school.

Abraham Kardiner – Basic personality school

Kardiner in his book “The psychological Frontiers of society” says In a given culture, there is same kind of uniformity in Child rearing practices. Therefore individuals brought up in same child rearing practices have common personality. He called it Basic Personality School.

Background of Abraham

psychiatrist & psycho analyst
studied under Sigmund Freud.
concept of ‘Basic Personality’ → very popular
best known for his pychodynamic approach to stud C & P
Talked about inseparability & interdependence of C&P.

Historical Background of Base Personality Approach

Developed jointly by Abraham Kardiner & Ralph Linton, in response to configuration approach.
It mean that in every culture, there are common characteristics of personality among all members of group, which is the basic personality type of the groups
- It outcome of cultural influences on the individual.

Basic Personality

In his “The Psychological Frontiers of society” (1945) Kardiner said that we should speak of common personality
Common personality shared by people people – who are product of same kind of socialisation.
Adoptive psychological skilll shared by all or most members of society → Basic personality
Constituents of Basic personality – ideal, Idea, Ego, Superego
emphasised on childhood experience & cultural determinants
Since Basic personality → product induced by in society’s members by specific institutional forms in each society, the form, content style of coping with problems changes from society to society.
in culture → some uniformity in child rearing practices → thus common personality i.e Basic personality type.

Primary & secondary institution

kardiner divided the institutional aspect of culture into two categories – 1° & 2°
Primary institution → those elements have most influence on shaping basic P. (Structures) of society’s members.
- Institution that directly impacts socialization Practices & child rearing & cornered with disciplining, gratifying & inhibiting the child . Is considered to be most influential in creating BP. Since Early rearing most influential in creating Base personality.
- It’s Elements – Family, serval process of refinement.
  - E.g Sanskars among Hindus
Secondary Institution → Aka Projective Systems – those which satisfy the needs created by primary institutions. Or Product of basic personality itself
- (Manifested thr ) Includes taboo system, beliefs system, mythology, fake lore, ethic
- collective fantacy products of subjectively shared wishes, needs and conflicts.
- Kardiner argued → Basic Personality would mould contents & meaning of projective systems.
The basic personality express itself in the group’s ideologies, in emotional & cognitive orientation to life & death.
He has present Dynamic modelfor study of basic P type –serve to explain the cultural change.
- If changes in primary institution → Secondary institution also changes.

thus due to similarity in cultural Practices → we can speak of national character’ which makes people in one context different from others

Case study – In Morquesean society In Polynesian, kardiner observed that primary institution like family, m’age, etc are responsible for formation B.P of which is reflected in 2° institution like myth, Religion, folklore. Ex

Scarce resource & periodic starvation → Population control method like ♀infanticide → fraternal polyandry → formation of BP of bearing grudge against woman b/c neglection in childhood by mother + Type of m’age → reflected in type of literature depicting woman as villainous.

Criticism

plausibly explained on existence of cultural insti.
failed to explain differences b/w 1° & 2° institution.
did not discuss ‘cultural functions in totality.
No answer to differences in societies. i.e patrilinear & matrilinear, some Societies practising cross cousin mage, others not.

Cora-Du Bois – Model Personality Approach

Model personality approach was the brain child of Cora Dubois – in response to the criticism of her earlier work that included basis personality structures. She was heavily influenced by work Kardiner & Linton, she modified to great extent their notion of basic personality structure with her modal personality theory.

Cultural Ⓟ interested in C-P school.
Best known for her study – people of Alor (1944) of Indonesia→ dev. concept of model personality
Model personality assumes that certain personality structure is the most frequently occurring within society. But this is not common to all members of society. Quote example
She applied (utilises) number of approaches to her works such as
- Participant observation , Projective Tests (The Rorschach & TAT, especially ) , Along with Life biographies –
- creating stronger basis for personality types due to use of statistics to back up conclusions.
Once the modal personality is established through tests, it becomes relatively easy to relate its feature to dominant social pattern

Historical Background

during WWII – impossible to do fieldwork ; but need of psychological profile fo enemy. Hence projective technique – study of culture at distance.
Many used this approach like – Ruth Benedict, Cora-du-Bois etc
This approach utilises projective test along with life histories, creating a stronger basis for personality types due to the use of statistics to back up conclusion.

Model personality

worked on ‘Alor’ in Indonesia & collected
- traditional ethnographic data
- 8 lengthy biographies
- children’s drawings
Projective Technique – Later gave all this data Ⓟ like kardiner, Emil oberholzer → Not told source of data. Thus these specialist worked ‘blind”.
Results of all these specialist → Showed great correspondence. E.g All noted about Alor
- Shallowness in emotional life
- suspiciousness…
- apathy
- insecurity
These conclusions were made by pulling all results. She called it “Model Personality”
while Basic P. → inferred from cultural data model ; P → directly derived from testing

Thus, with model Personality, she showed that while there are individual variations in culture, but each culture favours dev. of particular type of Personality, which will be most common within that cutture.

Sexual Division of Labour & adores Personality

Dubois observed that sexual DoL affected personality in Abrs.
- ♂ – rear Pigs & involved in distribution of pork & other meats
- ♀ – Involved in agriculture & Food gathering
So, ♀ → in Tedious time consuming → Child Ignored → Taken care by father & brother → Frustration, anxiety & distrustful individual → No commitment in relationship

Evaluation

following this, many Ⓟ used this Projective technique. Eg.
- Kroeber, G. Foster → personality of peasant.
- Oscar lewis → personality of POW in Maxico
- Many Anthropologist studied the psychology of marshal race I.e Rajput / Kshatriya
Reduced impressionistic qualities of earlier studies.
Model P. → true reflection of people in culture

Criticism

Anthony wallace, Bert kaplan found her result very neat But not satisfactory.
kaplan questioned existence of model P. in any society.
Discrepancies found in b/w statistical averages & actual individual performance (by wallace & kaplan).

Conclusion– Dubois, heavily influenced by work Kardiner & Linton, brought a new level of competency to culture & personality structure. Her experience as an ethnographer & psychologist provided valuable link in the chain of thought of the culture & personality schools.

Cultural Materialism

originated in 1920s as reaction against idealism, structuralism & cultural relativism, who neglected & rejected Comparison in the different cultures.

Historical Background

Tradition of CM can be traced back to Leslie white & Julian steward with (Cultural) ecological approach also focusing on how surrounding impact culture.
Marvin Harris, American anthropologist historian gave his theory of CM in “The Rise of Anthropological Theories” (1968). In his fieldwork in Mozambique, he shifted focus of study from ideological features to behavioural features of culture.

Historical Background of Marvin Harris

He was an American Anthropologist & Historian
Harris was influenced by Historic & dialectical materialism of Marx & Hegel

Main Aim / Theme of Study

Acc to Harris is to create pan human science of society of man whose findings can be accepted on logical & evidential grounds by pan human community.
to explain sociocultural change on basis of change in material culture as – technological & economic aspects play primary role in shaping the society through productive(economic) & reproductive(demographic) systems for e.g women’s Role in post world war USA.

Cultural Materialism : Assumption / Premise – Marvin Harris states that : Human have need like food, water procreation. The way human being chooses to organise these needs for their fulfilment gives rise to culture

Methodology

Fieldwork in Mozambique
Relies on ETIC approach of cultural study as Harris says that it makes it more scientific,generalised and realistic
It focuses on those entities & events that are obseravable & quantifiable, and can be my studied using operations that can be replicated.
It seek to explain the organizational aspects of politics & economy & ideological suit & symbolic aspects of society as a result of combination of variables relating to basic ideological needs of a society.

Concept of CM

In his books Harris
- tried to explain cultural similarities & differences
- and also gave models for cultural change within a society
- in his Fieldwork in Mozambique → he shifted focus of study from ideological features to behavioral features of culture
Etic approach necessary to examine observable & quantifiable aspects of culture.
Acc tp Harris Societal Framework dependes on 3 factors/ aspects:
- Infrastructure
  - Physical / material realities / aspect
  - Consists of Harris idea of cultural core
  - Tech for survival, economy for production & demography -system of Reproduction dominate & determine other facets of culture.
- Structure
  - grows out of infrastructure & grows on social relations (kinship,descent,patterns of descent etc) → all indicate organisational aspects of culture
- Superstructure
  - ideological & symbolic aspects of society & religion (religion,myth,rituals etc)
  - they indicate the behavior and mental patterns of the society like punishment,art etc

Relation among above 3 factors is unidirectional
Driving force behind cultural change → satisfaction of basic needs of prod’n & Reprod’n
Priority of Infrastructure – frastructure/material aspects mould & influence structure & super structure
- out of the above 3 it is the infra which will determine structure and super-structure(religion & ideology) e.g Hindu prohibition of killing of cattle.

Examples

Cow slaughter taboo in India / Sacred cow” in India
- Harris came to testify his hypothesis of CM In India
- Taboo of cow slaughter = superstructure arising from economic need of preserving cow.
- Farmers believe that cow never die as they are sacred.
- Thus, preservation of cow is eco necessity (Infrastructure) which brings change in In religias belief (superstructure) to accomodate intra. need.
Maxin Morgolis → study of woman in USA.
- 1950 ; ideology → duty of women → home (emic approach)
- 1980s ; ♀ entered workforce in large no.
  - B/c economic necessity
  - result → increased productive & Reproductive Capacity of us household.
- Harris’ example of materiastic perspective on fall of USSR →
  - Neighbouring state of Rusia thought that Russia as Prospering on their contribution
  - Thus infrastructure requirement of State demanded disintegration resulting in fall of superstructure l.e. communism

Achievements/contribution to Anthropological Studies:

Made Anthropology more scientific
- Rather than relying on natives solely Harris urged analyst to use emperical and replicable methods.
Use/importance of etic view – to understand situation holistically.
Cultural change – study across space & temporal boundaries to get “universal nomothetic theories”
Influence on other braches
- ex – Archeology: Willian Rathje in his Garbage project in Arizona excavated landfills to study difference b/w stated & adual alcohol consumption
  - found huge discrepancy in data.
  - Thus importance of etic view to find Observation overlooked by emic view.
influenced American school especially chicago school to take 3rd world Studies → influence on LP. vidyarthi
shifted focus of study from ideological features to behavioral features

Criticism

Smithsonian magzine tagged Harris as cone of most controversial Ⓟ alive’ for his sweeping overgeneralisations.
It was termed as Vulgar materialism‘ by marxist & J. friedman
- Reason : b/c of its empirical approach to cultural change is too simple and straight forward and as Harris suggested unidirectional change
idealist: Materialistic view is ethnocentric
structuralism: emic view is key to understand Cultural change & behaviour of members of native society.
post modemist : rejects materialism as a whole due to negliance of relativism.
Works like Rappaport’s ‘Rig for the Ancestors(1968)’ prove that superstructure elements like religion also equally impact infrastructure & structure

Conclusion – Despite the criticisms,the theory helped challenge anthropologists to adopt more scientific approaches to explain cultural phenomenon

Symbolism & Interpretative Theory

Symbolic anthropology is a school of thought emerged in America that seeks to study how people understand their surroundings through symbols & their interpretation. Most imp scholar being Geertz, Turner & Schneider

Historical Background – came as a reaction to

Structuralism -though used symbols but not emphasised on symbolism
- Geertz in “Cerebral Savage : on work of Claude Levi Strauss” – criticised structuralism as downplayed role of individual actors in their analysis
- Whereas symbolic Anthropology believed in ‘Actor-centric interpretation’
Materialism -ignored symbols & mental term
Marxism – based on western assumption of materialism & eco needs

Edmond leach made a distinction b/w sign and symbol.
- Sign refers to empirical connection b/w two entities e.g. fire and smoke.
- Symbol is an arbitrary connection b/w two things e.g. killing Ravan by Ram on day of Dashehera.

Leading Figures & School of Though – all three belonging to university of Chicago

Symbolic Approach – Vitore Turner : School of Turner
- Acc to him – symbols initiate social action ie Every culture has some symbols and these symbols instigate some social action
- Influenced by Emile Durkheim
- Main Aim – Study how symbols operate within the society
- Subject Matter – interested in operations of society
Interpretative Approach – Clifford Geertz : School of Geertz
- Acc to him – Humans are in need of symbolic sources of illumination to orient themselves wrt particular culture
- Influenced by Max Weber
- Main aim – Study the manner in which symbols shape the ways that social actors see, feel & think about the world
- Subject Matter – Interested in operation of culture rather than the ways in which symbols operate in a social process. & how symbols relates to one another
Both – David Schneider –

Symbolic Anthropology : Theme of Study

studies the way people understand their surroundings as well as actions and utterances of other members of the society
studies symbols & processes like myth & ritual by which humans assign meanings to symbols to solve fundamental questions of human social life
views culture as independent system of meanings deciphered by interpreting symbols and rituals

Basic Premises – major premises governing symbolic anthropology

Acc. to Geertz : humans are in need of Symbolic “Source of illumination” to orient themselves wrt particular culture → Interpretative Approach
Acc. to Turner : symbol initiate social action → symbolic Approach
Acc to Leslie White – Man is a symbolic animal
- beliefs, however unintelligible, become comprehensible when understood as part of a cultural system of meaning
- Actions are guided by symbolic interpretation i.e allowing symbolism to aid in interpreting ideal as well as material activities

Methodology

based on cross cultural comparision
major change from science based approach to literary based approach
focus largely on culture as a whole rather than isolated parts

Contribution / Concept

Turner’s Social Drama concept
- symbols produce transformation,which exert determinable influences inclining people and groups to action.
- Turner called this as social drama
Geertz Approach to study of symbols
- symbols operate as vehicles of culture
- A simple must not be studied in itself but for what it reveals about culture
Thick Description given by Geertz
- to describe his interpretative approach
- Thick description – is the interpretation of what the natives are thinkinh (the mental processes and reasoning of natives) made by an outsider(ethnographer) who cannot think like a native but is guided by anthropological theory
Hermeneutics
- Geertz used hermeneutics in his studies of symbol systems to try to understand the ways that people “understand and act in social, religious, and economic contexts ”
  - Eg : Balinese cockfight

Accomplishments

Turn in anthropology towards the issues of cultures & interpretation rather than development of grand theories
Geertz main contribution : changing orientation of American Ⓟ to view culture
The theory helped anthropology to grow out of the bounds/turn to sources outside of traditional boundaries such as philosophy,sociology
Main goal was to understand culture in a practical way
Geertz main emphasis on studying culture from the perspective of the actors who are guided by the cultures (EMIC view ie actor center view of Geertz)
Tuner’s major contribution – how symbols operate

Criticism

by Marxist – no attempt to explain system of symbolism instead major focus/overemphasis on individual symbols
Talai Asad attacked Dualism in Geertz’s approach about external symbols and internal dispositions
Cultural ecologists – attacked symbolic anthropology for their unscientific & unverifiable interpretations
Since different anthropologist view symbols in different ways, it was attacked being too subjective.

Conclusion – They gave a new dimension to study of culture thus making cultural studies more holistic manner and oriented towards cultural berears. Emic approach helped to interpret culture “Thr natives eyes.”

Clifford Geertz

In his ‘The interpretation of culture’ (1973), Geertz said to analyse culture not by experimental science in search of law, but by interpretative method in search of meaning.
Culture expressed by external symbols that society uses rather than being locked inside people’s heads.
Societies use symbols to express worldview value orientation, ethos.
For Geertz symbols are “vehicles of culture” & thus studies Symbol in what they revedl about culture. His main Interest was manner in which social actor ‘thinks, feels, see ‘about the world.

Concepts / Contribution

Geertz concept of Cultural text
- Culture is like literary text that can be analyzed for meaning as ethnographer interprete It.
Thick Description – description of particular form of communication used ; as each symbol in culture has serval meaning attached to it & each meaning can be understood in context.
- The term by introduced by philosopher Gilbert Ryle
- Geertz used this to explain aim of interpretive anthro
- It is interpretation of what natives are thinking , made by outsider who can’t think like native, but guided Ⓐ by theories.
- To illustrate, Geertz uses Gilbert Ryle’s example of diff b/w “wink & ‘blink” though physical morm of both = same cultural interpretation = diff.
- Such interpretations → produces stratified hierarchy of meaningful structures.

Hermeneutics – Geertz used it to understand ways that people “understand and act in social, religious & economic Context” ex – Balinese Cockfighting.
- Art form representing various aspects of social life – hierarchy, Competition, starters arrangements.

Case Study

“Deep Play : Noes on Balinese CockFight” eassy in the book “The interpretation of cultures”
- It addresses the symbolism & social dynamics of cockfighting in Balinese culture.
- employing the method of thick description, Geertz inscribed the phenomenon of cockfighting into a detailed context, envisaging it as a cultural phenomenon that represents a “simulation of social matrix” and reveals the non-obvious hierarchies that pervade the entire society.
  - Ex, women & young & socially disadvantaged people are not allowed to attend cockfights,
  - while the main players are the most respected and politically involved members of the community.
- The actual cockfight is a human competition, delegated to animals, where the winner gets respect & admiration from the others, while money is secondary.
- the cock in Bali symbolizes masculinity, and the rules of cockfights in every village are passed down through generations along with other legal traditions.

Victor Turner

Influenced by Structural functional School.
Turned to ritual symbolism during his studies of Ndeumbu Villages of Zambia 🇿🇲
Not interested in symbol as “vehicle of culture”
studied symbols as “operation in social process.”
- Symbolic expression of social meaning lie at centre of human relationship.
Symbol instigate social action & exert influence on persons & groups for inclining to action.
Symbols, thus produce social transformation which tie people in society to society’s norms → thus resolve conflicts, aid changing, Status of actors.

Contribution/ Concept

Social Drama
- Concept by turner to study dialectic of social transformation & continuity
- Social Drama spontaneous a unit of social process & fact of everyone’s experience in every human society.
- Occur within group that shares values & interest
- Can be broken into 4 acts.
  1. Rupture of social r/l
  2. Crisis that cannot be handled by normal strategies
  3. Re-est of social r/l
  4. Reintegration ( return to status quo) Or alteration in social r/l (schism)
- He dev concept of Social Drama to a/c for symbolism of conflict & crisis resolution among

Turner’s Concept of Symbol
- Acc to him, symbol of diff kind coherently bound into meaningful part of culture. Ex – In Ndembu Society, child is given white sap of particular tree as milk which symbolises
- Thus each symbol serves as symbol for other
- There is logical progression : from material symbols → action symbols → Institutional symbol

David Schneider

No Complete break from structuralism as by Geertz & Tumer, Rather modified Levi strauss’s idea of culture as set of relationships,
defined culture system as “a series of of symbols and as “something which stands from something else. ( contrast to other elaborate definitions)
Regularity in behaviour– Not necessarily culture can be inferred from regular pattern of behaviour.
interested in connections b/w –cultural symbols & observable events
- Strove to identify the symbols & meanings that governed rules of society…
Symbol → something that stands for something else
was interested in r/l b/w cultural symbols & observable events → strive to identify symbols that govemed rule of society.

Contribution/ Concept

Schnedider’s Taxonomical Approach – culture is system of serval classes of symbols (eco, political ) → all these are interrelated & their totality represent culture.

Cognitive Theory

Andrade defined cognitive anthropology as the study of relationships b/w society & human thought”. I.e provides a link b/w human thought process & physical & ideational aspects of culture.

aka Ethnoscience or New Ethnography – as the problem of ethnography validity was tackled through linguistic ( Etic & Emic), with the discovery of the phoneme, anthropologist got the opportunity to understand the culture in native language.

Historical Background

Rooted in Franz boas’s cultural relativism & influenced by Anthropological Linguistics, closely aligned to psychological investigation.
- He ecouraged the investigations in tribal categories of sense & perception.
emerged in USA in 1950s as a critic to the then existing traditional ethnography ,questioning the methods of it – & ethnographers sought emic point of view.
they were inspired from Sapir-Whork hypothesis on how language shaped peoples perceptions
Initially focused on ‘Folk Taxonomies” in 1960s & 1970s
Most recently ; developed with growth of Schema Theory & development of consensus theory.

Leading Figures

Stephen Tyler
Harold Conklin

Schools / Types

Ethno-scientists focus on making ethnographs more scientific & replicable

Theme of Study

They study the ways in which people conceive & think about event & objects in the world
Not only who different people organise culture but also how they utilise culture.
Contemporary CA. Attempts to access the organising principles that underline & motivate human behaviour.

Basic Premises / Assumption

Closely linked to psychology
Study of how particular group categories & reasons about basic nature of cognitive process.
There are universal cognitive processes -they explain the innate structure of human brain
Psychic Unity of Mankind-concept given by Adolf Bastian is generally accepted in CA
Remove ethnographer bias fro research process

Methodology

adopted EMIC approach-to discover ‘native’s point of view’
gave huge importance to study of symbols especially language
rigorous elicitation procedures & controlled questioning of native speakers
Objective of Study : the way material phenomenon is in human mind.
use of different method

Old

Feature Models
Folk Taxonomies
Configurational Recording

New

Pile Sort Method
Item by item matrix
Triad Method
Most imp methodology- study of linguistic

Contribution / Concepts – Culture is composed of logical rules based on ideas that can be accessed in the human mind

Stephen Tyler
- humans simplify their chaotic world through classification
- each culture has its own classification categories to make sense of their reality
- Eg : study of Koyas
Harold Conklin
- People construct their world in terms of their culture
- Culture as a cognitive system helps them segregate significant from non-significant and decide the course of action
- Eg : study of Hanunoo Colour Categories(1955)

Accomplishments

provided detailed & reliable description of cultural representation
challenged idea of monolithic cultures
revealed some inner aspects of human mind
Provided bridge b/w culture & functioning of mind.
development of cultural methodologies that are valid & reliable representations of human thought
brought the concept of New Ethnoscience ie more importance to emic perspectivez

Criticism

Keesing – CA not able to move beyond analysis of artificially simplified & trivial domains
Universal agreement on how to find culture in min is yet to emerge
Not applicable to non-verbal behaviour
can hardly reach generalisation
The approach is deemed to be too abstract

Conclusion – Despite the above criticisms Cognitive Anthropology is an important attempt to move more closer to actual native world and perceptions which lead to emergence of New Ethnoscience. It is concerned with Emic Interpretation of meaning. It helps to understand how meaning is acquired by people i.e learning process

Harold Conklin

American anthropologist who conducted extensive ethno-ecological& linguistic field research in SE Asia (particularly Philippines) and was pioneer of ethnoscience.

specially interested in linguistic & ecology
Studied Harunoo tribe & Ifugao (N. Luzon)
Imp. contribution to study of kinship Termindogy in his “Ethnogenealogical method” (1969) and “Lexicographical Treatment of folk Taxonomien” (1969)
His study on color perception in Hanunoo dows
- study from early ethnoscientific approach.

Colour categorisation

Among Hanunoo, to prove whether Sapir-Whork hypothesis is true or not. In his study, he interview students about colour & related back how that colour associate with things that exist in their daily lives.
Identified that language one speaks will provide linguistic constructs & lexical categories, thus largely influencing perception of world.
Found out that difference in manner in which diff lang classify colour code.
Conklin came up oppositions dichotomy,
- Light vs Dark
- Dryness vs Wetness
Also 3rd opposition → related with colourless substance ; often associated with manufacture goods.
Also noticed diff. vocabulary in lang based on speaker (Men lang differed from woman)
Colkin concluded that what appear colour confusion at first may be result from inadequate knowledge of internal structure of colour system & from failure to distinguish sharply b/w sensory reception & perceptual categorisation.
Thus proposes that our colour perception is not about how many words we havae but rather the ways in which colour are perceive in our social structure.

Conklin’s Linguistic Study

Used Sapir & whorf hypothesis in r/l with lang & though
Came up with ideal that lang is not just tool of commutation, but rather a way people communicate base on their perception of world.

Concepts by Harold Condition

Culture as ideation system – culture is system of knowledge that reveals how material phenomenon are organised in minds of people & transmitted as Khouredge from generation to generation.
Common design – each culturels ideational system i.e, unique set of concepts, rules, Categories. At the same time, common deign to all culture exist.
Language of culture – culture as a Cognitive system can be understood by examining interrelation b/w Language & sultare.
- If lang – conceptual code underlying speed
- Then culture – conceptual code underlying behaviour

Stephen A. Tyler

Concepts / Theories

Cognitive Ⓐ – study of r/l b/w human culture & human thought.
Concept of culture – Acc to him, culture is mental construct. It is cognitive org of material phenomenon. i.e. they reveal how things, events, behaviour emotions are organised in mind of human being.
Real Culture – Acc. to Tyler, real culture exists only in minds of culture bearers. Each society has it’s own mental map of culture.
Cultural differences in cognitive org culture differs from each other in their cognitive org of material phenomena.
- Tyler’s ex – Americans can distinguish b/w dew, fog, ice & snow whereas koyas of s.India cannot. However, koyds can recognise 7 types of bamboo, but americans know only 1.
Intellectual variation – culture differs in terms of organizing classes of Phenomenon even within themselves. Thus intellectual vanation.
- example – American women names more Colour than american men..

Post Modernism

Post Modernism is a school/tradition of thought in anthropology that tried to find scientific theory of cultural evolution / functioning, which actually dehumanises the human society. It is basically a critic of science.

Historical Background

originated as theoretical perspective 1980s as a b/c subjectivity in interpretations of different cultures. (modernism -induces rationalism, started with renaissance in Europe(14-16th century
Anthropologist like James Clifford, Stephens & Michel Foucault criticised the subjectivity in study of anthropology
Foucault argued that those in political power were able to shape the way accepted truth is defined.
Criticised – FW – Ethnography, Science , Literary Sources

Main Thinkers

in 1970s a group of post Structuralist in France, developed radical critique fo modern philosophy, came to known as Post – Modern notable among theme
Jacques Derrida – French philosopher best known for developing form of semiotic analysis known as ‘Deconstruction’
- Undermined language of presence or metaphysics
Michel Foucault – Father of post Structuralism
James Clifford

Schools / Types – Post modernists have been divided into two very broad camps, skeptics & Affirmatives

Skeptics
- Against every theory
- Call for complete rejection of theories.
Affirmatives
- Less rigid
- Call for Transformation of Existing Theories

Basic Premises of PM

True objectivity is impossible, including in anthropological studies & ethnography
- Considered Ⓐ texts written in personal biases include by social & political contexts
- Clifford Geertz → Ⓐ Writings are themselves interpretations & 2nd & 3rd ones to boot → Thus criticised disposition of Ⓐist who conducting ethnographies & writing grand theories.
is a critic of science (due to subjective interpretation of culture in anthropology)of other schools on accounts/ grounds –
1. Ideological level
  - Science is tool in hands of those in power & position in society-utilise it in their benefit rather than human upliftment
  - Eg : colonial powers used Anthropological understanding to further exploit communities as in case of Swasi tribe(South Africa)
2. Epistemological level
  - means method of gathering data i.e subjectivity of human object, anthropology can’t be science.
  - criticises participant observation method as questions the objectivity of data
  - consider data collected by anthropologists have their own biases
  - Eg :Restudies conducted on Trobriand islanders highlighted that Malinowski neglected role of women played in society.
  - Restudies of Derek Freeman on Samoa after Margaret Mead highlighted subjectivity & misplace arguments by Margaret Mead
Post modernist view of Society

Post modernism is suspicious of authoritative definition & singular narrative of any event.
PM concentrates on the tensions of differences & similarity erupting from globalisation process.

Primary Tenants of PM

Elevation of Text and language as fundamental phenomena of existance
application of literary analysis to all phenomena
Questioning of reality and representation
Critic of meta narratives
Argument against method and evaluation
General critic of western institutions & knowledge
Focus upon power relations and hegemony
Cultural relativism → No objectivity w/o this

Methodology – 2 distinct methodologies are associated with this school

Deconstruction – demystification of texts to reveal what what is not explicit or what has been repressed. (Vincent Crapanzano)
Intuitive Interpretation – introspection based on individuals own understanding
Humanising Process of data collection (post Structuralism)
- Says that data should not be tried to fit into pre-decided structural understanding of mind

Focus on process of field work

Accomplishments

Critical Examination of Ethnographic Explanation
led to heightened sensitivity within anthro to data collection
Demystification -uncovered & criticised epistemeological & ideological motivations in social sciences
Polyvocality -were against single narrative of any event supported thought of Polyvocality -any event can be looked from multiple angles & multiple views

Reaction from Ⓐ

increased intradepartmental competition & debate in anthropology field
Anthropologist tried to relocate their methods

Criticism

Melford Spiro argues that without scientific method anthro will become dubious & intellectually irresponsible
Roy d’Andrade said that objectivity is possible and is not dehumanising i.e complete value neutral ethnography is impossible but should tried as much as possible.
If Extreme relativism and if no one accepts single truth/wrong then there will be chaos in the society & will lead to nihilism, which is not desirable for Anthropology
Undermines importance of university human rights, being extreme cultural Relativist in nature

Conclusion

Despite the above criticisms Post Modernism is an important anthropological perspective as it lead to giving anthro multiple views like polyvocality which tried to make anthro include native point of view and helping anthro to evolve as an holistic discipline
Despite the criticisms the theory had a profound impact on anthropology.It has led to re-examination of the vary nature of ethnographical enquiry,along with heightened sensitivity in data collection
It can be concluded with spiro’s argument that intellectual knowledge give power which comes up with responsibility to build empathy toward other & utilise it for human upliftment, to solve the caution of PM.

Contemporary Relevance – As they support freedom, they are in support of homosexuals, feminism.

Michel Foucault

Was French philosopher who attempted to show that basic idea about how people think of permanent truths of human nature & society change through the course of history.
Foucault‘s study of power & its shifting Pattern is fundamental concept of postmodernism.

2 Comments

Gus Betsch says:

August 17, 2024 at 3:16 pm

This article is a fantastic resource. Your detailed explanations and practical advice are greatly appreciated.

Lamborghini supercars says:

August 20, 2024 at 11:35 am

This was a really insightful post, thank you for sharing!

Basic & Anthropological Theories

Evolutionist School of Though

Classical Evolutionism

Baron de Montesquieu

E.B Taylor (Edward Burnett Tylor)

James Frazer

Henry James Summer Mainel(1822-1888)

R.R. Marret (1866-1943) – British

John Ferguson Mclennan

L.H. Morgan (1818-1881)

Johann Jacob Bachofen) (1815-1877)

Neo Evolutionism

Leading Figures & their Key works

V.G Childe

Julian Steward

Leslie White’s Technological Theory of Evolution

Sahalin & Service’s Contribution to Evolution

Compare & contract Evolutionism & Neo-Evolutionism

Historical Particularism

Franz Boas

Diffusionism

Differences between Cultural Evolution & Cultural Diffusion

British School of Diffusion

G.Eliot Smith

W.H.R. Rivers

Austrian-German School of Diffusion

Comparison b/w British & German School of Diffusionism

Friedrich Ratzel

Fritz Grabner

Leo Frobenius

Father Wilhem Schmidt

American School of Diffusionism

Kroeber’s Contribution To American Diffusionism

Acculturation

Functionalism

Bio-cultural / Psychological Functionalism

Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942)

Structural Functionalism

Radcliffe Brown (1881-1955)

Compare & Contrast Functionalism & Structural Functionalism

Structuralism

Levi Strauss

Edmund Leach on Social Structure

Compare & Contrast B/w Radcliffe Brown & Levi Strauss

Post Structuralism

Culture & Personality

Approaches

Ruth Benedict

Margaret Mead

National Character Study

Ralph Linton

Abraham Kardiner – Basic personality school

Cora-Du Bois – Model Personality Approach

Cultural Materialism

Symbolism & Interpretative Theory

Clifford Geertz

Victor Turner

David Schneider

Cognitive Theory

Harold Conklin

Stephen A. Tyler

Post Modernism

Michel Foucault

Related Posts

2 Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply