MAN-001

Social Anthropology
Indira Gandhi
National Open University
School of Social Sciences

Block

1
INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY
UNIT 1
Social Anthropology: Nature and Scope 5
UNIT 2
Philosophical and Historical Foundations of Social
Anthropology 20
UNIT 3
Relationship of Social Anthropology with Allied
Disciplines 30
Expert Committee
Professor I J S Bansal Professor V.K.Srivastava Dr. S.M. Patnaik
Retired, Department of Principal, Hindu College Associate Professor
Human Biology University of Delhi Department of Anthropology
Punjabi University, Patiala Delhi University of Delhi
Delhi
Professor K K Misra Professor Sudhakar Rao
Director Department of Anthropology Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh
Indira Gandhi Rashtriya University of Hyderabad Assistant Professor
Manav Sangrahalaya Hyderabad Department of Anthropology
Bhopal University of Delhi
Professor. Subhadra M.
Delhi
Professor Ranjana Ray Channa
Retired, Department of Department of Anthropology Faculty of Anthropology
Anthropology University of Delhi SOSS, IGNOU
Calcutta University, Kolkata Delhi
Dr. Rashmi Sinha
Professor P. Chengal Reddy Professor P Vijay Prakash Reader
Retired, Department of Department of Anthropology
Anthropology Andhra University Dr. Mitoo Das
S V University, Tirupati Visakhapatnam Assistant Professor

Professor R. K. Pathak Dr. Nita Mathur Dr. Rukshana Zaman

Department of Anthropology Associate Professor Assistant Professor
Panjab University Faculty of Sociology Dr. P. Venkatrama
Chandigarh School of Social Sciences Assistant Professor
Indira Gandhi National Open
Professor A K Kapoor Dr. K. Anil Kumar
University, New Delhi
Department of Anthropology Assistant Professor
University of Delhi, Delhi
Programme Coordinator: Dr. Rashmi Sinha, IGNOU, New Delhi
Course Coordinator : Dr. Rukshana Zaman, IGNOU, New Delhi

Block Preparation Team

Unit Writers Unit 3 Content Editor
Unit 1 Dr. Sudeep Kumar Professor Nadeem Hasnain
Dr. S.M. Patnaik Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology
Associate Professor Xavier Institute of Social University of Lucknow
Department of Anthropology Service, Ranchi Lucknow
University of Delhi, Delhi Language Editor
Unit 2 Dr. Parmod Kumar
Professor Subhadra M. Assistant Professor
Channa, Department of Discipline of English
Anthropology School of Humanities
University of Delhi, Delhi IGNOU, New Delhi
Authors are responsible for the academic content of this course as far as the copyright issues are concerned.

Print Production
Mr. Manjit Singh Cover Design
Section Officer (Publication) Dr. Mitoo Das
School of Social Sciences, IGNOU Assistant Professor, Anthropology, SOSS, IGNOU
August, 2011
© Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2011
ISBN:
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or any
other means, without permission in writing from the copyright holder.
Further information on the Indira Gandhi National Open University courses may be obtained
from the University’s office at Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110 068 or the official website of
IGNOU at www.ignou.ac.in
Printed and published on behalf of Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi by Director,
SOSS, IGNOU.
Laser Typeset at Graphic Printers, 204, Pankaj Tower, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110091.
Printed at :
BLOCK 1 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
Introduction
This block consists of three units-dealing with nature, meaning and scope of social
anthropology, philosophical and historical foundations of social anthropology, and
relationship of social anthropology with other disciplines.
Social anthropology had a systematic beginning in the late 19th century. Inspired by the
increasing popularity of the idea of evolution after the publication of Darwins’ The
Origin of Species, a few scholars belonging to different academic fields engaged
themselves in exploring the possibility of a similar process of evolution in the field of
society and culture. As a corollary of this interest, they got themselves interested in the
study of primitive societies in the conviction that these represented the earliest conditions
of human society and cultures. All of them who got involved in the comparative study of
primitive societies and cultures at that time with the intention of studying the origin and
evolution of culture preferred the use of ‘ethnologists’ for themselves. Ethnology may
therefore be defined as the comparative study of primitive cultures in historical
perspectives. Gradually, when the study of society and culture became systematic and
took the form of a discipline, social/cultural anthropology emerged and named as such
in British and American traditions respectively.
The second unit in the block introduces the philosophical and historical roots of
anthropology especially social anthropology. It discusses several important aspects of
the problem foremost of which was the beginning of the possibility of a scientific study
of society providing you, in a summarised form, the thoughts of philosophers and scholars
such as David Hume, John Lock, Thomas Hobbes, Rousseau and some others. It also
deals with the contributions of the French philosopher Montesquieu who is usually
regarded as the first social thinker to have a systematic theory about society, Comte
and his positivist view of society, Saint Simon, and Durkheim. Making a journey through
time Herbert Spencer, McLennan, and Maine along with Tylor and Morgan laid the
foundation of social anthropology.
You are being provided herewith a sound idea of social anthropology as a discipline,
its’ meaning and scope and the distinction between social and cultural anthropology.
You will also read the methods of social anthropology and how these evolved. Outside
Britain and USA, India has been an important centre of social anthropology where the
discipline developed under the shadow of colonial rule, used by the British administrators
to further their interests. In the post-independence period, social anthropology in India
decolonised itself and is trying to respond to the challenges of modernisation of the
traditional Indian society by developing new insights and tools of study. Presently, new
horizons are being explored in Indian anthropology.
It is very important for you to understand the relationship of social anthropology with
other disciplines. The third unit will further enrich your understanding of the subject in
relation to sociology, psychology, history, economics, and other social sciences besides
its relationship and interface with cultural studies, management and even literature. Thus,
you would be able to understand how social anthropology is able to relate with a
variety of disciplines for an understanding of human behaviour and culture in totality.
UNIT 1 SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY:
NATURE AND SCOPE
Contents
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Social Anthropology: A Branch of Anthropology
1.2.1 What is Social Anthropology
1.2.2 Cultural Anthropology
1.2.3 How Social Anthropology Developed
1.2.4 Methods of Social Anthropology

1.3 Nature and Scope of Social Anthropology

1.3.1 Scope of Social Anthropology
1.3.2 Future Perspective
1.3.3 Social Anthropology in India
1.3.4 Present Scenario

1.4 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions
Learning Objectives

The unit will enable you to understand:
 what does social anthropology mean;
 the subject matter of social anthropology;
 how social anthropology had developed;
 the journey of social anthropology in India; and
 future perspective and present scenario.

1.1 INTRODUCTION
This unit will trace the emergence of social anthropology and its scope. It is important
to know the development and scope of social anthropology as a subject. We know
social anthropology today has many stages of development. The subject has not
obtained today’s form overnight. It has many theoretical debates since its emergence
and till today all the matters of debate have not come to an end. So, it is very much
important to the students of anthropology to understand these issues and also to
know the history related to the subject.

1.2 SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY: A BRANCH OF

ANTHROPOLOGY
To understand the emergence of social anthropology as a branch of Anthropology,
we need to explore the historical facts related to the debates between social
anthropology and cultural anthropology. The term social anthropology has a historical 5
Introduction to Social background in the field of anthropology. We need to explore to some extent the
Anthropology
theoretical framework as well to trace the emergence of the term social anthropology.
Along with this the term cultural anthropology would also come in our discussion, as
these two terms have a close interpretation. Sometimes these two terms overlap in
the fields of practice.
Though we have subjective debate over the term social anthropology and cultural
anthropology, sometimes we find interchangeable use of these two terms. People use
the term socio-cultural anthropology to replace these two terms. But historically there
is a debate over the ideology of these two terms and as a student of anthropology
we need to know these issues.
Anthropology basically has two dominant schools of thought. One is British school
of thought and the other is American school of thought. British school of thought
braches out Anthropology into three basic branches
1) Biological or physical anthropology.
2) Social anthropology.
3) Archaeology.
American school defines four branches of Anthropology:
1) Physical anthropology
2) Cultural anthropology.
3) Archaeology
4) Linguistic anthropology.
Thus, we see that there are many issues related to the terminology. It is surrounded
with many historical debates. We will try to unfold these debates in our next sections.

1.2.1 What Is Social Anthropology

The most common and basic definition of Anthropology is to say that Anthropology
is the study of man across time and space. Anthropology deals with every aspect of
human being. It not only studies human beings in present context but also studies
human beings journey through the path of evolution from Pleistocene period till
today’s globalised world and also tries to trace the future path. Anthropology studies
man irrespective of any geographical boundary. It studies human being as a whole
and also tries to study differences within it. Man is the most wonderful creature in
the world with cultural, social, and habitational variation in it. Unlike any other
species Homo sapiens represents a diverse population in itself in respect of culture.
Culture variation gives a diverse look to the same species Homo sapiens. Biologically
defined Homo sapiens are an interbreeding population; but culturally man creates
different rules for marriage. Same species does not contain interbreeding population.
Cultural prohibition defines matting pattern. Likewise, biologically all the members of
the same species i.e. Homo sapiens have equal potentialities in its individuals. But
human being differentiates themselves on the basis of race. We can mention many
such examples that convince us to define anthropology as a unique science to study
man comprising all the differences and similarities within it. Anthropologists find out
the differences and at the same time it tries to find out the general characteristics
within the same species Homo Sapiens. Anthropology professes systematically to
6
research all the manifestations of human being and human activity in a unified way.
Man live in society following a certain culture pattern. In different societies the culture Social Anthropology:
Nature and Scope
norms differ. Generally speaking social anthropology deals with the study of this
aspect of man. But, as a discipline, social anthropology has different meaning in
different countries. Reflecting diversity and variation in human thought we find different
thought surrounding social anthropology.
The term social anthropology is generally used in Great Britain and other commonwealth
countries. With support from Prof. Claude Levi-Strauss, the term is also extensively
used in France, Netherland and the Scandinavian countries. Social anthropology
refers to different meaning in the countries like USA, England and the other countries
of European continent. So, we often see a diverse nature referred by the term social
anthropology in different countries. In Great Britain Anthropology refers to physical
anthropology which studies biological aspect of man. In England social anthropology
is understood as ethnology or sociology as in other countries of the European continent.
In short, in Europe itself social anthropology has two different meanings. On the
other hand in USA, social anthropology is considered as a larger and comprehensive
discipline. It covers up the study of man from different aspects. It not only considers
man as a sociological being but also puts emphasis on the cultural aspect.
In nineteenth century, ‘ethnology’ was the term used instead of social or cultural
anthropology. The Greek term ethos means race and logia means study. Thus,
ethnology was referred to be the study of diverse behaviour of ethnic groups. Cultural
distinction covered a major part of such study. Along with this, it also studied culture
change. Sometimes, social anthropology is defined in the context of ethnology.
Ethnologists, who concentrate on social relations, such as family, and kinship, age
groups, political organisation, law and economic activities (what is called social
structure) is called social anthropology. Supporting the position of A.R. Radcliffe-
Brown the English anthropologists denied the usefulness of historical studies in
anthropology and concentrated on social structure. In this context, social anthropology
is non historical in their view while ethnology is historical. Distinctly, social anthropology
represents the thought following the British school which can rightly be defined as the
study of social structure and social organisation.

1.2.2 Cultural Anthropology

The split in socio-cultural Anthropology is not readily accepted all over the world.
We have already stated how Social anthropology has different terms of reference in
different countries. Likewise the term socio-cultural Anthropology has also different
domain of practice in different countries. Cultural anthropology is a term of reference
popular in America. In America, the stress on cultural anthropology is laid with the
objective that man is more than merely organic man, but a cultural being also. Culture
of a particular society helps us to understand civilisation irrespective of time and
space. The American cultural anthropology also includes Archaeology. Stress on
culture study created a specialty to American school of thought which resulted into
the creation of ethnology – the science of people.
Anthropology as knowledge about ‘cultivated human’ that is, knowledge about those
aspects of humanity which are not natural, but which are related to that which is
acquired. According to Herskovits, Cultural Anthropology is to study the ways man
has devised to cope up with his natural settling and has social milieu and how bodies
of customs are learned, retained and handed down from one generation to the next.
The term ‘culture’ itself is a complex one. Culture has been defined by different
anthropologists differently. The most accepted and briefed definition of culture can
7
Introduction to Social be stated as ‘culture is anything acquired by members of society’. Whatever material
Anthropology
and non-material things man has acquired as a member of society that constitutes the
subject matter of cultural anthropology. The works of man include everything created
by man-traditions, folkways, social institutions and other social networks. Thus, it
can be said that American Anthropologists study things not only with cultural orientation
but also socially oriented under the domain of cultural anthropology. It can be stated
that cultural anthropology is a broader term covering all social aspects of man but
emphasises on cultural aspects. For cultural anthropologists, social system is a part
of society and culture cannot emerge without a social system. David Bidney says in
this context that social and cultural anthropology are then understood as few branches
of a common discipline of anthropology, covered with the study of man and his
culture in society.
Reflection

Anthropology is a large and diversified subject, which is practiced somewhat differently

in different countries, although it retains its distinctive character everywhere. Since the
Second World War, the core areas have been Great Britain, the US, France and Australia.
British anthropology, which is generally spoken of as social anthropology and which also
enjoys a strong position in Scandinavia and India, emphasises the study of social process
and is thus close to social anthropology. The British social anthropologist Edmund Leach
(1982) once characterised this subject as a comparative micro-sociology. In the US, one
speaks of cultural anthropology wherein, the general sociological underpinning
characteristics are dominant. On the other hand, linguistics and pre history have formed
American anthropology in different ways. Several important specialisations such as cultural,
ecology, linguistics anthropology and various approaches in psychological and interpretive
or hermeneutic anthropology have developed in the US.

1.2.3 How Social Anthropology Developed

From the very beginning of human life, people have been wondering about themselves
and their surroundings. Therefore, it is futile to talk about the beginning of the study
of man. For the genesis of systematic thinking all usually refer back to the Greek
Civilisation especially to the writings of Herodotus in fifth century B.C. Some also
call him ‘the father of Anthropology’. He did not merely record what he saw, and
what people told him about the different countries around the shores of the
Mediterranean. He asked some basic questions which at present is the subject
matter of social anthropology like ‘what made people so different?’
To trace the development of social anthropology, we will talk about the scholars
whose pioneering works gave the shape to the present day discipline ‘Social
Anthropology’. But to begin with, we will go through the works of different travelers
who actually collected the basic data which eventually build the foundation of
Ethnographic study. Many early social anthropologists followed these travel accounts
to frame their social anthropological study.
Every age of geographical discovery has seen a burst of interest in the new kind of
society that the explorers have found. The travelers and also the colonisers considered
these newly founded societies as “other culture”. The first and foremost thing they
recognised about these new society or cultures was that these were completely
different from their own society and culture. The explorers and colonisers being
accustomed to their own ways, set the standard of what people ought to be like,
were always prompted to ask why other people were so unlike themselves. The
sixteenth and eighteenth century were such periods. The French essayist Montaigne
(1553-92) was much interested in the apparently paradoxical constraints between
the customs of his own country and others. Theoretical arguments were also there
8
at that time whether people with brown skin who wear no cloths could really be Social Anthropology:
Nature and Scope
descendants of Adam.
Eighteenth century Europeans were less certain than sixteenth century ones that all
the advantages were on their side. North America and Polynesia became the point
of interest. Rousseau described the Indians as ‘noble savage’ of the golden age of
natural man and interestingly these same people were described by the Spanish
missionaries as people having no soul. Hobbes in the seventeenth century had already
thought the American Indians approached pretty closely to his imagined state of
nature where every man’s hand was against his neighbours and man’s life were
‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.’
During this period only, the reports of the manner and customs of distant lands
collected by these travelers and missionaries began to be treated not just as interesting
information about other cultures but a data for constructing historical schemes of the
development of society. Some writers started the history of the comparative ethnography
with the Jesuit missionary Lifitau, who in 1724 published a book comparing American
Indian customs with those of the ancient world as described by Latin and Greek
writers. A little later Charles de Brosses wrote on parallels between ancient Egyptian
religion and that of West Africa. In 1748 Montesquieu published his Esprit des Lois,
based on reading and not on travel, and thus became for some the first theorist of
social anthropology. He considered that differences in legal systems could be explained
by relating them to differences in other characteristics of the nations which possessed
them, population, temperament, religious beliefs, economic organisation, and customs
generally, as well as to their environment. Considering this we can entitle him to be
the first functionalist.
Adam Ferguson and Adam Smith from Scotland based their generalisation, as did
Montesquieu, on the widest reading about the institutions of different societies that
was available at that time. This perspective of evolution became popular with the
discovery of Darwin’s principle of natural selection in the evolution of biological
species. It greatly influenced the study of society and culture. Before this also the
concept of evolution was there. People like Henry de Saint Simor, August Comte,
and Herbert Spencer spoke about evolution in philosophical terms. But they didn’t
offer any empirical evidence of how evolution had taken place. But in the latter half
of the nineteenth century we find a set of scholars both in USA and UK who are
concerned with the stages of evolution.
According to some historians, the origin of social anthropology is traced to David
Hume and Immanuel Kant who were the first philosophers to define social
anthropology. As already mentioned some consider, Herodotus as the father of
Anthropology, who did raise some basic questions of social anthropology. But, it is
believed that the systematic History of social anthropology rightly begins from Henry
Maine and Lewis Henry Morgan. These two thinkers are considered as founding
father of social anthropology. They also followed the works of travelers and
missionaries.
The 19th century social anthropologists were greatly influenced by the work of
Darwin and his associates. They established that the origin of man has passed
through several stages from apes to Homo Sapiens. The Anthropologists tried to
follow the logic of Darwinism and applied it to establish the origin of social institutions.
This trend prevailed throughout the 19th century and the first quarter of the 20th
century.
9
Introduction to Social The definitions of social anthropology given by social Darwinists is a landmark in the
Anthropology
development of this discipline. The foundation of present Anthropology goes back to
Henry Maine’s Ancient law (1861) and Lewis Henry Morgan’s books, including
Ancient Society (1877). Both of them were the profounder of evolutionary theory
in Anthropology. This theory is considered to be the theoretical beginning in social
anthropology. Maine worked in India. He proposed a distinction between status and
contract societies. In status based or traditional societies, Maine argued, kinship was
usually crucial in determining one’s position in society; in a contract-based society,
it would rather be the individual achievements of persons that provided them with
their positions. On the other hand Morgan’s contribution to early Anthropology
formed the theoretical background. It resulted into the formation of evolutionary
theory. It supports the notion of social evolution stating that human society has
passed through the stages of savagery, barbarism and civilisation. Each stage has also
been characterised by a certain economy. Savagery had an economy characterised
by subsistence. During this stage man earned his livelihood through hunting and food
gathering. Agriculture and animal husbandry were the source of living at the stage of
barbarism. While those societies which reached the stage of civilisation, developed
literacy, technology, industry and the state. This theory expounded by Morgan got
support of many other scholars. Westermarck set out the theory of human marriage
while Briffault propounded the theory of family. Evolutionary theory of religion also
came out with the study of Tylor. Evolutionists like W.H.R. Rivers, Sir James Frazer,
A.C. Haddon and Charles Seligman contributed to different fields. All these early
social anthropologists defined social anthropology as a science of social evolution.
When evolutionary theory emerged in Anthropology many schools came up with an
anti-evolutionary idea. They criticised evolutionists for depending on travel accounts,
which they claimed to be unscientific. This school of thought is often referred to as
structural–functional school of thought represented by the work of British Anthropologist
Radcliffe-Brown. Another school that came up before this was the school of
diffusionists. They were also critics of evolutionary school, who were not convinced
by the concept of evolutionary progress of society and culture. According to their
view, culture not only developed, but it also degenerated. Again, they followed that
man was basically uninventive, and important inventions were made only once at a
particular place from where it was diffused, migrated, borrowed and initiated, to the
other parts of the world. There were three schools of diffusion – British school,
German school and American school of diffusion. Smith, W.J. Perry, Rivers, Franz
Boas, Clerk Wissler, Kroeber etc. were the scholars of this school.
Franz Boas and Bronislaw Malinowski are regarded as the first modern
Anthropologists, who argued the necessity of doing fieldwork. Boas, a profound
critic of classical evolutionists argued the necessity of doing field work. He emphasised
in collecting empirical data and conducted fieldwork in USA to study American
Indians in 1880. He founded Modern American Cultural Anthropology. He began to
study the influence of culture on personality and vice versa and ultimately formed a
school. The pioneers of this school are Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead, Linton,
Kardiner and Cora Du Bois. Boas contributed substantially to the field of Anthropology.
The most important contribution seems to be the doctrine of ‘cultural relativism’. It
is the concept which argues that each group should be studied according to its own
culture. In other words, culture is specific to a group. Today also, Boas’ contribution
of cultural relativism is considered to be an indispensable Anthropological tool of
social and cultural anthropology. Boas defined anthropology as a social science of
culture study. This is one of the aspects of modern Anthropology.
10
Malinowski, founder of functional school of thought is known for his work on the Social Anthropology:
Nature and Scope
Trobrianders living in the island of New Guinea. He conducted fieldwork among
these tribals between 1915 and 1918. According to Malinowski, social anthropology
is concerned with the interrelationship of various parts of tribal society. In other
words, tribal economy, politics, kinship etc. are all interrelated. According to him,
social anthropology is interested in studying functional relations among the member
of tribal society. Malinowski contributed a lot to the fieldwork tradition in anthropology.
His ethnographic account based on his fieldwork ‘Argonauts of Western Pacific’
is a landmark publication in Anthropology. The concept of participant observation
was developed by him. He emphasised the importance of studying the interrelationships
of various aspects of society, and therefore held the view that intensive field study
was absolutely necessary.
Radcliffe-Brown, contemporary of Malinowski, developed the social structure concept
to explain forms. It is another important development in social anthropology. According
to him, social structure deals with the study of status and role of a person within an
institution. In other words, it deals with network of social relation within an institutional
framework. Radcliffe-Brown, criticising classical evolutionists said that the study of
change is also essential. But, unlike classical evolutionist study, these must be based
on reliable document. He said that classical evolutionism was based on conjectural
history. It is nothing but a conjectural speculation of the life of the people. He called
it pseudo historical. So, he argued that classical evolutionism has no place in scientific
investigation.
Anthropologists study pre-literate society. Therefore, whatever knowledge, they have
of their tradition; it exists on the oral level. The oral history may mix up with myth
and other stories. Therefore, it may not be totally relied upon as an authentic source.
The early twentieth century scholars, those who are critical of evolutionary theory
thought rather than studying how society has evolved, all must study how society
lives and functions. It is a shift of paradigm. The approach which was born out of
it is popularly known as structural–functional approach. The founder of this theoretical
trend argued that instead of understanding a diachronic study of society social
anthropologists should carry out synchronic study – the study of present society.
Radcliffe-Brown called anthropology as the study of here and now. He also stressed
upon doing first hand fieldwork. Thus, social anthropologists started studying present
social structure focusing on interrelationship of social institutions and their functions.
But this trend also faced certain criticisms like – (1) it does not account for social
change. It is concerned with order. (2) Whatever it has considered change, the
change is adaptive. But every society goes through a process of change. Sometimes
change comes following a revolutionary path. So, structural functional study was
unable to cover this area and it opened the door for criticism. Therefore, by 1940s
anthropologists revived the need to study evolution. The approach of neo-evolutionism
was introduced in the field of archeology. V. Gordon Childe, Leslie White and Julian
Steward represent this school of thought. They defined social evolution with new
perspective. Various new approaches to the study of evolution called attention to the
question, how to combine particulars with general. The issue became sharpened by
the writings of Marvin Harris who emphasised upon Radcliffe-Brown’s earlier
distinction between nomothetic and ideographic approach to the study of culture.
In between, Robert Redfield introduced the study of civilisation to social anthropology.
Redfield developed the concepts of folk–urban continuum and great and little traditions
which were very useful concepts for studying a civilisation and its various dimensions
such as tribal, folk, semi-urban and urban. Thus, village, town and city studies were 11
Introduction to Social introduced. The other scholars who contributed to this field are – Morris E. Opler,
Anthropology
Milton Singer, Meckim Marriot, Mandel Baum etc.
Like any other discipline Anthropology has also been experiencing many new trends.
In the theoretical dimensions many new theories like symbolism, new ethnography
etc. have come up with new promises. This field has been continuously expanding
with many other new theories and ideas. Along with this applied aspects, social
anthropology has also been expanding. Developmental studies in social anthropology
are occupying a major area. New field methods and techniques are also coming up
enriching the research pattern. Ideas like postmodernism are creating new platform
for the social anthropologists to explore. Several Anthropological sub-fields are coming
up, stressing separate and specific cultural aspects and all using the prefix ‘Ethno’ to
indicate their alliance with culture, such as ethno-science, ethno musicology, ethno-
psychology, ethno-folklore and so forth. Thus, social anthropology has constantly
been developing as a branch of Anthropology.

1.2.4 Methods of Social Anthropology

Social anthropology may be described as a scientific study of man, culture and
society. The objective is to know the truth about the affairs of society. It seeks to
develop skills so that human beings can live a better life. For this employment of
scientific method is essential. If there is a science, there is certainly a method. Theory,
method and data go together. Social anthropology has a well developed methodology
for learning about society.
What is unique to social anthropology ‘in the realm of Social Sciences’ is its fieldwork
methodology which is the guiding force of this discipline. Method is logic. What
anthropologists do when they face a problem – they try to solve it logically. In short,
they make a logical understanding for the problem. They argue how the problem can
be approached logically so that the desired objective is fulfilled. It is this logic which
leads to attainment of the objectives of logic to put forward the research problem.
In short, method is the logic of inquiry; it is the role of accomplishing an end.
In social anthropological research fieldwork and empirical tradition have been constant
characteristics of social anthropology. It started with the travel accounts written by
the travelers who had been traveling to distant corners of the globe for about four
hundred years, since ‘the age of Columbus’. As already discussed, these travel
accounts provided the basic data for the early social anthropologists. The facts
gathered by these travelers, missionaries, and government officials were valuable to
make the other Europeans aware about the varied human life on earth. Many European
thinkers became interested about the non-European cultures and gradually ‘study of
man’ was initiated basing on the accounts of travelers, missionaries and government
officials.
The Anthropologists of nineteenth century were totally involved in exploring the
variety of human culture but they were apart from the rigorous life of actual field.
Sitting in their home they simply looked into the accounts served by other people.
The value of fieldwork was realised at the beginning of twentieth century when the
outlook of social anthropology changed. It was understood that experiencing the real
life situation was very important for the social anthropologists, to get accurate and
relevant data. So many anthropologists of this time engaged themselves with the
groups of aborigines. E.B. Tylor was the first scholar who emphasised the need of
direct data-collection in Anthropology, but Boas was the first to begin with this
practice. The earliest attempt of professional data gathering, as mentioned previously,
12
was made in America by Franz Boas. He conducted Jessup North Pacific Expedition Social Anthropology:
Nature and Scope
in 1897. The second attempt at fieldwork was made in England under joint leadership
of Haddon, Rivers and Seligman in 1898. It is known as Cambridge Expedition to
Torres Straits.
The most outstanding fieldwork tradition in Anthropology was developed by
Malinowski. He believed that the various aspects in the life of people were interrelated.
Malinowski also stressed on fieldwork as primary way of anthropological data
gathering. According to Malinowski (1922 : 6), a cultural anthropologist must “possess
real scientific aims and know the values and criteria of modern ethnography … he
has to apply a number of special methods of collecting, manipulating and fixing his
evidence”. Malinowski established participation as an important technique of fieldwork.
Next to Malinowski, we can put the name of A.R. Radcliffe–Brown who did extensive
fieldwork in Andaman Islands.
The early fieldworkers tried to understand how all the parts of a society fit together
to make a working whole. They emphasised on detailing. They tried to gather each
and every information available on the field. They developed the habit of filling their
notebooks with details of what they saw and heard, and those unprecedented
ethnographic activities resulted into ethnographic monographs. As a matter of fact,
a social anthropologist has to live and work in two worlds. Field becomes the
laboratory where one collects data and leads a very different life living with the
aborigines far away from his/her own world. Once he/she comes back from the field
one sits with the gathered data and starts analysing those to come up with a conclusion.
Subjectivity became a big issue in this ethnographic description. Since social
anthropology is an empirical discipline, it languishes for the absence of a deep
respect for facts and for loose attention to their observation and description. A self-
indulgent attitude may produce a disastrous effect. But, beyond all these, fieldwork
became an essential part of social anthropology and the tradition developed with
certain new methods and techniques making itself relevant to the present day context.
Qualitative research that involves huge descriptive accounts has become very useful
and important in today’s world. Not only Anthropology but also other disciplines like
Sociology and Management studies have also indulged into this type of research. But
fieldwork remains unique to social anthropology.
Fieldwork is a part of training in social-cultural anthropology. Every anthropologist
should undergo this training in course of his/her preliminary study. It enables a student
to perceive an alien culture with objectivity. Learning about two different societies
(including his own) gives a student a comparative view i.e. he acquires competency
to estimate the similarity or dissimilarity between any two societies or cultures.
Comparative method holds a very important place in fieldwork tradition in
Anthropology. During nineteenth century extensive comparisons were attempted by
social anthropologists. This pertains to the whole society and also to particular
institutions and practices such as kinship system, marriage practices, magical practices,
and religious beliefs and so on.
There is a clear mark of history as a method in Anthropological monograph. There
are two classical streams in social anthropology to the employment of history as a
method of study. One use of history is non-chronological. The evolutionary
Anthropologists used this kind of history as a method to study society. The second
stream is Marxian.
Another important method in Anthropology is the functional method. Functionalism,
13
Introduction to Social as a method of study in social anthropology, came up as a revolt against historical
Anthropology
method. Interestingly, the evolutionary historicism came into disrepute owing to the
emergence of empiricism. Empiricism is experience. When social anthropologists
took to holistic studies through empiricism, functionalism came to be known as a new
idiom of methodology. Functionalism advocated the holistic study of society through
fieldwork.
New methods have been emerging in social anthropology with new demands in
response to the new challenges. Techniques related to these methods are also changing.
New techniques have also been designed to suit the methodological demands. The
traditional techniques are – observation, schedules, questionnaire, interview, case
study, survey, genealogy etc. With the new methods like ethnography, new techniques
have been coming out. Emergence of new branches like developmental anthropology,
visual anthropology etc. is also demanding new methodological framework. Like any
other discipline Anthropology is also experiencing new dimensions with the passage
of time. Methodological dimension is also not exclusive of such changes.

1.3 NATURE AND SCOPE OF SOCIAL

ANTHROPOLOGY
Generally speaking, social anthropology aims to study human society as a whole. It
is a holistic study necessarily and covers all parts related to human society. Culture
comes naturally under this, as it is an integral part of human society. So, the basic
aim of social anthropology is to study human being as a social animal. Thus, to fulfill
its aim it explores, in a broad area, covering almost every aspects of human social
life.
The aim of modern social anthropology is just not to study human society but also
to understand the complex issues of modern human life. As primitive people have
been the focus of anthropological study, the problems faced by these people in the
process of development in modern days become very important for the anthropologists
to study. Anthropologists not only deal with the study of these problems but also try
to find out a solution for this. Developmental anthropology and Action anthropology
etc. are the specialised fields within social anthropology which deal with such problems.
Therefore, we can say that the scope and aim of social anthropology go together;
one influences the other. As much as the scope increases a new aim comes out of
it.

1.3.1 Scope of Social Anthropology

According to Evans–Pritchard (1966), social anthropology includes the study of all
human cultures and society. In basic, it tries to find out the structure of human society.
Social anthropology considers every human society as an organised whole. Customs,
beliefs whole pattern of working, living, marrying, worshipping, political organisation
– all these differ from society to society. As the structure and the idea working behind
it are different, societies also vary a lot. Social anthropology first tries to find out
these differences and then tries to establish the similarities as well. As we can see
different cultures and societies, we also see similarity among these different cultures
and societies. So, anthropologists study these differences as well as the similarities.
Basically, the study revolves around the social structure. We can take up the example
of studying religion. People in different parts of the world practice different religions.
Every religion has different rituals to perform and people perform these rituals according
to their own religious roles. The common thing among these different religions is the
14
belief in super-natural. So, both the differences and similarities become the study Social Anthropology:
Nature and Scope
matter of social anthropology.
Evans-Pritchard, by comparing social anthropology with Sociology, states that Social
anthropology has primitive society as its subject matter. In other words, it is concerned
with the study of the primitives, indigenous people, hills and forest people, scheduled
tribes and other such groups of people. Fieldwork is another integral part of social
anthropology. Data in social anthropology are collected from the field. Thus, social
anthropology can be defined in respect of two broad field of study – (1) Primitive
Society (2) Fieldwork.
John Beattie (1964) advocated that social anthropologists should study other cultures.
This makes Anthropology a comparative discipline of the study of social institutions.
Thomas Hylland Eriksen (1995) supports the study of small places in social
anthropology. Eriksen says that social anthropology does not remain restricted to
primitive people; it studies any social system and the qualification of such a social
system is that it is of a small scale, non-industrial kind of society. According to
Eriksen, social anthropology studies:
1) Small scale society
2) Non-industrial society
3) Small and larger issues of the society.
Different theoretical frameworks came out as social anthropology started exploring
its matter of study– the primitive society. Morgan postulated Evolutionary theory and
propounded the study of evolution in human society. According to him human society
has come across three basic stages – savagery, barbarism and civilisation. With such
evolutionary approach social anthropologists started examining human society in the
light of evolution. The theoretical framework of structural – functionalism became a
popular approach in Britain. The British anthropologists using the term Social
anthropology have emphasised on the concept of society, which is aggregate of
individuals who live in face to face association and share same common sentiments.
Different social interrelationships and interactions are their object of study.
Functionalism propounded the functional study of social institutions. On the other
hand, American anthropologists preferring the term Cultural anthropology have
concentrated on the concept of culture which is the sum total of human behaviour,
verbal or non-verbal, and their products- material or non-material. Cultural
anthropologists try to analyse each and every intervention and interrelationship by
judging the value behind it.
The term civilisation was known to Anthropologists since the postulation of evolutionary
theory, but it was the pioneering work of Robert Redfield, who brought a movement
in the history of development of social anthropology by introducing the study of
civilisation. He made study of folk villages and urban centers and attempted to
understand the patterns and processes of interception between them. Thus, he
developed the concept of folk society, urban society and folk–urban continuum.
Since then the study of village as a unit of rural civilisation and town as a center for
urban civilisation came into existence. Thus, Anthropology is not the study of primitive
people only. The subject matter of social anthropology covers a vast area. It studies
tribal society as well as urban society. It studies change as well. No culture and
society regardless of circumstances, is beyond change. Isolated / primitive societies
also change over time. Sometimes with due pressure of circumstances also society
15
Introduction to Social does not change. It follows strictly a traditional path, constantly trying to keep alive
Anthropology
the tradition. Social anthropology studies why or why not society/ culture changes.
But, change is must, whether it is a remote and isolated village or industrialised city,
everywhere people experience a variety of changes in their pattern of living, which
is manifested with the passage of time.
The life of man has several dimensions and the attempts to study each one in detail
has resulted in the origin and growth of several sub-branches from the elementary
branch of Social anthropology such as Economic anthropology, Political anthropology,
Psychological anthropology, Anthropology of Religion and so on and so forth. Many
new sub-branches are also coming up like – Communication and Visual anthropology,
with the new demands of society. Social anthropology has to accommodate all the
new changes in human society to maintain the relevance of its study. Thus, new areas
would expand its field.

1.3.2 Future Perspective

Anthropology has been playing a very important role in each and every sphere of
human society. During colonial times, it was used as an administrative tool. Social
anthropology came out of that colonial impression and now had created a new
disciplinary path. As an academic discipline it has a firm theoretical base and unique
practical dimension. In the near future also it is truly capable of accommodating
disciplinary changes with new theoretical frameworks. Anthropology covers not only
contemporary patterns of human life but also carefully records the changes in human
society and life. It covers historic and prehistoric account of human life as well. So,
it becomes very relevant for each and every stage of human civilisation.
Claude Levi-Strauss envisages the future of social anthropology as a study complete
by itself in terms of communications between persons and groups. The study of
communication, of words and symbols conveying meanings between persons in a
society would constitute the study of linguistics, knowledge, art etc. The study of
communication of spouses (man in matrilocal society and woman in patrilocal society)
between various groups would constitute the study of marriage, kin groups and
kinship usages. And communication of goods and services between persons and as
also groups would constitute the scope of study of economic organisation and material
culture. Thus, studies of human society may be studied not in terms of culture but
in terms of structures which embody culture. Many such innovative ideas are coming
up in the field of social anthropology and its scope is increasing in terms of both
theory and practice.

1.3.3 Social Anthropology in India

In the scenario of World Anthropology, Indian anthropology appears as very young.
Andre Beteille (1996) used the term ‘Indian Anthropology’ to mean the study of
society and culture in India by anthropologists, irrespective of their nationality. Indian
society and culture are being studied by various Anthropologists from inside and
outside of the country. However, Anthropology owes its origin to the latter half of
the nineteenth century with the ethnographic compilation of traditions and beliefs of
different tribes and castes in various provinces of India. It was only during the British
colonial rule that Anthropological data was gathered. With no academic interest
government officials and missionaries first collected some anthropological data in the
eighteenth century. But, the motive behind this was not to study the Indian societies
and cultures but to help the British administration for smooth governance. Missionaries
16 had a religious motive. However, both the administrators and missionaries were
baffled when they came across various types of people having entirely different Social Anthropology:
Nature and Scope
cultures. They tried to communicate their strange experience through writing, by
describing the people and their facts. At the end of nineteenth century, the administrators
and missionaries in India wrote a lot about the Indian people and their life. Trained
British officials namely Risley, Dalton, Thurston, O’Malley, Russell, Crook, Mills etc.
and many others who were posted in India, wrote compendia on tribes and castes
of India. During this time some British anthropologists like Rivers, Seligman, Radcliffe–
Brown, Hutton came to India and conducted Anthropological fieldwork. Throughout
the whole century after this, Anthropologists in India proceeded successfully. Indian
anthropologists borrowed the ideas, frameworks and procedures of work from western
anthropologists and practiced these studying their own culture and society instead of
other cultures.
Different scholars like S.C. Roy, D.N. Majumdar, G.S. Ghurye, S.C. Dube, N.K.
Bose, L.P. Vidyarthi and S. Sinha had tried to find out the genesis and development
of Social Anthropology in India. S.C. Roy’s paper Anthropological Researches in
India (1921) reflects upon the works on tribes and castes published before 1921.
The anthropological accounts consisted of the writings of British administrators and
missionaries as before 1921 anthropological work in India was mainly done by these
people. After this, D.N. Majumdar tried to trace the development of Anthropology
in India. This attempt was made after twenty five years of S.C. Roy’s work. D.N.
Majumdar tried to relate the developing discipline of Anthropology in India with the
theory of culture that originated in Britain and America. American influence was first
recognised besides the works of British administrators and missionaries.
G.S. Ghurye, in his article The teaching of Sociology, Social Psychology and
Social Anthropology (1956), wrote, ‘Social Anthropology in India has not kept
pace with the developments in England, in Europe or in America. Although Social
Anthropologists in India are, to some extent, familiar with the work of important
British Anthropologists or some continental scholars, their knowledge of American
Social Anthropology is not inadequate’. S.C. Dube in (1952) discussed the issue in
the light of research oriented issues. He stated that Indian Anthropology needed
more attention from the social workers, administrators or political leaders, so that the
research oriented issues can be dealt with properly. N.K. Bose in 1963 discussed
the progress of Anthropology in India under headings - Prehistoric Anthropology,
Physical Anthropology and Cultural Anthropology. Recent trends like village studies,
caste studies, study of leaderships and power structure, kinship and social organisation
of tribal village and Applied Anthropology came to the Indian scenario in 1970s and
L.P. Vidyarthi discussed these issues, tracing the growth of Anthropology in India. He
felt the need of an integrated effect from various disciplines for a proper understanding
of man and society. His main stress was laid on ‘Indianess’. According to him ideas
of Indian thinkers as reflected in ancient scriptures were full of social facts and so
those could be explored in the understanding of cultural process and civilisation
history of India. Surajit Sinha (1968) supporting the view of L. P. Vidyarthi stated
that the Indian Anthropologists readily responded to the latest developments of the
west but they had laid logical priority to the Indian situation.
In India, Anthropology started with the work of missionaries, traders and administrators
where the prime focus was the different cultural backgrounds of Indian people. The
rich tribal culture attracted the study of social anthropology. Tribal culture became a
dominant field for Social anthropological research. This continued along with the
changing trend and accommodated the study of village system, and Indian civilisation.
Other social institutions like – religion, kinship, marriage etc. also came to the field
17
Introduction to Social of research. The variety of customs and diversity of Indian culture created a unique
Anthropology
area of research among the social anthropologists of India. Different ideas like dominant
caste, sacred complex, tribe-caste continuum, little and great tradition, sankritisation
etc. came up, giving a new direction to Indian Anthropology. Thus, a body of strong
Indian anthropological thought was created. Development of Indian anthropology is
continuing with additions of new ideas. Emerging areas like ecology, developmental
study etc., are also coming up. Anthropologists in India take keen interest in tribal
studies. The new challenges in the era of globalisation are also coming up and Indian
social anthropologists are focusing on that.

1.3.4 Present Scenario

After independence India faced new challenges of social reform, as a new government
took charge. The whole notion of Indian culture had to be rebuilt, as diverse culture
areas had come under one roof. Various tribal societies and cultures were unable to
cope up with this changing situation. Apart from administrative policies, Indian social
anthropologists took initiatives to overcome such crisis and showed interest in the
study of diverse cultures in India under the common roof of Indian civilisation.
Government policies were influenced with these social anthropological works as
these works dealt with the sensitive issues like tribal development. This trend continues
in the field of Indian anthropology. Today, in the era of globalisation, social
anthropologists in India deal with the new challenges in front of the tribal communities.
Identity and gender issues are popular among them, along with development studies.
Study of folk culture occupies a major area. With development studies, issues like
tribal displacement and rehabilitation have also been a prime focus for social
anthropologists. Tribal art, study of indigenous knowledge system etc. are gaining
popularity with the new global issues like – global warming.

1.4 SUMMARY
In this unit the focus was on how social anthropology has developed as a discipline
covering the different aspects of human life. Social anthropology thus, developed
through various time periods with various goals and perspectives and it has covered
almost all the aspects of human life.
You learnt about different theoretical frameworks of social anthropology. Along with
these theoretical frameworks, how social anthropology deals with the various issues
of human life was also discussed. Different approaches have also been discussed
considering the geographical variations.
Present and future scenario of social anthropology have also been discussed. You
would be able to conceptualise about the Indian and world scenario of social
anthropology after going through this unit.
References
Bidney, D. 1953. Theoretical Anthropology. Columbia: Columbia University Press.
Beattie, J. 1964. Other Cultures: Aims, Methods and Achievements in Social
Anthropology. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
Beteille, Andre. 1996a. Caste, Class and Power: Changing Patterns of
Stratification in a Tanjore Village. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2nd ed.
Beteille, Andre. 1996b. ‘Inequality’, in Alan Barnard and Jonathan Spencer (eds),
18 Encyclopaedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology. London: Routledge.
Bose, N.K. 1963. ‘Fifty Years of Science in India: Progress of Anthropology and Social Anthropology:
Nature and Scope
Archaeology’. Indian Science Congress Association.
Dube, S.C. 1952. ‘The Urgent Task of Anthropology in India’, in the proceedings
of the 1Vth International Congress of Anthropology and Ethnological Sciences,
held at Vienna, 1952, published in 1956, pp. 273-75.
Dube, S.C. 1962 ‘Anthropology in India’, in Indian Anthropology: Essays in
Memory of D.N. Majumdar. ed. T.N. Madan and Gopala Sarana. Bombay: Asia
Publishing House.
Eriksen, Thomas Hylland. 1995. Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to
Social and Cultural Anthropology. 2nd edition 2001, London: Pluto Press.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1966. Social Anthropology and Other Essays. New York:
Free Press.
Ghurye, G.S. 1956. ‘The Teachings of Sociology, Social Psychology and Social
Anthropology’. The Teachings of Social Sciences in India. UNESCO Publication.
1956 pp 161-73.
Haddon, A. C. 1934. History of Anthropology. London: Watts and Co. chapter1.
Majumdar, D.N. and T.N. Madan. 1957. An Introduction to Social Anthropology.
Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Sixth impression
1964. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Mair, Lucy. 1972. An Introduction to Social Anthropology. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Roy, S.C. 1923. ‘Anthropological Researches in India’. Man in India. Vol-1 1921.
Pp 11-56.
Sinha, Surajit. 1968. ‘Is There an Indian Tradition in Social Cultural Anthropology:
Retrospect and Prospect’. Presented in a conference. The Nature and Function of
Anthropological Traditions. New York: Wenner Gren Foundation for Anthropological
Research.
Vidyarthi, L.P. 1978. Rise of Anthropology in India. Delhi: Concept Publishing
Company.
Suggested Reading
Eriksen, Thomas Hylland. 1995. Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to
Social and Cultural Anthropology. 2nd edition 2001, London: Pluto Press.
Mair, Lucy. 1972. An Introduction to Social Anthropology. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Vidyarthi, L.P. 1978. Rise of Anthropology in India. Delhi: Concept Publishing
Company.
Sample Questions
1) Describe the history and development of social anthropology.
2) How social anthropology has developed in India?
3) Briefly describe the aim and scope of social anthropology.
4) Describe history as a method in social anthropology. 19
 UNIT 2 PHILOSOPHICAL AND
HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS OF
SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Contents
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The Beginnings of the Possibility of a Scientific Study of Society
2.2.1 Montesquieu and Social Diversity
2.2.2 Comte and a Positivist View of Society

2.3 The Study of Human Evolution

2.3.1 The Early Evolutionists
2.3.2 Classical Evolutionism

2.4 The Primitive as a Concept

2.5 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions
Learning Objectives

After reading this unit, the students would be able to comprehend the:
 emergence of the historical and philosophical development of the subject of
social anthropology;
 early and classical evolutionists views on the study of human evolution; and
 primitive as a concept.

2.1 INTRODUCTION
In this unit we shall introduce the students to the philosophical roots of the subject
of anthropology, especially social anthropology, and show how every form of
knowledge can be contextualised into a historical condition. Human thinking does not
grow in a vacuum but is triggered by the intellectual climate, the cultural heritage and
historical circumstances that make possible a way of thinking as well as its condition’s
acceptable. It is seen that some ideas may come that are premature for their times
and therefore face rejection or even persecution, like the classic case of Galileo.

2.2 THE BEGINNINGS OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A

SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF SOCIETY
Society, for a long period of time, was not considered to be an object of study,
simply because it was taken for granted that society and human beings in it were
God’s or a Divine creation and the only explanations of the origin of the world and
the people and other existing animate and inanimate things was to be found in religion
and mythology. It was indeed a great transformation in intellectual thinking when
some 16th and 17th century European scholars began to think about society as a
20 human and not a divine creation. By this century in the West, the intellectual climate
was moving towards a break away from the Church and its controlling ritualism Philosophical and
Historical Foundations of
towards a greater faith in the human capacity for rational thinking. The human mind Social Anthropology
was seen as a superior endowment that privileged human beings above all others and
could dominate over nature and also over women who in this frame of reference
were equated with nature. Society was seen as a creation not of nature or of God
but of humans as creatures of reason and society was now opposed to a state of
nature and the foundation was laid for a nature, culture opposition that had far
reaching ramifications for later theory.
It was with the philosophical thinking of scholars such as David Hume, John Locke,
Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau that the scholarly thinking began to
debate upon the human origins of the kind of society in which the then Europeans
lived. Society became a self imposed discipline to which human beings subjected
themselves in order to escape a state of anarchy. Some like Rousseau romanticised
on a blissful state of nature from which humans had entered into a state of slavery
to customs, while others like Hobbes viewed a state of nature as savage and the
state of society as harmonious and desirable. It was at this point that individuals were
seen as opposed to society or the collectivity and a tension between the two became
a point of concern of western views about society.
By the seventeenth century onwards the Europeans had been thrown into close
contact with the non-European world through colonisation, conquest and trade, at
the same time there were genuine thinking about a unified vision of humanity that
encompassed even those most remote from the western civilisation. Scholars were
now faced not only with the task of explaining human social origins but also social
diversity.

2.2.1 Montesquieu and Social Diversity

The French philosopher Montesquieu has often been regarded as the first to have
a systematic theory about society as described in his work The Spirit of the Laws.
In true spirit of having a science of society, he worked on the basic premise that the
seemingly endless diversity is reducible to coherence by looking for some underlying
principle of causation. In other words, if we can find out what causes diversity, we
have a classification and explanation of varieties of social formations. A second
premise was again based upon that of finding a scientific explanation, namely of
creating a typology of societies. Thus two fundamental processes of a scientific
explanation, namely, to establish causal relationships and to arrange diversity into a
typology in order to gain insight, were applied by Montesquieu to the study of
society. Firstly he divided societies into three types of governments; republic, monarchy
and despotism. Secondly he tried to establish some causative factors for the
development of each of these types. A republic was where the government was
vested in either a part of a society (aristocracy) or in all the people (democracy);
while in both monarchy and despotism it was vested in an individual the difference
being that the monarchy is run on principles and law (Montesquieu had the British
monarchy as an example in front of him) and despotism follows no such rules. To
Montesquieu, each form of government was not just a political principle but was a
particular kind of society which was also founded upon a particular type of basic
sentiment. We can compare the concept of sentiment with what much later Ruth
Benedict had called ethos, in describing different types of cultures (Benedict, 1934).
Thus the predominant kind of sentiment in case of a republic was virtue in the sense
of what today we would call ethics, adherence to laws and a sense of collective
order, in case of monarchy, it was honour again this was in reference to rank and
21
Introduction to Social status and was primarily of the person in power, and that of despotism was that of
Anthropology
primal emotion of fear, of the people for the person in power. Thus the sentiments
are not seen as evenly distributed but refer to the main guiding principle of that
particular type of society.
The real sociological dimension of Montesquieu’s analysis lies in his attempts to
impute causes to the types of societies which unlike Comte, he did not put in any
evolutionary framework. To him the causative factors were both geographical, like
climate and nature of the soil and social in terms of trade, its historical transformations
and currency. While his analysis contains some traces of economic determinism in his
emphasis on the economic factors over others, he did not impute any progressive
scale to the societies. In his opinion, despotism, the most evil of the three could well
be the fate of most societies as monarchies had a tendency to transform into despotism,
especially when the size became too large. At the same time he referred to the British
parliament as a combination of democracy and aristocracy represented by the House
of Commons and the House of Lords. The moderate nature of government, that is
one that was not oppressive like despotism was possible through a balance of
power and like most people of his time he had no concept of equality, only a benign
balance of power or rule by principles by those in power. To some extent, however,
he does give primacy to sentiments over physical conditions and makes some judgment
about the moral and ethical qualities of different principles of government. Thus we
find in Montessquieu a sociological analysis that makes use of causative factors
underlying various types of societies and an attempt to understand social formation,
both in terms of creating a typology of societies independent of any particular spatial
or temporal distribution.
Social philosophers were also beginning to think in terms of social transformation as
the French Revolution brought about the first major social transformation of the mid
eighteenth century, setting the stage for rethinking on society, not as static but as an
entity that was likely to have changed over time. It was in this historical setting that
August Comte gave his theory of social evolution.

2.2.2 Comte and a Positivist View of Society

The French Revolution and the beginnings of industrialisation in Europe gave a
different perspective to the social philosophy of Auguste Comte who concentrated
upon transformation of society from one type to another rather than upon the co-
existence of a diversity of social types, like Montesquieu. As Comte saw it, the
society based on military power and religion was being replaced by one based on
science and industry. Thus instead of looking at a horisontal diversity, he looked upon
a vertical transformation. Hence, to him science or rational study of society would
be one in which one would be able to explain how society is transforming. Thus to
an intellectual analysis of society, he gave the nomenclature, sociology and to the
method of analysis, the term positivism.
Comte distinguished between an analytic and a synthetic analysis; an analytic method
can be applied only in material sciences where any two things can be linked without
consideration to context, but in social analysis context is essential or in other words,
he applied the organic analogy where no part has existence outside of the whole.
Therefore, social phenomenon can only be understood in context of the associated
aspects including history. Thus while material phenomenon can be understood as
elements, society only exists as an entity. This was the beginning of an organic
analogy and the holistic method later taken up by the structural functionalists. But
22
Comte’s more immediate application was that of the postulation of a stage by stage Philosophical and
Historical Foundations of
theory of progress that was the basis of classical evolutionary theories. Social Anthropology

To Comte all of human society is only one entity, and differences are only at various
levels of progress exhibited by them. The level at which European society was
existing (or rather making a transition) was preceded by earlier stages. Comte’s stage
by stage theory of progress was of the Theological, Metaphysical and the Age of
Reason. The positivist method of observation, experimentation and analysis that
signified the western scientific approach was possible only in the last stage of human
progress. To Comte nothing was achievable by human agency and that historical
events took their own course, thus a revolution was not a human achievement but
part of an inevitable course of events, subject to natural laws. In this way sociology
for him was the laws of historical development.
When humans had imperfect understanding of their environment, they worshipped
anthropomorphic beings, alter the objects of worship became more abstract or
metaphysical like in higher religions, but finally humans attained a reasoned
understanding of their environment in the form of science and society was moving
towards industrialisation and emphasis upon economy and trade rather than war.
However the most industrialised societies of the world have always shown themselves
to be more prone to warfare and science never did replace religion as a central
concern of human beings. But to Comte we do owe a systematic study of society
to be called as sociology although in terms of the comparative method, it was
Montesquieu, who led the way.
To mention Comte one must not forget to mention his mentor and teacher Saint-
Simon, who according to Durkheim was the real father of positivism. Saint-Simon
believed that society or institutions were only epiphenomenon of ideas and that
behind every coherent society there was a body of coherent ideas. As an idealist he
supported the French Revolution and also fought in the American war of independence.
To him the French revolution was the result of a break down in the coherence of
theological ideas and the monarchy; and that monarchy needed to be replaced by
industry by which he meant any kind of honest work. In his view of social
transformation, organic or stable periods were marked by a breakdown of existing
social relationships and the forging of new ones.
However not all thinkers were of the opinion that western societies were superior in
all respects; Hume for example was convinced that polytheism gave rise to a sense
of greater tolerance and gave more freedom to human thought than monotheism that
was too restrictive, Rousseau also believed the civilisations to be too controlling of
human freedom of both thought and action. But while Comte talked of progress, he
did not mention evolution as a concept that was first formulated by Herbert Spencer,
although later established by Charles Darwin.

2.3 THE STUDY OF HUMAN EVOLUTION

The concept of evolution was formally established by Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)
the author of the book Progress: Its’ Laws and Causes published in 1857. Spencer
believed that evolution was a feature of all phenomena; organic, inorganic or super
organic. He, like other evolutionists to follow, believed that evolution goes through
uniform stages always towards progress that he defined in terms of greater
differentiation as well as integration, in other words greater complexity. Spencer
believed that those of superior ability have greater advantage in survival, an idea
expressed in the cliché “survival of the fittest”, variously misused over the period 23
Introduction to Social following him. He foreshadowed the concept of structure and function looking upon
Anthropology
societies as some kind of self regulating systems, where human agency had limited
role to play while the constituent parts were interdependent. In this sense of viewing
society as having its own inner logic, he was against too much of external interference
in regulating social affairs. He was thus against any kind of state welfare programs,
looking upon the poor and marginal as weeds that would eliminate themselves.
Spencer believed that as society evolved human beings would learn to live together
by consensus rather than by coercion, in other words a civic society based on mutual
consideration would evolve. In this sense also he contributed to the western bias of
seeing so called primitive societies as based upon a mechanical solidarity and advanced
forms of society as based upon organic solidarity. War and conquest were also seen
by him to be a part of progress or to establish the domination of the superior to bring
about more complex forms.
The term evolution was first used in seventeenth century Europe to designate a
process of unfolding in a sense that the outcome is already contained within the entity,
in other words there is a sense of inevitability. Comte also used it to designate
progress and inevitability of transformation. But a science of society based on
evolutionary principles can definitely be attributed to Spencer alone.
Darwin’s theory of evolution was more correctly to be understood as descent with
modification, an empirical work based on factual data and lacking sweeping
generalisation of Spencer.
A major contributor to the idea of evolution was Herder who further refined the
concept of progress into development, and gave a definite shape to each level of
development as a stage. Evolutionism can be understood as a nomothetic or generalised
mode of explanation that can also be called a grand or meta theory. It makes use
of the comparative method borrowed from biology and philology. Apart from Spencer,
some of the early social evolutionists whose works influenced anthropological theory
immensely were McLennan (1827-81), Bachofen (1815-87) and Maine (1822-88)

2.3.1 The Early Evolutionists

None of these authors were anthropologists as they predate the establishment of
anthropology as a separate discipline. All three were lawyers whose subject matter
of dealing with human society gave them an incentive to study the development of
society and to make generalisations basing themselves on earlier scholarly inputs.
J.J. Bachofen was greatly influenced by the works of Carl von Savigny interested
in symbolism of grave paintings where he identified the recurrent themes such as the
black and white eggs that he interprets as feminine and interprets the feminine as the
passive recipient of discourse between men, who are shown as standing and talking
presumably about the egg. However, Bachofen’s major contribution lies in advocating
for mother right as a predecessor of father right, or patriarchy. In other words he
associates the rule of women as more primitive state than the rule of men, which
appears to him as definitely more like civilisation. According to Bachofen social
relationships arise in response to the need or establishment of social order contained
in the basic needs of child rearing, sexual access and social authority; thus the first
stage is anarchy or no order, then comes one based on rule by women that is finally
replaced by the rule by men. He took the example of three fictitious societies to
illustrate the prevalence of mother right in his work Das Muttterrecht, 1861, as he
neither had access to any first hand data nor were there any ethnographic examples
24 of matriarchal societies.
His view of the early stages of human society was that they were close to nature and Philosophical and
Historical Foundations of
materialistic. In some ways his views reflect the general conceptualisation of the Social Anthropology
primitive societies as based on instinct rather than reason, as lacking higher spirituality
and crude in their mental makeup; in this sense the transition from mother right to
patriarchy is also synonymous with ethical and moral upliftment.
The reasons for transformation of societies reflect both a Hegelian dialectics and
Montequieu’s contextualisation, thus each system produces contradictions leading to
reactions. The fundamental change is in the way people think about good and bad
or the right and the wrong; once these change all aspects of society change. He
believed in the power of ideas to change society. To a very large extent he was
Eurocentric in that in his opinion the conquest of the East by the West was a major
step towards higher civilisation and embodied the victory of non-material over material,
reason over feeling and maleness over femaleness. Thus he follows the western
philosophy of equating the feminine with passivity, instinct, nature and the base
qualities of life while masculinity is equated with, reason, culture and the higher
qualities of life. He gave his idea about masculine and feminine in the broad universal
categorisation of everything in the universe in his matriarchal mosaic and patriarchal
mosaic. To him these were two different cultural types albeit hierarchical.
Henry Maine too was a lawyer whose major work Ancient Law was published in
1861. He derived his intellectual inspiration from Montesquieu, Jeremy Bentham
and John Austin. He linked the laws of people with their social heritage and rejected
the idea of laws of society being homologous to laws of nature or in other words
the possibility of having universal laws. According to Maine there are three fundamental
aspects of any law, its origin in a command, an obligation imposed by the command
and a sanction to enforce the obligation. These aspects are derived from the works
of John Austin and Jeremy Bentham. However he did not accept Jeremy Bentham’s
main thesis of utility that each individual should get from society what they contribute
to it. The Benthamite principle takes as the main fundamental unit of law, the individual
whereas most non-western systems see the individual as embedded in social
relationships. There can also be a debate as to the assessment of utility, how does
one define or find any universal standard for it. However, Maine’s work was based
on the detailed study of ancient legal systems, notably that of ancient Rome, Islamic
law and the Brahmanical laws as encoded by Manu. In this way Maine focused upon
higher civilisations and came up with the proposition that patriarchy was the first form
of the family. In this way he opposes both Bachofen and McLennan, who were for
the model of evolution of human societies from matriarchy/matriliny to patriarchy/
patriliny.
His main contribution lies in putting forward the thesis that societies evolve from
status to contract, in other words from a stage where social personhood is defined
by a person’s social relationships or ascriptive status to one where social personhood
is determined by rational legal characters.
Reflection

Maine traces the origin of family to the ‘Patrias Potestas’ of the ancient Romans, tracing
the evolutionary stages from the male headed household with wives, children including
adopted ones and slaves to the power of the king and oligarchies, then nobility and then
industrial societies where instead of kinship, contractual relationships become important.

Maine’s sequence is not speculative but based on data from historical societies.
Since he was not aware of the actual depth of human civilisation his data began from
the early stages of European society only. However he had served as an administrator 25
Introduction to Social in India and was for sometime the vice-chancellor of Calcutta University. It was
Anthropology
because of his intervention that the Indian legal system was debated upon taking
cognisance of the ancient Hindu codes and other civil codes existing in India, rather
than replacing it totally by the British system as was done by the Permanent Settlement
of Bengal of 1793. Maine rightly believed that a legal system cannot be transplanted
onto an alien society as each legal system reflects a specific kind of society. Legislation
and jurisprudence was not the only expression of a legality as supposed by Bentham
and others but only the final stage of a historical development of law beginning from
the divine laws of ancient times to its codification as at the time of Hammurabi and
then to modern law expressed by the British legal system based on contract.
McLennan too was a lawyer who reflected upon the evolution of human marriage
and society. His book Primitive Marriage written in 1865 had great influence and
made the notion of matriarchy as the early stage of human evolution popular as
directly opposed to Maine’s theory of Patriarchy. McLennan followed a speculative
theory where he presumed a so called primitive stage where there was no regulation
sexual activity; female infanticide was rampant that led to a situation of scarcity of
women that would cause men to enter into conflict over scarce women. To mitigate
the situation of conflict each group would exchange its women with other groups in
a peaceful negotiation leading to the practice of exogamy that would also establish
the notion of clans as a group that would not marry its own women. However even
exogamy would not solve the problem of shortage of women giving rise to the
practice of polyandry. Eventually with fraternal polyandry some notion of fatherhood
would come up. In the initial stages however only the biological fact of motherhood
would serve to distinguish a set of children as siblings and descended from a common
mother, therefore the notion of matriliny would be an obvious precursor of patriliny.
The establishment of fatherhood as a part of kinship relationships could only come
much later when fraternal polyandry would give way to levirate.
While Maine had given the sequence of social evolution as family-gen-tribe-state;
McLennan gave the opposite sequence of tribe-gen-family. Thus the tribe was a
stage of undifferentiated promiscuity where only motherhood was recognised, followed
by gens that recognise siblings and finally family that recognises the father and mother
as the parents of a set of siblings. Morgan agreed with McLennan giving the additional
evidence in the form of kinship terminology. He said that kinship terminologies were
survivals of earlier forms of marriage, thus the generational or Hawaiian kinship that
has only generation and sex specific kin terms actually represents a stage of promiscuity
where one could only recognise generations and sex and no other kin relationship.
However the counter argument came from Charles Darwin himself, who criticised the
concept of primitive promiscuity as proposed by McLennan saying that sexual jealously
was an innate emotion and humans must have had ordered mating patterns from an
early stage. Moreover there was no evidence of promiscuity from any known human
society, past or present. Later Westermarck in his monumental work on the History
of Human Marriage once and for all laid to rest the debate about promiscuity as
well as matriarchy. In fact it was Westermarck’s criticism that discredited Morgan
and for a long time he was not taken seriously.
However, Morgan along with Edward B Tylor can be called as the founders of the
discipline of anthropology as the subject is known today.

2.3.2 Classical Evolutionism

Charles Darwin’s work had established the Monogenistic School that believed that
all humans have the same origin and thus there is no racial difference in human
26
development. Given that all humans have the same potential the problem in front of Philosophical and
Historical Foundations of
the nineteenth century European scholars was to explain the varieties of cultures Social Anthropology
found all over the world and the fact that the Europeans were also experiencing
transformations that made it clear that their society had also evolved from an earlier
stage where things were not the same as they were then. Anthropology as a discipline
was established to study two primary issues facing the civilised men of nineteenth
century Europe, the facts of human evolution and variation, both in terms of culture
and in terms of physical differences. Since humans were now known to have
evolved from pre-human stages paleo-anthropology and archaeology were added to
study the physiological and cultural evolution of humans to the Homo Sapiens stage.
Tylor, who held the first officially designated chair of anthropology, explained human
cultural variations as stages of development of the same culture, what Ingold (1986)
has called culture with a capital C. Thus there was but only one human Culture and
all the differences that one could see across the globe were different stages of it.
Tylor evoked the notion of psychic unity of mankind to determine the origin of an
overtly human institution like religion by using what Evans-Pritchard has called the “If
I were a horse hypothesis?” Thus Tylor put himself in the place of an early human
to speculate what that person must have thought in the face of life’s most mystical
aspects, namely death and dreams. From this speculation Tylor derived the origin of
religion as Animism or belief in a soul.
Tylor along with Lubbock described human evolution in terms of stages of evolution
with an inbuilt notion of progress. Thus, Lubbock in 1871 published the book Origin
of Civilisation where he identified the archeological stages of stone, copper and
iron age with the stages of economic progress, namely savagery (hunting and food
gathering) barbarism (nomadism and pastoralism) and then agriculture and then
industrial civilisation. Tylor likewise in his book Primitive Culture (1871), identified
three stages of progress of human Culture, savagery, barbarism and civilisation; the
transition from the first to second marked by the advent of agriculture and from
second to third by the invention of writing. Tylor used the concept of ‘survivals’ to
substantiate his theory of evolution.
Lewis Henry Morgan was influenced by both Tylor and Lubbock and borrowed
from them to write his Ancient Society (1877). He used the concept of Ethnical
Periods, dividing each into three stages thereby converting the three stage
developmental scheme into a more detailed and elaborate scheme of seven distinct
ethnical periods. According to Morgan original ideas only occur once in human
society and they are like germs that develop on their own into stages that are
predetermined. He identified four main ideas, namely idea of government, idea of
property, idea of family and idea of subsistence or technology. Each of these follows
its own line of growth and each ethnical period is marked by successive stages of
growth of these ideas.

2.4 THE PRIMITIVE AS A CONCEPT

Both sociology and social anthropology were made possible by a paradigm shift
from a divine origin of human society to a conceptualisation of society as an outcome
of human agency. The major transformations taking place in European society marked
by the French Revolution and the transition to a industrialised society based on trade
and commerce rather than war and conquest gave rise to the expectation that societies
transform and therefore there must have been a past to the European society as it
was existing in the eighteenth to nineteenth century. Much of sociological thinking was
27
Introduction to Social directed towards understanding one’s own past and in this attempt scholars like
Anthropology
Comte, Spencer, Lubbock and others formulated an evolutionary schema of social
development, always keeping the European societies at the apex. The influence of
Lamarck is seen in the postulation of a stage by stage rather than a gradual evolution.
And to Darwin we owe the consolidation of the entire human species as one supported
by the theory of monogenesis and psychic unity of mankind. The idea of monogenesis
and unity of the human race was also supported by the universal presence of family
and marriage in the form of regulated mating and a universal acceptance of incest
taboos and religion as a belief in the supernatural and mystical.
By the nineteenth century all theories of savages with no sense of kinship or morality
was replaced by a universal humanism, only that it expressed itself in many different
forms. Thus the question was no longer whether non-western societies have a religion
or forms of marriage but why are the manifestations of these universal human institutions
so varied in different parts of the world. The problem was not just to explain human
evolution but human variation as well.
Tylor, found a solution in transforming spatial difference into temporal ones. In other
words he put forward the thesis that those who were different were so because they
were at different stages of Culture that was universal for all humans. To substantiate
his arguments he made use of the comparative method borrowed from biology to put
on a fictitious time scale all or most human cultures about which knowledge was
obtained through various sources. Thus living populations were seen as the past of
the European societies. The term primitive came to denote not people who were
actually living in the past, but who were living as primitives in the contemporary
world. The implications were far reaching, especially as it informed the notion of
development as it is still understood, long after the demise of classical evolutionary
theories. Many societies of the world were and are still judged as primitive meaning
almost always that they do not fulfill the criteria of civilisation as embodied in western
societies and those which are following the western model. To a large extent the
branding of some cultures as lower stages of a common human culture gave a
justification to European colonisation as it was presented not as an exploitative
project but a reformative one.

2.5 SUMMARY
In summing up the unit we can say that the beginnings of positivism and the scientific
study of society made social anthropology possible as a scientific study of human
social and cultural variations. The nineteenth century was marked by a preoccupation
with human evolution and the social scientists followed Lamarck in positing a stage
by stage schema of evolution. The classical evolutionists were all unilineal influenced
by the monogenesis theory of Darwin and the hypothesis of a psychic unity of
mankind. The institutions of kinship, marriage and religion were of prime concern as
universal traits of a common humanism. The methodology made use of the comparative
method borrowed from biology. While sociology was a discipline that looked only
into the evolution of European society, anthropology focused on entire mankind and
in all aspects of being human, cultural, physical and species evolution.
References
Aaron, Raymond. Main Currents in Sociological Thought. Vol.1
Darnell, Rayna. 1974. Readings in the History of Anthropology. New York: Harper
and Row.
28
Honigmann. 1976. The Development of Anthropological Ideas. The Dorsey Press. Philosophical and
Historical Foundations of
Ingold, Tim. 1986. Evolution and Social Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Social Anthropology

Press.
Kuper, Adam. 1988. The Invention of Primitive Society. London: Routledge.
Leaf, Murry. J. 1979. Man, Mind and Science: A History of Anthropology. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Lowie, Robert H. 1937. The History of Ethnological Theory. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Maine, Henry. 1861. Ancient Law, Its Connection with the Early History of
Society, and its Relation to Modern Ideas. 1931 reprint London: J.M. Dent.
Martindale, Don. 1961. The Nature and Types of Sociological Theory. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
McLennan, John F. 1865. Primitive Marriage: An enquiry into the Origin of the
Form of Capture in Marriage Ceremonies. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black.
Morgan, Lewis Henry. 1877. Ancient Society. First Indian publication 1944. Calcutta:
Bharati Publication.
Suggested Reading
Ingold, Tim. 1986. Evolution and Social Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Leaf, Murry. J. 1979. Man, Mind and Science: A History of Anthropology. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Sample Questions
1) Describe the intellectual basis for the emergence of a science of society.
2) Discuss Montesquieu’s contribution towards a sociological understanding of
social variation.
3) What is positivism? Discuss Comte’s contribution towards this theory.
4) Compare the approach of Comte and Montequieu critically.
5) What was Darwin’s influence on the formation of a theory of social evolution?

29
 UNIT 3 RELATIONSHIP OF SOCIAL
ANTHROPOLOGY WITH ALLIED
DISCIPLINES
Contents
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Relationship of Social Anthropology with other Social Sciences
3.2.1 Social Anthropology and Sociology
3.2.2 Social Anthropology and Psychology
3.2.3 Social Anthropology and History
3.2.4 Social Anthropology and Economics
3.2.5 Social Anthropology and Political Science
3.2.6 Social Anthropology and Social Work
3.2.7 Social Anthropology and Cultural Studies
3.2.8 Social Anthropology and Literature
3.2.9 Social Anthropology and Public Health
3.2.10 Social Anthropology and Policy and Governance
3.2.11 Social Anthropology and Management
3.3 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions
Learning Objectives

Once you have studied this unit, you would be able to describe the:
 relation between social anthropology and the various allied sciences; and
 ability of social anthropology to interpret the biological and social factors to
depict man’s culture and behaviour in totality.

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Social anthropology is that branch of anthropology which deals with human culture
and society emphasising cultural and social phenomena including inter personal and
inter group relations especially of non literate people. All social sciences study human
behaviour, but the content, approach and the context of sociology and social
anthropology are very different from other disciplines. Apart from studying the internal
characteristics of the society, social anthropology also studies the external
characteristics of the population and rate and stage of its progress. The problems of
the society are explained using these factors. Secondly, it also studies institutions like
– political, economic, social, legal, stratification, etc. It studies the features that these
institutions share and the features that are different. Their degree of specialisation and
level of autonomy are also studied. Durkheim, one of the pioneers of social
anthropology called social anthropology as the study of social institutions. Thirdly,
social anthropology is the study of social relationships. By social relationship we
mean the interactions between individuals. Interactions between individuals are mediated
by norms and values of the society and are intended to achieve goals.
30
 Relationship of Social
3.2 RELATIONSHIP OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY Anthropology with Allied
Disciplines
WITH OTHER SOCIAL SCIENCES
The social and cultural anthropologists include a broad range of approaches derived
from the social sciences like Sociology, Psychology, History, Economics, Political
Science, Social Work, Cultural Studies, Literature, Public Health, Policy and
Governance Studies, Management, etc. Social anthropology is, thus, able to relate
all of these disciplines in its quest for an understanding of human behaviour, and
draws upon all of them to interpret the way in which all biological and social factors
enter to depict man’s culture and behaviour in totality.

3.2.1 Social Anthropology and Sociology

Social anthropology usually has been defined as the study of other cultures, employing
the technique of participant observation and collecting qualitative data. Social
anthropology is similar to but not identical with sociology, at least in terms of how
each discipline has developed since the last century. Social anthropology has focused
on pre-industrial societies, sociology on industrial societies; anthropologists conducted
their research in other cultures, employed the technique of participant observation
(collecting qualitative data), and advocated comparative (especially cross-cultural)
analysis; sociologists did research in their own societies, used questionnaires (collecting
quantitative data), and rarely attempted to test their generalisations cross-culturally.
Of course, there have been many exceptions to these patterns with the result that
sociologists have sometimes resembled anthropologists in their labours, and vice
versa (Barrett, 2009).
However, another way of examining the relationship between these two disciplines
is by finding out the important differences. The first major difference is that while
sociology is by definition concerned with the investigation and understanding of social
relations and with other data only so far as they further this understanding, social
anthropologists although they share the concern with sociologists, are interested also
in other matters, such as people’s beliefs and values, even where these cannot be
shown to be directly connected with social behaviour. Social anthropologists are
interested in their ideas and beliefs as well as in their social relationships and in recent
years many social anthropologists have studied other people’s belief systems not
simply from a sociological point of view but also as being worthy of investigation in
their own right.
The second important difference between social anthropology and sociology is simply
that social anthropologists have mostly worked in communities which are both less
familiar and technologically less developed, while sociologists chiefly studied types of
social organisation characteristic of more complex, western –type societies. The
distinction is by no means a hard and fast one; it implies difference in field rather than
in fundamental theory, but it has important implications. It is in the study of small-
scale systems of this kind, where person to person relationships are all important that
the methods of social anthropology have been elaborated, and its main contributions
to sociological knowledge have been in this field.
Finally, the fact that social anthropologists have mostly worked in unfamiliar cultures
has imposed on them a problem of translation which is much less acute for sociologists,
though it certainly exists for them too. Sociologists usually speak the same language
(more or less) as the people they study and they share with them at least some of
their basic concepts and categories. But for the social anthropologist the most difficult
31
Introduction to Social part of his/her task is usually to understand the language and ways of thought of the
Anthropology
people he studies, which may be and probably are very different from his own. This
is why, in anthropological fieldwork, a sound knowledge of the language of the
community being studied is indispensable for a people’s categories of thought and the
forms of their language are inextricably bound together. Thus questions about meanings
and about the interpretation of concepts and symbols usually demand a larger part
of the attention of social anthropologists than of sociologists. Never the less, sociology
is social anthropologists’ closest companion discipline and the two subjects share a
great many of their theoretical problems and interests. Social anthropologists are
sociologists as well, but they are at once something less, because their actual field
of investigation has on the whole been more restricted and something more, because
although they are concerned with social relationships, they are concerned with other
aspects of culture as well. However, the top scholars in both social anthropology and
sociology spend very little time in worrying whether what they are doing is sociology
or social anthropology.

3.2.2 Social Anthropology and Psychology

The study of mind and human behaviour is called Psychology. Psychologists investigate
a diverse range of topics through their theories and research.These topics include-
the relationship between the brain, behaviour and subjective experience; human
development; the influence of other people on the individual’s thoughts, feelings and
behaviour; psychological disorders and their treatment; the impact of culture on the
individual’s behaviour and subjective experience; differences between people in terms
of their personality and intelligence; and people’s ability to acquire, organise, remember
and use knowledge to guide their behaviour.
Thus for the psychologists the focus of study is upon all aspects of human behaviour:
and its personal, social and cultural dimensions which will never be complete without
having the knowledge of social anthropology. Therefore, for understanding the social
processes and meanings in the world around us one has to study social anthropology.
Both Social Psychology and Social Anthropology deals with the manifold relations
between individuals on the one hand and groups, communities, societies and cultures
on the other hand.
According to Barrett (2009:135) British social anthropology has historically been
quite opposed to psychology. Another way of stating this is to say that social
anthropology has been anti-reductionist, which means opposed to reducing the
explanation of social life to other disciplinary levels such as psychology. This perspective
can be traced back to Durkheim, who declared that any time a psychological
explanation is provided for a social phenomenon we may be certain that it is wrong.
American cultural anthropology has been much more receptive to psychology,
especially the focus on the individual. Boas was interested in the relationship between
the individual and society, and eventually there was the culture and personality school,
with its emphasis on modal personality. In more recent years a distinct approach
called psychological anthropology has emerged, with a focus on attitudes and values,
and child-rearing practices and adolescence (Bourguignon 1979).
The only line of difference is that social anthropology examines the group, psychology
the individual. Social anthropologists specialise in social structure or culture
psychologists in the personality system, and in mental process such as cognition,
perception, and learning, and emotions and motives. Social anthropologists take
personality system as constant and look for variation in the social structure as the
32
basis of their investigations whereas, psychologists accept the social structure as Relationship of Social
Anthropology with Allied
constant and look for variations in the personality system as the basis of their analysis. Disciplines

Barrett (2009) in his work has stated that for both psychologists and anthropologists
the only real entity is the individual human being. Social anthropologists abstract and
generalise at the level of the social system whereas psychologists also abstract and
generalise, but in their case at the level of the personality system. Finally, the work
of some social anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists, occupies a common
ground, reflecting shared interests in integrating social structure and personality.

3.2.3 Social Anthropology and History

Historians are chiefly interested in the past, whether remote or recent, their study is
to find out what happened and why it happened. On the whole, they are more
interested in particular sequences of past events and their conditions, than they are
in the general patterns, principles or laws which these events may exhibit. In both of
these respects their concern is little from that of social anthropologist. For social
anthropologists are centrally (though not exclusively) interested in understanding the
present condition of the culture or community which they are studying. But although
the disciplines are different, social anthropology has a very close relationship with
history in two important ways. First an anthropologist who aims to achieve a complete
understanding as possible of the present condition of the society he is studying can
hardly fail to ask how it came to be as it is. That is not withstanding that his central
interest is in the present, not in the past for its own sake, but often the past may be
directly relevant in explaining the present. A difficulty has been that many of the
societies which social anthropologists have studied have no histories, in the sense of
documented and verifiable accounts of the past or at least they had none before the
often very recent impact of western culture. In such societies, the past sometimes is
thought of as differing from the present only in respect of the individuals who occupy
the different statuses which are institutionalised in the society.
But history may be important to social anthropologists in another sense, that is, not
only as an account of past events leading up to and explaining the present, but also
as the body of contemporary ideas which people have about these events what an
English Philosopher Collingwood aptly called “encapsulated history” people’s ideas
about the past are an intrinsic part of the contemporary situation which is the
anthropologists immediate concern and often they have important implications for
existing social relationships. Also, different groups of people involved in the same
social situation may have very different ideas about the ‘same’ series of historical
events. Myths and traditional histories may sometimes give important clues about the
past events. History is part of the conscious tradition of a people and is operative
in their social life. It is the collective representation of events as distinct from events
themselves. Evans-Pritchard in his work Social Anthropology and Other Essays,
(1950) had stated that the functionalist anthropologists regard history in this sense,
usually a mixture of fact and fancy, as highly relevant to a study of the culture of
which it forms part. Neglect of the history of institutions prevents the functionalist
anthropologist not only from studying diachronic problems but also from testing the
very functional constructions to which he attaches most importance, for it is precisely
history which provides him with an experimental situation.
It is true that some of the early anthropologists such as Radcliffe-Brown denied that
history had any relevance for anthropology, mainly because they thought history dealt
with unique events, and that a scientific study of the past was not possible. But,
33
Introduction to Social Evans–Pritchard (1968) argued that anthropology was not a generalising discipline,
Anthropology
but instead a branch of history. Much earlier Boas (1897), the founder of American
anthropology, had included historical inquiry as a central feature of anthropological
investigation.
Both social anthropologists and historians attempt to represent unfamiliar social
situations in terms not just of their own cultural categories, but, as far as possible,
in terms of the categories of the actions themselves. The main difference between
social anthropology and history lies not much in their subject matter (though generally
this does differ), as in the degree of generality with which they deal with it. Once
again it is very much a question of emphasis. Historians are interested in the history
of particular institutions in particular places. Although in a very general sense it is true
that historians are concerned with what is individual and unique, social anthropologists,
like sociologists, are concerned with what is general and typical, and this dichotomy
is altogether too simple. As so often in the social sciences, the difference is largely
one of emphasis (Ahmad, 1986)
Barrett, (2009) rightly summarises that today; most anthropologists would probably
agree that a historical perspective enriches one’s ethnography. Unlike historians,
however, anthropologists include history not so much in order to document and
explain what happened in the past, but rather to help to understand the present.
There also appears to be a difference in styles of research. Whereas historians often
seem reluctant to draw even modest generalisations from their data, anthropologists
are much less cautious and there is more pressure than in history to tie one’s
ethnography to general theoretical orientations.

3.2.4 Social Anthropology and Economics

As we know economics focuses on a particular institution, and is concerned about
the production, consumption, and distribution of economic goods, and with economic
development, prices, trade, and finance. In anthropology there is an area of
specialisation called economic anthropology. It is a precious fact that an institutionalised
kind of economics first appears in anthropology in direct relation to the field research
among exotic societies. Anthropology has a substantial overlap with economics,
considered as the production and distribution of goods. While not all societies have
a fully developed monetary economy, all societies do have scarce goods and some
means of exchange.
Social anthropologists are interested in exploring the range of production and
distribution systems in human societies and in understanding the particular system in
the society being studied at a given time. Most social anthropologists are not
scientifically interested in the operation of the economy of one’s own society; the
typical non-anthropological economist, on the other, hand is extremely interested in
the operation of one’s own economy. He will not ordinarily show much interest in
the operation of greatly different economic systems. Social anthropology under the
name of “formalist” vs “substantivist” interpretations of the primitive economics, bring
with these terms the following option between the ready-made models of western
economic science, especially the micro-economics taken as universally valid and
therefore applicable to the primitive societies and the necessity – supposing the
formalist position unfounded – of developing a new analysis more appropriate to the
historical societies in question and to the intellectual history of anthropology.

34
3.2.5 Social Anthropology and Political Science Relationship of Social
Anthropology with Allied
The foundation of anthropology was evolutionism, biology, and the great social theorists Disciplines
such as Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, whereas the foundation of political science
was classical philosophy. While social anthropology deals with all the sub-systems of
society, political science focuses on the political system and power. It would be a
mistake, however, to assume that anthropology is not concerned with power. Edmund
Leach (1965), a prominent British social anthropologist, has argued that power is the
most fundamental aspect of all social life, and therefore central to the anthropological
endeavour, and in fact there is an area of specialisation in anthropology called political
anthropology.
Social anthropologists do look at something politically. There is a range of
anthropological behaviours depending on the sophistication of the society being studied
and the goals and theoretical awareness of the investigator. The overlap of political
and other activities is greater in simpler societies than in more complex societies. To
put it in a slightly different manner, there is less functional specificity of different
cultural aspects. Or, in simpler societies activities that social anthropologists regard
as clearly and predominantly political are usually embedded in other kinds of activities.
Political activity is an aspect of all human social action and “interest articulation” is
a universal function of all systems. Social anthropologists represents a highly diverse
set of policies for whom political theory should be applicable if such ideas lay claim
to universality. For a political scientist the presence of anthropological literature is not
only a stimulus to theory testing but forms a basis for understanding local political
situations as well. The theoretical contribution that anthropology is making to political
science, related to functionalism, is the evolutionary point of view. Cohen, (1967)
stated that explicitly or implicitly, social anthropologists have almost always ordered
the societies they study into an evolutionary framework. Research on the local areas
and institutions of the new nation brings the political scientist and the social
anthropologist into the same area treating with the same populations and many of the
same behaviours. In many parts of the non-western world, local political systems are
heavily dependent on forms of socio-political structures that are still strongly influenced
by their traditional cultures. Social anthropology can aid political science in the
analysis of ethnicity and in preparing researchers for the use of participant observation
techniques in the field. Social anthropology on its side has a great deal to gain from
political science, in terms of theory and more precise behavioural methods, which at
this point of its development the discipline needs (R. Cohen, 1967).

3.2.6 Social Anthropology and Social Work

According to Keith Hart (1996 : 42) the only thing which can truly distinguish
anthropology from the rest of the social sciences is that it addresses human nature
plus culture plus society. The knowledge about society and culture is very important
to the social worker. Social anthropology is the systematic study of social relationships
at levels ranging from individual interaction to global political and economic relations.
It also examines the cultural, historical, physical, and linguistic behaviour of people
from all parts of the globe both in the past and present. Social workers help people
in a number of ways including: dealing with their relationships with others; solving
their personal, family, and community problems; and growing by learning to cope
with or shape the social and environmental forces affecting their daily lives. Social
workers practice their professions in specific social and cultural contexts which will
definitely influence their mode of practice (Payne, 1997). They have to take into
consideration the values, norms, beliefs, ideologies of the society before they create
programs of action to ameliorate social problems and resolve conflicts. 35
Introduction to Social Equally important is the necessity of the social worker to understand himself or
Anthropology
herself. Social workers are themselves products of the societies that they live in and
are inevitably influenced by it. Knowledge about society and culture is also needed
to help the social worker gain self-awareness about himself or herself. The personality
of the social worker is a major tool used in practice and culture plays a major role
in the development of the personality.
Society and culture are basic concepts used by social anthropologists to understand
the social reality around us. In social anthropology, we usually study the various
comparative components of social system, their structure, their organisation, function,
etc. The social systems are the interdependent activities, institutions, and values by
which people live and it is the job of social anthropologists to identify these components
of social systems. In social anthropology, various theories and concepts have been
developed to understand the meanings of social structure, the social organisation and
the social function.
Social anthropology and social work differ in many aspects. In social anthropology
the approach to society is theoretical and theory building is its major concern. Social
work on the other hand has to be practical and deal with problems. On the other
hand, anthropologists find social worker’s work to be fragmented and oriented only
towards the problem at hand. Another important distinction between social work and
social anthropology is that the latter made claims to be a value free discipline. Being
objective and free from bias was considered a virtue. Social work on the other hand
is a value based profession based on humanitarian principles (Johnson, 1998 : 14).
By going through the above discussion it is very much clear that social work often
borrows from different disciplines from the wider society. Thus we may conclude by
saying that unlike social anthropology, social work knowledge comes from a wider
range of sources which includes precedent, experience and common sense.

3.2.7 Social Anthropology and Cultural Studies

Twenty first century world is moving towards a homogenous culture. Social scientists
define Cultural studies as a combination of sociology, literary theory, film/video studies,
and cultural anthropology to study various cultural phenomena in industrial societies.
Researchers from Cultural studies basically concentrate on how a particular
phenomenon is linked to matters of ideology, race, social class, and/or gender.
Basically, Cultural studies deals with the meaning and practices of everyday life.
Cultural practices comprise of the ways in which people do particular things in his/
her own culture. In every culture specific meanings is attached to the ways people
do things. Thus, cultural studies enable us to meaningfully engage and interact with
the new modes of being and doing. It makes us conscious about the many complex
ways in which power impinges on our lives and constructs our cultures. Cultural
studies have the potential of empowering the society to critically read the media and
other cultural institutions and texts. It also helps us to understand how they shape our
identities and to think about how we could possibly shape them.
Thus, Cultural studies can be viewed as a historical, humanistic discipline, as well as
a natural science, depending upon the method or approach which it is utilised in
studying cultural phenomena. The traditional tendency to understand ‘culture’ as a
naturalised concept is still quite dominant not only among the common folk in general
but also among those engaged in the academic arena of culture. Such an understanding
of culture also has its consequent reflection in the various forms of cultural activism
36
covering documentation, preservation, and conservation of culture. Thus, leading to Relationship of Social
Anthropology with Allied
the systematic classification of various cultural items like music, dance, literature, and Disciplines
language etc. and also assembling them in a hierarchy. Recent cultural theories have
shown that classification of cultural objects is not exactly irrelevant, arranging them
in a hierarchy like ‘high’ and ‘low’, ‘great’ and ‘little’ is definitely not desired because
it is based on the celebration of the ‘high’ and ‘elite’ culture at the cost of the ‘low’
or ‘folk’ culture. However, at present, such terms like ‘high’ and ‘low’ are no longer
used in cultural theories, because all cultures are considered as equal. According to
social anthropological knowledge every culture has its own set of perspectives.

3.2.8 Social Anthropology and Literature

The scholars and academician very often question the validity of a strict disciplinary
boundary between social anthropology and literature, at a time when schools and
colleges are hiring faculties and establishing courses that speak to two or more
disciplines. Literature may be used in the preparing of ethnography by social
anthropologists, for example life histories of generations may be used as an important
source of data. Collection of tradition narratives may add values to the ethnography
of people. In studying the approaches to ritual and performance, Victor Turner uses
poetry of contemporary as well as renaissance plays.
In the current attempts to redefine literature as social ‘artifact’ or social ‘discourse’,
and to situate literary studies within cultural criticism, an indispensable role has been
played by those who take society and culture as their primary subjects – sociologists
and anthropologists (Ashley, 1990). Today, social anthropologists have come up with
new ways to represent context and experience in the study of culture. Ethnography
as text, narrative, allegory, and “true fiction” is the new approach.
Social anthropologists also use oral literature to study the unwritten forms which can
be regarded as in some way possessing literary qualities. This avenue covers oral
forms like myths, narratives, epics, lyrics, praise poetry, laments, and the verbal texts
of songs; and also sometimes riddles proverbs and perhaps oratory and drama. This
is an area in which both scholars from the field of literature, linguistic studies and
folklorists have been interacting with social anthropologists for long.
Thus social anthropology and literature study with the purpose to integrate the literature
experience into anthropology and to cultivate themselves as universal citizens. The
intention to break the boundaries between literary study and other field of study and
integrate literary study into cultural study is an evident important trend in the later
20th century. Clifford Geertz’s role in the development of interpretive anthropology
can hardly be overestimated. He remains one of the most productive and well-
known social anthropologists. Yet today, within interpretive anthropology itself, critics
of Geertz are increasing and his influence is waning. What is “thick description”?
What are its main characteristics? How is it done? How do we come to know “the
native’s point of view”, that is, how members of another culture think, feel and
perceive? What is the relationship between “thick description” and anthropological
theory? etc. are some of the rising questions.
Thus it shows similarity to interpretive anthropology which is mainly concerned with
acquiring the native’s point of view. It takes care of some of the pertinent questions
like - How are we to approach and read native history and literature? Can we use
such native expressions as data, as cultural artifacts? What modifications might the
ethnographer have to make in doing so? These are some of the questions which
would involve literature to answer them.
37
Introduction to Social 3.2.9 Social Anthropology and Public Health
Anthropology
Public health is “the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting
health through the organised efforts and informed choices of society, organisations,
public and private, communities and individuals (Winslow, C.E.A.1920).The
relationship between anthropology, medicine and medical practice is well documented.
General anthropology occupied a notable position in the basic medical sciences
(which correspond to those subjects commonly known as pre-clinical). However,
medical education started to be restricted to the confines of the hospital as a
consequence of the development of the clinical gaze and the confinement of patients
in observational infirmaries (Foucault, 1963). Most, not all because ethnography
remained during a large part of the twentieth century as a tool of knowledge in
primary health care, rural medicine, and in International public health. The abandonment
of ethnography by medicine happened when social anthropology adopted ethnography
as one of the markers of its professional identity and started to depart from the initial
project of general anthropology.
The concept of popular medicine, or folk medicine, has been well known to both
doctors and anthropologists since the beginning of the twentieth century. Doctors,
anthropologists and medical anthropologists used these terms to describe the resources,
other than the help of health professionals, which European or Latin American peasants
used to resolve any health problems. The term was also used to describe the health
practices of aborigines in different parts of the world, with particular emphasis on
their local knowledge. Moreover, studying the rituals surrounding popular therapies
served to challenge Western psychopathological categories, as well as the relationship
between science and religion. Doctors were not trying to turn popular medicine into
an anthropological concept; rather they wanted to construct a scientifically based
medical concept which they could use to establish the cultural limits of biomedicine
(Comelles, 2002).
Professional anthropologists started using the concept of folk medicine in the early
twentieth century. They used this concept to differenciate between magical practices,
medicine and religion. In addition, they also applied this concept to explore the role
and the significance of popular healers and their self-medicating practices. The
professional anthropologists looked at popular medicine as specific cultural practice
of some social groups which were distinct from the universal practices of biomedicine.
Thus, it may be assumed that every culture has its own specific popular medicine
based on its general cultural features.
Under this concept, medical systems are seen as the specific product of each ethnic
group’s cultural history. Scientific biomedicine is regarded as another medical system
and therefore a cultural form is studied as such.
Reflection
The proposition of studying cultural form as it is originated in the ‘cultural relativism’ in
cultural anthropology and allows the debate with medicine and psychiatry to revolve
around some fundamental questions like- (i)What is the relative influence of genotypical
and phenotypical factors on personality and what are the forms of pathology; especially
psychiatric and psychosomatic pathologies?(ii) What is the influence of culture on what
a society considers to be normal, pathological or abnormal?(iii)Verifies in different cultures
the universality about the non sociological categories of biomedicine and
psychiatry.(iv)How to identify and describe the diseases belonging to specific cultures
which have not been previously described by clinical medicine? Such culture specific
diseases are known as ethnic disorders and, more recently been termed as culture bound
syndromes, that include the evil eye and tarantism, being possessed or in a state of trance
in many cultures, and nervous anorexia, nerves and premenstrual syndrome across societies.
38
 Relationship of Social
The medical anthropologists of twentieth century have a much more sophisticated Anthropology with Allied
understanding of the problem of cultural representations and social practices related to Disciplines
health, disease, medical care and attention.
source: http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/medical_anthropology#popular_medicine_and_
medical_system.
The imperative of social anthropological perspectives, methods, information, and
collaboration in the understanding and practice of public health is widely reckoned
in the twenty first century. Social anthropologists develop and implement interventions
to address particular public health problems, often working in collaboration with local
participants. Their primary task is to work as evaluators, examining the activities of
public health institutions and the successes and failures of public health programs.
Their job is also to focus on major international public health agencies and their
workings, as well as public health responses to the threats of infectious disease and
other disasters. Thus the role of social anthropologists in public health is to examine
the health related problems with a social anthropological perspective like (i) socio
anthropological understanding of public health problems (ii) socio anthropological
design of public health interventions (iii) socio anthropological evaluations of public
health initiatives (iv) socio anthropological critiques of public health polices and
health care reforms. Thus, the role of social anthropology is to bridge the difference
in culture and society in the practice of public health (Mahn and Inhorn, 2011).

3.2.10 Social Anthropology and Policy and Governance

As we enter the twenty first century, the terrain on which social policy is made is
changing rapidly. This has resulted in anthropologists, in combination with other social
scientists, giving serious attention to the impact of this new phase of globalisation on
changes in social and environmental policies. Social anthropology as a sub field has
contributed, and continues to contribute, to social policy research, practice, and
advocacy in a number of different ways; it has taken on increasing relevance as the
world is rapidly being transformed by the process of globalisation (Okongwu and
Mencher, 2000). Social anthropologists studying globalisation, the state, politics,
development, and elites, among other topics, are discovering the centrality of policy
to their research, and a body of work in the anthropology of policy is developing.
Although some social anthropologists who study policy became involved in public
debates or advocacy, and several movements in anthropology encourage activism,
the anthropology of public policy is devoted to research into policy issues and
processes and the critical analysis of those processes. Though anthropologists have
generally had less influence than economists on public policy, there are a number of
ways in which we have made our opinions known, such as by (a) documenting the
conditions of the people we study, or other poor or disenfranchised people, and
acting as their advocates-including serving as expert witnesses for the homeless (b)
analysing, writing, and making public the effects of government policies and suggesting
alternative policies (c) working with-or against-elected officials; (d) attempting to
influence members of aid agencies in their varied roles and/or working from within
these agencies to pinpoint critical issues (e) working with migrant populations, both
forced and voluntary in terms of both policies to deal with migrants and studies of
cultural capital and its intersection with both formal and informal labour markets in
the north and south and (f) studying strategies of resistance and how the work of
anthropologists can inform and help indigenous people (Wedel, et al. 2005).
There has long been a theoretical and individual divide between anthropologists
focusing on pure research and those focusing on the problems faced by humans,
including the growth of inequality. In a fast changing world, anthropologists’ empirical 39
Introduction to Social and ethnographic methods depicts how policies actively create new categories of
Anthropology
individuals to be governed. Wedel, (2005) suggest that the long-established
frameworks of “state” and “private”, “local” or “national” and “global,” “macro” and
“micro,” “top down” and “bottom up,” and “centralised” and “decentralised” not
only fail to capture current dynamics in the world but actually obfuscate the
understanding of many policy processes.
Although some social anthropologists worked in earlier periods on policy-related
projects in agriculture, the numbers of anthropologists in applied and policy work on
the environment and in the field of agriculture have significantly increased as the
multinational corporations have gained in power over governments. Anthropologists
have been interested in such issues as the scale of farming, water use, use of
petrochemicals and other inputs, increase in mono cropping (with all of its attendant
potential for future famines), and quality- of-life issues. Others have been involved
with issues related to the loss of biodiversity, and especially among ethno botanists
working with centers for international agricultural research to help traditional societies
preserve their native species. Most of the anthropologists working on agricultural and
related issues have “in one way or another [been] critical of the dominant institutions
and trends in food systems (Okongwu and Mencher, 2000), especially those [moving
more and more] toward globalisation. Many others present alternative approaches,
often stressing the importance of strengthening local food systems as a way of trying
to provide not only buffers, but new organisational and institutional models for more
sustainable and just food systems”. Giddens (1990, 1995) has noted that social
anthropology must be ready to contest unjust systems of domination, seeking to
decide along the way what injustice actually is, and to bring potential controversial
issues to light.
Social anthropologists have traditionally had the reputation of working at the grassroot
level and getting to know people and their problems and issues well. We also need
to serve as conduits for solutions. One of the greatest strengths of social anthropologists
is their ability to view systems holistically-in this case to deal not only with the
theoretical issues of political economy, but also to work to influence policymakers to
pay attention to the social, structural, and economic consequences of globalised
agriculture on both farmers and consumers, on communities, and, taking the
environment into account, on the very nature of life on this planet (ibid).
Surely there are many roles for social anthropologists in documenting protests, as
well as in getting onto policy-making boards and into circles where large agency
policy is formulated. The crisis situations created by capitalism today require a real
reinventing of anthropology, with social anthropologists not only studying alternative
policies but also working as advocates and with the people they have studied to put
pressures on governments, international agencies, and multinational corporations to
get them to change. These are issues that are extremely well suited for the involvement
of social anthropology during the twenty first century. It is expected that social
anthropologists, based on their in-depth knowledge and their ability to learn how to
use the language of influence effectively, need to make clear and short statements
available to policymakers. If social anthropologists fail to influence the policy, then
others with far less understanding and insight will do so to the detriment of humanity
(Okongwu and Mencher, 2000).

3.2.11 Social Anthropology and Management

Over the last century, social anthropologists have created a discipline to make sense
out of human behaviour through the culture concept, a holistic analytical approach,
40 and empirical research. Although social anthropological concepts have been defined
largely in academia, the discipline has always had ‘applied’ practitioners working in Relationship of Social
Anthropology with Allied
areas like health care, education, business and industry. These practitioners have Disciplines
demonstrated time and again that an anthropological perspective has a great deal to
offer the wider world. At first glance, the two professions – anthropology and
management may appear highly dissimilar. But a closer look reveals many points of
common interest. For example, like social anthropologists, management practitioners
attempt to make sense out of human behaviour as they address the ‘people’ dimensions
of doing business. Hence, there is an opportunity for a valuable exchange between
social anthropologists and management practitioners. To some extent this is already
taking place. Social anthropologists are working as consultants and many consultants
are using an anthropological perspective perhaps without knowing it (NAPA Bulletin,
1990).
The almost exponential rate of change in the contemporary business world challenges
business leaders in many ways. The survival of a business depends on management’s
ability to adjust to change. Social anthropology can help consultants and their clients
respond successfully to five major trends that will shape the way we all live and work
in the future (Giovannini & Rosansky, 1998). They are in the areas of –
1) Increasing Globalisation
2) Demographic Trends
3) Social Issues
4) Technological Innovation
5) Organisational Change
Social anthropology as a field science has great potential for informing multi-disciplinary
research in management both conceptually and methodologically. Anthropology’s
main distinguishing method is participant observation which involves the anthropologist
spending a prolonged period, doing fieldwork in an effort to gain an in-depth
understanding of the organisation under study. By virtue of its eclecticism and experience
of facilitating understanding of the processes of change across institutions and other
social phenomena, anthropology can make a significant contribution to the
implementation of knowledge management. Objective of social anthropology is to
take accurate description of context and precise understanding of how those contexts
are interpreted and experienced by participants. Ethnographic immersion is the
methodology adopted. This enables the capture of elusive, ambiguous and tacit
aspects of research settings, and also allows grounded theory to be generated from
‘thick’ or ‘rich’ data. Social anthropology, having taken into account recent
developments in postmodern and critical thought, can contribute to the study, practice,
and teaching of management in three categories.
Reflection

Linstead (1997) states that the focuses are on the following aspects; (a). culture, new
theoretical lines of enquiry can be developed that reassess the significance of shared
meaning and conflicting interests in specific settings; the concept of the symbolic in
management can be critically elaborated; and modes of representation of management can
be opened up to self-reflexivity; (b). critique, ethnography can be used to defamiliarise the
taken-for-granted circumstances and reveal suppressed and alternative possibilities; new or
unheard voices and forms of information can be resuscitated and used to sensitise managerial
processes; and cognitive, affective, epistemological, ideological and ethical considerations
can be linked in the same framework; (c). change, anthropological ideas and concepts can
shape and reflect change processes and resolve unproductive dilemmas; and managerial
learning can be enhanced by promoting the ethnographic consciousness as a way of
investigating and understanding, an attitude of openness. Thus, we can say that social
anthropology can state an example of the application of the approach in a management
development programme, where teaching and research would progress in harness. 41
Introduction to Social
Anthropology 3.3 SUMMARY
Social anthropology is, thus, able to relate to almost all the disciplines in its quest for
an understanding of human behaviour, and draws upon all of them to interpret the
way in which all biological and social factors enter to depict man’s culture and
behaviour in totality.
References
Ahmad, A.S. 1986. ‘Towards Islamic Anthropology’. The American Journal of
Islamic Social Sciences. Vol. 3, No. 2. I986, 181.
Anderson, Robert. 1996. Magic, Science and Health. The Aims and the
Achievements of Medical Anthropology. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.
Ashley, K. M.1990. Victor Turner and the construction of Cultural Criticism;
between Literature and Anthropology. Indian University Press.
Barrett, R. Stanley. 2009. Anthropology: A student’s guide to theory and method.
Toronto:University of Toronto Press.
Boas, F. 1897. ‘The social organisation and secret societies of the Kwakiutl’ in
United States National Museum, Report for 1895. Pp. 311.
Bourguignon, Erika.1979. Psychological Anthropology: An introduction to human
nature and cultural differences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Cohen, R. 1967. ‘Anthropology and Political Science: Courtship or Marriage’.
American Behavioural Scientist. Nov. 1967. Vol. 11. Pp 21-7.
Comelles, Josep M. & Dongen, Els Van. (eds.) 2002. Themes in Medical
Anthropology. Perugia: Fondazione Angelo Celli Argo.
Ember, Carol R., & Ember, Melvin (ed.) 2004. Encyclopedia of Medical
Anthropology: Health and Illness in the World’s Cultures. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers, ISBN 0-306-47754-8.
Evans–Pritchard, E. E. 1950. Social Anthropology and Other Essays. Illionis:
The Free Press of Glencoe.
____________________ 1968. Theories of Primitive Religion. USA: Oxford
University Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1963. The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical
Perception. London: Routledge.
Geertz, Clifford. 1988. Works and Lives. The Anthropologist as Author. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
____________________. 1983. Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive
Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
____________________. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic
Books.
Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University. Press.

42
____________________. 1995. ‘Epilogue: notes on the future of anthropology’. In Relationship of Social
Anthropology with Allied
the Future of Anthropology: Its Relevance to the Contemporary World. ed. A Disciplines
Ahmed, C Shore, pp. 272-77, London: Athlone.
Hall, John. R. & Neitz, Mary Jo.1993. Culture: Sociological Perspectives. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
James, Clifford and George Marcus. eds. 1986. Writing Culture: Poetics and
Politics of Ethnography Berkeley: University of California Press.
James, Clifford.1988. Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-century Ethnography,
Literature and Art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
J. Giovannini and L.M.H. Rosansky 1998. ‘Anthropology and Management
Consulting: Forging a new alliance’. (Vol. 9): American Anthropological Association.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8551.00042/abstract
Keith, Hart.1996. ‘Comments’. In Tim Ingold (ed.), Key Debates in Anthropology.
London and New York: Routledge.
Leach, Edmund.1965. Political Systems of Highland Burma-A Study of Kachin
Social Structure. Boston: Beacon Press.
Linstead, S. 1997. ‘The Social Anthropology of Management.’ British Journal of
Management. 8: 85–98. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.00042
Mahn, Robert A. and Mercia C. Inhorn (Eds).2011. Anthropology and Public
Health- Bridging differences in culture and society. London: Oxford University
Press.
Nadel, S. F. 1951. The Foundations of Social Anthropology. London: Cohen &
West
Okongwu, F.A.and J.P. Mencher. 2000. ‘The Anthropology of Public Policy: Shifting
Terrains’. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29:107-24.
Payne, Malcolm. 1997. Modern Social Work Theory. New York: Palgrave.
Younghusband, Eilleen.1964. Social Work and Social Change. London: George
Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Wedel, Janine R. Cris Shore, Gregory Feldman and Stacy Lathrop. 2005. ‘Toward
an Anthropology of Public Policy’. The ANNALS of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science. 600; 30. DOI: 10.1177/0002716205276734
Winslow, C.E.A.1920. The Untitled field of Public Health, Science, n.s.51.pp.23
(1990), Introduction/The Background/The Field of Management Consulting/The
Consulting Process/The Contributions of Anthropology/Management Consulting
Knowledge and Skills/Becoming a Management Consultant/A Note to Managers/
Benefits from the Exchange/Notes/References Cited. NAPA Bulletin, 9: 1–48.
doi: 10.1525/napa.1990.9.1.1
Suggested Reading
Beattie, J. 1964. Other Cultures: Aims, Methods and Achievements in Social
Anthropology. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.

43
Introduction to Social Evans–Pritchard, E.E. 1951. Social Anthropology. London: Cohen and West.
Anthropology
Herskovits, Melville J. 1952. Man and His Works. New York: Knopf.
Hoebel, E. A. and Frost, E. L. 1976. Cultural and Social Anthropology. New
Delhi. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Ltd.
Mair, Lucy. 1965. An Introduction to Social Anthropology. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Sample Questions
1) Which disciplines are considered cognate disciplines of Social anthropology?
2) What is the contribution of Social anthropology in Sociology and Psychology?
3) Can the Historians study the particular sequences of past events and their
conditions without incorporating social anthropological approach?
4) How are the disciplines of Cultural Studies and Literature related to Social
anthropology?
5) What are the diverse roles of Social anthropologists in solving various problems
of the traditional as well as contemporary society?

44
 MAN-001
Social Anthropology
Indira Gandhi
National Open University
School of Social Sciences

Block

2
SOCIETY AND CULTURE
UNIT 1
Concept of Society and Culture 5
UNIT 2
Social Group 20
UNIT 3
Social Identity and Movements 34
UNIT 4
Social Change in Indian Context 50
Expert Committee
Professor I J S Bansal Professor V.K.Srivastava Dr. S.M. Patnaik
Retired, Department of Principal, Hindu College Associate Professor
Human Biology University of Delhi Department of Anthropology
Punjabi University, Patiala Delhi University of Delhi
Professor K K Misra Professor Sudhakar Rao Delhi
Director Department of Anthropology Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh
Indira Gandhi Rashtriya University of Hyderabad Assistant Professor
Manav Sangrahalaya Hyderabad Department of Anthropology
Bhopal Professor. Subhadra M. University of Delhi
Professor Ranjana Ray Channa Delhi
Retired, Department of Department of Anthropology Faculty of Anthropology
Anthropology University of Delhi SOSS, IGNOU
Calcutta University, Kolkata Delhi
Dr. Rashmi Sinha
Professor P. Chengal Reddy Professor P Vijay Prakash
Reader
Retired, Department of Department of Anthropology
Anthropology Andhra University Dr. Mitoo Das
S V University, Tirupati Visakhapatnam Assistant Professor
Professor R. K. Pathak Dr. Nita Mathur Dr. Rukshana Zaman
Department of Anthropology Associate Professor Assistant Professor
Panjab University Faculty of Sociology Dr. P. Venkatrama
Chandigarh School of Social Sciences Assistant Professor
Professor A K Kapoor Indira Gandhi National Open Dr. K. Anil Kumar
Department of Anthropology University, New Delhi Assistant Professor
University of Delhi, Delhi
Programme Coordinator: Dr. Rashmi Sinha, IGNOU, New Delhi
Course Coordinator : Dr. Rukshana Zaman, IGNOU, New Delhi

Block Preparation Team

Unit Writers Unit 3 Content Editor
Professor Debal Singha Roy Professor N. Sudhakar Rao
Unit 1
Discipline of Sociology Department of
Dr. K. Anil Kumar
SOSS, IGNOU Anthropology, University of
Assistant Professor
Hyderabad, Hyderabad
Discipline of Anthropology Unit 4
SOSS, IGNOU Professor Nadeem Hasnain Language Editor
Unit 2 Department of Anthropology Dr. Parmod Kumar
Mr. Mohit Ranjan Lucknow University Assistant Professor
Assistant Professor Lucknow Discipline of English
Amity Institute of School of Humanities
Anthropology IGNOU, New Delhi
Amity University, Noida
Authors are responsible for the academic content of this course as far as the copyright issues are concerned.

Print Production
Mr. Manjit Singh Cover Design
Section Officer (Publication) Dr. Mitoo Das
School of Social Sciences, IGNOU Assistant Professor, Anthropology, SOSS, IGNOU
August, 2011
© Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2011
ISBN:
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or any
other means, without permission in writing from the copyright holder.
Further information on the Indira Gandhi National Open University courses may be obtained
from the University’s office at Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110 068 or the official website of
IGNOU at www.ignou.ac.in
Printed and published on behalf of Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi by Director,
SOSS, IGNOU.
Laser Typeset at Graphic Printers, 204, Pankaj Tower, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110091.
Printed at :
BLOCK 2 SOCIETY AND CULTURE
Introduction
This Block is mainly devoted to generate a general understanding of the society,
in terms of broad structures and important social processes that constantly keep
operating in every society. It begins with the exposition of meaning and delineation
of various attributes and characteristics of the concepts of society and culture.
Since these two terms are freely used not only in other disciplines with different
meanings but also in general conversations, it is necessary to make it explicit the
sense in which these are used in anthropology. Culture being central concept in
anthropology, there is a greater need to differentiate it from the concept of society.
The first unit, will deal with what the society essentially refers to as complex
patterns of social relationships, and culture as designed for living. In the second
unit, the focus is on the important social groupings. The social groups are broadly
divided into primary and secondary. However, based on the spatial segregation,
interests of the members and the nature of the groups, there is further classification
as community, association and organisation. Thus, the social organisation can be
found at different levels. A social group manifests mainly due to its separate
identity with reference to other social groups. Therefore, the identity of a group
is important, and the third unit discusses the significance of social identity. For
social identity individual self exists a priory, and it is constructed in social and
cultural conditions and contexts. In this unit we attempt to examine the identity
construction through reasons and choice, and also the transformation of identity as
identity cannot be static. The identity is also subjected to hegemony, power and
changing nature of society, and as a result, different forms of identities can be
noted. The changing society, particularly the post-industrial one has such a far
fetching influence that the social identity has become very dynamic. The global
networks of various kinds generated social movements that spread across the
geographical boundaries and began to challenge the traditional institutional structures
and powers. In these social movements we find formation of new identities and
shaping up of the identities. Finally, the attention is drawn to the dynamic aspects
of the society, the conceptualisation of social change. In the last unit, we shall
focus on the various processes of social change in Indian context. The tribes which
remained outside the pale of Hindu society are gradually drawn close to Hindu
society adopting Hindu customs and practices, which is termed as Hinduisation.
The caste system has not been as rigid as it was thought of, and Indian society
has been changing and this process is explained as sanskritisation in which low
castes and tribes attempt to emulate the practices of higher castes. The impact of
British rule, and the western ideas and values have been conceptualised as
westernisation and modernisation. Globalisation is the recent trend.
This Block, thus, provides a comprehensive view on the concept of society,
various social groups, social identity, social movements and social change.
UNIT 1 CONCEPT OF SOCIETY AND
CULTURE
Contents
1.1 Introduction
1.2 The Concept of Society
1.2.1 Meaning and Definition of Society
1.2.2 Characteristics of Society

1.3 The Concept of Culture

1.3.1 Meaning and Definition of Culture
1.3.2 Elements of Culture
1.3.3 Characteristics or Attributes of Culture
1.3.4 Culture and Society

1.4 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions
Learning Objectives

At the end of this unit, you will be able to:
 explain the concept of society and culture in anthropological perspective;
 describe some major characteristics of society and culture; and
 understand the relationship that exists between culture, society and individual
behaviours.

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Though the term society and culture is used today as a scientific concept by most
of the social sciences, its most comprehensive definition has been provided in
anthropology. Humans are social beings. That is why we live together in societies.
Day-to-day we interact with each other and develop social relationships. Every
society has a culture, no matter how simple that culture may be. Culture is shared.
The members of every society share a common culture which they have to learn.
Culture is not inherited it is transmitted from one generation to the other through
the vehicle of language. Like societies, cultures differ all over the world. The two
concepts society and culture are closely related and sometimes can be used
interchangeably. This unit discusses the meaning and definition of society and
culture in anthropological perspective. The unit also discusses some of the
characteristics and elements of society and culture.

1.2 THE CONCEPT OF SOCIETY

In common parlance the word society is usually used to designate the members
of specific in-group, persons rather than the social relationships of those persons.
Sometimes the word society is used to designate institutions like Arya Samaj 5
Society and Culture (society) or Brahmo Samaj. Society is a word used in routine life with a particular
meaning. Everyone often defines society as an aggregation or collection of
individuals. But in sociology and anthropology, the term is used in a different
sense. The term “society” refers not just to a group of people but to a complex
pattern of norms of interaction that exist among them. In terms of common sense,
society is understood as a tangible object, where as in sociology and anthropology
it refers to an intangible entity. It is a mental construct, which we realise in every
day life but cannot see it. The important aspect of society is the system of
relationships, the pattern of the norms of interaction by which the members of the
society maintain themselves. Some anthropologists say that society exists only
when the members know each other and possess common interests or objects.

1.2.1 Meaning and Definition of Society

The roots of the term society can be traced to the Latin word socius which means
companionship or friendship. George Simmel an eminent sociologists has stated
that it is the element of sociability or companionship which defines the true essence
of society. As Aristotle stated centuries ago man is a social animal, it brings into
focus that man always lives in the company of other people. Society has become
an essential condition for human life to continue. Herein, we will discuss some of
the views of the social thinkers who had on society and how they have perceived
the same.
August Comte viewed society as a social organism possessing a harmony of
structure and function. Emile Durkheim regarded society as a reality in its own
right. For Talcott Parson Society is a total complex of human relationships in so
far as they grow out of the action in terms of means-end relationship intrinsic or
symbolic. G.H Mead conceived society as an exchange of gestures which involves
the use of symbols. Morris Ginsberg defines society as a collection of individuals
united by certain relations or mode of behaviour which mark them off from others
who do not enter into these relations or who differ from them in behaviour. Cole
saw Society as the complex of organised associations and institutions with a
community. MacIver and Page found it was a system of usages and procedures
of authority and mutual aid of many groupings and divisions, of controls of human
behaviour and liberties; a web of social relationship. A society is generally conceived
of as a human group which is relatively large, relatively independent or self-
perpetuating in demographic terms, and which is relatively autonomous in its
organisation of social relations. But it is the relativity of each society’s autonomy,
independence and self-perpetuating nature which is the crucial factor, and the
distinction of one society from another is often arbitrary. It is important in
anthropology not to allow these arbitrary divisions to distort our vision of systems
of local, regional, national and international social relations.
We can sum up the definitions of society into two types – the functional definition
and the structural definition. From the functional point of view, society is defined
as a complex of groups in reciprocal relationships, interacting upon one another,
enabling human organisms to carry on their life-activities and helping each person
to fulfill his wishes and accomplish his interests in association with his fellows.
From the structural point of view, society is the total social heritage of folkways,
mores and institutions; of habits, sentiments and ideals. Ginsberg, Giddings, Cole
and Cuber take a structural view of society while McIver, Parsons, Lapiere,
Cooley and Leacock have given functional definition of society.
The definition of society has undergone little variation from the standpoint of
6 classical and modern scholars. For our understanding we can simply define society
as a group of people who share a common culture, occupy a particular territorial Concept of Society
and Culture
area and feel themselves to constitute a unified and distinct entity. It is the mutual
interactions and interrelations of individuals and groups. Society is a group of
people related to each other through persistent relations in terms of social status,
roles and social networks. By extension, society denotes the people of a region
or country, sometimes even the world, taken as a whole. Used in the sense of an
association, a society is a body of individuals outlined by the bounds of functional
interdependence, possibly comprising characteristics such as national or cultural
identity, social solidarity, language or hierarchical organisation.

1.2.2 Characteristics of Society

According to McIver “society is a web of social relationships”, (McIver, 1931:
6) which may be of several types. To formulate a catalogue of social relationships
would be an uphill task. The family alone is said to have as many relationships
based on age, sex, gender, and generation. Outside the family there is no limit to
the number of possible relationships.
McIver says “society means likeness”. Therefore, likeness is an essential pre-
requisite of society. The sense of likeness was focused in early society on kinship,
that is, real or supposed blood relationships. In modern societies the conditions
of social likeness have broadened out in the principle of nationality of one world.
“Comradeship, intimacy, association of any kind or degree would be impossible
without some understanding of each by the other, and that understanding depends
on the likeness which each apprehends in the other.
Society also implies difference but this sense of likeness does not exclude
diversity or variation. Society also implies difference and it depends on the latter
as much as on likeness. A society based exclusively on likeness and uniformity is
bound to be loose in socialites. All our social systems involve relationships in
which differences complement one another, for e.g., family rests upon the biological
difference between sexes. Besides the difference in sex there are other natural
differences of aptitude, of interest of capacity. While difference is necessary to
society, difference by itself does not create society, difference subordinate to
likeness. It has been argued that likeness is necessarily prior to the differentiation
of social organisation. As McIver observed, – primary likeness and secondary
difference create the greatest of all social institutions-the division of labour.
In addition to likeness, interdependence is another essential element to constitute
society. Family, one of the important units of society with which we all are closely
associated, is based on the biological inter-dependence of the sexes. None of the
two sexes is complete by itself and therefore each seeks fulfillment by the aid of
the other. The Social organisation diversifies the work of each, making each more
dependent on others, in order that by the surrender of self sufficiency he may
receive back thousand fold in fullness of life. This interdependence is both extensive
as well as intensive.
Lastly, cooperation is also essential to constitute society. Without cooperation no
society can exist. Unless people cooperate with each other, they cannot live a
happy life. All social institutions rest on cooperation. The members in social
institutions cooperate with one another to live happily and joyfully. Cooperation
avoids mutual destructiveness and results in economy. For want of cooperation the
entire fabric of society may collapse.
Thus likeness, interdependence and cooperation are the essential elements to
constitute society. Besides these elements, McIver has also mentioned some other 7
Society and Culture elements of society; it is a system of usages and procedures, authority and mutual
aid, of many groupings and divisions; it controls human behaviour and liberties.
This view brings in several other elements of society firstly, in every society there
are some usages concerned with marriage, education, religion, food, and speech
etc., which differ from society to society. Secondly, there are procedures i.e., the
modes of action in every society which maintain its unity and organisation. Thirdly,
the presence of an authority is necessary to maintain order in society. Fourthly, no
society can be stable unless there is a feeling of mutual aid among its members.
Fifthly, in a society there are several groupings and divisions such as family, city
and village etc. sixthly, liberty and control go together in a society. Without liberty
man cannot develop his personality. Control upon an individual’s behaviour is not
meant to destroy his liberty but to promote and protect it.
Society is not just a mere agency for the comfort of the beings but it is the whole
system of social relationships. The social relation of mother and child, for example,
is revealed in their attitude towards each other. It is this social fact and not the
biological fact which constitute society. The true nature of society consists not in
the external factors of interdependence of likeness or authority but in the state of
mind of the beings which compose society. It is the pattern, not the people, which
is termed society. It is not a group but a process of relationships. It is said society
is the extension of individuality, the transcendence of self-closedness, the vehicle
of personal identity, the means of the continuation of personality through the
generations, the nurse of youth, the arena of manhood and womanhood.
All societies, as is clear from the above discussion, involve a certain level of
association, a level closer and lesser complex than an organism. Like an organism,
a society also is a system of relations, but in the society this relation exists between
organisms rather than between “cells”. The constituent parts of society give to it
a continuity and structure of its own so that the study of society cannot be reduced
merely to a study of its individual members. Some social thinkers like Spencer,
Radcliffe-Brown and Durkheim have sought to compare society to an organism.
The analogy between organism and society is at best an analogy and not an
identity.
Sociologist Gerhard Lenski based on the level of technology, communication and
economy had differentiated societies into: a) hunters and gatherers, b) simple
agricultural, c) advanced agricultural d) industrial, and e) special (e.g. fishing societies
or maritime societies). This classification is more or less similar to the system
earlier developed by anthropologists like Fried and Service. They classified societies
as foraging or hunter gatherer, horticultural, agricultural, industrial, and then
information-age (post-industrial) societies. In order of increasing size and complexity,
there are bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and state societies. Societies may also be
organised according to their political structure. These structures may have varying
degrees of political power, depending on the cultural geographical, and historical
environments. The term society is currently used to cover a number of political
and scientific connotations as well as a variety of associations.
Reflection and Action

Use your learning material to write a brief definition of society and its characteristics
based on what you have just read.

1.3 THE CONCEPT OF CULTURE

Culture is a word, all of us use in our day to day parlance. In its daily usage, the
8
term culture refers to polished behaviour, personal refinements as classical music; Concept of Society
and Culture
the fine arts and world of philosophy etc. But anthropologists define and use the
term in quite a different way. The term culture is used in a much broader sense
by anthropologists as culture includes much more than just the “finer things in life.”
There is no differentiation between “cultured” people and “uncultured” people,
since all people have culture from the anthropological point of view.

1.3.1 Meaning and Definition of Culture

In an anthropological perspective every society has a culture, it is universal, though
in some societies it may be simple, while complex in others. Likewise every
human being is cultured and culture is an attribute of the genus Homo. Culture is
design for living. It is the basis of human life. It rests on biology but is not
biological. It is human biology such as a developed brain, nimble hands, and freely
moving tongue which helped humans to acquire a design for living. What has been
acquired as a design for living is not biological. It is a totality of mental, rational
and material, technological processes and products. This totality is what
anthropologists call culture.
It is not possible for human beings to live without the minimum material objects
(tangible). Without a network of social relations among people, human life is
impossible. Human existence is impracticable without ideas, rules, ideals, symbols
and patterns of thinking (intangible). Symbols, ideas, rules, ideals, and patterns of
thinking, network of social relations and material objects together comprise the
mental, rational, and material, technological processes and products. They are
integrated into a whole, the design of living. This design of living is called culture.
It is the total way of life of the human being. Culture serves as a potential guide
for human living. As a guide, it aids the human being to know what is good and
bad, desirable, important and unimportant, rational and irrational.
Culture is a historically created design for living. Generation after generation
new things are added to it and this is accountable for the development and change
in culture. The culture we have at present combines what has been first created
by our ancestors with what has been added to it by subsequent generations. To
be brief, culture is dynamic in that, as time goes by, new items are added to those
already existing.
Culture is unique to the human species. No species has ability like human
beings in its complexity, i.e., to learn, to communicate and to store, process and
use information to the same extent. Culture has moral force which serves as a
guide for human action how to behave in a society. Neither monkeys nor apes
have moral force in their life. Morality is a part of culture. Therefore human culture
has moral foundation, but primate life has no moral basis.
Culture is a product of social learning rather than biological heredity which means
Culture is non-genetic. It cannot be inherited by offspring from parents, but it
can be transmitted socially from parents to children. Like animals, human cannot
inherit behaviour. Animal behaviour is inborn. Animals inherit behaviour or at most,
proto-culture, but humans acquire culture.
All people have culture, though not similar. Different groups of humans or societies
have different cultures. This shows cultural diversity that means Culture has unity
as well as diversity. All humans have culture, but all cultures are not alike. In this
context, it is necessary to draw a distinction between “a culture” and “culture”.
The term culture signifies the way of life of human societies as a whole and the 9
Society and Culture term “a culture” signifies the way of life of specific part of human society which
is technically called a society.
Culture is the basic concept of anthropology and is central to all the sub-branches
of anthropology. Anthropologists have been discussing and debating definitions of
culture since the origin of the discipline in the 19th century. The classic definition
of culture is given by E.B.Tylor in his book Primitive Culture in 1871. He stated
‘Culture or Civilization, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief,
art, morals, law, customs, and any capabilities and habits acquired by man as a
member of society’ (p.1). This is a very broad definition of culture, encompassing
almost everything about a person’s overall way of life, from “knowledge” to
“habits”. Herein, emphasis is on the fact that culture is something individuals
acquire as “a member of society,” meaning that people obtain their culture from
growing up with and living among a particular group. The major contribution of
Tylor’s definition is that he was able to establish the differences between biologically
determined characteristics and those attributes which are socially learned. The
phrase “acquired by man as a member of society” in his definition is very important.
It is not any habit or capability of man as a biological being, but man as a member
of a social group. The acquisition of culture is not through biological heredity but
through socialisation which is called enculturation. Enculturation is specifically defined
as the process by which an individual learns the rules and values of one’s culture
which begins at the family level right from the moment a child is born.
From the beginning of the discipline hundreds of definitions have been proposed,
and their number continues to grow steadily. Today there are more than 200
definitions of culture. Different definitions of “culture” reflect different theoretical
bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity. Below a few
definitions of culture are given for your understanding.
Reflection

Definitions of culture given by Anthropologists

Malinowski defined culture as an “instrumental reality, and apparatus for the satisfaction
of the biological and derived need”. It is the integral whole consisting of implements
in consumers’ goods, of constitutional characters for the various social groupings, of
human ideas and crafts, beliefs and customs” (Malinowski, 1944:1)

“…Culture in general as a descriptive concept means the accumulated treasury of

human creation: books, paintings, buildings, and the like; the knowledge of ways of
adjusting to our surroundings, both human and physical; language, customs, and
systems of etiquette, ethics, religion and morals that have been built up through the
ages” (Kluckhohn and Kelly, 1945: 78)

“Culture…refers to that part of the total setting [of human existence] which includes
the material objects of human manufacture, techniques, social orientations, points of
view, and sanctioned ends that are the immediate conditioning factors underlying
behaviour” or in simple terms he says culture is the “Man made part of the environment”
(Herskovits, 1948:17).

A culture is the total socially acquired life-way or life-style of a group of people. It

consists of the patterned, repetitive ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that are
characteristic of the members of a particular society or segment of a society (Harris
1975: 144).

“The concept of culture as everything that people have, thinks, and does as members
of a society. This definition can be instructive because the three verbs correspond to
the three major components of culture. That is, everything that people have refers to
material possessions; everything that people think refers to those things they carry
10
 Concept of Society
around in their heads, such as ideas, values, and attitudes; and everything that people and Culture
do refers to behaviour patterns. Thus all cultures comprise (a) material objects, (b)
ideas, values, and attitudes, and (c) patterned ways of behaving” (Gary Ferraro,
1992:18-19).

Irrespective of the various definitions, conceptions and approaches to the

understanding of the concept of culture, it is however agreed that culture is a way
of life and morality is a part of culture. Practically all modern definitions share key
features. Anthropologists say that culture is –
 Learned, as each person must learn how to “be” a member of that
culture
 Shared, as it offers all people ideas about behaviour
 Symbolic, as it is based on the manipulation of symbols
 Systemic and integrated, as the parts of culture work together in an
integrated whole
While summarizing the definition Bodley (1994) says culture is made up of at least
three elements or components: what people think, what they do, and the material
products they produce. The problem with defining culture as shared values and
beliefs, as some anthropologists do, is that there can be a vast difference between
what people think they ought to do (value) and what they actually do (behaviour).
Moreover, we get much of our evidence for what people do from what people
make – that is, from material things (what archaeologists study). Besides these
components, culture has several properties or characteristics. So there are many
elements and characteristics in a definition of culture. We shall discuss these
elements and characteristics of culture in the next section.
Reflection and Action

Define culture based on the definitions that you have just read in the discussion above.

1.3.2 Elements of Culture

A culture is more than the sum of its parts. A mere listing of customs and norms
and the material objects associated with them would by no means give a true
picture of the culture. For the sake of anthropological analysis, culture may be
broken down into the following main elements. These elements or components
are: types of norms, sanctions, values, culture trait, culture complex and culture
pattern.
Values
What is considered as good, proper and desirable, or bad, improper or undesirable,
in a culture can be called as values. It influence people’s behaviour and serve as
a benchmark for evaluating the actions of others. There is often a direct relationship
between the values, norms, and sanctions of a culture.
Norms
Norms refers to a standard pattern of behaviour that is accepted by a society.
Norms may differ from society to society. Generally there are two types of norms
formal norms and informal norms. Norms that are written down and violation of
which can lead to punishment is referred to as formal norms. By contrast, informal
norms are generally understood and followed by a society though not recorded in
black and white. 11
Society and Culture Sanctions
Sanctions consist of both rewards and penalties. It includes rewards for conducting
the norms of the society as prescribed or penalties for defying the concerned
social norms. Adherence to a norm can lead to positive sanctions such as a medal,
a word of gratitude, or a pat on the back. Negative sanctions include fines,
threats, imprisonment, and even unpleasant stares for contempt. The most cherished
values of a culture will be most heavily sanctioned, whereas matters regarded as
less critical will carry light and informal sanctions.
Culture Traits
Culture traits are the smallest (simplest) units of a particular culture. They are the
building blocks of culture. Each trait can be material or non-material and it is
analogous to the unit of the human body, the cell. Each cultural trait has a form,
use, function and meaning. As several cells form a tissue, several traits form a
complex culture.

1.3.3 Characteristics or Attributes of Culture

The classical definition of culture by Tylor was a turning point in the theoretical
interpretation of culture, which attracted the attentions of various scholars from all
over the world. Tylor postulated the theory of unilinear development of human
culture ranging from savagery, barbarism to civilization, this sense of unilinear
development attracted the attention of the like-minded scholars, who formed a big
school of evolutionists, which will be discussed in detail in Block 3 unit I.
The study of Culture took a significant turn after Malinowski’s fieldwork among
the Trobriand Islanders. Malinowski’s definition of culture (as discussed above in
definition paragraph) emphasised on the biological aspect of culture and explained
the biological characteristics of human behaviour. He made distinction between
“need” and “impulse” and emphasised on the satisfaction of need, which leads to
a number of functions, Malinowski’s interpretation of culture was not accepted by
some of his contemporaries. Radcliffe-Brown for instance totally disagreed with
Malinowski in the biological interpretation of culture. Radcliffe-Brown did not
agree with the use of the word “culture” in studying social institution, but his
analysis of “social structure” amounts to the wider perspective of culture, as it
appears from the contents and themes of the subject dealt with on the social
structure. Again, while discussing the social system in social structure he emphasised
more on the arrangement of persons, who are the ultimate components of the
study, rather than on the arrangement of activities (discussed in detail in Block 3
unit 2).
While the above British anthropologists were making different interpretations of
culture and social systems, their counterparts in America emphasised more on the
integral and psychological aspects of culture, which helped them develop various
meanings and interpretations of culture, which led to the development of “pattern”
and “culture and personality” school of thought (discussed in detail in Block 4
unit 1).
In the interpretations and study of culture in anthropology, anthropologists have
identified several characteristics or attributes of culture which imply the qualities
of culture and convey different meanings, which have further enriched the theories
of culture. Some of these important concepts are given below for the benefit of
learners.
12
Culture is socially learned Concept of Society
and Culture
Culture is a natural outgrowth of the social interactions that constitute human
groups whether in societies or organisations. Whenever and wherever people
come together over time, culture develops. Culture is learned from our parents,
surroundings, and friends and others through enculturation. And the learned
behaviour is communicated in the group through forms of socialisation such as
observation, instruction, reward, punishment and experience. The learning takes
place in individual situation of experiences, social situation of imitating others and
cultural situation of symbolic communication.
Culture is symbolic
Symbolic thought is unique and crucial to humans and to culture. It is human ability
to give a thing or event an arbitrary meaning and grasp and appreciate that
meaning. Symbols are the central components of culture. Symbols refer to anything
to which people attach meaning and which one uses to communicate with others.
More specifically, symbols are words, objects, gestures, sounds or images that
represent something else rather than themselves. There is no obvious natural or
necessary connection between a symbol and what it symbolizes. Culture thus
works in the symbolic domain emphasising meaning, rather than the technical/
practical rational side of human behaviour.
Culture is integrated
Elements or traits that make up a culture are not just a random assortment of
customs but are mostly adjusted to or consistent with one another. Traits of a
culture are attitudes, values, ideals, and rules for behaviour. All aspects of culture
function as an inter-related whole. If one part of a culture changes it tends to affect
another part.
Culture is adaptive and maladaptive
People adapt themselves to the environment using culture. The ability to adapt
themselves to practically any ecological condition, unlike other animals, makes
humans unique. This ability is attributed to human’s capacity for creating and using
culture. Culture has also maladaptive dimensions. That is, the very cultural creations
and achievements of people may turn out to threaten their survival. When we see
the contemporary problems of the environments, the side effects of rapid growth
and in science and technology, etc, we see that culture is also maladaptive.
Culture is all-encompassing
Culture encompasses all aspects, which affect people in their everyday lives.
Culture comprises countless material and non-material aspects of human lives;
thus, it includes man- made objects, ideas, activities whether those of traditional,
of the past or those created lately. Culture is the sum total of human creation:
intellectual, technical, artistic, physical, and moral.
Culture is inculcated
All animals are capable of learning but humans alone seem to have considerable
measure to pass on their acquired habits to their children. The process known as
enculturation has been discussed earlier.
Culture is gratifying
Culture always and necessarily satisfies the basic biological and social needs of
human beings. Cultural elements continue so long as they satisfy the needs of
humans. If they fail to fulfill the wants of humans, they may be changed or replaced 13
Society and Culture by new ones to secure the satisfaction of human wants. Gratification of needs
reinforces, strengthens and perpetuates cultural elements.
Culture is structured
Culture has a definite and proper structure. This implies that there is definite
arrangement of its components and units. The structural components of culture are
called traits and complexes. A given culture has many traits and these traits form
into complexes, and each one acts as a unit. These traits and complexes are
arranged in a systematic manner. This arrangement is the plan or structure of a
culture.
Culture is patterned
According to Ruth Benedict cultures are not haphazard collection of customs and
beliefs, but are integrated, patterned systems. The parts are interrelated. Culture
is an integrated whole, that is the parts of culture are interrelated to one another.
No one single cultural trait has its meaning outside of its integrated context.
People use culture creatively
There is difference between ideal culture and real culture. What culture-rules say
and what people do may be different; cultural rules tell us what to do and how
to do it, but we don’t always do what the rules dictate. We use culture creatively.
Culture is stable and yet it changes
Culture is stable when we consider what people hold valuable and are handing
over to the next generation in order to maintain their norms and values. Cultures
are dynamic they are ever-changing. The change in a society can be of two types:
internal changes (invention) and external changes (cultural diffusion).
Culture in Region
Socio-cultural anthropologists talk about culture region which is the geographical
territory in which a particular culture prevails. It is marked by all the characteristics
of a culture, including modes of dress, building styles, farms and field and other
material manifestation. That is there are sub-cultures, regional cultures, national
cultures, and international cultures.
Cultural Universals, specialties and alternatives
Cultural universals are features that are found in every culture, those that distinguish
Homo sapiens from other species. Anthropology assumes that all human beings
are fundamentally alike and they share the same basic biological, psychological,
social and other characteristics. People all over the world have certain common
obligations towards one another. All people are members of a single community;
they all have the same root and destiny. This belief is either explicit or implicit in
most of the great world religions. Certain biological, psychological, social and
cultural features of human beings are universal; others are merely generalities,
common to several but not to all human groups. Still other cultural features are
particularities unique to certain cultural traditions (for details see Hammond, 1971).
Culture Shock
All of us, to some extent or other, take for granted the cultural practices of our
society. As a result, it can be surprising and disturbing to realise that other cultures
do not follow the same way of life. Culture shock can be set off either by the
physical items of an unfamiliar culture or by the ways that people act. Yet we can
experience culture shock even in our own society. Culture shock is the psychological
14 and social maladjustment at micro or macro level that is experienced for the first
time when people encounter new cultural elements such as new things, new ideas, Concept of Society
and Culture
new concepts, seemingly strange beliefs and practices. No person is protected
from culture shock. However, individuals vary in their capacity to adapt and
overcome the influence of culture shock (Ibid, Angeloni, 1998; Howrad and Dunaif-
Hattis, 1992).
Overtness and covertness
Overtness and covertness refer to the qualities of culture as detected by an observer.
The observer may be an anthropologist, or a member of a society who is unfamiliar
with certain parts of the culture. Overt means easily detectable qualities of a
culture. These include artifacts, actions, utterances, which can be perceived directly.
Artifacts include houses, clothes, books, tools etc. actions imply postures in various
situations, curing practices, sports, externally manifested signs of respect etc.
utterances include speech, songs, proverbs etc. An observer can easily detect
these qualities because one has plenty of opportunities to see them, experience
them and record them. On the other hand covert implies those qualities of culture
which are not easily detected by an outsider. Sentiments, beliefs, fears and values
are some of the cultural items which cannot be easily detectable i.e., they are
covert. They are not amenable to direct observation and moreover people cannot
always explain what they feel. It is generally difficult to express these abstract
ideas.
Explicit and implicit
According to Kluckhohn explicit means the people’s awareness of existence of the
cultural items. Implicit implies the people’s dim awareness or unawareness of
certain cultural items. Explicitness and implicitness concern the experience of people
possessing the culture, while overtness and covertness refer to the view of the
observer. Explicit cultural items can be verbalised or criticized readily by the
persons who possess them. But there are certain items of culture about which
people are only dimly aware or unaware of. Hence they cannot give any clear
accounts on such cultural items. These are implicit items of the culture.
Ideality and reality
Ideality of culture refers to how people say they should behave, or the way they
would like to live. Reality is the actual way people behave. There is generally a
discrepancy between ideality and reality.
Ethos and Eidos
Kroeber has drawn attention to these two aspects of culture. Ethos refers to the
effective or emotional quality of a culture expressed in series of beliefs, thoughts
and behaviour. It acts as a central force, interest theme or pattern and colors
every item of culture. As it determines what people should have, do, think, and
feel, prepares all the people in a culture to express the same emotional tone in all
acts, thoughts and feelings. Whereas Eidos is the formal appearance of a culture
derived from its constituents. Through cognitive processes operating within, a
culture acquires its formal appearance or eidos. Eidos is the totality of items of
culture. On the contrary ethos is the emotional quality coloring this totality. Ethos
is affective but eidos is cognitive.
Organic and Superorganic
Culture is organic in the sense that it is ultimately rooted in the biological nature
of human organism. Without humans to act, to think, to feel, or to make and use
things, there would be no culture. Thus culture is organic. Culture is superorganic 15
Society and Culture while it is organic. Once created, culture acquires a superorganic quality or the
quality by virtue of which culture exists on a level above that of the individuals who
create and carry it. According to Kroeber, culture becomes a phenomenon in its
own right, with its own laws and processed apart from the human carriers who
sustain it. Culture is superorganic to the extent that it outlines the particular
generation of people who carry it and so persists from one generation to another.
This does not mean that its origin is other than biological. Culture is created by
humans and it is dependent on human choice for its continuity. Culture can be
altered through the decisions of human beings. But this does not mean it is easy
to change culture. The superorganic may be injurious to the organic. Some cultural
traits for instance, are definitely harmful to the organic life of the humans. The
superorgannic is an order of phenomenon different from the organic and goes its
way with a certain amount of independence from the organic.
Universal and unique
Culture is universal in the sense that every man experiences it and uniqueness of
culture implies its regional variations. Some cultural traits are necessary to all
members of the society. These cultural traits are called cultural universals like for
e.g. Incest taboo.
Civilization and Culture
The civilization represents a particular type of culture. The term “civilization” has
been used almost synonymously with culture. This is because civilization and culture
are different aspects of a single entity. Civilization can be viewed as the external
manifestation, and culture as the internal character of a society. Thus, civilization
is expressed in physical attributes, such as tool making, agriculture, buildings,
technology, urban planning, social structure, social institutions, and so forth. Culture,
on the other hand, refers to the social standards and norms of behaviour, the
traditions, values, ethics, morality, and religious beliefs and practices that are held
in common by members of the society. Both culture and civilization have been
developed by the same human processes. Both are complimentary to each other.
Culture needs a civilization for further growth. Civilization needs culture even for
its vital force and survival. The two are therefore interdependent. Civilization
cannot survive without strong stimulus and motive, however high may be its
achievements in science.
Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism
The two concepts ethnocentrism and cultural relativism occupy key positions in
socio-cultural anthropology. They are the most sensitive and controversial issues
in sociology and socio-cultural anthropology. The general pattern is to judge the
behaviour of other people in other groups by the standards of our own culture.
In his book “Folkways” Sociologist William Graham Sumner coined the term
ethnocentrism to refer to the tendency to assume that one’s culture and way of
life are superior to all others. (Sumner 1906).
The ethnocentric person sees his or her own group as the center or defining point
of culture and views all other cultures as deviations from what is “normal.”
Anthropologists endeavor as far as possible to avoid ethnocentrism. Cultural
Relativism/ Cultural determinism approach was first formulated by Franz Boas
in North America in 19th century. He says no culture should be judged by the
standards of another. Cultural relativism views people’s behaviour from the
perspective of their own culture. It places a priority on understanding other
16 cultures, rather than dismissing them as “strange” or “exotic.” Any part of a culture
must be viewed from within its cultural context-not that of the observer or the Concept of Society
and Culture
notion that there are no universal standards by which all cultures may be evaluated.
Cultures must be analyzed with reference to their own histories and culture traits
understood in terms of the cultural whole.
Reflection and Action

Do you think some cultures are ‘superior’ while others are ‘inferior’? Discuss.

1.3.4 Culture and Society

Culture is the sum total of learned, shared and socially transmitted behaviour that
includes ideas, values, and customs of groups of people. A fairly large number of
people living in the same territory constitute a society. Members of a society
share a common language, which facilitates day-to-day exchanges with others and
participate in a common culture. Nadel in his work says it is necessary to make
a distinction between “Culture” from its companion term “society.” According to
him culture is the way of life of the people; while a society is an organised,
interacting aggregate of individuals who follow a given way of life. In simple terms
a society is composed of people; the way they behave is their culture. (Nadel,
S.F. 2006)
Since the time of Boas, culture became a tool for understanding and describing the
exotic society. Anthropological study on cultural relativism allows a comparison of
culture without assuming evolutionary hierarchies. It means that every culture has
in its own rights to be different and does not stand for the purpose of other
culture. In other words, all cultures express validity in their perspective of the
world. Thus, it could be in-appropriate to judge cannibalism activity among society
even if we use universal notion on violence. What we can do is try to understand
the reason and rationalise such activity.
Early notion of culture was popularised among Anthropologist in order to understand
homogeneous societies. In the modern world the relationship between culture and
society is a complex one. Culture is produced and reproduced within the society
and society acts in certain way in a culture. But how does culture work in the
complex societies? Early Anthropologists used culture as the set of practical and
contingent significations, while postmodernists use it to mark the domain of signifying
practices.
According to Pertierra, (2004) society can be seen as the collection of individual
members pursuing their interest in the context of formal rules administered by
specialists and implemented by the state. It was also a constant state of self-
constitution, whose members are engaged in individual life projects marked by
purposive and value rationality. Society consists of individuals mostly unknown to
one another but nevertheless linked through abstract categories such as class,
nation, or gender. In this case society assumed as the real place or arena, an
institution in which individuals play their roles in order to achieve their different
objectives. When we see the relation between society and culture, society and
culture are two elements that are complementing each other. Society expresses
itself through culture. We can associate the group of people or society from the
culture they practice, such as Asian society is characterised by Asian culture, or
Javanese society with its Javanese culture.
Furthermore, culture is manifested in the socio economic structures as frames for
the organisation of social relationship, it is embedded both in the material setting
17
Society and Culture and the social institutions of society. Material experiences are organised and group
relations are structured through culture. But culture has also the medium through
which the social world is experienced, interpreted and understood. In this sense,
culture is something more basic than ideological superstructure. Culture is produced
in a given society within the framework set by the socio-economic structure. The
cultural process perpetually occurs among the different groups and classes in a
society, and also affects social structure (Erna Herawati 2006).

1.4 SUMMARY
In this unit we have studied the anthropological meaning of the concept society
and culture. It is derived from the Latin word socius which means companionship
or friendship. We have come to know that a society comprises of a group of
people who share a common culture, live in a particular area and feel themselves
to constitute a unified and distinct entity. Society or human society is a group of
people related to each other through persistent relations such as kinship, marriage,
social status, roles and social networks. By extension, society denotes the people
of a region or country, sometimes even the world, taken as a whole.
Culture is one of the basic concepts of anthropology. Anthropologists have been
discussing and debating definitions of culture since the origin of the discipline in the
19th century. To review, we may say that culture is— Learned, as each person
must learn how to “be” a member of that culture, Shared, as it offers all people
ideas about behaviour, Symbolic, as it is based on the manipulation of symbols,
and Systemic and integrated, as the parts of culture work together in an integrated
whole.
References
Angelloni, Elvio. 1998. ‘Anthropology’. Annual Additions. Slvice Dock: Dushkin/
McGraw-Hill.
Bodley, J.H. 1994. Cultural Anthropology: Tribes, States and the Global
System. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Ferraro, Gary P. 1992. Cultural Anthropology: An Applied Perspective. St.
Paul, New York: West Publishing Company.
Harris, M. 1975. Culture, People, Nature: An Introduction to General
Anthropology. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Herawati, Erna. 2006. Sociology, Anthropology, and Modernity. Paper Submitted
to Department of Sociology and Anthropology. Ateneo De Manila University
Herskovits, M. 1948. Man and His Works. New York: Knopf.
Howard, Michael C and Janet D.H. 1992. Anthropology:Understanding Human
Adaptation. New York: Harper Collins.
Kluckhohn and Kelly. 1945. ‘The Concept of Culture’. In The Science of Man
in the World Crisis, Ralph Linton ed. New York: Columbia University Press.
Maclver, R. M. 1931. Society - Its Structure and Changes. New York: Hay
Long and Richard Smith Inc.
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1944. The Scientific Theory of Culture. Oxford: Oxford
18
University Press.
Nadel S.F. 2006. ‘The Typological Approach to Culture’. Journal of Personality. Concept of Society
and Culture
Vol. 5. Issue 4, April
Pertierra, Rahul. 2004. Introductory Lecture: Course Overview.
Sumner, W. G. 1906. Folkways. New York: Ginn.
Tylor, E.B. 1871. Primitive culture. London: J. Murray.
Suggested Reading
Hammond, Peter. 1971. An Introduction to Cultural and Social Anthropology.
New York: The McMillan Company.
Keesing, Roger M. 1981. Cultural Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Kottak, Conrad P. 2002. Anthropology: The Exploration of Human Diversity.
9th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Sample Questions
1) Define anthropological meaning of the concept of culture.
2) Discuss the key characteristics or attributes of culture.
3) Discuss the relationship between society and culture.

19
 UNIT 2 SOCIAL GROUP
Contents
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Primary Group
2.2.1 Characteristics of Primary Group
2.2.2 Importance of a Primary Group

2.3 Secondary Group

2.3.1 Characteristics of Secondary Group

2.4 Community
2.5 Association
2.6 Organisations: Formal and Informal
2.7 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions
Learning Objectives

After studying the unit, you will be able to:
 understand what a group is, its formation and types;
 know about primary and secondary group and their characteristics;
 define a community;
 identify an association; and
 differentiate between formal and informal organisations.

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Humans are social beings. They live together and form a society. Although they
make society, neither they can see it nor can they touch it. But what all they can
do is that they can perceive the society, they can feel the presence of society all
around them. It is the basic reason behind calling society as an abstract entity. But
if society is abstract, how can we study that abstract article?
Now, let us think of these aspects from different point of view.
When a human being takes birth, he or she has certain needs to fulfill for which
he/she depends on other individuals. In this process, he/she interacts with other
individuals of society and establishes social relationships. These social interactions
take place between two or more individuals. The whole collection of individuals
in which social interaction takes place is called as ‘Social Group’. It is the group
in a form or the other which fulfills various needs of an individual. It provides a
medium for social interaction.
A person can easily identify those groups with which he makes relations in order
20 to fulfill his needs. It means we can see the individuals that form a group. In other
words, through these groups, we can experience the society which is considered Social Group
as abstract in itself. So we can say that even though group is small, still it is the
true representative of society, reflection of society.
Till now three things are very clear regarding the group:
One, group is the basic element of society and is a concrete phenomenon; second,
a group requires more than one individual; and third, there is a compulsory
interaction between the individuals forming a group i.e. social relationships.
The elaboration of idea of social relations within a group of individuals can be seen
in the writings of German Sociologist Max Weber. He opines that it is the mutual
awareness or mutual recognition that establishes the relations among the group
members. And it is the system of social relations that serves as a mean to fulfill
the common interests of all the members. Talcott Parsons (1951) considers culture
as a basic element behind social relationships. It is the culture which defines the
patterns of behaviour in a group which are shared by all the members of the
group. These shared norms or patterns define the roles of the members and
differentiate them from non-members.
Anderson and Parker (1966: 102) give a comprehensive definition of group,
“Groups are units of two or more people meeting in the same environment, or
overcoming distance by some means of communication, who are influencing each
other psychologically. The distinctive bond of the group is reciprocal interaction.
Friends in conversation, a committee in action and children playing together are
examples.”
This definition of group implies that the relations among group members are not
temporary, they are recurrent and influence the other members of the group i.e.
members are conscious about the presence of other members. This consciousness
of membership influences their behaviour and also differentiates a group.
Hence, Group is not only a physical collection of people or an aggregation; while
it is a collection of people who shares common characteristics and organised
pattern of persistent interaction and are aware of each other’s presence.
Recurrent nature of interaction among the group members makes the group one
of the most stable social units of the society. They endure for a longer period and
make the society sustained. They are important for both to their members and for
the society at large. As we have already discussed, groups fulfill the needs of its
members. They also perform a number of functions like socialisation necessary for
the maintenance of the society.
To sum up, we can say that social group is a social unit which has the following
basic elements: a) an aggregation of two or more individuals, b) definite relations
among the members comprising it, c) mutual awareness or consciousness.
Since, group is a collection of interacting individuals, the level of interaction can
be of many types and group membership can be acquired in a number of ways.
So social groups can be classified in a variety of ways. Different scholars have
seen group from different point of views and classified groups in different ways.
There is broad range of facts on whose basis groups have been classified. Some
of the chief basis include functions, size, stability, status, rule of membership,
degree of interaction and many more.
A very important classification of groups was made by C.H. Cooley (1909). On 21
Society and Culture the basis of his works two types of groups were identified i.e. PRIMARY and
SECONDARY groups. Although, Cooley has never mentioned the term ‘secondary
group’ in his writings but other scholars have popularised the term secondary
group to those groups which do not fall in the category of primary groups.
Now, we would deal with these two types of groups in detail and would see their
importance in social life.

2.2 PRIMARY GROUP

Primary group are those groups in which a small number of persons come into
direct contact with one another. There is sense of mutual co-operation,
companionship and sharing of personal feelings. They are small groups and every
person necessarily belongs to any of the primary groups. Due to their important
nature, they form the nucleus of the social organisation.
We have already mentioned that primary groups, for the very first time, were
recognised by C.H. Cooley (1909) in his very famous book ‘Social Organisation:
Human Nature and Social Order’. He has observed intimate and close social
relations among the members of certain small groups and termed those groups as
Primary groups. In his analysis of primary group he defined it in term of face-to-
face interaction, co-operation and association, emotional involvement, identification
and sentiments of loyalty. In primary groups emotions and sentiments carry more
importance than the size of the group. Primary group is considered to be a
product of long and intimate informal interactions. The relations among the members
of primary groups are as in themselves not a mean to those ends.
For Cooley primary groups mean those characterised by intimate face-to-face
association and co-operation. They are primary in several senses, but chiefly in
that they are fundamental in forming the social order and ideas of the individual.
He further adds that the result of intimate association psychologically, is a certain
fusion of individualities in a common whole, so that one’s very self, for many
purposes at least, is the common life and purpose of the group. Perhaps the
simplest way of describing this wholeness is by saying that it is a ‘we’, it involves
the sort of sympathy and mutual identification for which ‘we’ is the natural expression.
One lives in the feeling of the whole and finds the chief aim of his will in that
feeling.
Cooley considers family, playmates of children, neighbourhood and community
groups and groups of elders as primary groups. He believes in the universal
presence of these primary groups in all the times and all the stages of development.
He argues upon the presence of some degree of primary relations in all sorts of
groups. This primary association create consensus which further adds a ‘we’
feeling among the group members. Thus primary association is seen in all the
groups and cannot therefore be used as the bases of differentiation between
primary and secondary groups.
A large number of people cannot interact in highly personal and face-to-face
manner and they tend to break down into small, more intense cliques. So a
primary group consists of a small number of people who interact in intense, direct
and personal manner. The relationships between the members carry an emotional
depth and the group is likely to endure for a longer time. The members know each
other at personal level and share their experiences, gossip agreeably and fill the
need for intimate human companionship.
22
Three essential conditions have been identified for a primary group formation: Social Group

 Close face-to-face proximity

 Smallness of the group
 Durability of the bond
For intimacy to develop, physical proximity is a necessity that is provided best by
face-to-face association. Talking and seeking each other makes easy the exchange
of ideas, feelings, opinions and sentiments. Physical proximity provides opportunity
and conducive conditions for the development of primary groups.
Group size is also important. Sensory contact is not possible with many people at
the same time. Small group tends individuals to come closer and facilitates personal
interaction. The smaller the group the more intimate it will be. As the group
becomes larger, it dilutes its intensity of relations among members and individuals
also lose their individuality.
Intimacy is determined largely by the frequency and intensity of association. The
longer people are together, the deeper the contacts between them. Gradual and
regular interchanges of habits and ideas deepen the social ties.
Physical proximity, smaller size and long duration are the conditions that facilitate
the development of close relationships. All the three conditions are not mandatory
for the origin of a primary group rather they define the most favourable conditions
for the development of high level of primary relations.

2.2.1 Characteristics of Primary Group

Characteristics of primary groups can be divided into two broad categories i.e.
external characters and internal characters
External characters include following aspects:
 Physical proximity among group members
 Small size of the group
 Stability and durability
 Continuity in the relations
Internal characters include:
 Common objectives of the group
 The relations are ends in themselves
 Relationships are spontaneous
 Personal relationships
 Inclusive relations among members
 Control over the members
Primary groups are essential for social life. They play a very important role in an
individual’s life. They are significant at both individual and social level. They provide
the medium through which we learn our culture and patterns of behaviour. Some
of the main points regarding the importance of a primary group are given below. 23
Society and Culture 2.2.2 Importance of a Primary Group
At the level of individual, a primary group
 Helps in development of personality
 Increases the efficiency of an individual
 Fulfills the psychological needs.
At the level of society, a primary group
 Transfers the culture from one generation to another
 Carries cultural norms of the society within the society
 Provides means of social control and helps maintaining the social order
 Ensures the performance of social roles in accordance with society norms.
Though primary relations and primary groups seem to be very important for the
society, it would be over imperative to consider them as ideal for social interactions.
At times primary groups interfere with other elements of the society. At the time
of making objective decisions, primary relations create hurdle. For example, if a
teacher shows leniency towards a student and gives him high marks which he does
not deserve, it would be considered as dysfunctional.
Many situations arise in modern society where primary relationships are
inappropriate at best and harmful at worst. In large bureaucratic structure, so
necessary to contemporary organisations, impersonality is more appropriate than
intimacy, routine is more important than spontaneity, and division of labour more
necessary than versatility. Societies and sub-societies composed of tight network
of primary relationships are often more tolerant of differences, more resistant to
change, and less receptive to freedom than societies where relationships are more
casual (Merill, 1969).
Moreover, primary group asserts its control over its members in the form of
restrictions, conformity and reactions. For example, a family provides liberties to
its members and at the same time imposes restrictions on them; a peer group
fosters the conformity in the group. Primary group also resists the intellectual,
industrial and educational changes in order to maintain its hereditary ties.
Reflection

Typical examples of primary group

 The Army Group: Soldiers form primary groups with their commandants and form
informal relationships within formal settings in order to defend its members against
the arbitrary authority of officers.

 The Peer Group: Boys and girls of the same age group and approximately same
social background, as in a class, form a primary group and have personal social
interaction which also helps in their personality development.

 The Clique: It is a form of friendship developed between two or more persons which
bring them into joint activity. It satisfies the emotional needs of a person to be loved
and respected by his peers. example, clique of Indian students in Australian
universities.

In this discussion, we learnt that primary groups are the basic groups of the
society. A human being starts life from the primary group, develops personality in
primary group and throughout life one remains a part of one or another primary
group. But there are other groups which are important equally if not more in an
24
individual’s life. They are distinguished from primary groups and are called as Social Group
secondary groups.
Now, let us read some more about secondary groups and the reason behind their
formation.

2.3 SECONDARY GROUP

Primary groups play a vital role in a person’s life; however, there are secondary
groups which fulfill their maximum needs in life. Cooley did not provide any
terminology for the groups other than primary groups and many writers came to
speak of ‘secondary groups’ the tendency has been to consider secondary groups
as those which depend for communication on indirect media, such as newspapers
(Faris, 1937).
In secondary groups, the relations are formal, impersonal, segmental and utilitarian.
These groups are less intimate as the level of interaction is restricted at a formal
level. They do not give close identity to its members as primary groups do. In
secondary group, we very often interact with people of diverse background because
we need their services and we have certain obligations to fulfill. In case of utilitarian
or contractual obligations, there is no need to develop personal relations. These
relations remain based on reciprocal needs. Hence, members of these groups
regard each other as means not an end in themselves.
MacIver and Page (1952) has pointed out that primary group relations are
characteristics of simple or primitive societies. As the population and territory of
a society increases, interests would have become diversified and so the needs. It
gave rise to the need of indirect, impersonal and utilitarian relations. He called
these newly emerged impersonal relations as ‘great associations”. They are result
of expansion of population and perhaps primarily, of growing cultural complexity.
He considers secondary group a character of industrialised and urbanised complex
societies. In these societies due to complexity in the nature of work, more
complicated relations develop which provides a very limited scope for intimate
relations.
Ogburn and Nimkoff (1966) say that the “groups which provide experience lacking
in intimacy, can be called as secondary group.” Here by experience he means the
interaction with the varied kind of people in day to day life. At one hand secondary
groups fulfill majority of the needs of an individual, on the other hand they also
separate individuals’ activities from the rest of the activities because in secondary
group context every individual is supposed to play his own part. It also segments
individuals’ personality in contrast to primary groups where his whole personality
reflects.
Reflection

Typical examples of secondary group

 A group of co-workers: A group of people working together in the same organisation

form a secondary group as they have impersonal relations but spends most of the
time together in the organisation.

 Clubs: Clubs are formed in order to fulfill some of the requirements of social life as
fun clubs or sport clubs for entertainment, charity clubs for contributions or donations,
hobby clubs for leisure pursuits and many more. These clubs are utilitarian in nature
and form a secondary group as members of the group are less intimate.
25
Society and Culture
 University or college: University or a college also form secondary group as they are
segmental in nature. People are dependent on colleges for educational requirements
but it reflects just a part of their personality and people form formal contacts.

In order to understand secondary group in more appropriate manner, let us look

into their characteristics.

2.3.1 Characteristics of Secondary Group

 Dominance of secondary relations: Secondary group relations can be
seen in reference to primary relations. Secondary group relations are
impersonal, indirect, non-inclusive and utilitarian. Members are connected to
each other through contractual obligations or interests. Due to self-interest,
individuality develops among the members.
 Voluntary membership: Individuals are free to join or leave the group at
any point of time i.e. membership of these groups are predominantly voluntary.
But in case of secondary groups like ‘state’, membership becomes compulsory.
 Large in Size: Unlike a primary group, physical proximity is not the condition
for secondary group and so size of secondary group becomes large. They
might spread all over the world. For example, members of PETA (People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals) are scattered all over the world.
 Goal Oriented: Secondary groups are formed in order to fulfill the needs of
the individuals. They serve the special functions in the society. Every secondary
group emerges in response to specific purpose and joins the people having
same type of need.
 Indirect communication: Mode of communication among the members of
secondary group is indirect. In many of the cases, group members seldom or
rarely or never come into direct contact to each other. They rely on different
forms of mass media communication which include radio, telephone, television,
newspaper, movies, magazines, post and telegraph etc.
 Role decides a person’s position: In secondary groups, position of a
person depends upon his role. Socially achieved status and its corresponding
role remains the key factor behind the position of a person in the secondary
group. His position is not being decided by his ascribed status neither he is
treated on the basis of his birth.
However, an individual fulfills its majority of the needs through the secondary
group, yet these groups are not exclusive and cannot replace the importance of
primary groups.
In modern society, many of the former functions of the primary groups have been
assumed by large, impersonal, goal-oriented groups. Each of these secondary
groups creates a new network of primary groups that provide intimacy and personal
response in many impersonal situations also. So we should not see both of them
mutually exclusive.
The inflexible classification of groups into primary and secondary is not preferable
as there is much overlapping of the two. Kingsley Davis (1957: 289) writes that
“Cooley’s emphasis on ‘we’ feeling cannot be taken as the distinctive element in
the primary group as such feeling to some extent is necessary for any enduring
community.” In between primary group like the family and a formal and rigid group
26
like army there are hundreds of groups, some of which are more primary than Social Group
others. Even in modern organisations, efforts are made to create a friendly
atmosphere among the employees.
Hence, we can say that in modern societies both primary and secondary groups
are important and it is not easy to substitute one for the other.
Action

1) Identify the various people with which you interact often and try to categorise them
into primary and secondary group members in your reference.

2) Classify the following groups into primary and secondary groups

Nuclear Family Co-Workers
Sports Team Church Congregation
FCCI Mafia Brothers
Alcoholic Anonymous Democratic Party
Unmarried Partners Polo Club
Fraternal Groups College Clique
Army Battalion Boy Scout Troop
Neighbourhood Watch Rotary Club
Cancer Support Club Senior Citizen Club

2.4 COMMUNITY
We have understood the concept of group in the above discussion. The elementary
point of a social group is the presence of social relations. Now, just think of a
group in which an individual spends most of the time of his life and what if this
group is restricted to a particular locality or place or geographical area? It becomes
a community in which people spend most of their time and keep a feeling of
belongingness with it.
A community is called as a collection of people with residential ties to particular
locality. It is the territorial boundary which differentiates a community with other
groups because the concept of group is not restricted to a particular locality. It
may be considered as a permanent local aggregation of people having diversified
as well as common interests.
Word ‘Community’ is comprised of two Latin words namely ‘com’ and ‘munis’.
In English ‘com’ means together and ‘munis’ means to serve. Thus, community
means to serve together. In implies that the purpose of a community is to serve.
According to MacIver and Page (1952: 9) “Community is a group of people who
live together, who belong together, so that they share, not ties or that particular
interest, but as a whole set of interests, wide enough and complete enough to
include their lives.” Kingsley Davis (1957) has defined community as the smallest
territorial group that can embrace all the aspects of social life. These definitions
give emphasis on the structural and functional aspects of the community. While we
should keep in mind that community is not an exclusive entity, it should not be seen
as a separate part of society. They are within the society and form their integral
part.
An individual cannot live his whole life within an organisation or an association
while he can live his life in a village or in a city. So we can say that community
provides the individual a conducive environment to live wholly within it and also
summarize his social relationships within it. 27
Society and Culture In the simple societies, communities are considered as self-sufficient but in modern
time character of community has become very complex. Moreover, community is
a relative term. People live within a greater community such as a village within a
district, a district within a region, a region within a state and a state within a
country.
Sometimes, it becomes difficult to differentiate a community from other social form
like society and groups. But, there are some basic characteristic features of the
communities.
Characteristics of a Community
 Definitive geographical area: Community is a spatial entity. A community
is always considered in relation to a physical geographical area or territory.
It is a compulsory condition for a community. But it should not be confused
with those groups who live together without any separate physical boundary.
As four friends living in a room do not form a community. Community is a
broader term.
 We feeling or community feeling: It is home instinct which lays the foundation
of people’s attachment to their house, community or nation. It’s the ‘we’
feeling through which people recognises their community and themselves.
Community sentiments develop during a period of time within community.
 Common culture and common life: Life of the people in a community is
more or less same. Due to their common ecological conditions, they develop
same type of culture, habits and behavioural patterns. Cultural uniformity and
uniformity in their mode of life can be observed.
 Close relationships: As a person mostly lives in a community, proximate
relations develop. Collective participation becomes a common affair which
brings people together and gives a chance to primary relations to develop.
Thus, the psychological feelings of a community become more important.
 Completeness of life: Community covers all the aspects of life. Community
helps in the socialisation and also helps in developing the community sentiments
in a person as well.
 Permanent nature: Communities are never formed with any particular aim
or objective. It grows itself spontaneously and so it is durable.
 Not a legal body: A community is not a legal body i.e. it cannot sue, nor
it can be sued. In the eyes of law, community has no rights and duties.
Apart from these basic elements, community shares feeling of one-ness and has
a particular name. Though a community does not form with a particular aim, its
ends remain wider and natural.
MacIver and Page (1952) has considered village and tribal societies as the best
examples of community. Apart from it, they have also kept asylum and prison into
the category of community.

2.5 ASSOCIATION
In our day to day life, we come across a number of associations like trader’s
association and urban development association etc. but we hardly pay any attention
28
to what an association is? In anthropology, association represents a group created Social Group
for fulfillment of common needs.
Human beings can fulfill their needs through three ways. One, independently;
second, through conflict with one another and third, on co-operative basis i.e. in
company. This co-operative pursuit may be determined by customs of the community.
So when a group organises itself especially for the purpose of pursuing certain
interests, an association is born.
As MacIver and Page (1952: 209) says that “an association is an organisation
deliberately formed for the collective pursuit of same interest or set of interests,
which its members share.” This definition clearly indicates the nature of association,
its structure and functions.
Hence, it can be said that an association is a group of people organised for a
particular purpose. It implies that there are certain conditions to constitute an
association:
Firstly, there must be a group of people; Secondly, the group of people should be
organised i.e. there must be certain rules for conduct; Thirdly, there must be
common purpose of the specific nature to follow.
Since, men have several interests and several purposes to pursue; they establish
many associations to fulfill them. For example: political associations to serve the
political motives, student associations to give out student welfare, professional
associations like ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research), FICCI (Federation
of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry) to serve the interests of concerned
people and international associations like Rotary Club, Y.M.C.A. (Young Men’s
Christian Association) etc.
As society moves towards complexity, needs of the human beings also become
diversified and this finally lead to more and more number of associations. In
contemporary times, associations perform more than their conventional functions.
Now people use associations to discharge their social obligations. Society is
considered as a combination of associations and healthy associations represents
a healthy society.
Characteristics of association
 Association requires at least two individuals. It is considered as a concrete
form of group.
 Association has its own aims and objectives. No association can be formed
without any aim. Aim can be broad or particular.
 Association is always a result of deliberate action. Like communities, they do
not grow spontaneously. They are deliberately created by men in order to
fulfill certain aims.
 In an association, membership remains voluntary. Members can join the
association or establish an association as per their needs.
 There are certain rules to get membership of an association. Every association
establishes on the ground of certain rules and regulations. It also contains
code of conduct for the members. On any contradictory action or disobeying
the regulations, a member may be expelled from the membership.
29
Society and Culture  Associations are subjected to be terminated. The life of an association is upto
the achievement of the aim for which it has been created. The existence of
the association after the achievement of the objectives becomes meaningless
and immaterial.
In simple societies, where there is less division of labour, there are a few
associations and they are more inclusive. Thus, they lack specific limited functional
character. They take such forms as age groups, kin groups and sex-groups etc.
while in modern societies; associations are tend to be specialised so that each
stands for a particular type of interest.
So we see that associations are formed to achieve certain general goals and in
order to attain these goals, certain rules and regulations are developed. Formation
of an association can be understood from the following example:
In a society, everybody needs a house to live. It is everybody’s aim but can we
achieve it by our own exclusive efforts and resources? The answer is ‘No’ and
for that purpose Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO) was
established. Associations are formed in this manner only. As needs increased,
people kept on making associations to meet those needs.
Hence, we can say that associations are those functional units of society through
which a man fulfills his basic social needs. They are deliberately formed in order
to attain certain purposes.
Reflection and Action

Are family, school and hospital associations?

If we observe them carefully, we find that all of these three have following characteristics:

i) More than one member

ii) A definite structure

iii) Have specific aims and objectives

iv) Voluntary membership (after certain period of time, one can decide that whether he/
she wants to stay in the family or not)

On the basis of above features, family, school and hospital can be considered as
associations.

Activity

1) Differentiate between community, association and society.

2) Make a list of all those associations to which you belong.

2.6 ORGANISATIONS: FORMALAND INFORMAL

Now, we know about social groups, communities and associations. We learnt in
association that they are organised groups with a specific purpose. While
organisations are those associations of individuals through which certain value
oriented interests are satisfied. They are systematically arranged units of individuals
in which each person has a formal status and role, (Anderson and Parker, 1966).
Organisations are principally formed in order to attain certain goals. They emerge
‘when explicit procedures are established to coordinate the activities of a group
in the interest of achieving specific objectives. The collective effort of the members
30 of the group may become formally organised either because all of them have some
common interests or because a sub-group has furnished inducements to the rest Social Group
to work on behalf of its interests. Trade unions, government bureaus and army are
few examples of organisations.
In modern society, needs of human being are diversified and so a number of
organisations exist. Organisations provide a medium for expressing the interests
like education, architecture, music, sports, cultural activities, etc. Parsons (1960:
9) says that “organisations are social units that are deliberately constructed and
reconstructed to pursue specific goals.” The government, trade unions, sports
authorities and clubs are social structures formed to achieve certain objectives
with special purposes. These all are counted as organisations.
Generally, organisations can be divided into formal and informal organisations.
An organisation is developed when there is collectivity of people associated with
one another. But, mere collection of individuals does not form a formal organisation.
The defining criteria of a formal organisation is the existence of procedures for
mobilising and coordinating the efforts of various, usually specialised, sub-groups
in the pursuit of joint objectives.
Formal organisations are further divided into four types on the basis who benefits
from the organisation. One type is mutual benefit organisations where the members
are beneficiaries, for example a labour union. Another type is represented by
business concerns where the main beneficiaries are owners. Third type is client-
centered as in case of service organisations. The fourth type is the common-wealth
organisations which are meant for the benefit of the public. Formal organisation
has fixed set of rules of intra-organisation procedures and structures. These rules
are set out in writing leaving a little scope for interpretations. In some societies or
in some organisations, such rules may be strictly followed; in others, they remain
at the level of formalisation only. The informal organisations are informally organised
by the participants themselves, and they compliment those formally organised for
them by the management. It is the interlocking social structure that governs how
people work together in practice. It is the aggregate of behaviours, interactions,
norms, personal and professional connections through which work gets done and
relationships are built among people who share a common organisational affiliation.
It consists of a dynamic set of personal relationships, social networks, communities
of common interest and emotional sources of motivation. Informal organisation
originates or evolves spontaneously in response to changes in the work environment.
Characteristics of formal organisation
 Enduring unless deliberately altered
 Static
 Very specified written rules
 Equates person with roles
 Hierarchical
 People are bounded together with formal rules and procedures
While informal organisations have following characteristics:
 Evolve or emerge spontaneously
 Dynamic and responsive 31
Society and Culture  Rules are not specified if written
 Treat people as individuals
 No hierarchical relations
Membership of an organisation along with its privileges entails duties and
responsibilities. It is just like availing a new status in order to make the individual
aware of his new responsibilities and status; many organisations go through the
initiation ceremony along with oath taking process. Some organisations maintain
secrecy which builds a kind of social distance between members and outsiders for
example Mau Mau, a secret organisation of West Africa (Verghese, 1992).
In a large organisation, many smaller organisations exist. These smaller organisations,
which are themselves formal organisations, work as sub units of larger network.
This whole network of organisations and its sub units is known as ‘complex
organisations’. Etzioni (1961: 464) opines, “Complex organisation constitutes one
of the most important elements which make up social web of modern societies.
Most citizens of modern societies are born in a hospital, educated in school, work
in one organisation or another; and to the degree to that they participate in religious
and political activities, these two, frequently take place in complex organisation.
In short member of modern societies obtain a large part of their material, social
and cultural satisfaction from large scale organisations”.
Activity

1) Name five formal and informal organisations found in your society

2) Find out the characteristics of bureaucratic organisation of your society

Modern organisations differ in three ways with social groups (i) division of labour;
(ii) power centers; and (iii) substitution of personnel. Contemporary organisations
are specialised and are likely to be formed when there is a complimentary or
common interest which may bring the members together for activities of mutual
interest.

2.7 SUMMARY
In this unit you have learnt about social groups including primary and secondary
groups, communities, associations and formal and informal organisations. Social
groups are based on social interaction and the degree of interaction decides the
nature of the group. While community is a spatial phenomenon having ‘we’ feeling,
on the other hand associations and organisations are formed in order to fulfill
certain purpose with specific objectives. These concepts would help you in
understanding the society and its structure in a better way.
References
Anderson, W. A. and F. B. Parker. 1966. Society. Princeton: Van Nostrand Co.
Cooley. C. H. 1909. Social Organisation: Human Nature and Social Order.
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Davis, Kingsley. 1957. Human Society. New York: Macmillan.
Encyclopedia of Social Sciences Vol. XI, 1972. New York: Macmillan.
Etzioni, A. 1961. Complex Organisations: A Sociological Reader. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston
32
Faris, Ellsworht. 1937. The Nature of human nature: and their essays in social Social Group
psychology. York, P.A: Mc Graw-Hill Book Company Inc.
MacIver, R. M. and C.H. Page. 1952. Society: An Introductory Analysis. New
York: Macmillan.
Merill, Francis E. 1969. Society and Culture-an introduction to Sociology. N.J:
Prentice Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs.
Ogburn, W.F. and M. F. Nimkoff. 1966. A Handbook of Sociology. New Delhi:
Eurasia Publications house.
Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. Glencoe: IL, Free Press.
Parsons, Talcott.1960. Structure and Process in Modern Societies. Glencoe:
The Free Press.
Verghese, K.E. 1992. General Sociology. Chennai: Macmillan India Ltd.
Weber, Max. 1920. The theory of social and economic organisation. New
York: Simon & Schuster
Suggested Reading
MacIver, R. M. and C.H. Page. 1952. Society: An Introductory Analysis. New
York: Macmillan.
Parsons, Talcott.1960. Structure and Process in Modern Societies. Glencoe:
The Free Press.
Sample Questions
1) Primary Groups play a pivotal role in a person’s life. Explain.
2) Primary Groups can be formed within the secondary groups. Comment.
3) How is a community different from an association?
4) Organisations form a network of roles and duties. Elucidate.

33
 UNIT 3 SOCIAL IDENTITY AND
MOVEMENTS
Contents
3.1 Introduction: Identity
3.1.1 Society, Self and Identity
3.1.2 Culture and Identity
3.1.3 Identity, Self Recognition and Meaning
3.1.4 Identity: Reasons and Choice

3.2 Transformation of Identity

3.2.1 Identity and Domination
3.2.2 Identity, Power and Changing Society
3.2.3 Identity in Networked Society

3.3 Collective Actions, New Identity and Social Movements

3.4 Resurgence of Multiple Collective Identities in India
3.5 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions
Learning Objectives

After reading this unit, you will be able to:
 elaborate the concept of identity;
 discuss the process of transformation of identity;
 analyse the process of rejuvenation of identity in the context of social
movement and its transformation; and
 delineate the resurgence of multiple collective identities as taking shape in
grassroots movements in India.

3.1 INTRODUCTION: IDENTITY

In general sense of the term, it is widely stated that an identity is what “I am” or
“we are”, “he is” or “they are”. The “I” and “we” similarly “he” and “they” is
neither independent/autonomous social product nor remain fixed forever. One’s
identity is constructed through the processes of interaction, and daily engagement
both with the local and global society. These processes of construction get widely
influenced by the social and cultural institutional arrangements of the society like
the caste, religion and ethnicity, class, political party, state and the like. Thus the
process of identity construction get negotiated both with the localised
conditionalities, historical experiences and inter connections with the wider society.
It is a complex and dynamic process through which individual collective self gets
constructed, reformed and rejuvenated. Hence the summations of identity represent
the collective self. Generally speaking human beings are born in society and
34 societal conditions widely shape the identity.
3.1.1 Society, Self and Identity Social Identity and
Movements
The issues of ‘self’ and ‘identity’ are frequently used in the symbolic-interactionist
theories. To them ‘self reflects society’, i.e., ‘society shapes self which shapes
social behaviours’ (Mead 1934; Cooley 1902; Blumer 1969). Society however is
not a homogenous undifferentiated identity. It is having eclectic dimension. Hence
the structural symbolic–interactionist visualises societies as ‘highly differentiated
yet organised systems of interactions and relationships encompassing a wide variety
of crosscutting lines based on social class, age, gender, ethnicity, religion and
more’. Here ‘self’ must be seen as ‘multifaceted, as comprised of a variety of
parts that are sometimes interdependent and sometimes independent of other
parts, sometimes mutually reinforcing and sometimes conflicting and that are
organised in multiple ways. Self is conceptualised as sets of discrete identities or
internalised role designations. It is also argued that identity varies in their salience.
That a given identity can be invoked in a variety of situations or it ‘can be defined
as differential probability’. Thus choice between or among behaviours expressive
of particular roles will reflect the relative location of the identities associated with
those roles (Stryker 1990: 873–74).

3.1.2 Culture and Identity

Philosophically identity is not a universal but a culture-specific discursive
construction. Hall (1990) talks about cultural identity that is formed continuously:
‘Cultural identity is not an essence but a continually shifting description of us’.
Hall’s (1996) argues that there is no automatic connection between various
discourses of identity, namely, class, gender, race, age, etc. as they can be articulated
in different ways. In this connection, the issue of multiple identities as propagated
by several social scientists is highly relevant. To Barker and Galasinski (2001) ‘we
may reflect on the multiple identities of the contemporary subject, that is the
weaving of the patterns of identity from the discourses of class, race, gender, etc.
We can thus conceive of people as operating across and within multiple subject
positions constituted by the intersections of discourses of race, gender, age, nation,
class, etc. Thus there is an element of plasticity in the formation of identity. Here
to Hall (1996), it is the very plasticity of identity that makes its cultural and
political significance, for the shifting and changing character of identities chronicles
the way that get transformed over time and as a result, they tend to be subjective
construction of mainly their objectively fixed phenomena (Hall 1996).

3.1.3 Identity, Self Recognition and Meaning

Furio Cerutti (2001) is of the view that the change in self-perception of the actor
plays a crucial role both in the formation and transformation of identity. To him
‘there is a symbolic interaction (before and above any calculations and sometimes
against the same calculations) that explains the development of the actor’s self, his
actions, his transformations and his undoing’. The resurgence of identity also signifies
a shift in attention ‘from structure to agency’.
Reflection

Cerutti (2001) emphasised two important dimensions related to the process of establishment
and transmission of identity: (a) it creates a source of meaning to provide legitimacy to
the decisions, action and unity of the group’s existence, and (b) it also defines the outer
limits of group solidarity.

Identity in question thus, should be considered as an evolving identity and not a

static one. Thus collective identity is a dynamic process and is a social construction. 35
Society and Culture Such a construction also involves the social production of boundaries reflecting the
process of inclusion and exclusion. Self-recognition is an essential aspect of identity
formation, which is produced by collectively operated individualisation of value,
norms, life forms, etc. (Furio Cerutti 2001).
To Castells (1997) identities are sources of meaning for actors themselves, and by
themselves constructed through a process of individuation. Identity refers to the
process of construction of meaning on the basis of cultural attributes, or related
sets of cultural attributes that is/are given priority over sources of meaning by set
of social actors. Although identities can also be originated from dominant institutions,
they can only become identities only when and if social actor internalises them and
construct their meaning around their individuation. He distinguishes identities from
roles. To him identities are stronger source of meaning than roles because of the
process of self construction and individuation that they involve. In simple terms,
identities recognise the meaning while roles recognise the functions. He again
defines meaning as the symbolic identification of the purpose of action by a social
actor (Castells, 1997:7).

3.1.4 Identity, Reasons and Choice

While examining the problematic aspects of identity, Amartya Sen (1999) underlines
that the sense of community and fellowship relates closely to the idea of social
identity. According to Sen, ‘There are strong influences of the community, and of
the people with whom we identify and associate, in sharpening our knowledge and
comprehension as well as our ethics and norms. In this sense, social identity
cannot but be central to human life’ (Sen, 1999: 4). The centrality of human life
is conditioned by inherited socio cultural processes on the one hand and by
reasons and alternative choices on the other. Identity also shapes through societal
recognition. In the interactive world individuals are posted with varieties of choices.
This provides the opportunity to associate and to form and reform identities either
based on reason, tradition or else. Sen extensively examines the question as to
whether our identities emerge by choice or by reasoning or by passive recognition.
He mentions that the choice to be identified is not permanent in the society and
that there are limits to what we choose to identify with. He also mentions that one
can discover his or her identity. However, to him choices have to be made even
when discoveries occur. ‘Choices do exist, and any denial to this fact leads to the
uncritical and unquestioning acceptance of conformist behaviour with several
conservative implications. To him, ‘the unquestioned presumptions are merely
unquestioned not unquestionable’. The unquestioning acceptance of social identity
may also involve a radical shift in the identity having accepted as discovery rather
than reasoned choice. For example a shift from the holistic to sectarian identities
may be a product of unquestioning acceptance of coercive arrangement. This
unreasoned identity shift may lead to devastating effects, like in Rwanda or
Yugoslavia. Here he explains the phenomena of ‘new tyrannies’ in the form of
newly asserted identity that tyrannizes by eliminating other identities. These identities
may have a political role. However these may be oppressive if no room is given
to other claims. To Sen, ‘to deny plurality, choice and reasoning in identity can be
a source of repression; choice is possible and important in individual conduct and
social decisions even if we remain oblivious of it’ (Sen 1999: 22).

3.2 TRANSFORMATION OF IDENTITY

Social movements not only help generate new collective identity or common identity,
36
but also provide a broad field for the transformation of social identity [this lead
to the formation of a unified group out of scattered individuals e.g., transforming Social Identity and
Movements
serie into groups en fusion (Sartre 1960), or this may lead to the transformation
of a collectively into a self conscious groups for collective ‘class-in-itself’ to
‘class-for-itself’ (Marx 1974), etc.]. Sartre calls serie the normal state of crowds,
that is, a series of atomized individuals, each one seen as isolated in his or her
inner world and going his or her own way without caring about others’ ways.
What Sartre is pointing out is that whenever and wherever this figure is actually
doing something or even just walking in the street, it has a silent companion:
‘social control’. The public space is wholly under the control of the established
power. Every individual, whatever she or he thinks of the manifest public discourse
“All is well” and its latent content “Noting can be changed” (cf. Bertaux 1990:
150) whether he or she accepts the rule of this power or rejects it, does so
secretly, thus behaving as if accepting it. Therefore each one, looking at all the
others who work, comply and keep quiet, thinks they are alone in secretly rejecting
this social order. When, however, frustration mounts in each person individually,
it takes only a small event to trigger an instantaneous and massive change of state,
from serie to groupe en fusion. As soon as each person in a serialised mass
realises that some others contest the established power, as he or she takes one
step forward to openly express support, a chain reaction spreads through the
atomized series and transforms it into a fluid group (groupe en fusion) which
instantly moves from the status of subordinated passive object to that of subject
capable of action’ (cf. Bertaux 1990: 155–56). Indeed, social movements provide
the required platform for such transformation.
In the Marxian analysis transformation in the collective identity has been viewed
as transformation of class identities from that of ‘class-in-itself’ to ‘class-for-
itself’. An identity is constructed not only through objective economic conditions
but through a subjective consciousness about economic conditions that transform
the social collectivity into a self conscious entity to bring transform in the pre-
existing social order. The social collectivity with common economic position and
conflicting economic interest vis-a vis the other form objective basis of a class-in-
itself. This is social class without identity and it is incapable of collective action as
it lacks subjective consciousness. The class-in-itself acquires collective identity of
class-for-itself getting mediated through class-consciousness. In this analysis of
transformation of identity all pre-existing identities like caste, gender, race, ethnicity
etc are subsumed under the class identity.

3.2.1 Identity and Domination

To Longman (2010) in face of the structural crises, contradictions and dislocations
due to globalisation, there is often a migration from the political economic to
cultural/collective identity and emotional realms. Customary identities regarding
work, gender, gender orientation, religion etc. face economic and/or cultural
challenges and crises that in turn impact identities and cause emotional distress to
actors.
For Foucault, power and domination work through the inscription and control of
identity through various disciplinary/discursive practices. (cf. Buechler, 2000).
Gramsci’s notion of cultural hegemony depends on mediation though identity to
naturalise the historical (Langman, 2000). Thus a crucial aspect for certain
contemporary social movements is rejection or refashioning of identities/values, to
influence the future directions of a society. From what has been said, collective
identity can be seen as a contested terrain in struggles for hegemony. The historic
37
Society and Culture blocs in power defend their power and privilege by fostering identities in which
subjugation is cloaked and most people accept their domination (ruling block
interests) as “normal”, “common sense” and “in their best interests”. In other
words, the production of identities is a part of hegemonic processes that sustain
structures of domination at the level of the person. And the acceptance and
performances of those identities is not without certain emotional gratifications for
most people most of the time. The extent to which such identities are embraced
without question, and reproduced in performance over time, sustains the continuity
of the society. This has been the essential nature of the structuration process for
Giddens and the nature of the habitus for Bourdieu. Most notions of identity
locate the person/group within certain structures of hierarchy and domination. This
may be racial or ethnic. Colonisers impose subaltern identities upon on the colonised-
the acceptance of which empowers the coloniser-even if the colonised turns violence
on his/her self (Fanon, 1986). Women have been socialised to be subordinate to
men-but as Simone de Beauvior noted the suffering of women as Other, what
Freudian called the illness without a name. Gays have long suppressed their identities.

3.2.2 Identity, Power and the Changing Society

Identity is also linked to broad societal arrangement. Each of the societies—
primitive, agrarian, industrial and post-industrial is represented by their own variety
of identities. In recent years the process of construction of collective identity has
taken a complex shape in the wake of the initiation of new economic orders,
introduction of new technologies and unprecedented flow of new technology and
increasing flow of human and material objects across the globe. Manuel Castells
(1997) in his famous work The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture:
The Power of Identity elaborates the process of emergence of identity that
challenges the processes of globalisation and cosmopolitanism. To him:
“Along with the technological revolution, transformation of capitalism, and the
demise of the statism, we have experienced the wide spread surge of powerful
expression of collective identity that challenges globalisation and cosmopolitanism
on behalf of the singularity and people’s control over their lives and environment.
These expressions are multiple, highly diversified following the contours of each
culture, and the historical sources of formation of each identity. They include
practice of movements, aiming at the transforming human relationship at their most
fundamental level” (Castells, 1997:10).
Though it is easy to accept that identities are constructed, to him the real questions
are how and for what. He is of the opinion that the identities are constructed in
the context of power relationship and he proposes three forms of the origins of
identity building.
Legitimising identity: Introduced by the dominant institutions of the society to
extend and rationalise their domination vis-a vis social actors. Legitimising
identities sustaining the social order—typically these include patriotic, religious or
consumerist orientations. Such identities, the most typical in any society, maintain
the status quo.
Resistance Identity: Generated by those actors that are in positions/ conditions
devaluated and/or stigmatized by the logic of domination, thus building trenches of
resistance and survival on the basis of principles different from or opposed to
those permeating the institutions of society (Castells 1997) Resistance identities
attempts to retain or restore waning identities that oppose globalisation and its
impacts. For example, the fragmentation of community, often tied to economic
38
decline, leads some people to turn away from the global and embrace reactionary Social Identity and
Movements
movements from nationalisms to fundamentalisms that would restore a [mythical]
lost world or “Golden Age” of strong communities of the past and defend a
particular cultural framework that would secure heretofore privileged, traditional
identities. In some cases, there may be progressive forms of resistance albeit
romantic and anarchic, and so individualistic; they are unlikely to foster mobilisations
(Longman 2010).
Project Identity: When social actors on the basis of whatever cultural materials
available to them build a new identity that redefines their positioning in society, by
so doing, seek the transformation of the whole structure (Castells, 1997:8). For
our purposes, the most important, if often least frequent pattern are the project
identities that challenge the hegemony of the dominant class at several levels, not
the least of which are proposing alternative identities that typically resist
rationalisation and/or commodification and consumerism. These project identities
pose fundamental challenges to late capitalist modernity in which rational
technologies, as forms of domination, colonise the life world as well as collective
identity, child rearing, family life, work, organisational spheres and even the pursuit
of pleasure (Giddens 1991, Habermas 1975, Hochschild 1997). The attempts to
re-negotiate and/or fashion new forms of tolerant democratic identities that embrace
alternative futures, in turn act to impel progressive social transformations. Such
people seek to transform people and society in terms greater equality, freedom
and democracy. But these project identities are emergent in the interaction of
struggle, they are neither a priori nor clearly envisioned as goals.
He again maintains that “identities that start as resistance, may reduce project and
may also along with the course of history, become dominant in the institution of
the society, thus becoming a legitimising identities to rationalise their domination.
Thus to him there is per se no progressive or regressive identities except its
historical context. However in his each type of identity process leads to a different
outcome in constituting society. Legitimising identity generates a civil society, i.e.
a set of organisation and institutions as well as a series of structured and organised
social actors, which produce albeit sometimes in a conflict manner the identity that
rationalises the source of structural domination” (Castells, 1997:2). This is indeed
the original concept of civil society as formulated by Gramsci. The Gramscian
sense of civil society is formed by a series of apparatuses such as the church,
unions, parties etc on which on the one hand prolonged the dynamics of the state,
on the other hand deeply rooted among the people.
The identity for resistance leads to the formation of communes or communities. It
constructs forms of collective resistance against other unbearable oppression, usually
on the basis of the identities that were apparently defined by history, geography
or biology making it easier to essentialise the boundaries of resistance”. Here the
examples of are religious fundamentalism, nationalist self affirmation, etc the
expressions being exclusion of the excluded by the excluders.
The project identity according to him produces subjects. They are collective actors
through which individuals reach holistic meaning of their experience. In this case
the building of identity is a project of different life… expanding towards the
transformation of the society (Castells, 1997:10).

3.2.3 Identity in Networked Society

To him, the dynamics of identity is central to the network society and herein he
accepts the tenets of Gidden’s characterisation of identity in the late modernity.
39
Society and Culture Locating self-identity within the interplay of local and global he accepts Giddens
view that “self identity is not a distinctive trait possessed by the individual. It is the
self as reflexively understood by the person in terms of his/her biography… To be
a human being is to know both what is one doing and why one is doing it... In
the context of the post industrial order, the self becomes a reflexive project…
Reflexively organised self planning...becomes a central feature of the structuring of
the self identity” Giddens (1991).
To Castells, however the raise of network society calls into question the process
of construction of self identify. It is because the network society is based on the
systemic disjunction between local and global for most individuals and social
groups. Therefore, reflexive self planning becomes impossible, except for the elite
inhabiting in the timeless space of flows of global network and their ancillary
locals.
Under such new conditions, civil societies shrink and disarticulate because there
is no longer continuity between the logic of power making in the global network…
The search for meaning takes place then in the reconstruction of defense identified
around communal principles. Most of the social actions becomes organised in the
opposition between unidentified flows and secluded identities… (and) that the
condition of the subject at the heart of the process of social change takes a
different route to one we knew during modernity and late modernity: namely
subjects if and when constructed, are not built any longer on the basis of civil
societies, that are in the process of disintegration, but as prolongation of communal
resistance… This is the actual meaning of the new primacy of identity politics in
the network society (Castells, 1997:11).
Castells while explaining the process of emergence and transformation of social
movements in the context of the network society states that information technology
is transforming the world and it is causing disintegration of existing mechanism of
social control and political representation. All over the world, there is perceived
loss of control over lives, environment, jobs, economies, governments, countries
and ultimately over the fate of the earth. There is an emerging new global order,
and alternative projects challenge the logic embedded in the new global order.
Now there are unexpected ways of reactions and mobilisations. In his view social
movements can be categorised by three principles: the movements identity, the
movements adversary and the movements goal which was originally propagated
by Touraine (1966). The identity refers to the self definition of the movement of
what it is, adversary refers to the principle enemy, as explicitly defined by the
movement; and the social goals refers to the vision of the social order the movement
would wish to attain.
To him in the information age, bypassed by global network of wealth, power and
information, the modern nation state has lost much of its sovereignty. In this age
the legitimising identities are drained away. He however has visualised the emergence
of a powerful resistance identities both retrench in the communal heavens and built
around proactive social movements’ which choose to establish their autonomy in
their communal resistance’ for example the women’s and the environmental
movements. In the network society together with the state apparatuses, global net
works, and self centred individuals, there are also communes formed around
resistance identity. However their logic excludes each other.
In this backdrop he visualises the emergence of project identities from the
40 development of the resistance identities that arise from a commune. The commune
of resistance defends their space, and their places against the placeless logic of the Social Identity and
Movements
space of flows characterising social dominations in the information age. In the
network society power is diffused in the global network of wealth, power and
information, and images. The social movements according to Castell are emerging
from the communal resistance to globalisation, capitalist restructuring, organisational
networking, uncontrolled informationalism and patriarchalism. Such of them are of
ecologist, feminists, religious fundamentalists, nationalists, and localists.

3.3 COLLECTIVE ACTIONS, NEW IDENTITY AND

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
Among the new social movement scholars the issue of collective identity formation
has got a place of prominence whereby issues such as collective participation,
group solidarity, and cultural integration and so on have been widely emphasised.
How are these identities formed? What are their implications for a social movement?
To Pizzorno the direct participation in collective action is an essential component
of collective identity formation. This participation in the collective action, to him,
need not be seen in terms of gain or loss, but in terms of production of solidarity.
These kinds of action are ‘connecting a process of formation for an identity’
(Pizzorno, 1978: 293).
It is now imperative for us to look into the nuances of identity perspective that has
been widely used in West European countries to study social movements since
early 20th century. This intellectual tradition has emerged backdrop of proliferation
of preponderant labour movements, development industrial democracies, Fabian
socialism and welfare state in the UK and other countries on the one hand, and
mobilisations of nationalist feelings in the countries like Germany on the other.
Indeed institutionalisation of reformist and social democratic labour movement in
Western Europe affected the way social movements were conceived by social
scientists in these countries (Eyerman and Jamison, 1991:17-18).
However since 1960s, going away from the economic determinism and newness
were the major thrusts to study social movements. Touraine (2006) makes it very
explicit: “After the World War II and even very recently—especially in the 1960s—
many people, including myself tried to discover new forms of collective actions in
a so called, at that time, post-industrial, society and what we call now an information
society …I was convinced at the end of the twentieth century and beginning of the
twenty- first century, the social and the political scene would be dominated by the
growing role of these new and the cultural movements… Many people were
convinced that priority should be given to the formation of what I had myself
called ‘new social movements” (Tourine, 2006: 89-92).
It was widely realised that not merely the empirical and the economic class position,
but rather the issue of values, culture, subjectivity, morality, empowerment etc.
have also played crucial roles towards the formation of new collective identities
in these movements. Touraine (1981, 1983) observed ‘new social movements as
potential bearers of new social interests’ and that social movements are characterised
by the realisation of historicity, by self-conscious awareness and collective identity.
Bertaux (1990) has added the view that “subjectivity” and “idealism” are essential
elements of social movement and that “subjectivity refers to the subject in its
totality…it concerns with the drastic change in the fabric of social life that takes
place when a new movement is born.” (Bertaux, 1990:153). Social movements
help generate sense of collective identity and new ideas that recognises the reality 41
Society and Culture from new perspective. Collective identities are formed as an achieved definition of
a situation, constructed and negotiated through the constitution of social networks
which then connect the members of a group or movement through collective action
to provide distinctive meaning to collective action. Thus social movements grow
around relationship of new social identity that are voluntarily conceived “to
empower” members in defense of this identity (Melucci 1992, 1996). To Melucci
‘newness of the new social movements is a relative concept and it had a temporary
function to indicate the comparative difference between the historical forms of
class conflict and today’s emergent form of collective action. ‘The reality in which
we live has in entirety become a cultural construct and our representations of it
serve as filters for our relationship with the whole world… Social movements too
seem to shift their focus from class, race, and other more traditional issues towards
the cultural ground……’ (Melucci, 1996:8-9).
In the world of cultural interactivity and co-construction social movement provides
public spaces for generating new thoughts, activating new actors, generating new
ideas. ‘Thus by producing new knowledge, by reflecting on their own cognitive
identity, by saying what they stand for, by challenging the dominant assumptions
of the social order, social movements develop new ideas those are fundamental to
the process of human creativity. Thus social movements develop worldviews that
restructure cognition, that re-cognize reality itself. The cognitive praxis of social
movements is an important source of new social images and transformation of
societal identities’ (Eyerman and Jamison 1991: 161-166). Thus social movements
involve actions for ‘doing’. ‘The involvement in an action is a matter of conscience
and emotion, of responsibility and intention, of reflection and (com) passion, it is
basically moral, global and individual (Hegedus, 1990: 266).
Social movements are also linked however not only to the understanding of common
social identity but also of common interest (Scott 1991: 6) With the growing space
for globalism and informationalism while the notion of identity has emerged to be
idealistic and hegemonic at one end, it is also tending to be diluted, fragmented
and self oriented on the other. In view of the changes in the contemporary society
critiquing the domination of the identity theory has also been a possibility and
necessity. It is widely delineated that, with the technological revolution, transformation
of capitalism, and the demise of the statism, informationalism is disintegrating the
existing mechanism of social control and political representation. With the exception
of a small elite of global politics (half beings, half flows), people all over the world
recent loss of control over their lives. In the network society, “thus on the one
hand the dominant global elites inhabiting in the space of flows tend to consist of
the identity less individuals (citizens of the worlds); while on the other hand,
people insisting economic, cultural, and political disfranchisement trend to be
attracted to communal identity” (Castells, 1997).
Hence the concept of collective identity has also become an obstacle to explore
the forms of mobilisations increasingly taking place in the networks, scapes and
flows. The fluid like characteristics of emerging society with increasing unequal
flows of people, information, money, images risks, practices and emotions with no
clear beginning or the end points. Within these emerging complexities social systems
increasingly manifest fluid-like characteristics and become increasingly subject to
shockwaves fluidarity rather than solidarity, public experience of self rather than
collective identity are the emerging paradigm of contemporary social movements
(Urry 2000 cf. McDonald, 2002).
42 These emerging phenomena have induced a good deal of complexities in
comprehending social movement theoretically, and in understanding the nature of Social Identity and
Movements
collectivities on which the very foundation of social movement is laid. Social
movement group is understood as a variant of social collectivities and is usually
understood within the conceptual formulation of ‘community’. Now it has also
been understood as collectivity of informal networks which mobilise about conflictual
issues through the frequent use of various forms of protest” (della Porta and Diani
1999:16). Moreover, there are diverse types of adherent in social movements i.e.
activists, participants, sympathisers (Neidhardt and Rucht. 2002). Social movement
collectivities are loosely formed many a times independent of geographical boundary.
Their collective identity is formed based on temporarily perceived articulated ideals
and common interests, and that many participants tends to be members of more
than one collectivities simultaneously Significantly many of these collectivities do
have contradictory interests and goals. Hence, it is inevitable that membership is
fluid and are of varying strength. Thus the fluid and the fuzzy membership and the
emerging fluderity of identity make the social order of social movement in
communities very weak. The emergence of net work society adds more odds with
the concept of community.
Though the identity theorists locate identity within the broad interactive social
processes, they also simultaneously advocate the notion of autonomy of identity.
Their focus has been on the theme of political autonomy against ideological
determinism, personal autonomy, and autonomy from localised formulation. Away
from the perspectives of these theorists, autonomy is also understood as process
of formulation from below. E.P Thompson (1963) in his seminal history from
below underlined the autonomous discourse by popular strata. To him, two
processes are to be integrated to define popular movements; integration in the
collective action of the popular strata, definition of an autonomous and independent
discourse. ‘If such a definition is general, encompassing different historical realities,
it might be useful as a methodological suggestion to attempt the interpretation of
the actual, located in the time and space…’ Indeed the issue of autonomy has
emerged to be an integral part of social movement analysis in the context of
emerging fluderity of identity, emergence of resistance from below and formation
multiple identities both at the global and the local levels.
Notwithstanding their contradictory theoretical positions from those of the political
process and the new social movements theorists, the dependency theorists now
recognise that in the world system there have existed multiple identities and varieties
of social movements- the socialist, labour, women, nationalist liberation, peasant,
ecology even some religious movements- within the capitalist world economy.
Since late 1960s these have been “primarily triggered by the sense that the old
movements – the social democrat, the communist and the nationalists had failed
in many of their objectives… and that there has been a major crisis in the anti
systemic social movements” (Wallenstein 2002). It is again pointed that the anti
systemic movements “overshadowed the ever present other social movements
who are now gaining significance while the performances and promise of other
social movements are declining. ….. The increasing failure of the state/ political
parties labour movements/ parties, socialism/Marxist parties as well as people’s
increasing refusal to be manipulated by these, now also increasingly draws the new
other social movements” (Gunder Frank and Matra Fuentes 2002:177). “In the
present moment of the society is ‘marked by the appearance new problems and
new social movements which can no longer be explained by invoking another
order of the phenomena- the laws of the capitalist development or the consequences
of modernisation..’ It is also a different intellectual moment ‘causing to the inability 43
Society and Culture to the ‘traditional left’ to understand social and the political events’ of this era. Our
most urgent need is to learn how to name and analyze the new social practices
and the new forms of collective action which are shaping the societies of today
and tomorrow” (Tourine (2005)11-12, 25).
In the changing society while most of the social movements have remained
institutionalised, working class movements are also on a decline and have emerged
to be incapable of rising to the level of historicity to challenge the over all control
of the major orientations of collective life, new forms of social movements are also
in the making to articulate new forms of identity and interests Significantly enough
the end of cold war and emergence of new phase of economy with globalisation
has marked the proliferation of ‘global movements’ involving numerous struggles
on the question of environment, human rights, vision of ‘another world’ demand
of recognition of cultural identities and so on [Wieviorka(2005)]. In the changing
world conflict is now getting institutionalised and social movements becoming
permanent component of political interest mediation, and legitimate factors in
contemporary societies. All these are leading to the conspicuous formation of the
‘movement society’. All these indicate the trends of potential emergence and
sustenance of plurality of social movements taking up long term and permanent
positions in society on diverse issues and interests (Rucht and Neidhardt 2002).
With the emergence of multiplicity of social movements in the movement society,
social movements are to encounter its inverted image— “the social anti movements
which instead of promoting a social or a cultural identity, champion of some
abstract entity, essence or symbol, and speak in the name of a purity or
homogeneity. Again instead of building relationships with other actors, agreeing on
the principles of debates and negotiations, they champion absolutes, and adopt do
or die attitudes. And if they appear in an arena where social movements also exist,
they try to destroy these movements, and fight against them” (Wieviorka 2005:18).
In the wake of globalisation and the emerging interplay of several new forces a
large part of the society is undergoing a profound process of socio-cultural de-
contextualisation. These have generated new varieties of social change and mobility
and have led to the articulation of diverse interests and identities; and expression
of diverse varieties of protests, conflict, collective mobilisation and social movements.
Significantly many of the processes are intertwined with each other. Societies in
India are experiencing fast processes of transformation in response to global forces
and internal fluid situations which has resulted in emerge of various new movements.

3.4 RESURGENCE OF MULTIPLE COLLECTIVE

IDENTITIES IN INDIA
In recent years societies in India have borne witness to the proliferation and
resurgence of varieties of identities. These are widely caused by increasing quantum
of interconnectivity, social mobility and interpenetration of new technologies on the
one, and persisting poverty, unemployment, ill-health, livelihood insecurity, social
subordination and coercion of the dominant section of the population on the other.
Hence many of the pre-existing identities have got redefined and rejuvenated in the
changing context to become protest identities in the contemporary society.
Societies in India now widely experience the proliferation of fluidity of collective
identity. The conventional and the pre-existing patterns of vertical social mobility
have been diluted in the wake of decline in the land man ratio, and the increase
44 in the occupational diversification and rural to urban migration. Vast segment of the
population are now horizontally mobilised from agriculture to non agricultural activities Social Identity and
Movements
and a good number of them from rural to the urban areas. It has widely contributed
to the increasing informalisation of Indian economy to accommodate 92% of the
work force who can’t spend Rs 20 per day towards consumption. Indeed in spite
of occupational mobility, the economic vulnerability of the marginalised segment of
the population has not been altered. The vast segments of the population, due to
the lack of proper education, training and social capital, look for alternative avenues
of employment not by choice but by compulsion. This has lead to the emergence
of multiple employer-employee relationship even in rural areas. The pre-dominant
and stable forms of agrarian employer employee relationships (landlord-tenant or
land lord-agricultural labourer etc) are now being replaced by unstable, infrequent
relationship with multiple employers or the service users. The traditional structure
of authority and the primordial form of domination has been widely questioned
with the emergence of NGOs activities and the functioning of Panchayat Raj
institutions at the grass roots. Now gender, caste and ethnic identities are articulated
to frame collective mobilisations against the hostile forces of patriarchy, feudalism
and caste and ethnic hegemony. The struggles of the Dalits and the tribes for
economic emancipation have been extended to the areas of struggles for political
empowerment and to the struggles for their caste and ethnic identity. The practice
of democracy at the grass-roots has generated a space for self-assertion among
the marginalized groups on diverse issues and have contributed to the continuity
of the culture of collective mobilisations and re-articulation of regional, ethnic,
gender etc identities. For example the Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh which
has visualised the proliferation of peasant movements (viz. the Telangana 1948-52,
Naxalite movements 1972 onwards) has now seen the proliferation of numerous
collective mobilisations at the grass roots through the resurgence of multiple identities.
For example the resurgent separate Telangana statehood movements based on
the ethnic identity of the Telangana people, mobilisation of the agrarian poor and
sustained agrarian conflict spear headed by the CPI(ML), (Peoples’ War Group)
and various other Naxalite outfits, mobilisation for the protection of civil rights of
citizen by Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC), Organisation for
the Protection of Democratic Rights, Citizens Forum etc, mobilisation of scheduled
Tribes by Thudum Debba (a militant organisation of the scheduled tribes),
mobilisation of Madiga (a scheduled caste) by Madiga Reservation Porata Samithi
(MRPS) for re-categorisation of the scheduled castes into four groups based on
their contemporary educational and economic status for the purpose of reservations
in jobs, education, etc.), moblisation of cultivators by Roytu Seva Samithi, Jala
Sandhana Samithi (demanding irrigation facilities for the peasants), anti arrack
movement to mobilise women against production and consumption of liquor and
also for women’s liberty, political participation and social development and so on
are the contemporary realities of collective mobilisations in rural Andhra Pradesh.
Similarly, West Bengal which has experienced the proliferations peasant and class
identities through the Tebhaga (1946-47) Naxalite ( 1967-71) Operation Barga
movement (1977 onward) has been experiencing the rejuvenation of Gurkhaland
Movements 1980s of the Gurkha hill tribes for a separate statehood, Kamtapur
movement of the Rajbanshi (Scheduled Castes) since 1980s for the recognition
separate statehood, movements against acquisition of agricultural lands by the
Krishi Jami Suraksha Committee (Committee to Protect Agricultural lands) in
Singur and the Bhumi Ucced Pratorodhi in Nandigram, Tribal villagers resistance
against police oppression in the Midnapore District and several other grass roots
mobilisations. Indeed all these movements have constructed distinctive protest
45
identities against domination of various forms.
Society and Culture It is again that the state now has provided the liberal democratic space to articulate
issues, interests, and identities for collective mobilisations. Within this available
space many of the radical mobilisations have got transformed to be institutionalised,
co-opted, and have sustained them being partially reformative. Evidences from
West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh show that sustained mobilisations have opened
up the possibility of articulation of new issues, identities and mobilisations of the
marginalised sections of the population.
The society now sees the cropping up of several new issues, new patterns of
conflict, mobility and mobilisation, while many of the old ones have taken a new
shape in the present context. In the emerging scenario the relationship between
social mobility, conflict, mobilisation and social movements have been extensive
and implicit. Within the emerging dynamics the pre-existing forms of social
collectivities got a significant place not only to protect their identity, but also their
social, economic and political interests. These identities have also been encapsulated
as a project to attain specific political goals. Hence they not only question the
bases of legitimacy of pre-existing arrangements but also assert for a share in the
social, economic and political spheres in the established order. These identities
and conflicts however are not fixed. Even as the tribal and the Dalit identities are
constructed in the Telangan region of Andhra Pradesh for getting better share of
protective discrimination, they are simultaneously linked with the whole of Telangana
regional identity. Similarly gender identity also cut across the caste and the ethnic
identity. Thus collective identities are in a state of flux. They get articulated and
rejuvenated both synchronically and diachronically on diverse issues in diverse
context. They move like a pendulum in these mobilisations getting fixed at one end
and liberated at the other (Singharoy 2004).

3.5 SUMMARY
Collective identity is constructed through the process of interaction and engagement
with contemporary social processes on the one hand and historical experiences on
the other. As, this engagement and experiences are historically circumscribed there
have been diverse processes of construction and transformation of social identity.
Though at times identities operate in silence, it also becomes idiom of public
projections of collective solidarity becoming parts of organised and spontaneous
social movements. As social collectivity, human beings respond to varieties
situations, articulate multiple identities and get associated with multiple networks
cross cutting the predefined boundaries of given social groups. Herein, the process
formation and transformation of social identity is complex and fluid. This unit
besides providing you conceptual clarification on identity, its formation and
transformation has also discussed the location of identity within the local and wide
social processes. We have learnt the intertwining between society, self and identity,
relation between culture and identity, the interface of identity with reasoning and
available social choices. As identity gets transformed its gets interlinked with process
of formation, rejuvenation and reconstruction of identity. This unit has also discussed
the emerging facets of fluidity in identity in the wake of the fast transformation of
societies caused globalisation and emergence of network societies. Besides
discussing the theoretical issues, this unit has also provided you a glimpse of the
emergence of multiple identities as reflected in the grass roots collective action in
rural India.

46
References Social Identity and
Movements
Barker, C. and D. Galasinski. 2001. Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis:
A Dialogue on Language and Identity. London: Sage.
Bertaux, S. 1990. ‘Oral History Approaches to an International School Movement’,
in E. Oyen. (ed.). Comparative Methodology: Theory and Practices in
International Social Research. London: Sage.
Blumer, H. 1996. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Boundien, Paud Wacquant, L. 1999. ‘On the Cunning of Imperialist Reason’.
Theory Culture and Society. Vol. 16. No. 1: 41-50.
Castells, M. 1997. The Rise of the Network of Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cerutti, F. 2001. ‘Political Identity and Conflict: A Comparison of Definition’, in
Cerutti, F and R. Ragiorieri (ed.), Identities and Conflicts: The Mediterranean.
New York: Palgrave.
Colley, C.H. 1902. Human Nature and Social Order. New York: Scribner. (op.
cited Stryker 1990).
della Porta, Donatella and Mario Diani. 1999. Social Movements. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Eyerman, R. and Jamison. 1991. Social Movements: A Cognitive Approach.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fanon, F. 1971. The Wretched of the Earth. Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Frank, A.G and M. Fuentes. 1990. ‘Civil Democracy: Social Movements in Recent
World History’, in S. Amin, G. Arrighi et al. (ed.). Transforming the Revolution:
Social Movement and the World System.
Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Self-identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gramsci, A. 1998. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. (reprint). Chennai:
Orient Longman.
Habermas, J. 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hall, S. 1990. ‘The Question of Cultural identity’ in Hall, D. Held and T. Mcgraw
(eds.), Modernity and its Future. Cambridge: Polity Press.
_________ 1996. ‘Who needs Identity?’ in Hall and P. du (DU) Gay (eds.) in
Questions of Cultural Identity. London Sage.
Hardt, M. and A. Negi. 2000. Empire. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Hegedus, Z. 1990. ‘Social Movements and Social Change in Self-creative Society:
New Initiatives in the International Arena’, in M. Albrow and E. Kings. (ed.)
Globalisation, Knowledge and Society. London: Sage.
Hochschild, A. 1997. The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home
Becomes Work. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Langman, L. 2000. ‘Identity, Hegemony and the Reproduction of Domination’ in
Altschuler, R. (ed.). Marx, Weber and Durkheim. New York: Gordian Knot
Press. Pp 238-90.
47
Society and Culture Larana, E., Johnston, H. and R. Guesfield. 1984. ‘Identities, Grievances and New
Social Movements’, in Larana, E., Johnston, H. and R. Guesfield (eds.), New
Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Longman, L. 2010 ‘Global Justice as Identity:Mobilisation for a Better World’. in
D.K. SinghaRoy (ed) Dissenting Voices and Transformative Actions, Social
Movements in Globalising World. New Delhi: Manohar Publication.
Marx, Karl. 1976. (rpt) Selected Writings. Moscow: Progress Publication.
Mc. Donald, K. 2002. ‘From Solidarity to Fluidarity: Social Movements Beyond
Collective Identity: The Case of Globalisation of Conflict’. Social Movement
Studies. Vol-1, No:2.
Melucci, 1996(a). Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information
Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
_________ 1996. ‘The Symbolic Challenge of Contemporary Movements’, in
Buechler, S.M. and F.K. Cylke Jr. (eds.), Social Movements: Perspectives and
Issues. California: Mayfield Publishing Company.
PizzornoA. 1978. ‘Political exchange and collective identity in industrial conflict’.
In The Resurgence of Class Conflict in Western Europe since 1968, ed. C
Crouch, A Pizzorno, pp. 277–98. London: Macmillan.
Rucht, D. and F. Neidhardt. 2002. ‘Towards a Movement Society? On the
Possibilities of Institutionalising Social Movements’, in Social Movement Studies.
Vol 1, No-1:1-30.
Sartre, J. 1960. Questions de Methode. Paris: Gollimer. (cf. Bertaux, D. ‘Oral
History Approaches to an International Social Movement’, in E. Oyen (ed.).
‘Comparative Methodology: Theory and Practices’, in International Social
Research. London: Sage.
Scott, A. 1991. Ideology and New Social Movements. London: Unwin Hyman.
Sen, A. 1999. Reasons Before Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
SinghaRoy, D.K. 2005. ‘Peasant Movements in Contemporary India’. Economic
and Political Weekly. Dec. 24.
_________ 2009. Peasant Movements in Post Colonial India: Dynamica of
Identity and Mobilisation. New Delhi: Sage Publication.
_________ 2010. ‘Changing Trajectory of Social Movements in India: Search
for an Alternative Analytical Perspective’ in D.K. SinghaRoy (ed.) Dissenting
Voices and Transformative Actions, Social Movements in Globalising World.
New Delhi: Manohar Publication.
Stryker, S. 1990. ‘Identity Theory’ in E.E. Borgatha and M.L. Borgatha (eds.)
Encyclopeadia of Sociology. Vol : 2. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
Thompson, E.P 1963. The Making of the English Working Class. London:
Victor Gollancz.
Touraine, A. 1981. The Voice and the Eye. An Analysis of Social Movements.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Urry, John. 2000. ‘The Importance of Social Movements’. Social Movement
Studies. Vol-1, No-1: 185-203
48
Wallerstein, I. 1990. ‘Antisystematic Movements: History and Dilemmas’. In S. Social Identity and
Movements
Amin, G. Arrighi et al. (ed.). Transforming the Revolution: Social Movement
and the World System.
Wieviorka, M. 2005. ‘After New Social Movements’. Social Movement Studies.
Vol-4. Issue-1: 1-19
Suggested Reading
Cohen, J. 1985. ‘Strategy or Identity: New Theoretical Paradigms and
Contemporary Social Movements,’ in Social Research. 52(4), 663-716.
Gaetano Mosca, 1939. The Ruling Class. New York: McGraw Hill.
Jenkins, C. 1983. ‘Resource Mobilisation Theory and the Study of Social
Movements’. Annual Review of Sociology. 9, 527-53.
Marris, A and C. McClurg Mueller. 1992. ‘Master Frames and Cycles of Protests’,
in A. Marris and C. McClurg Mueller (eds.) Frontiers of Social Movement
theory. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Sample Questions
1) What is Identity?
2) Describe the relation between Society, Self and Identity.
3) State the causes leading to transformation of Identity.
4) Delineate the Collective Actions New identity and Social Movements.
5) Discuss the resurgence of Multiple Collective Identities in India.

49
 UNIT 4 SOCIAL CHANGE IN INDIAN
CONTEXT
Contents
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Colonial Rule and its Impact
4.3 Hinduisation and Sanskritisation
4.3.1 Sanskritisation
4.4 Westernisation and Modernisation
4.4.4 Modernisation
4.5 Multiculturalism and Globalisation
4.5.1 Globalisation
4.6 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions
Learning Objectives

Once you have studied this unit, you should be able to:
 understand the nature of social change in Indian society;
 describe Hinduisation, Sanskritisation, Westernisation, Modernisation,
Globalisation and Multiculturalism; and
 understand how these processes are responsible for social change in India.

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Like any other society Indian society, too, has been changing. However, the pace
of change increased rapidly since the advent of British rule in India. British colonial
rule had a profound impact on Indian society. This change took place both in its
structure and functioning. Then came independence and what makes the social
change in the contemporary Indian society specially significant and noteworthy is
the fact that, to a great extent, it is planned, sponsored, directed and controlled
by the state. Since the last decade or so Globalisation has entered into the economic,
social-cultural, and political spheres of Indian society adding yet another dimension
to social change in Indian society.

4.2 COLONIAL RULE AND ITS IMPACT

In any discussion or discourse on social change in Indian society the impact of the
British colonial rule occupies an important place. British rule, Christian missionary
and English education played very important role in changing the face of Indian
society. At this juncture, it is prudent to understand and distinguish the impacts of
pre-capitalism colonialism/imperialism and colonialism during the age of capitalism.
Pre-capitalism colonial rulers though derived all the benefits and advantages through
exploitation of their colonies, but could never intervene effectively in the economic
base of the societies they ruled. They simply dominated and subordinated the
traditional economies and sustained their rule. The British colonial rule was based
50 on the capitalist system and hence was in a position to make radical interventions
in the economic systems of their colonies which facilitated its expansion. They not Social Change in
Indian Context
only changed the land tenure systems changing the nature of land ownership, they
also intervened effectively in the selection of crops, production system and their
distribution.
The British colonial rulers, in order to bring about desired changes in the points
of view of the people, brought out a new system of education. In the initial stages
the British rule influenced the port and coastal cities. They brought out changes in
the legal, cultural and even in the field of architecture. A new system of education
was introduced to achieve the goal of nurturing a class in India which would
sustain the British rule. But significantly, the same western education became
instrumental in the development of national consciousness and anti-colonial
movement. As K.M Pannikkar (1966) points out, the most important achievement
of British colonial rule was the unification of India for a better administrative
system to serve the colonial interests but it served the purpose for uniting India for
the future freedom movement. To serve their own interests the British rule introduced
a new western education, new means of transport and communication, new
technology and a new system of judiciary. These, in turn released new forces of
change and the Indian society could never be the same again. Thus, in a way, the
British colonial rule may be seen as the agent of cultural and technological
modernisation of India. Since there is a lot of overlapping between the impact of
colonial rule and impact of westernisation and modernisation on Indian society
several issues not covered under the present heading shall be covered under
Westernisation and Modernisation.

4.3 HINDUISATION AND SANSKRITISATION

The process of Hinduisation has been all pervasive within the domain of Indian
civilization. However, in the context of tribal populations, it has been studied most
and most of the debate has been with reference to the Hinduisation of tribes. G.
S Ghurye (1963), by describing the tribal population as Backward Hindus, initiated
intense debate among the anthropologists and sociologists. Perhaps, his description
was in response or reaction against the missionary activities in some tribal areas
and he wanted the Indians to beware of religious conversion into Christianity.
However, his apprehensions did not come true as even today the Christian tribals
may not be more than 5% of the total tribal population in the country.
N K Bose and Surajit Sinha looked into the phenomenon of Hinduisation with
more academic rigour. N K Bose (1975), in his landmark paper on Hindu method
of Tribal Absorption, based his thesis on the role of ‘Culture Contact’ or
‘acculturation’. He says that the Hindu method of tribal absorption is entirely
different from that of Islam, which involves complete conversion. Bose is of the
view that the Hindus generally exercised a policy of laissez-faire with regard to the
social, and religious practices of tribal people and moved on subtly.
Reflection
Bose’s observed three distinct features in the absorption of the tribal into the Hindu fold.
a) Although the policy was not to displace the original culture of the tribes, something
had to be done ‘to bring the tribal cultures in line with Brahmanism’.
b) Once the tribe comes under the influence of the Brahmanical people a strong
tendency was set up with it to remodel its culture more and more closely in conformity
with the Brahmanical way of life.
c) However, the tribes could not be allowed to come very close to their superiors; the
Brahmins very often step in to check such progress. Thus, many forms of culture
come into existence.
51
Society and Culture However, Surajit Sinha took a different view. He opposed the existing idea that
tribes were an isolated people. On the basis of his study of Bhumij, Munda, Gond
and other tribes of Central India (1959, 1962, 1982), Sinha identified the urge of
Bhumij to move away from tribal base to acquire a Kshatriya status. In 1951,
when the Bhumij were labeled as one of the scheduled tribes of this region, they
were shocked and protested against this. Sinha realised that to understand tribes
in India, one has to put them in a proper perspective. He says that it was the
British scholars who felt that tribes were outside the frame of Varna-Jati system.
He further talked of ‘mutually adaptive strategies of Indian civilization’ vis a vis
tribal cultures. The civilization absorbed the tribes but maintained their identity and
also determined their isolation. The modern nation- state is trying to ensure full
participation of tribes as equals.
In contemporary India, tribal regions have become an arena for competitive faiths
to the detriment of tribal societies. Though the tribes, except those of north-
eastern region, have been moving towards a loose form of Hinduism which most
of them found compatible with their religious systems, the country in recent years
has witnessed “the most aggressive form of proselytization and communal
mobilisation of the tribals by Hindutva forces directed against the Christian missions
and the converts to Christianity in parts of Orissa, Gujarat and Chattisgarh leading
to loss of lives, arson, destruction of homes, and displacement of terrorised and
traumatised affected population” (Dharmendra Kumar and Yemuna Sunny, 2009).
This is a cleverly crafted campaign to not only reconvert the Christian tribal but
also to Hinduise the tribes which still practice their own animistic religions

4.3.1 Sanskritisation
Contrary to the ‘book view’ the Indian caste system has never been absolutely
rigid and static. This observation has led progressively to various attempts to
explain, in systematic terms, the manner in which change or more precisely mobility
occurs within it. The process of hypogamy may be the earliest attempt in this
direction. Broadly speaking, four approaches could be delineated in the study of
social mobility in India. These are (i) individual or family mobility approach, (ii)
corporate or group mobility approach, (iii) comparative approach and (iv) reference
group approach. M. N. Srinivas is the main protagonist of the corporate mobility
approach in India.
Although some stray attempts have been made to develop theoretical postulations
and methodological exercises during the pre-independence period, the first systematic
attempt to define, analyse and understand the process of social change in Indian
society was made by M. N. Srinivas in his significant and path breaking study,
Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India (1952).
The term Sanskritisation used by Srinivas in his study of Coorgs was primarily
meant to describe the process of cultural mobility in the traditional rural India.
Srinivas holds the view that Hindu caste system has never been so rigid that
individuals or castes cannot alter or raise their status. He defines Sanskritisation
as the “process by which a low caste or tribe or other groups takes over the
customs, rituals, beliefs , ideology and life style of a higher caste and in particular
‘twice born’ (dwija) caste” Srinivas, (1952). For instance, a low caste or tribe
or any other group may give up non-vegetarianism, consumption of liquor, animal
sacrifice, etc. and imitate the Brahmin’s life style in matter of food, dress, and
rituals. By following such a process, within a generation or two, they may claim
52 a higher position in local caste hierarchy. Originally, Srinivas used the term
“Brahminization” to denote this process, however, when he was confronted with Social Change in
Indian Context
other models of emulation he gave up the term ‘Brahminization’ in preference to
the term ‘Sanskritisation’. Moreover, Sanskritisation is much broader a concept
than ‘Brahminization’ because not only it encompasses non-Brahmin models like
Kshatriya model, Jat model, Vaishya model and models of other ‘twice born’
castes but also denotes a wide spectrum of values and life styles.
The talk of cultural imitation should be in concrete terms so that one could visualise
the scenario as it exists. Sanskritisation may result in the erosion of cultural autonomy
of the womenfolk which includes erosion in the freedom to choose life partner and
adoption of a rigid sexual morality. Changes in family structure include a movement
towards the orthodox Hindu joint family and the concomitant stronger authority of
father, monogamy, a stronger caste organisation with increased tendency of
outcasting/ostracism. Also, a rigid commensality prevails along with changed food
habits- outlawing beef and pork eating, and consumption of liquor, more emphasis
is placed on the acquisition of higher education, adoption of dowry practices
instead of the token bride price etc. In the realm of religion and religious practices,
it frequently results in the donning of sacred thread, giving up sacrifice of pigs at
the time of wedding and increased emphasis on pilgrimage etc.
Srinivas has further explained that political and economic factors have also affected
the process of Sanskritisation. With the establishment of British rule in India the
lower castes got more opportunities to sanskritise themselves and subsequently
raise their social status because the new rulers and a new political order were not
socially involved in the dynamics of caste hierarchy.
Sometimes, a lower caste aspiring to climb upward in caste hierarchy through the
process of Sanskritisation may have to face hostility from the higher castes especially
of middle strata. Sanskritisation refers to a cultural process but it is essential to
realise that it is usually a concomitant of the acquisition of political or economic
power by a caste. Both are parts of the processes of social mobility.
Talking of new agents of Sanskritisation, Srinivas, (1992) talks of the festivals of
the village deities and the calenderical festivals being increasingly sanskritised. Hari
Kathas, Yagna, Jagran etc. are being celebrated with much more ostentation in
Indian towns and cities. Religious figures, in ochre robes promising salvation or
more concrete things to the people, continue to appear on the Indian scene. In
fact, they enjoy audience which they could not have dreamt of before the
newspapers, the microphone and the radio/television became popular. Everyone
of them can be regarded as a Sanskritising agent. Indian films frequently make use
of religious themes taken from the epics and Puranas. The availability of low
priced books has enabled people to become acquainted with Hindu religious
literature in a way not possible ever before.
Sanskritisation as a process of social mobility may be observed empirically even
among the non-Hindu communities especially those with well defined social hierarchy
such as Muslims and Sikhs and in lesser degrees among other communities too.
Cultural emulation for the sake of status elevation has been the prime motive force
among the non-Hindu communities too.
When we talk of cultural imitation of the higher castes/dominant castes by an
aspiring lower caste we must not forget that in several cases the motive force is
not always cultural imitation per se but an expression of challenge and revolt
against socio-economic deprivation and frustration like in the case of a lower
caste insisting to carry his bride in a palanquin or the bridegroom riding a horse. 53
Society and Culture Because of erosion in the importance of the ritual component of our lifestyle,
especially in towns and cities, some observers make the comment that the process
has lost its’ relevance in determining social status. While it is true that power and
wealth are the main components of secular status, any status achieved by such
means is still sought to be legitimised through acceptance into a higher born social
group or by burying one’s community identity or birth origins. Thus, these new
principles of status operate contingently together with the caste principle of social
stratification and only rarely do they operate autonomously.

4.4 WESTERNISATION AND MODERNISATION

Westernisation seems to be a much simpler concept when compared with its’ twin
concept of Sanskritisation. It refers to all cultural changes and institutional
innovations in India as this country came into political and cultural contact with the
western nations specially Britain. More precisely, it is “the changes brought about
in Indian society and culture as a result of over 150 years of British rule. The term
subsuming changes occurring at different levels- technology, institutions, ideology
and values” Srinivas, (1972). He prefers to call this process westernisation and
not modernisation. On a wider plane westernisation includes a scientific approach,
emphasis on materialism rather on spiritualism, individualism, liberal approach
towards various problems of the society, humanism, equality, egalitarianism and
rationalism. Establishment of scientific technology and educational institutions, rise
of nationalism, new political culture and leadership in the country are all by products
of westernisation.
The impact of Westernisation on Indian society may clearly be observed in a
number of spheres. It has influenced caste system and the lessening rigidity may
be assigned, to a great extent, to the impact of Westernisation; it has promoted
the disintegration of joint family and it has induced a number of social reforms
movements. In the economic and political sphere it has disintegrated cottage
industries, promoted variety in cultivation, introduced new measures in land
management; it has promoted democratic values and ideals, national consciousness,
social justice, and a uniform administrative system in the whole length and breadth
of the country. To be more precise, emphasis on humanitarianism and rationalism,
as a part of Westernisation, led to a series of institutional and social reforms in
India.
Srinivas expresses the view that increase in Westernisation does not retard the
process of Sanskritisation; both go on simultaneously. Interestingly, in some cases,
increase in Westernisation accelerates the process of Sanskritisation. For instance,
the expanding means of communication like postal facilities, railways, newspaper,
western technology etc. have given fillip to pilgrimages, religious propaganda, and
caste and communal congregations. Moreover, a significant by product of
Westernisation is that under its impact many higher castes (who are more exposed
to Westernisation through English education) give up their traditional life style.
It is observed that usually the westernised ones live minimally in the universe of
caste and maximally within the universe of class; they may practice non-traditional
occupations, ignore rules of ritual pollution, dietary restrictions and may marry
outside the caste/region/religion; they may give up the practice of maintaining
gotra or caste names, adopt non-vegetarianism, give up the practice of eating in
the kitchen or chauka and may give up sacred thread. In other words, the
westernised ones tend to adopt western models and lifestyle. The lower castes
54 aspiring to attain higher status in the caste hierarchy try to fill this vacuum by
adopting the sanskritic models given up by the higher castes under the impact of Social Change in
Indian Context
westernisation. This is yet another instance of westernisation and sanskritisation
going together.
It may be observed that the lower castes spend a lot of energy on sanskritisation
while several higher castes turn to westernisation as a means of maintaining the
social distance between themselves and the lower castes which is no longer possible
within the old order in the face of the later’s current ability to sanskritise themselves.
Supplementing this line of argument further, Harold Gould (1988) comments that
if one is already sanskritised, as the Brahmins and the Rajputs are, then one
cannot go any higher up further in the traditional stratification system. If one cannot
maintain things as they are through the application of political and economic power,
then one can only go down or accept the notion of equality which means accepting
the nullity of caste system itself and hierarchical relationship in general. This is
patently impossible for the higher castes with the deeply embedded conception of
their inherent superiority and so they must ironically move outside the caste system
which spawned them in order to preserve their pretensions to paramount status in
Indian society. Meanwhile, “the lower castes keep chasing the mirage of equality
with the higher castes. But by the time they reach their destination, they discover
that the Brahman has himself vacated the spot and moved on to the higher hill of
westernisation where he still gazes contemptuously down upon them from an
elevated perch.” (Gould, 1988. ibid). Perhaps that is why in a number of cases
the well off and aspiring sections of the lower castes in towns and cities may be
going straight to westernisation. But for the majority of the lower caste population
the idiom of westernisation may be too complex, incomprehensible and difficult to
understand and adopt. Thus we find an important and dynamic interplay between
the processes of sanskritisation and westernisation.
However, the term westernisation itself is not free from controversy and
complications. Some scholars have advocated the term ‘de-sanskritisation’ for
westernisation. Moreover, Srinivas equates westernisation with the British impact
on India. This may not be a correct assessment when viewed in totality. The post-
independence period has witnessed a lot of Russian and American influence on
India. The Russian and American versions of modernisation in our economic
measures of far reaching importance have also influenced the Indian society to a
large extent. The continuing five year plans, emphasis on public sector and
nationalisation or socialisation (till recent years) in our economic planning are the
instances of distinct socialist impact. Of late, some Chinese impact is also
discernible in our health care measures especially in rural areas. To some other
scholars the term westernisation sounds value loaded because of its colonial
connotation. Hence, they advocate the term modernisation.

4.4.1 Modernisation
Modernisation has been a dominant theme after the second world war specially
in nineteen fifties and sixties and a central concept in the ‘sociology of development,’
referring to the interactive process of economic growth and social change.
Modernisation studies typically deal with the effects of economic development on
traditional social structures and values. The process of modernisation is related to
the industrialisation, urbanisation, high standard of living, development of civilization
and broadness of view point. Defining modernisation Eisenstadt (1966) says that
“from a historical viewpoint modernisation is the process of change towards those
types of social, economic, and political systems which were developed in Western
Europe and North America from the 17 th to 19th century and after that spread 55
Society and Culture over to South America. Asia, and Africa during the 19th and 20th centuries”. In the
context of contemporary times the concept of modernisation is the response of
western social science to the many challenges faced by the third World in the
decades immediately following the second world war. Therefore some scholars
considered modernisation to be the child of westernisation. In a brilliant analysis
of the ethical aspect of modernisation, S.C Dube (1988) says that “an attractive
feature of the concept was that it showed an apparent concern for the cultural
sensitivities of both the elites and the masses of the third world. The term
modernisation was much less value loaded than it’s predecessor westernisation”.
Most countries in the Third World were proud of their cultural heritage and deeply
attached to it. While desiring western standards of plenty they had no desire to
abandon their own life styles and values. The concept of modernisation recognised
the strength of roots; it did not pose any overt threat to the cultural identity of the
people aspiring for rapid change. To the elite of the third world the ideal of
westernisation was difficult to swallow; they accepted modernisation readily because
it did not appear to offend their cultural dignity. According to Lerner (1958), three
features constitute the core of modernised personality – empathy, mobility, and
high participation. Empathy is the capacity to see thing as others see them. All
societies possess this capacity in some measure but to sharpen and strengthen, it
can make a qualitative change in human interaction. Such a change is desired in
modernised societies. The second attribute, mobility, does not refer only to
geographical mobility- it is used in a more comprehensive sense. The imperatives
of change demand a capacity to assume, as occasions demand, new statuses and
learn to play associated roles. Unlike the traditional society, which had ascribed
statuses and roles, the modernised society has an open status system. The third
attribute-high participation- refers to the increased role of individuals in realising
social goals and objectives in more active ways; high participation requires the
capacity in individuals to visualise new goals or alter objectives and modify their
roles accordingly. In traditional societies social objectives are not open to question;
the core of modernisation is, of course, rationality.
One of the most significant features of modernisation is that modernised societies
operate through institutional structures that are capable of continuously absorbing
the change that are inherent in the process of modernisation. Let us see very
briefly as to how the contemporary Indian society is striving to adopt modernisation
for economic growth and social change. On the agricultural and industrial fronts
the country’s performance is not as poor as some of its critics make it out. Our
record in these fields is better than that of many Third World countries. But the
development has been lopsided and full of regional imbalances. The distributive
aspects of economic growth and the diffusion of the benefits of modernisation
appear to have received little serious thought. The growth of elitism is alarming
and it should be curbed. Rampant corruption and nepotism are the product of the
prevailing state of moral decay. All possible political and administrative steps
should be taken to arrest this trend. The cohesive bonds of society should be
strengthened.
As very rightly observed by S. C. Dube (ibid), “there is no standard model of
modernisation and no fixed path for its attainment. Developing societies can adopt
a model of their choice and can chalk out their own path for it’s realisation.” We
have chosen democracy and secularism as the basis of the aspired for modernised
Indian society. Adoption of modern science and technology alongwith a scientific
temper shall go a long way in the achievement of India’s cultural and technological
56 modernisation.
 Social Change in
4.5 MULTICULTURALISM AND GLOBALISATION Indian Context

‘Multicultural’ and ‘Multiculturalism’ are terms frequently used to describe the

ethnic diversity that exists everywhere in the world today. However, there is some
confusion about what precisely they signify. Terms like ‘plural’ and ‘diverse’ have
also been present in the discourse on multiculturalism. These terms are commonly
used to describe societies having different religions, ethnic groups languages and
cultures. Interestingly these words are used interchangeably; plurality suggests the
presence of ‘many’ but does not stipulate anything about the nature of ‘many’.
Does this simply describe diversity? We must be very clear as to why multiculturalism
has overtaken pluralism as the dominant concept. It was common in social science
before the rise of the word ‘multiculturalism’. Multiculturalism as a coherent theory
with its district conception of democracy and citizenship, has emerged only in
recent past. As Gurpreet Mahajan (2002) points out, “the simultaneous presence
of many cultures and communities within the same social space points to a plural
social fabric, but it should not be taken as the presence of multiculturalism. The
latter entails something more than the mere presence of different communities or
the attitude of tolerance in society. Multiculturalism is concerned with the issues of
equality; it asks whether the different communities living peacefully together, co-
exist as equals in the public areas”? Thus it is the emphasis on equality that
distinguishes multiculturalism from pluralism; pluralism remains silent about the
status of different groups or communities.
Extending the debate to more serious analysis David Theo Goldberg (1994) in his
seminal work writes “that multiculturalism stands for a wide range of social
articulation… The systematic sectoral division of the world into discrete spheres
of control and management of human population creates a severe challenge to
creating a truly democratic, equal, diverse, but coherent world.”
The term ‘multiculturalism has not been much used in India, except in the recent
times by the left-liberal intellectuals. When we look at the contemporary situation
in India we find that the Indian constitution is the main source of multicultural state
policies. It may be seen as the basic multicultural document in the sense that it
provides political and institutional measures for the recognition and accomodation
of the country’s diversity in the post- independence period. Right to equality, in
all respects, is the cornerstone of multiculturalism in India and it has unleashed
forces of social change, changing the fabric of hierarchical Indian society in which
all the groups never enjoyed equal share in the power structure. Creation of tribal
states and sub-states such as Tribal District Councils may be seen as the acceptance
of multiculturalism as state policy.
As Gurpreet Mahajan (1999) rightly points out, this concern for equality and non-
discrimination of people of minority communities links multiculturalism to democracy
in a fundamental way. The single most important value of democracy is non-
discrimination. Thus, the concept of multiculturalism contributes to the agenda of
democratisation and non-discrimination. It also provides safeguards against
‘majoritarianism’ coming in the garb of democracy. Till the time Indian democracy
becomes mature, the threat of majoritarianism shall always be there. Thus we can
say that how much flawed and immature Indian democracy may be, if the state
continues to follow multiculturalism, society in India will continue to change.

4.5.1 Globalisation
Globalisation is as fascinating a term these days as modernisation, development,
and change have been in the 20th century. Globalisation has emerged as one of the 57
Society and Culture most important and talked about phenomena of the present age with its social,
economic, and political dimensions. The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology (1985)
described globalisation as “a process in which social life within societies is being
increasingly affected by international influences based on everything from political
and trade ties to shared music, clothing styles and mass media”. Perhaps, the most
powerful form of globalisation is economic in which planning and control expand
from a relatively narrow focus such as a single firm doing business on a regional
or national basis to a broad global focus in which the entire world serves as a
source of labour, raw materials and markets.
Analysing the necessity of international economic and socio-political management
in the face of globalisation, Samir Amin (1997), a renowned and strong voice on
the issue of globalisation and its implications for the third world countries, says that
the globalisation of the capitalist system is certainly nothing new, but it has undeniably
taken a qualitative step forward during the most recent period. Rise of ethnicity
as a political response to economic globalisation is yet another important dimension
of globalisation. The rise of Hindutva forces in India pretending to be nationalist
but, in reality, opposed to pluralism and consequently anti-minority in character,
the emergence of Muslim fundamentalism in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and some other
nation-states exhibiting similar trends has been strengthened by the process of
globalisation; ethnic violence of the worst type is an alarming trend in the face of
globalisation.
When we analyse the impact of globalisation on Indian society in the sphere of
economy, the ‘new economic policy’, liberalization’, its consequences are accepted
as the direct fallout of globalisation. But, if we wish to see it in concrete sociological
terms, we find that it has impacted various social groups in a variety of ways.
Women in India have been badly affected by globalisation-economically and socially.
Because of scarcity of food and other necessities of life the poor, for sheer
economic reasons, feed their girl children less than their boys, as boys are perceived
as major bread earners. This also contributes to the widening gap in sex ratio.
With decreasing subsidy on food, the food security has been shrinking rapidly and
the poor women have to spend more hours on unproductive and meaningless
labour. With growing retrenchment of their men folk, women previously working
as agricultural labour are mostly consigned to the organised sector in urban areas
at starvation or less than starvation wages. Hiring women workers seems to be
more convenient for the employers because women workers face more difficulties
in getting organised than the male workers and hence more susceptible to
exploitation. On the other hand, upward climbing middle classes and elite are
getting more opportunities to take up diverse roles. Women entraprenuers are far
more visible now than at any point of time in the past.
While globalisation is making people more materialistic and money minded, the
greed for dowry is also increasing rapidly and the poor parents are being further
pushed into difficult and humiliating conditions. With increasing globalisation, a
frenzy has been created over the so called beauty contests. As Arvind (2002)
rightly point out, “while the benefits of this frenzy are reaped by the multinational
corporations who advertise their products via these phenomenon, the entire display
has had its impact on the minds of urban women particularly middle class and
lower middle class young women”. The vast proliferation of beauty parlours and
rapidly increasing cosmetics industry are the natural corollary of this phenomenon.
Equally, by the logic of the ‘market economy’ prostitution is a perfectly legitimate
58 activity – one more industry of the ‘service sector’. In this age of globalisation,
girls from even well to do families are going into prostitution and call girl profession Social Change in
Indian Context
either directly or through the so called beauty parlours, massage parlours and
‘make a friend industry’ through telephonic and internet communication. Market of
pornography has also expanded astronomically. Commoditization of women has
increased many folds. Consumerism and consumer culture has taken under its
shadow, first the urban India, and now the rural society is trapped in it.
Globalisation, no doubt, has impacted adversely the socially and economically
weaker sections of Indian society. The dalits and tribals are the worst sufferers.
Dalits belong to a large section of the society, which has been subjected to human
indignities on account of the caste differentiations perpetrated for centuries and
millennia. They still bear the burden of acute poverty and social degradation. The
increasingly lower allocations for social sector, in the wake of ‘new economic
policy’ and ‘liberalization’ adversely affect the poor – mainly dalits and the tribal
communities. It is the poor who depend largely on public services and any reduction
in budget allocations contribute to the reduction and availability of social services
and their consequent higher costs. In social-economic terms the small gains made
by the dalits through reservation are being reversed. More than 75% of the dalit
workers are still connected with land; only 25% of which are marginal and small
farmers. In urban areas, they mostly work in the unorganised sector. Under the
impact of the new economic policy, the direct fallout of globalisation, land reforms,
the key question for their development, are being pushed out of agenda and are
being substituted with corporatization of farming for the global agricultural market.
Tribal population of the country shares a number of features of the impact of
globalisation with the dalits. As with the dalits, the systematic cuts in welfare
expenditure, dismantling of the public distribution system etc. have also hit the
tribals hard. In the name of ‘development’ the tribal people are being driven off
their lands, their forests are being snatched, their sources of income are being
sapped, and they are, thus, being virtually pushed to death. The entry of multinational
companies into industrial mining and commercialisation of forest products are
likely to increase inequalities of income and consumption between regions and
peoples. The new agricultural policy enunciated by the government is capital
intensive; improved seeds, pesticides, and fertilizers are costly and subsidies are
being withdrawn. There is also encouragement to mechanized farming. This is
harmful to the tribal interests. Globalisation is also promoting over-consumption of
industrial and consumer goods, thus changing the life style of the tribal and other
deprived people, to their disadvantage. Disruption of their traditional crafts and
theft of their indigenous knowledge system by foreign companies is making their
life miserable. The tribal population has always been known for their strong
community life and collective spirit, and they have been using it as part of their
‘survival strategy’. This is rapidly being eroded through the promotion of private
rights at the cost of community rights. Thus, the tribal people are going to be the
worst sufferers and the most coveted sacrificial goat for globalisation.

4.6 SUMMARY
In this unit you studied various aspects of social change in India from colonial rule
to the advent of globalisation as an important factor of social change. It is true
that, like any other society, Indian society, too, has been changing even before the
advent of British rule. Yet, the British rule released such new forces of change that
contributed to much faster pace than ever before. It can be said that the British
rule contributed immensely to the cultural and technological modernisation of India. 59
Society and Culture The process of social mobility in Indian society cannot be understood without a
fairly good understanding of Sanskritisation as it has deeply affected the caste
system and its dynamics. Needless to say, caste system is one of the most important
social institutions in India and any change in it would affect the entire Indian
society.
Globalisation and Multiculturalism are comparatively new actors but they have
started impacting the Indian society in a variety of ways. Just to make it clear, the
impact of globalisation on various segments of Indian society such as tribal
communities, dalits, and women has been explained with the help of suitable
examples scattered all around us.
References
Amin, Samir. 1997. Capitalism in the Age of Globalisation: The Management
of Contemporary Society. London: Zed Books.
Arvind. 2002. Globalisation: An Attack on India’s Sovereignty. New Delhi:
New Vistas Publications.
Bose, N. K. 1975. The Structure of Hindu Society. New Delhi: Orient Longman
Limited.
Dube, S.C. 1974. Contemporary India and it’s Modernisation. New Delhi:
Vikas Publication.
Eisentadt, S. N. 1996. Modernisation, Protest, and Change. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
Ghurye, G.S. 1963. The Scheduled Tribes of India. Bombay: Popular Prakashan.
Goldberg, D.T. 1994. Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gould, Harold. A. 1988. Caste Adaptation in Modernising Indian Society.
New Delhi: Chanakya Publication.
Hasnain, Nadeem. 2006. Indian Society and Culture: Continuity and Change.
New Delhi: Jawahar Publishers and Distributors.
_________________2009. Indian Anthropology. New Delhi: Palaka Prakashan.
Johnson, Allan. A. 1995. The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Basil Blackwell.
Kumar, Dharmendra & Yemuna Sunny (ed.). 2009. Proselytization in India: The
Process of Hinduisation in Tribal Societies. New Delhi: Aakar.
Lerner, Daniel. 1958. The Passing of Traditional Society. Glencoe: The Free
Press.
Mahajan, Gurpreet. 1988. Identities and Rights: Aspects of Liberal Democracy
in India. New York: Oxford University Press.
_________________2002. The Multicultural Path. New Delhi: Sage Publication.
Panikkar, K. N. 1966. A Survey of Indian History. Bombay: Asia Publishing
House.
Sinha, Surajit. 1959. ‘Kshatriya Social Movement in south Manbhum’. Bulletin
60 of the Department of Anthropology. Calcutta: Government of India.
_________________ 1962. ‘State Formation and Rajpur Myth in Tribal Central Social Change in
Indian Context
India’; Ranchi: Man in India. 42. (pp-1).
_________________ 1982. Tribes and Indian Civilization: structures and
transformation. Varanasi: N.K Bose Memorial Foundation.
Singh, Yogendra. 1996. Modernisation of Indian Tradition. Jaipur: Rawat
Publication.
Srinivas, M. N. 1952. Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India.
Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
_________________ 1972. Social Change in Modern India. New Delhi. Orient
Longman Limited. First published in 1966.
_________________ 1992. On Living in a Revolution and Other Essays.
New Delhi: Oxford.
Suggested Reading
Singh, Yogendra. 1996. Modernisation of Indian Tradition. Jaipur: Rawat
Publication.
Hasnain, Nadeem. 2006. Indian Society and Culture: Continuity and Change.
New Delhi: Jawahar Publishers and Distributors.
Hasnain, Nadeem. 2009. Indian Anthropology. New Delhi: Palaka Prakashan.
Sample Questions
1) In what way the British rule contributed to social change in India?
2) How does Sanskritisation explain mobility in the caste system?
3) Distinguish between Westernisation and Modernisation.
4) Distinguish between Pluralism and Multiculturalism.
5) Deliniate how the process of Globalisation is affecting various segments of
Indian society?

61
 MAN-001
Social Anthropology
Indira Gandhi
National Open University
School of Social Sciences

Block

3
ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORIES-I
UNIT 1
Classical Theories 5
UNIT 2
Functionalism, Structural-Functionalism and Neo-
Functionalism 16
UNIT 3
Social Organisation and Dynamic Theories of Structure 33
Expert Committee
Professor I J S Bansal Professor V.K.Srivastava Dr. S.M. Patnaik
Retired, Department of Principal, Hindu College Associate Professor
Human Biology University of Delhi Department of Anthropology
Punjabi University, Patiala Delhi University of Delhi
Professor K K Misra Professor Sudhakar Rao Delhi
Director Department of Anthropology Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh
Indira Gandhi Rashtriya University of Hyderabad Assistant Professor
Manav Sangrahalaya Hyderabad Department of Anthropology
Bhopal Professor. Subhadra M. University of Delhi
Professor Ranjana Ray Channa Delhi
Retired, Department of Department of Anthropology Faculty of Anthropology
Anthropology University of Delhi SOSS, IGNOU
Calcutta University, Kolkata Delhi
Dr. Rashmi Sinha
Professor P. Chengal Reddy Professor P Vijay Prakash
Reader
Retired, Department of Department of Anthropology
Anthropology Andhra University Dr. Mitoo Das
S V University, Tirupati Visakhapatnam Assistant Professor
Professor R. K. Pathak Dr. Nita Mathur Dr. Rukshana Zaman
Department of Anthropology Associate Professor Assistant Professor
Panjab University Faculty of Sociology Dr. P. Venkatrama
Chandigarh School of Social Sciences Assistant Professor
Professor A K Kapoor Indira Gandhi National Open Dr. K. Anil Kumar
Department of Anthropology University, New Delhi Assistant Professor
University of Delhi, Delhi
Programme Coordinator: Dr. Rashmi Sinha, IGNOU, New Delhi
Course Coordinator : Dr. Rukshana Zaman, IGNOU, New Delhi

Block Preparation Team

Unit Writers Unit 2 Content Editor
Professor V.K. Srivastava Professor Subhadra M.
Unit 1
Principal Channa
Dr. Rukshana Zaman
Hindu College, Delhi Department of Anthropology
Assistant Professor
(Adapted from Sociology- University of Delhi, Delhi
Discipline of Anthropology
MSO 001 Sociological Language Editor
SOSS, Indira Gandhi
Theories and Concepts Dr. Parmod Kumar
National Open University
Block-2 Unit 6 and Unit 7) Assistant Professor
New Delhi
Unit 3 Discipline of English
Dr. Rameeza Hassan School of Humanities
Assistant Professor IGNOU, New Delhi
Madhab Choudhury
College, Barpeta, Assam
Authors are responsible for the academic content of this course as far as the copyright issues are concerned.

Print Production
Mr. Manjit Singh Cover Design
Section Officer (Publication) Dr. Mitoo Das
School of Social Sciences, IGNOU Assistant Professor, Anthropology, SOSS, IGNOU
August, 2011
© Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2011
ISBN:
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or any
other means, without permission in writing from the copyright holder.
Further information on the Indira Gandhi National Open University courses may be obtained
from the University’s office at Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110 068 or the official website of
IGNOU at www.ignou.ac.in
Printed and published on behalf of Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi by Director,
SOSS, IGNOU.
Laser Typeset at Graphic Printers, 204, Pankaj Tower, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110091.
Printed at :
BLOCK 3 ANTHROPOLOGICAL
THEORIES-I
Introduction
The study of society and culture has always posed a problem as the object of study has
never been clearly defined or understood. Humans had left the study of their own
societies to the last; both sociology and anthropology are relatively new subjects as
compared to the sciences, mathematics and medicine, even geography. As we shall see
in the units that follow, the understanding of what society is, how it came to be and how
it is changing or evolving have all been matters of speculation as well as deep reflection
by scholars over the ages. The theories that have been summarised in this Block also
indicate how human thought is conditioned by the social and political situations and the
historical conditions in which they arise. Thus Anthropology itself is understood as a
colonial discipline that arose when the Europeans in their need to rule over the colonies
wanted to understand them better.
The first unit deals with the classical evolutionary theories which were formulated to
understand not as much the people on the colonies but the past of the Europeans, who
having shed the theological explanations of human origin given in the Bible wanted to
know more about their present civilisation and what led to it.
The second unit reflects on the structural-functional theories that conjured up a vision of
utopian social equilibrium in order perhaps to attain such a condition as a result of
colonial rule. It was also an intellectual effort to get over the racism of those times and
to create a theory of cultural relativism and functionality giving equal importance to all
kinds of cultural traits.
In the development of social theories the role of biology and biological theories were of
great importance as the freedom from theological bondage was achieved with Darwin’s
theory and also the concept of organic analogy that had been introduced even by the
early French social philosophers. The idea of Positivism, the possibility of having a
theory of society was also rooted in Renaissance period of European intellectualism
that was also given energy by the French revolution.
The World Wars led to disillusionment with the concept of equilibrium and a synchronic
view of society. The theory of function was formulated by Malinowski while whiling
away his time in exile in the isolated island of the Trobriand, yet it was a view that was
supported by the illusion of isolation that informed much of early structural –functionalism.
The Europeans had believed that since they were the first white men (only rarely women)
to set foot into many of the societies studies by them, these had been in complete
isolation. Some like Raymond Firth and Edmund Leach (also stranded in Burma during
the Second World War) looked for movements within the structures. This gave rise to
various concepts of social structure that are being explained in unit-III. Thus without
relinquishing the concept of structure they introduced some movements within it. But
the radical critiques of the classical theories came some time later, in the works of
scholars like Eric wolf, who showed that the illusion of people without histories, without
any outside contact was only a European construct.
UNIT 1 CLASSICAL THEORIES
Contents
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Evolutionary Theories of Anthropology
1.2.1 Early Evolutionists
1.2.2 Contributors to the Theory of Evolution: Major Anthropological Works
1.2.3 Criticisms
1.2.4 Neo Evolutionism

1.3 Diffusionism
1.3.1 British Diffusionist School
1.3.2 German Diffusionist School
1.3.3 American Diffusionist School

1.4 School of Historical Particularism

1.5 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions

Learning Objectives 
It is expected that after reading this unit, you will be able to discuss the:
 classical theories;
 followers of the theories and their approach to the study of human beings;
and
 criticisms that have followed these theories.

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Distant land, society, cultures, customs, rituals etc have always fascinated humankind
as they wanted to know how these came into existence and how they differ from
their own society. In the works of ancient travelers and historians like Heun Sung,
these aspects have been reflected long before Anthropology came up as a subject.
Herodotus (c.484-425 BC) a historian mainly remembered for his history of the
Persian wars wrote detailed accounts of his travels. These early works, although
they contained reflections on society could not be completely termed as
anthropological. Works which focused on human beings and their society basically
belonged to two genres: travelers writing their travel accounts and social philosophers
propounding their theories. Eriksen (2008) has rightly stated that it is only when
travel accounts (data) and philosophical thinking (theory) is integrated, Anthropology
as a subject emerges.
In this Unit the discussion would pertain to some of the works before anthropology
emerged as a theory and then move on to the theories that were being postulated
when Anthropology was emerging as a subject. These theories have been termed
as classical theories as they reflect the era of enlightenment and antiquity. In spite 5
Anthropological Theories-I of the criticism these theories have generated, they are an integral part of
Anthropology as they present the perspectives of the early anthropologists who
had envisaged the discipline. Theories of Evolutionism, Diffusionism and Historical
Particularism are some of the classical theories that are being discussed herein.

1.2 EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES OF

ANTHROPOLOGY
In the early years of anthropology, the focus revolved around evolution-centering
on the origin and diversification of human culture and society. These theories
focused mainly on evolution of family, marriage, kinship and religion as these were
seen as the basic institutions common to all societies. During this era, most of the
eminent works by lawyers and sociologists were comparative analogs using the
data available from the societies to which Europe was getting exposed as a result
of trade and colonisation.

1.2.1 Early Evolutionists

In the 1700 Scottish thinkers like Adam Ferguson, John Miller, and Adam Smith
reflected that all societies pass through four stages: (i) hunting and gathering, (ii)
pastoralism and nomadism, (iii) agricultural, and finally (iv) commerce. The Scottish
thinkers based their theories of social evolution on the experiences of the union of
Scotland with England in 1707 and the effect it had on its trade. In 1748, Baron
de Montesquieu (1689-1755) published De l’ esprit des loix (The Spirit of Laws)
a comparative cross cultural study of legislative systems. Montesquieu looked at
legal system as an aspect of the wider social system, closely intertwined with other
facets of the society like politics, economy, kinship, family, religion etc. Montesquieu
collected some of the data first hand and supplemented them with second hand
knowledge. He gave the classification of the different stages of the society- Savagery,
Barbarism and Civilisation, later followed by anthropologists like Morgan and
Tylor.
The early works were mostly postulated by lawyers such as J.J. Bachofen, Sir
Henry Maine, and McLennan. These early works have already been discussed in
depth in Block 1, Unit 2 Philosophical and Historical Foundations of Social
Anthropology, hence we would just recapitulate herein and not discuss in depth.
J.J. Bachofen’s contribution lies towards the advocation of mother right. In his
work Das Mutterrecht (Mother Right, 1861), Bachofen associated the rule of
women during the early stages of the development of society which later gave way
to Father right. Sir Henry Maine in his major work Ancient Law, (1861) 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. Patriarchy as the norm of society was refelected in
Maine’s work as opposed to Bachofen’s Mother right written during the same
time. While on the other hand McLennan based his work on marriage and his
work Primitive Marriage, (1865) accentuated Bachofen’s view on mother right.

1.2.2 Contributors to the Theory of Evolution: Major

Anthropological Works
Herbert Spencer in the early 19th century postulated the theory of cosmic evolution.
His theory showed the progress of societies over time which was accomplished
6 through competition. The phrase “survival of the fittest” owes its origin in the
writings of Spencer, who emphasised on the process of social selection by which Classical Theories
only those individuals who have merit come up in society. He was against the
notions of social benefits to be given to the poor. His works were developed and
published several years earlier to Charles Darwin’s work on biological evolution
Origin of Species (1856).
In 1890 Sir James Frazer published his voluminous work Golden Bough on the
study of magic and religion in which he gave a detailed description of religious
beliefs of societies and cultures from various parts of the globe. The initial volume
majorly revolved round the customs pertaining to an ancient Italian priesthood
where each priest of the shrine is ritually murdered by his successor. In the later
volumes he added data from across the globe, these accounts were mostly based
on travelogues and oral stories collected from travelers.
Lewis Henry Morgan regarded as the father of American Anthropology lived
among the Iroquois for sometime during the year 1840. He was adopted by one
of the Iroquois clans and named Tayadaowuhkuh ‘he who builds bridges’ (Eriksen,
2008). During the stay, Morgan developed an interest in kinship and later carried
on a comparative study of Native American Kinship. Morgan introduced the
distinction between classificatory and descriptive kinship which is in use till
date. In his work Ancient Society (1877) keeping in line with the evolutionary
stages of the society as propagated by Montesquieu– Savagery, Barbarism and
Civilisation, Morgan explained the changing dimension by introducing three sub-
stages each for savagery and barbarism. Morgan tried to link the shift from one
stage to the other through technological shifts like the use of fire, bow, and pottery
in the savage period, moving on to domestication of animals, agriculture, metal
working during the barbarian stage and to alphabet and writing in the civilisation
era. Thus, Morgan attributed technological progress as the source behind social
progress and change. In other words, if a change occurs for example in social
institutions, organisations or ideologies, its root can be traced to a technological
change in the society. Morgan’s theories were popularised by Friedrich Engels,
who had used some of Morgan’s theories in his famous work The Origin of the
Family, Private Property and the State (1884). For further reading in Engels
and other Marxists followers of Marxist theory refer to Block 4 Unit 3 of this
Course. Morgan’s theory was important as it supported the conviction that
materialistic factors—economic and technological—are decisive in shaping the
fate of humanity.
In the late 19th century when Anthropology was getting established as a discipline
Sir Edward Burnett Tylor’s worked on the theory of evolution of culture. Sir
Edward Burnett Tylor was the first British Professor of Anthropology, at the
University of Oxford (1896). His work Primitive Culture (1871) defined Culture
which till date is regarded as the most complete definition of culture.
“Culture, or civilisation, taken in its broad, ethnographic sense, is that complex
whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other
capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”(Tylor 1958[1871]:1)

Tylor proposed the theory of unilinear universal evolution of society which

stated that culture evolved from simple to complex. He further maintained that all
societies passed through the three stages of development as suggested by
Monstequiue – savagery to barbarism to civilisation. During this period Europe
had explored, conquered and colonised most of the countries across the globe.
Tylor’s theory thus, had a strong foothold, as examples from these colonised areas 7
Anthropological Theories-I showed the various stages of evolution. Based on the principle of psychic unity
of mankind, Tylor explained the parallel evolutionary stages in different cultures.
Reflection

Psychic Unity of Mankind: The theory was based on the belief that human beings are
born with similar psychological/mental capabilities that had the same thought process,
so it would progress in the same line. Spencer’s theory of social evolution and survival
of the fittest was accentuated by Tylor’s theory of cultural survivals.

Cultural Survivals: Tylor explained survivals as those processes, customs, and opinions,
which by compulsion of habit are carried forward into a new realm of society, and they
thus continue as living examples of an earlier condition of a culture which at present
has evolved into a new one.

1.2.3 Criticisms
The theory of social evolutionism was denounced by the anthropologists of the
modern and post modern era.
 The followers of the social evolution theory were referred to as “Arm Chair
Anthropologists” by the next generation of anthropologists who emphasised
on primary data collection through field work. Sir James Frazers work Golden
Bough is set as an example by the later anthropologists of arm chair writing
as the work was entirely based on secondary data. Frazer had never conducted
fieldwork nor had any direct interaction with the people under study.
 Anthropologists like Franz Boas, Margret Mead and others of the American
School disapproved of the theory of universal evolution based on psychic
unity of mankind as it failed to take into account the cultural variations.
Herein, Morgan’s theory of evolution based on technological progress came
under the scanner as the examples from the Polynesian cheifdoms, showed
complex political systems, but with no trace of pottery (Eriksen, 2008).
 The comparative method used for these theories merely used the encounter
with the other societies to enhance the greatness of the anthropologist’s own
society. As the reference point was the Civilisation of the Whites, these
theories have been condemned as ethnocentric.

1.2.4 Neo Evolutionism

The early 20th century anthropologists like Leslie White and Julian H. Steward
attempted to overcome the failings of the classical evolutionary theorists by
incorporating the methodology of empiricism and also trying to develop rational
criteria of measuring evolution. They felt that evolution was a real fact and societies
become more complex over time. According to Leslie White, Tylor was correct
in every respect except for his methodology. For Leslie White ‘energy’ was the
key component which human beings learned to harness in the course of cultural
evolution. From the earlier stages when human beings started to harness energy
from the natural resources like water, air and fire, slowly moving towards
domestication of animals and plants, to the invention of the wheel Leslie White
showed how energy conversion spurred cultural evolution. However Leslie White
gave too much emphasis on the material dimensions of life which was later criticised
by Marshall Sahlins.
Sahlins and Service gave a dual theory of evolution in which they distinguished
between general and specific evolution. The former refers to the overall process
of evolution of societies and the latter to the regional and local adaptations of
8
specific societies. The process of general evolution used the concept of adaptability Classical Theories
as against adaptation. Some traits give to some societies an evolutionary advantage
and they are able to spread across the globe in the process of adaptive radiation.
This adaptive radiation is not necessarily a positive process and often involves war
and violence. Sahlins cites the example of the discovery of gun powder that
enabled European socities to establish control over most ports of the world and
lead to a process of social evolution we today recognise as modernisation.
Julian Steward modified the concept of culture to divide culture into two parts, a
culture comprising of the techno-economic systems that directly interact with the
environment and a peripheral culture that grows by historical and specific conditions
of existence of the culture. The relationship between the culture core and the
environment is both functional and dialectical and establishes the methodology of
cultural ecology.
The specific relationships of core and environment are conditioned by the nature
of the environment and while they establish the direction of evolution of cultures,
they are not universal but follow a multilinear pattern in which each environmental
zone could be expected to have its own mode of evolution and one could generalise
across silmilar environmental zones.
The peripheral culture on the other hand gives to each culture its unique character.
Thus while the culture core of all societies having say, a hunting food gathering
way of life, will be expectedly similar, their peripheral culture like language, art etc.
can be different. The followers of neo-evolutionism also took into account seasonal
migration while acknowledging the similiarities between cultures. The theory of
diffusionism also took into account migration which would be taken up in detail
in the next section.

1.3 DIFFUSIONISM
Diffusionism theory interpreted the growth of culture in terms of “cultural similarities”,
“mutual contact”, “cultural cradle”, “culture area”, “kulturkreise” (culture circle).
Diffusionists negated the principle of Unilinear Evolution and studied geographical
distribution and migration of cultural traits, and reflected that cultures are patch
work of traits interwoven with numerous histories and origins. According to
diffusionists, various culture complexes develop at various times in different parts
of the world and later on diffuse to other parts of the world mainly due to
migration. They thus, opined that culture has grown in course of history not because
of evolution, but because of transmission of culture due to migration and mutual
contact.
Reflection
Culture Trait: The simplest basic unit into which a culture can be analysed. Such a
trait is a specific entity within the culture. A combination of traits is a culture complex.
A trait may be diffused independently and may join freely with other traits. (Tylor: 540,
1991)
Culture Complex: An organically related group of culture traits in a culture area, e.g.,
the cattle complex of East African cultures. In diffusion (q.v), the traits of a culture
complex will probably remain associated. The traits are usually logically associated with
each other. (Tylor: 125. 1991)
Culture Area: A region which has a relatively similar way of living common to its
component socio-economic systems and cultures. The centre of the culture area has
uniform customs but its periphery may be less homogeneous. The concept is more
relevant to material culture than to other aspects of culture. (Tylor: 37, 1991)
9
Anthropological Theories-I In the early part of the 19 th century three main schools of thoughts evolved to
study diffusion;
a) British Diffusionist School
b) German Diffusionist School
c) American Diffuionist School

1.3.1 British Diffusionist School

The British Diffusionst School mainly talked about ancient Egypt as the cultural
cradle of the world. Also known as heliocentric diffusion, the theory was based
on the conviction that culture originated from one culture centre. The most prominent
British “diffusionists” were Grafton Elliot Smith, W.H.R. Rivers and William.James.
Perry.
Grafton Elliot Smith (1871-1937) the pioneer of the British School advocated that
culture first evolved in Egypt and had spread to the far corners of the world from
about 4000 B.C. He and Perry believed that cultural development had begun
about 6000 years ago. Smith (1928:22) stated that prior to that time, the earth
was inhabited by “Natural Man” who were nomads and lacked domestication of
animals, agriculture, houses, clothing, but religion, social organisation, hereditary
chiefs and formal laws or ceremonies of marriage or burial. In approximately 4000
B.C the inhabitants of the Nile Valley “appreciated the fortunate chance provided
them by a “natural crop” of barley and adopted a settled mode of life (ibid: 32).
Thus, following the matrix of evolution the Egyptians according to Smith invented
pottery, basketry, building houses; started domestication of animals; built towns
and learned to bury their dead in cemeteries and began the worship of deity.
Having accomplished their own civilisation, they set out to explore the world, and
in so doing the Egyptians rapidly spread through diffusion and colonisation. Smith
correlated similarities between Egyptian complex of large stone monuments related
to the sun worship and that of Megaliths of England such as stone hedge. Thus,
arriving at the conclusion that megalithic monuments of England were crude imitations
of Egyptian pyramids and mastabas, as a case of migration, he first published his
views in an article in 1911. Later he studied Maya pyramids, Japanese Pagodas,
Cambodian and Balenese Temples and American burial mounds. Smith published
his Pan-Egyptian theory of diffusion in the book entitled Origin of Civilisation
published in 1928.
W.J. Perry (1887-1949) was an adherent follower of the theory postulated by
Smith, he strengthened the hands of Smith in formulating the school though there
was no specific theoretical contribution on his part. His books The Children of
the Sun (1923) and Gods and the Men (1927) were the major contributions to
the British school of diffuionsim which firmly established Egypt as the centre of
civilisation.
W.H.R. Rivers (1864-1922) The History of the Melanesian Society published
in 1914 leaned heavily on the theory of degeneration. He sought the explanation
of contrasts among Melanesian and Polynesian cultures in terms of original
complexes which had allegedly been spread by successive waves of migration.
Herein, he explained the role of migration, assimilation and acculturation, based on
assumption of how boatloads of men migrated to these islands and married local
women and assimilated with the islanders, barring their original burial rituals. W.H.R.
Rivers was of the opinion that the similarities in cultures could be explained by
10 closely examining the patterns of imitation and migration. Thus, his summation was
in line with the theory of un-inventiveness put forward by his contemporaries Smith Classical Theories
and Perry.
Criticisms
a) Egypt as the only epicenter of all invention was the greatest flaw that led
other anthropologists to denounce this school as extreme diffusionists.
b) Hypothetical assumption of human beings as un-inventive to explain Egypt as
the only centre of invention was not acceptable to the later anthropologists.
c) Only simple form of diffusion i.e diffusion of culture traits was taken into
account while diffusion of culture complex was not emphasised.
d) Material culture was predominantly explained while non-material aspects of
culture were not taken into account.
The British School of Diffusionism was the last one among the three schools to
emerge and the first one to disappear.

1.3.2 German Diffusionist School

The scholars of the German Diffusionist School were of the opinion that culture
traits and complexes emerged independently in many areas and then dispersed to
other parts of the world. ‘Kulturkries’ or Culture-Circle school of thought as it
is known, differs from the British school of diffusionism in its basic concept of
origin of culture. Kulturkries School attributed development of cultures not to one
particluar place but to several places at several different times. Culture traits and
culture complexes were believed to have originated independently at several parts
of the world from where it was imitated and diffused to other places due to
migration. Thus, according to the German Diffusionist School each culture trait or
culture complex had a circle or district leading to the concept of culture circles.
Thus, we see that the German School of Diffusion did not completely negate the
theory of evolution. The roots of the Kulturkries School can be traced to the
founder of anthrogeography Friedrich Ratzel.
Friedrich Ratzel (1844-1904), Leo Frobrnius (1873-1938), Fritz Graebner (1877-
1934) and Wilhelm Schmidt (1868-1954) the herbingers of the German Diffusionist
School had followed in the lines of the propogators of the theory of evolution
emphasising the uniqueness of each cultural heritage. While at the same time
argued that cultural evolution was not unilineal thereby denouncing Tylor’s psychic
unity of mankind and reflected that technological development alone cannot judge
the complexity of a particular culture. The diffusionist aimed at a comprehensive
survey of the spread of cultural traits from the earliest times. In this regard Ratzel
using the comparative method traced the similarities of the bow and arrow in his
work The History of Mankind (1896). He studied the similarities in the cross
section of the bow shaft, the material and fastening of the bow string and the
feathering of the arrow of different societies. Based on the study Ratzel concluded
that the bow and arrow of Indonesia and West Africa were related. Using the
same technique Ratzel’s pupil Leo Frobrnius widened the spectrum of the material
culture to masks, houses, drums, clothings and shields to present similarities between
Melanesia, Indonesia and West Africa.
Fritz Graebner who was a museum curator in Germany worked on the culture
circle and culture strata in Oceania and Africa and further developed the idea and
tried to give it a global perspective. In his famous book Methodder Ethnology 11
Anthropological Theories-I (1911) he tried to explain the criteria for identifying affinities and chronologies or
similarities and historical relationships. Based on the reconstruction of chronology
Graebner could identify as many as six historically similar cultural developments
which had counterparts in other parts of the world.
i) Tasmanian culture
ii) Australian boomerang culture
iii) Totemic Hunter culture
iv) Two-class horticulturist culture
v) Melanesian bow culture and
vi) Polynesian Patrilineal culture
Father Wilhelm Schmidt born in Australia was a self proclaimed follower of
Graebner. To understand the cultures of the world, both Graebner and Schmidt
applied two rules as discussed below and divided the world into different strata
and circles (Upadhyay & Pandey: 109).
i) Criteria of Form as called by Graebner and Criteria of Quality as stated by
Schmidt reflected that similarities between two culture elements which do not
automatically arise out of nature, material purpose of traits or objects, should
be interpreted as a result of difussion irrespective of the distance that might
separate the two instances.
ii) Criteria of Quantity stated that the probability of historical relationship between
two items increases as the number of additional articles/items/artifacts showing
similarities increases.
Schmidt distinguished four major grades of culture circles which are till date referred
to;
i) Primitive culture circle
ii) Primary culture circle
iii) Secondary culture circle
iv) Tertiary culture circle
Criticisms of the German Diffusionist School
 Diffusionist school focused on what is diffusion but never explained the causes
of diffusion and how it takes place. The methodology did not take into
account the dynamics of culture change.
 Despite the identification of 4-5 bands with their own migration patterns
being reflected upon yet nothing concrete on culture circles could be
established.
 Diffusionist school also relied heavily on the museum methodologies. The
main component of this school was thus, typology of culture traits rather than
on the explaination of the causes of spread of diffusion.

1.3.3 American Diffusionist School

The American School of Diffusionism picked up the threads of the German School
12 of Difussionism and tried to explain the causes of the spread of difussion. The
founder of this school was Franz Boas (1858-1942) who was followed by Clark Classical Theories
Wissler (1870-1947) and Albert L Kroeber (1876-1960). The culture area
approach was a significant part of this school while trying to map and classify the
tribal groups of North and South America and show the diffusion of culture traits
and complexes.
Diffusion as a cause for similar traits was explained by the American school as a
result of adaptation and migration. Thus, the culture area approach was used to
show the diffusion of traits among different tribes. The American school divided
the world into different culture areas on the basis of geographical regions. This in
turn led to the listing of traits found in the cultures. The list consisted of traits which
might have been either adapted or migrated due to diffusion. This concept was
emphasised by Wissler while Kroeber, Herskovits and Sapir supported the
approach. Clark Wissler took into account the historical questions and his biggest
contribution was the age-area hypothesis. In an age where radio carbon dating
was yet to appear on the scene, it was difficult to acertain the real age of the
artifacts. Clark at such a juncture came up with the age area hypothesis that
assumed that culture traits tended to spread from the centre towards the periphery
of any culture area. This was also known as the ‘law of diffusion’.
Melville Herskovits during this era gave the explanation of ‘culture trait’ and
‘culture complex’ through his work which is best known as the “Cattle Complex
of East Africa”. While Kroeber’s contribution was immensely seen towards the
theory by listing and generating long list of culture traits. For any particular culture
trait like hunting or fishing, the list ran to many thousands of similar culture traits
across the globe. Franz Boas in following this approach had taken into account
the psychic bases of human beings and thus, the American School did not discard
the theory of Psychic Unity as postulated by the Evolutionist School though it also
took into account the historical aspects. This shift led to the rise of the School of
Historical Particularism.

1.4 SCHOOL OF HISTORICAL PARTICULARISM

Franz Boas the founder of the School of Historical Particularism believed that
grand theories of socio-political evolution or diffusion were not provable. He was
of the notion that the theories of all societies as a part of one single human culture
evolving towards a cultural pinnacle were flawed, especially those that promoted
a western model of civilisation as the apex of cultural acheivement. Boas also had
reservations in accepting the theories of multilinear evolution of societies. He
argued that many cultures developed independently, each based on its own particular
set of circumstances such as geography, climate, resources and particular cultural
borrowing. Based on this argument, he postulated reconstructing the history of
individual cultures, through in-depth investigation that compares group of culture
traits in specific geographical areas. The distribution of the culture traits in a
specific area were then plotted and further cultural borrowings determined. This
gives consent to the reconstruction of individual histories of specific cultures and
allows the investigator to draw conclusions as to which cultural elements were
borrowed and which were developed individually. Through historical particularism
Fraz Boas emphasised on the reconstruction of each individual culture to understand
the underlying intricacies and intrinsic value of each culture. Boas theory was
carried forward and developed by his contemporary scholars and students which
include Alfred L. Kroeber, Ruth Benedict, Robert Lowie, Paul Radin and Edward
Sapir. The theory was also borrowed by the anthropologists working in the 13
Anthropological Theories-I archaeological field as it comprised in-depth study of what had happened in the
past.
Criticisms
The main criticism in Historical Partucularism arose because of the heavy
concentration of the data collection of the past.
 The ethnographers stated that the huge amount of data collected is difficult
for a investigator to sythesize.
 Moreover, the upcoming generations of anthropologists were more interested
in studying the cultural process of the present rather than the past.

1.5 SUMMARY
The classical theories have their own place of pride in the study of Social
Anthropology. These theories were the starting point from which the emphasis on
theorising a particular event came up. Though these theories are no longer of
prime importance yet they built the foundation for the anthropological thoughts.
These theories brings into focus the society of the victorian era and with the
passage of time the anthropologists have move forward from the speculation on
evolution and the spread of culture (diffusion) to the more relative aspects in the
present era. Herein, we have seen that the history of anthropological theories has
involved transistion from diachronic perspective to synchronic perspective, which
further moved on to interactive perspective. The theories following the classical
theories would be taken up in the upcoming units of this block. Hereafter the
theory of Functionalism, Structural Functionalism and Neo-Functionalism is going
to be discussed.
References
Bachofen, J.J. 1861. Myth, Religion, and Mother Right: Selected Writings of
J.J. Bachofen. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Reprint 1968.
Barnard, Alan. 2000. History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Barnes, H. E. 1948. Historical Sociology: Its Origins and Development. New
York: Philosophical Library.
Engels, Friedrich. 1884. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the
State. Reprinted in 2004. Australia. Resistance Books.
Eriksen, Thomas. H. and Finn Sivert Nielsen (ed.) 2008. A History of
Anthropology. Delhi: Rawat Publications.
Graebner, Fritz. 1911. Methodder Ethnology. (Die Methode der Ethnologie).
Heidelberg.
Harris, Marvin. 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory, A History of Theories
of Culture. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Kuper, Adam. 1973. Anthropologists and Anthropology: The Modern British
School. London: Routledge. Reprint 1996.
Maine, Henry. 1861. Ancient Law, Its Connection with the Early History of
Society, and its Relation to Modern Ideas. London: J.M. Dent. Reprint 1931.

14
McLennan, John F. 1865. Primitive Marriage: An enquiry into the Origin of Classical Theories
the Form of Capture in Marriage Ceremonies. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles
Black.
Montesquieu. 1748. Spirit of Laws. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Reprint 1977.
Moore, Jerry. 1877. Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological
Theories and Theorists. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. Reprint 1997.
Morgan, Lewis Henry. 1877. Ancient Society. New York: Gordon Press.
Perry, W.J. 1923. The Children of the Sun. London: Methuen.
___________ 1927. Gods and Men. The attainment of immortality. London:
G. Howe ltd.
Ratzel, 1896. History of Mankind. A. J. Butler, trans. London: Macmillan.
River, W.H.R. 1914. The History of the Melanesian Society. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Smith, G. E. 1928. In the Beginning: Origin of Civilisation. New York: Morrow.
Tylor, Edward. B. 1871. Primitive Culture. Abridged edition. New York: Harper.
Reprint 1958.
Tylor, Edward. B. 1990. Dictionary of Anthropology. Delhi: Goyl Saab Publishers
& Distributors. Indian Edition 1991.
Upadhyay, V.S & Gaya Pandey. 1993. History of Anthropological Thought.
New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company. Reprint 2002.
Suggested Reading
Barnard, Alan. 2000. History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Eriksen, Thomas. H and Finn Sivert Nielsen (ed.) 2008. A History of
Anthropology. Delhi: Rawat Publications.
Harris, Marvin. 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory, A History of Theories
of Culture. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
Kuper, Adam. 1973. Anthropologists and Anthropology: The Modern British
School. London: Routledge. Reprint 1996.
Sample Questions
1) Critically discuss the theory of evolution in social anthropology?
2) What is the theory of Diffusionism?
3) Discuss the British School of Diffusionism.
4) Discuss the German School of Diffusionism.
5) Analyse the American School of Diffusionism.
6) Delineate the theory of Historical Particularism.

15
 UNIT 2 FUNCTIONALISM, STRUCTURAL-
FUNCTIONALISM AND NEO-
FUNCTIONALISM
Contents
2.1 Functionalism
2.1.1 From Positivism to Functionalism
2.1.2 The Premises of Functionalism
2.1.3 Functionalism in Social Anthropology: Radcliffe- Brown and Malinowski
2.1.3.1 Structural-Functional Approach of Radcliffe-Brown
2.1.3.2 Functionalism of Malinowski
2.1.4 Functionalism of Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton
2.1.5 Critical Evaluation

2.2 The Thesis of Neo-Functionalism

2.2.1 Neo-Functionalism: Problems that Need to be Surmounted
2.2.2 Merits and Demerits of Neo- Functionalism

2.3 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions

Learning Objectives

After reading this unit, you would be able to:
 explain the premises of functionalism;
 compare and contrast the theoretical approach of Radcliffe-Brown, Malinowski
and Talcott Parsons;
 explore the major criticisms of the functional theory that led to the rise of the
neo-functional approach; and
 critically evaluate the merits and demerits of neo-functionalism.

2.1 FUNCTIONALISM
Literally, the word ‘function’ (from Latin, fungi, functio, to effect, perform, execute)
means ‘to perform’ or ‘to serve’ (a purpose). As a distinct approach, as a way
of looking at and analysing society, functionalism emerged first in social anthropology
in early twentieth century, and later in sociology, beginning in the 1930s. However,
its roots are as ancient as the concept of organic analogy, used in the philosophy
of Antiquity by Plato (B.C. 428/7-345/7) and Aristotle (B.C. 384-322). The
concept of ‘purpose’ or ‘end’ goes back to Aristotle’s reference to the telos
(purpose) of things as their final cause. The idea of a latent telos is also found
in Adam Smith’s metaphor of the ‘invisible hand’ as the automatic mechanism that
maximises wealth, individual welfare, and economic efficiency through the increase
16 in labour. It is from telos that the word ‘teleology’ has come, which means that
‘everything is determined by a purpose’ and the scholars should find out what that Functionalism, Structural-
Functionalism and Neo-
purpose is. Functionalism

2.1.1 From Positivism to Functionalism

The thesis of functionalism lies in the philosophy of positivism. Comte who had
postulated positivism, also makes use of the analogy of society as an organism.
While in the study of social facts, sociologists offer what Durkheim calls ‘sociological
explanations’. Each sociological explanation is consisted of two parts: to quote
Durkheim (1895: 123) here: ‘…to explain a social phenomenon the efficient cause
which produces it and the function it fulfills must be investigated separately.’ The
first component of the sociological explanation is the ‘causal-historical explanation’:
to delineate the cause(s) which produce a phenomenon by examining historical
sources rather than indulging in what Radcliffe-Brown calls ‘conjectural history’.
The second component is ‘functional’, i.e., the contribution that a part makes to
society ‘in the establishment of…general harmony’ (Durkheim 1895: 125).
Durkheim’s definition of function has tremendously influenced the writings of later
functionalists, both in social anthropology and sociology. For him, function is the
‘contribution’ a part makes to the whole for its ‘maintenance and well being’.
Thus, function is a ‘positive contribution’: it is inherently good for society (the
whole), for it ensures its continuity and healthy maintenance. By making its
contribution, each part fulfills one of the needs or needs (besoin) of society. Once
needs have been fulfilled, society will be able to survive and endure. Durkheim
applies this framework of social function in all his studies.
For instance, in his doctoral work, which was on the division of labour, Durkheim
(1893) rejects Darwin’s idea that once the size of a human population increases,
there will be a struggle for existence and those who happen to be fit will survive,
while the rest will be eliminated. Instead of lending support to the theory of
competition, conflict and elimination, Durkheim shows that as human population
increases, society becomes more and more differentiated with the division of
labour moving towards the specialisation of jobs.
Durkheim also rejects the explanations of the division of labour that economists
and psychologists had advanced. For him, the function of the division of labour
is sociological: it contributes to social solidarity. Modern industrial society is
integrated because of the interdependence that comes into existence with the
specialisation of jobs. In his study of Australian totemism, he shows that the
function of religion is to produce solidarity in society, ‘to bind people in a moral
community called church’ (Durkheim 1915).
Durkheim is particularly interested in showing that the function of social facts is
moral. Social institutions work to produce the goal of integration. With this
perspective, he is able to account for the phenomena that to many may appear
‘unhealthy’ for society. For example, he regards crime as a ‘normal’ and ‘healthy’
feature of all societies, because it reinforces collective sentiments and works towards
the evolution of morality and law.

2.1.2 The Premises of Functionalism

Durkheim is not a ‘functionalist’ in the sense in which this term has come to be
used for the approach that the British social anthropologists, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown
(1881-1955) and Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942), have espoused. Durkheim
does not use the term ‘functionalism’, although he defines the concept of social 17
Anthropological Theories-I function, as we noted previously, and the second part of his sociological explanation
deals with the functional explanation. For instance, in his celebrated study of
religion, he begins with a consideration of Australian totemism as the most elementary
form of religious life, but he does not start speculating it as the earliest form and
then, as his predecessors had done, offering theories to explain it. He is rather
more concerned with the structure and function of totemism and how its study can
help us in understanding the place of religion in complex societies. This emphasis
on the study of synchronous (or ‘present’) societies exerted a tremendous impact
on later scholars.
The beginning of the twentieth century saw the continuation of the old evolutionary
approach and also, its gradual decline. It also witnessed the rise of functionalism.
Adam Kuper (1973) thinks that 1922 was the ‘year of wonder’ (annus mirabilis)
of functionalism, for in this year were published two monographs that substantiated
the functional approach. One was by Brown (who later became Radcliffe-Brown)
titled The Andaman Islanders, and the other, by Malinowski, titled Argonauts of
the Western Pacific. The impact of anthropological functionalism was felt in other
disciplines, particularly sociology. As a result of the writings of these people,
functionalism emerged as an extremely important approach, holding its sway till the
late 1960s and the early 1970s. In its history of about 150 years, first in the
positivism of Comte, then in the ‘sociologistic positivism’ of Durkheim, and then,
in the works of the twentieth-century functionalists, functionalism has come to
comprise a number of variants and foci. Society (or culture) is a system like any
other system, such as solar system, mechanical system, atomic system, chemical
system, or organic system.
1) As a system, society (or culture) consists of parts (like, institutions, groups,
roles, associations, organisations), which are interconnected, interrelated, and
interdependent.
2) Each part performs its own function – it makes its own contribution to the
whole society (or culture) – and also, it functions in relationship with other
parts.
3) A change in one part brings about a change in other parts, or at least influences
the functioning of other parts, because all the parts are closely connected.
4) The entire society or culture – for which we can use the term ‘whole’ – is
greater than the mere summation of parts. It cannot be reduced to any part,
or no part can explain the whole. A society (or culture) has its own identity,
its own ‘consciousness’, or in Durkheim’s words, ‘collective consciousness’.

2.1.3 Functionalism in Social Anthropology: Radcliffe-Brown

and Malinowski
Both the founders of the British functional approach (Radcliffe-Brown and
Malinowski) were vehemently critical of the nineteenth-century evolutionism.
Radcliffe-Brown (1952) said that it was based on ‘conjectural history’, and not
‘authentic history’.
The scholars who later came to be known as ‘functionalists’ sought to shift the
focus of their study from ‘what society was’ to ‘what society is’, and this study
should be carried out not by speculative methods, but by living with people in their
natural habitats and learning from them, from the field.
18
2.1.3.1 Structural-functional Approach of Radcliffe-Brown Functionalism, Structural-
Functionalism and Neo-
Abandoning the search for origins and the pasts of institutions, and the ways in Functionalism

which cultural traits have diffused from one part of the world to the other, Radcliffe-
Brown (1952: 180) defines each society as a ‘functionally interrelated system’ in
which ‘general laws or functions operate’. He accepts that Durkheim offered the
first systematic formulation of the concept of function and that this concept is
based on an ‘analogy between social life and organic life’. However, with reference
to Durkheim’s use of the term ‘need’ for the conditions that must be satisfied for
a system to continue, Radcliffe-Brown thinks that this term would direct us towards
a postulation of ‘universal human or societal needs’. As a consequence, the theory
according to which events and developments are meant to fulfill a purpose and
happen because of that will trap us. Known as the theory of teleology, as we said
earlier, Radcliffe-Brown suspects that functionalism might become teleological. He
thus substitutes for the word ‘need’ the term ‘necessary conditions of existence.’
He believes that the question of which conditions are necessary for survival is an
empirical one
Radcliffe-Brown disliked the use of the word ‘functionalism’, which Malinowski
propagated with enthusiasm. His objection was that ‘-isms’ (like functionalism)
are ideologies, schools of thought, philosophies, and realms of opinions. Science
does not have either of them.
Moreover, Radcliffe-Brown also looks at the distinction between an organism and
society. For instance, an organism dies, but a society continues to survive over
time, although it may be changed and transformed. An organism can be studied
even when its parts have stopped working. In other words, the structure of an
organism can be studied separately from its function, which is not the case with
society. He writes (1952: 180):
The concept of function…involves the notion of a structure consisting of a set of
relations amongst unit entities, the continuity of the structure being maintained by
a life-process made up of the activities of the constituent units.

Radcliffe-Brown’s structural-functional approach comprises the following

assumptions:
1) A necessary condition for survival of a society is a minimal integration of its
parts.
2) The concept of function refers to those processes that maintain the necessary
integration or solidarity.
3) And, in each society, structural features can be shown to contribute to the
maintenance of necessary solidarity.
For Durkheim, the central concept is of solidarity, while for Radcliffe-Brown, it is
the ‘structural continuity’ of society. For example, in an analysis of the lineage
system, according to Radcliffe-Brown, one must first assume that some minimal
degree of solidarity must exist for it to continue. Then, one must examine the
processes associated with the lineage system, assessing their consequences for
maintaining social integration. One of the processes the investigator would come
across is the role of lineage systems in adjudicating conflicts in societies where
they are land-owning groups. They define who has the right to land and through
which side of the family it would pass. In these societies, lineage is a ‘corporate
19
Anthropological Theories-I group’. Descending through these steps, one will explain the integration of the
economic system. Then, one will move to the other systems of society, analysing
at each level the contribution a part will make to the structural continuity of the
whole.
2.1.3.2 Functionalism of Malinowski
By comparison to Radcliffe-Brown, it is Malinowski who claims the creation of
a separate ‘school’, the ‘Functional School’. The aim of functional analysis for him
(1926: 132) is to arrive at the
“explanation of anthropological facts at all levels of development by their function, by the
part they play within the integral system of culture.”

He (1926: 132-3) assumes that

“in every civilisation every custom, material object, ideas and belief fulfills some vital
function, has some task to accomplish, represents an indispensable fact within a working
whole.”

Whereas Radcliffe-Brown begins with society and its necessary conditions of

existence (i.e., integration), Malinowski’s starting point is the individual, who has
a set of ‘basic’ (or ‘biological’) needs that must be satisfied for its survival. It is
because of the importance that Malinowski gives the individual that the term
‘psychological functionalism’ is reserved for him, in comparison to Radcliffe-Brown’s
approach which is called ‘sociological functionalism’ because in this, society, is the
key concept.
Malinowski’s approach distinguishes between three levels: the biological, the social
structural, and the symbolic (Turner 1987: 50-1). Each of these levels has a set
of needs that must be satisfied for the survival of the individual. It is on his survival
that the survival of larger entities (such as groups, communities, societies) is
dependent. Malinowski proposes that these three levels constitute a hierarchy. At
the bottom is placed the biological system, followed next by the social-structural,
and finally, by the symbolic system. The way in which needs at one level are
fulfilled will affect the way in which they will be fulfilled at the subsequent levels.
The most basic needs are the biological, but this does not imply any kind of
reductionism, because each level constitutes its distinct properties and needs, and
from the interrelationship of different levels that culture emerges as an integrated
whole. Culture is the kernel of Malinowski’s approach. It is ‘uniquely human’, for
it is not found to exist among sub-humans. Comprising all those things – material
and non-material – that human beings have created right from the time they separated
from their simian ancestors, culture has been the instrument that satisfies the
biological needs of human beings. It is a need-serving and need-fulfilling system.
Because of this role of culture in satisfying biological needs that Malinowski’s
functionalism is also known as ‘bio-cultural functionalism.’
One more difference between Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski may be noted
here. A concept fundamental to Malinowski – the concept of culture – is a mere
epiphenomenona (secondary and incidental) for Radcliffe-Brown. He believes that
the study of social structure (which for him is an observable entity) encompasses
the study of culture; therefore, there is no need to have a separate field to study
culture. Further, whilst social structure is concerned all about observations, what
anthropologists see and hear about the individual peoples, culture is in the minds
of people, not amenable to observation in the same way as social structure is.
20
Radcliffe-Brown wants to make social anthropology a branch of natural science, Functionalism, Structural-
Functionalism and Neo-
which would be possible when there is an empirically investigable subject matter. Functionalism

The basis of Malinowski’s approach is a theory of ‘vital sequences’, which have

a biological foundation and are incorporated into all societies. These sequences
number eleven, each composed of an ‘impulse’, an associated physiological ‘act’,
and a satisfaction which results from that act (see Table 1).
Table1
Impulse Act Satisfaction
1. Drive to breathe; Intake of oxygen Elimination of CO2 in tissues
gasping for air.
2. Hunger Ingestion of food Satiation
3. Thirst Absorption of liquid Quenching
4. Sex appetite Conjugation Detumescence
5. Fatigue Rest Restoration of muscular and
nervous energy
6. Restlessness Activity Satisfaction of fatigue
7. Somnolence Sleep Awakening with restored
energy
8. Bladder pressure Micturition Removal of tension
9. Colon pressure Defecation Abdominal relaxation
10. Fright Escape from danger Relaxation
11. Pain Avoidance by effective act Return to normal state

Permanent Vital Sequences Incorporated in All Culture

For instance, the impulse of somnolence accompanies the act of sleep, resulting
in satisfaction by ‘awakening with restored energy’ (Malinowski 1944: 77; Barnard
2000: 68). Malinowski follows this eleven-fold paradigm with a set of seven
biological needs and their respective cultural responses (see Table 2).
Table 2

Basic Needs Cultural Responses

1. Metabolism Commissariat
2. Reproduction Kinship
3. Bodily comfort Shelter
4. Safety Protection
5. Movement Activities
6. Growth Training
7. Health Hygiene

For example, the first need is of food, and the cultural mechanisms are centered
on the processes of food getting, for which Malinowski uses the term ‘commissariat’,
which means the convoy that transports food. Similarly, the second need is of
reproduction (biological continuity of society) and the cultural response to which
is kinship concerned with regulating sex and marriage. From this, Malinowski goes
on to four-fold sequences, which he calls the ‘instrumental imperatives’, and
associates each one of them with their respective cultural responses. The four-fold
sequence is of economy, social control, education, and political organisation. From
here, he shifts to the symbolic system – of religion, magic, beliefs and values –
examining its role in culture.
21
Anthropological Theories-I 2.1.4 Functionalism of Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) and
Robert K. Merton (1910-2003)
In 1975, in an important article, Parsons labels his student, Robert Merton and
himself ‘arch-functionalists’. He also explains here why he has abandoned the term
‘structural functionalism’, which, at one time, he used for his approach. For him,
structure refers to ‘any set of relations among parts of a living system’. On empirical
grounds, he says, it can be assumed or shown that these relations are stable over
a time period. By process, which is the correlative concept with structure, one
refers to the ‘changes’ that occur in the state of the system or its relevant parts.
With respect to structure, the key concept is of stability, and with respect to
process, it is of change. Thus, by structure, we refer to a pattern of relationships
in a social system, and process refers to the changes occurring in that system. A
significant characteristic of ‘structural functionalism’ has been that it has stressed
‘structure’ more than ‘process’.
In the article mentioned above, Parsons states that the concept of function stands
at a ‘higher level of theoretical generality’. It is far more analytical than the concept
of structure, or even process, although function encompasses the latter. It is because
the concept of function is concerned with the ‘consequences’ of the existence and
the nature of structures that can be empirically described. And, it is also concerned
with the processes that take place in these systems. Parsons thinks that his original
formulation under the rubric of ‘structural functionalism’ tends to analyse society
as if it is static, but the new formulation, where stress is laid on the concept of
function than structure, in the name of functionalism, takes much more account of
change and evolution.
Parsons’ functionalism is best known in terms of the ‘functional imperatives’, the
essential conditions required for the enduring existence of a system (Parsons 1951).
Also known as the ‘AGIL model’ (based on the first letters of the four functions
that Parsons has devised) or the ‘four-function paradigm’, it evolved from Parsons’
collaborative work with Robert F. Bales in experiments on leadership in small
groups (Rocher 1974). These four functions help us to explain how a state of
balance (i.e. equilibrium) emerges in a system. Parsons explores the role of these
four functions in giving rise to equilibrium in a system.
In the case of society, Parsons submits that the institutions (or structures) maintain
(or re-establish) equilibrium by fulfilling the ‘needs’, which must be satisfied if the
system has to persist. Institutions (or structures) also solve the recurring problems
in a manner similar to the way in which the units of the organism comparable to
the institutions (or structures) of societies do in their natural environment. The
system ensures that these institutions (or structures) work appropriately on everyday
basis, satisfying the needs. For achieving equilibrium, society requires the processes
of socialisation, the internalisation of societal values, and the mechanisms of social
control so that deviance is checked.
All ‘action systems’ – and society is one of them – face four major ‘problems’ (or
have four major ‘needs’), namely Adaptation (A), Goal Attainment (G), Integration
(I), and Pattern Maintenance, or, as Parsons later renamed it, Latent Pattern
Maintenance—Tension Management, or simply, Latency (L). Parsons pictures
society (or the social system) as a large square, which he divides into four equal
parts. These parts are the four functional problems, represented by the acronym,
AGIL (see Diagram 1). The underlying idea is that all systems need to accomplish
these four functions in order to survive. The meaning of these four ‘functional
22 imperatives’ is as follows:
1) Adaptation: By this is meant the problem of securing sufficient resources Functionalism, Structural-
Functionalism and Neo-
from the society’s external environment and distributing them throughout the Functionalism
system. Each society needs certain institutions that perform the function of
adaptation to the environment – which is an external function. Adaptation
provides the means – the instrumental aspects – to achieve goals. Biological
organism performs the function of adaptation in the general system of action.
In the context of society, economic institution performs this function.
2) Goal Attainment: This function is concerned with the need of the system to
mobilise its resources to attain the goals and to establish priorities among
them. It mobilises motivations of the actors and organises their efforts. In the
general system of action, personality performs this function, while in case of
society this task is given to the political institution, because power is essential
for implementation and decision-making. Goal attainment is concerned with
ends – the consummatory aspects. Since goals are delineated in relation with
the external environment, it is, like adaptation, an external function.
3) Integration: It is regarded as the ‘heart’ of the four-function paradigm
(Wallace and Wolf 1980: 36). By integration is meant the need to coordinate,
adjust, and regulate relationships among various actors (or, the units of the
system, such as the institutions), so that the system is an ‘ongoing entity’.
According to the general theory of action, the social system performs this
function, whereas in society, legal institutions and courts are entrusted with
this task. Integration is concerned with ends, and the internal aspects of the
system.
4) Latency (Pattern Maintenance and Tension Management): This function
pertains to the issues of providing knowledge and information to the system.
In the general theory of action, culture – the repository of knowledge and
information – accomplishes this function. Culture does not act because it
does not have energy. It lays hidden, supplying actors (who are high in
energy) with knowledge and information they require for carrying out action.
Because culture exists ‘behind’ the actions of people, it is called ‘latent’.
Integration takes care of two things: first, it motivates actors to play their
roles in the system and maintain the value patterns; and second, to provide
mechanisms for managing internal tensions between different parts and actors.
The problem that every society faces is of keeping its value system intact and
ensuring that the members conform to the rules. It will be possible when
societal values are properly transmitted and imbibed. The institutions that
carry out this function are family, religion, and education. Latency gives means
to achieve ends; it is internal to the system.
Diagram 1
AGIL Model
Means (Instrumental) Ends (Consummatory)

External A Adaptation Goal attainment G

Latency (pattern
Internal L maintenance and Integration I
tension-relieving
mechanisms) 23
Anthropological Theories-I General Level of Action Theory

Organism Personality

Culture Social System

AGIL Functions in the Social System

Economy Polity

Fiduciary System Societal Community

For the purpose of analysis, Parsons identifies sub-systems corresponding to the

AGIL model in all systems and their sub-systems (see Diagram 1). As we have
seen, at the general level of action theory, the biological organism performs the
function of adaptation, the personality system, the function of goal attainment, the
social system integrates different units, and the cultural system is concerned with
pattern maintenance. Then, the social system is broken down into the four AGIL
functions. We noted earlier that economy performs the function of adaptation,
whereas, polity (or political institution), the function of goal attainment. For the
sub-system that carries out the function of integration, Parsons uses the term
‘societal community’, which reminds one of Ferdinand Tönnies’s ideas of
gemeinschaft (‘community’). ‘Societal community’ produces solidarity, unity,
cohesiveness, and loyalty to norms, values, and institutions. The function of pattern
maintenance, Parsons says, is the task of what he calls the ‘fiduciary system’,
which pertains to the nature of a trust or a trusteeship. This system produces and
legitimises moral values, beliefs, and expressive symbols.
Each of the sub-systems of the system can be taken up for analysis by treating it
as a ‘system’, and then, breaking it down into four parts looking for its components
that respectively perform the functions of adaptation, goal attainment, integration,
and latency. This way of analysing society is known as the systemic approach.
Parsons’s AGIL model is an ideal type, applicable more to differentiated societies
than simple societies. In the latter case, institutions may collapse into one, with the
result that the same institution may perform different functions. The example of
family may be cited here, which carries out economic, political, and religious
functions, in addition to the functions traditionally assigned to it, like socialisation
of the young. In communist societies, the party may decide the aspects of economy
– the processes of production and distribution – and thus, adaptation and goal
attainment may appear indistinguishable.
Parsons’ theory is popularly known as a ‘grand theory’ – an all-encompassing,
unified theory – which is believed to have a large explanatory power. However,
Parsons’ student, Robert Merton, is skeptical of such a theory, for it is too general
24 to be of much use (Merton, 1957). Instead, he expresses his preference for mid-
level (middle-range) theories, which cover certain delimited aspects of social Functionalism, Structural-
Functionalism and Neo-
phenomena (such as groups, social mobility, or role conflict). Partially because of Functionalism
this middle-range strategy, Merton’s functionalism is quite different from that of
Parsons.
For instance, Merton abandons the search for any functional prerequisites that will
be valid in all social systems. He also rejects the idea of the earlier functionalists
that recurrent social phenomena should be explained in terms of their benefits to
society as a whole. For criticism, Merton identifies the three postulates of earlier
functionalists given below:
1) Postulate of the functional unity of society. It is an assumption that there is
unity in society, which comes about because of the contributions that parts
make to the whole.
2) Postulate of the universal functionalism. It is an assumption that all social or
cultural forms have positive functions, which are for the maintenance and well
being of society.
3) Postulate of indispensability. It is an assumption that the function that a social
or cultural form performs is an indispensable precondition for the survival of
society.
Merton notes that none of these postulates are empirically justifiable. For instance,
there is no reason to suppose that particular institutions are the only ones to fulfill
the functions. Empirical research shows that there may be a wide range of what
Merton has termed ‘functional alternatives’ that may be able to perform the same
function.
With a critical look, Merton tries to attempt what he calls a ‘codification of
functional analysis in sociology’, a functional paradigm (or perspective) (which is
not a grand theory) that takes into consideration the actual dimensions of social
reality, of conformity and deviance, understanding and explaining them. Like other
functionalists, he views society as a system of interconnected parts, where the
functioning of a part has implications for the functioning of other parts and the
entire system. Like his predecessors, he is interested in the concepts of equilibrium
and integration, and the contribution of customs and institutions to the persistence
of societies. His definition of function is also in terms of the ‘positive contribution’
of a part to the whole: functions are those contributions or consequences that
‘make for the adaptation or adjustment of a given system.’ For the working of
society and its institutions, it is important that all share a set of common values and
norms, which is another distinguishing property of functionalism.
While agreeing with other functionalists on certain points stated above, Merton has
made a distinct contribution to a set of two typologies, namely, the distinction
between ‘function’ and ‘dysfunction’, and between ‘manifest’ and ‘latent’ functions.
Most functionalists think that all contributions are inherently good or ‘functional’
for society, a proposition Merton finds difficult to accept. He thinks there are acts
that have ‘consequences which lessen the adaptation or adjustment of the system’.
The distinction between manifest and latent functions has its roots in the writings
of the founders in sociology. In his study of religion, for example, Durkheim
(1915) makes a distinction between ‘what people do of which they are aware’
and ‘what emerges from their collective acts which they had not intended and
anticipated.’ When people assemble for collective totemic rituals, their explicit aim
25
Anthropological Theories-I is to honour their totem, but what these rituals produce is a sense of we-ness,
which is an unintended, unrecognised, and unanticipated consequence. Following
this, one can say that manifest functions are those consequences people observe
or expect, while latent functions are those consequences that are neither recognised
nor intended.
Merton was able to advance four types of explanations in terms of the two
dichotomies (function and dysfunction; manifest and latent functions). The earlier
functionalists put forth only one explanation and that too with respect to latent
functions. Merton’s conceptual scheme guided empirical research, rather than
remaining a theory with several explanatory claims, like the ‘grand theory’ of
Parsons.

2.1.5 Critical Evaluation

Without exaggeration, one may say that in the history of social anthropology and
sociology, no theory has generated so much of interest, enthusiasm, and response
as did functionalism. Known by different names (such as ‘functional approach’,
‘structural-functional approach’, ‘structural-functionalism’, ‘Functional School’, etc.),
functionalism emerged as some kind of a unified methodology and theory in the
1930s. Earlier, right from the beginning of the nineteenth century, it was a body
of scattered ideas and propositions. Until the 1960s, its reputation was unassailable,
as its adherents were scholars of outstanding merit, who were known (and are still
known) for various other contributions besides developing it both in terms of
theory and method. For example, Talcott Parsons is well known for his contribution
to family sociology, the school as a social system, role analysis in medical institutions,
professions and problems of the blacks, evolutionism, etc. Similarly, Robert Merton’s
contribution to social structure and anomie, deviance and conformity, dysfunctions
of bureaucracy, sociology of science, survey methods, role-set, etc, will always be
referred.
During this period from the 1930s to the 1960s, when functional approach was
virtually unchallenged in the United States of America and the other parts of the
world, some of its criticisms were undoubtedly surfacing. For instance, the British
social anthropologist, Sir E.E. Evans-Pritchard, rejected the idea of social
anthropology as a science (held by the protagonist of the structural-functional
approach, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown) and viewed it rather as a ‘comparative history’.
Although Evans-Pritchard began as a functionalist, he transformed into a humanist.
Sir Edmund R. Leach also started his career in social anthropology as a functionalist,
he then moved to the ‘processual analysis’, i.e., looking at society as a ‘process
in time’, as it is evident from his 1954 book on political systems. Later, under the
influence of Claude Lévi-Strauss, he became a structuralist, and came to be
known as a neostructuralist (Kuper, 1973). His 1961 publication of Rethinking
Anthropology offered a challenge to structural-functionalism. In spite of these
criticisms, functionalism continued to survive with glory.
But by the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, the criticisms of the
functional theory increased manifold. Parsons’s attempts to merge theories based
on action with those based on structures were unconvincing to many critics. The
rehabilitation of Marxian approach in sociology and the successful emergence of
the conflict theory was a big blow to functionalism. Several new theories and
approaches, each trying to bring in the aspects that functionalism had ignored,
became the focal points. It seemed clear to many critics that sociology had entered
26 a post-functional, a post-Parsonian phase in its development.
One of the main criticisms of functionalism is that it does not adequately deal with Functionalism, Structural-
Functionalism and Neo-
history. In other words, it is inherently ahistorical (but not antihistorical). It does Functionalism
not deal with the questions of past and history, although the advocates of
functionalism have considered evolution and diffusion as important processes of
change. Functionalism in social anthropology in the 1930s emerged as a reaction
to the nineteenth century ‘pseudo-historical’ and ‘speculative’ evolutionism and
diffusionism. It also tried to overcome the ethnocentric biases of the earlier
approaches, which regarded the contemporary pre-literate societies, popularly
known as ‘primitive societies’, and certain customs and practices found among
them as remnants of past. Edward Tylor unhesitatingly regarded the ‘contemporary
primitives’ as ‘social fossils’ and ‘survivals’ of the past, assuming that their study
would guide us to an understanding of the cultural traits of the societies of prehistoric
times (Harris 1968: 164-5). This would help us in reconstructing the history of
humankind.
Closely related with this is another criticism of functionalism: it does not effectively
deal with the contemporary processes of social change. Thus, in essence, because
it is neither able to study the pasts of societies nor the contemporary change
process, it is more suited to the study of ‘contemporary static structures’, if there
are any. Or, perhaps, it portrays the societies it studies as if they are static, which,
in reality, may not be so. The picture of a society that functionalists present is like
the picture of a ‘frozen river’ that tells nothing about its ebb and flow. By analogy,
functionalists ‘freeze society’ in the same manner as a still camera ‘freezes’ people
and locations in its frame.
There are two views on this issue. First, the problem is believed to lie with the
theory of functionalism, because when the parts of a society are seen as reinforcing
one another as well as the system, when each part fits well with the other parts,
then it is difficult to explain how these parts can contribute to change (Cohen
1968). Or, why should the parts change or contribute to change when they are
all in a state of harmony? The second opinion is that there is nothing in functionalism
which prevents it from dealing with the issues of history and change. For instance,
Parsons’s book titled Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives
(1966) reflects the ability of structural-functionalism to handle the dimensions of
change. So does Smelser’s work of 1959 on industrial revolution. The problem
lies, according to some, not with the theory of functionalism, but its practitioners,
who rarely address the issues of change and even when they do, it is in developmental
and adaptive terms than in revolutionary (Turner and Maryanski 1979). Whether
the problem of functionalism has to do with the theory or its practitioners, ‘the fact
remains that the main contributions of structural functionalists lie with the study of
static, not changing, social structures’ (Ritzer 2000: 115).
Another criticism of functionalism is that it is unable to deal effectively with conflict.
Functionalists have overemphasised harmonious relationships. They tend to
exaggerate consensus, stability, equilibrium, and integration, disregarding the forces
of conflict and disorder, and changes emerging from them. For them, conflict is
necessarily destructive and occurs outside the framework of society.
In the words of Robert Redfield (1955), the traditional societies were ‘past-
oriented’ in comparison to modern societies which were ‘future-oriented’. The
‘past-oriented’ societies were proud of their tradition, which for them was
sacrosanct; they wanted to keep it intact and therefore, any attempt to assail it
was strongly dealt with. The ‘future-oriented’ societies were not satisfied with their
lot; they looked forward to changing their lifestyles, technology, and norms and 27
Anthropological Theories-I values. Since the substantiation of anthropological functionalism came from the
empirical study of ‘past-oriented’, technologically simpler, pre-literate, and non-
civilised societies, it was obvious that the characteristics of these societies would
find their conspicuous presence in the theory.
The conservative bias in functionalism is not only because of what it ignores
(history, change, conflict, disorder) but also what it emphasises (society ‘here and
now’, norms and values, consensus, order). Functionalists are overwhelmingly
preoccupied with the normative order of society.
The individual in functionalism is devoid of dynamism and creativity. He is simply
a product of society and its forces constrain him at every juncture. The opposite
view is that it is the individual who in fact initiates change in society. Individuals
as much use the system as the system uses them. Those who subscribe to the
interactional approach argue that functionalism has failed to conceptualise adequately
the complex nature of actors and the process of interaction. One of the reasons
of why functionalism ignored the role of the individual in society was that it was
solely interested in explaining the survival of society. It was interested in the
‘collectivity’ and not the ‘individual’.
In addition to these, there were some important methodological and logical
criticisms of functionalism. The belief of functionalism that there is a ‘single theory’
that could be used in all situations was an illusion. Many scholars found that it was
difficult to apply functionalism to complex societies, which were not only fast
changing but were also conflict-ridden. The ideas of relativism – i.e., things are
meaningful in their respective cultural contexts — to which functionalists gave
support, made a comparative analysis difficult.
One of the important criticisms of functionalism is that it is inherently teleological,
i.e., explanations are given in terms of ‘purposes’ or ‘goals’. With respect to this,
Turner and Maryanski (1979) submit that teleology per se is not a problem. As
a matter of fact, social theory should take into account the ‘teleological relationship
between society and its component parts’ (Ritzer 2000). The problem comes
when teleology is stretched to unacceptable limits, when it is believed that only the
given and specific part of society can fulfill the needs. Teleology becomes illegitimate
when it fails to take into consideration the idea that a variety of alternative structures
can fulfill the same needs.
Functionalism has also been criticised for making explicit what is implicit in the
premise; the technical term used for this kind of reasoning is ‘tautology’. For
example, if religion exists, it must be functional, otherwise, it will cease to exist,
and its function must be to contribute to social solidarity, because without it,
society will not be able to survive. Many critics have pointed out that functionalism
suffers from ‘globular or circular reasoning’. Needs are postulated on the basis of
the existing institutions, that are, in turn, used to explain their existence.

2.2 THE THESIS OF NEO-FUNCTIONALISM

A revival of interest in Parsons’s work, first in Germany and then, the United
States of America, led to the emergence of neo-functionalism. The basic aim has
been to merge certain aspects of functionalism, those which have withstood the
test of time, with other paradigms that have developed better critical perspectives.
Those associated with neo-functionalism in Germany are Niklas Luhmann and
28 Jürgen Habermas, who initially collaborated on a theory of social engineering in
modern society, but later worked separately. Parsons placed emphasis on value Functionalism, Structural-
Functionalism and Neo-
consensus, also believing that because the social system penetrates the personality Functionalism
system, the options available to the individual for social relationships and behaviour
are limited. But that is, Luhmann thinks, not simply correct. He moves the individual
out of the social system into the ‘society’ — what may be termed the ‘societal
environment’ — which is far more complex and less restrictive. It accords people
more freedom, especially freedom for carrying out ‘irrational and immoral behaviour’
(Abrahamson 2001: 148). Abrahamson says that if Luhmann moved from Parsons,
and then discovered the problems with the concept of value consensus, Habermas
moved toward Parsons. Habermas’s early writings were strongly critical of Parsons,
but later, he accorded a place to cultural, social, and personality systems in his
theory. His conceptualisation of the relationship between these systems was quite
consistent with Parsons’s views. He also gave place to Parsons’s concept of ‘self-
regulating system’, which comes into existence when societies become complex as
a consequence of which structural systems are separated from ‘lifeworld’, i.e., the
inter-subjective realm for experiencing and communicating about culture, society,
and personality (2001: 148).
The main spokespersons of neofunctionalism in America are Jeffrey Alexander and
Paul Colomy. In one of their joint publications of 1985, they define neofunctionalism
as ‘a self-critical strand of functional theory that seeks to broaden functionalism’s
intellectual scope while retaining its theoretical core’ (p. 118). Under the rubric of
‘neo-functionalism’, they have made an effort to extend structural functionalism by
overcoming its difficulties.
Alexander and Colomy think that the deficiencies of structural functionalism are
not irreversible. Its synthetic orientation can be recaptured. The concepts of conflict
and subjective meaning can be introduced. One can regard the integration of the
system and the interpenetration of its various subsystems as a ‘tendency’, to be
investigated rather than as a ‘given’ or ‘assumed’ fact.

2.2.1 Neo-Functionalism: Problems that Need to be

Surmounted
In neo-functionalism, the problems that need to be surmounted are:
1) Anti-individualism — the individual in structural functionalism is passive and
lacks creativity, and is simply a product of the social forces, which he neither
checks nor controls.
2) Antagonism to change — structural functionalism is a theory of social order
rather than of change.
3) Conservatism — structural functionalism has worked toward offering a
justification of the system and its practices, often justifying inequality,
exploitation, and oppression.
4) Idealism — structural functionalism speaks in terms of an ideal society, where
everything is in order and stability.
5) Anti-empiricist bias — structural functionalism is more concerned with abstract
social systems instead of real societies.

2.2.2 Merits and Demerits of Neo-Functionalism

Although some of the traits of what has come to be called ‘neo-functionalism’ are 29
Anthropological Theories-I found in the German interest in Parsons’s works, this theoretical ‘tendency’ is
principally associated with an American sociologist, Jeffrey C. Alexander, and
later, his younger collaborator, Paul Colomy. A restricted use of the term ‘neo-
functionalism’ is also found in ecological studies where it basically means assigning
primary importance to techno-environmental forces in an analysis of the processes
of cultural adaptation.
Alexander does not seem to be happy with the use of the term ‘neofunctionalism’.
Alexander (1985) also thinks that notwithstanding the inappropriateness of the
term ‘functionalism’, Parsons’s sociology will be known in future by this name.
Instead of being a unified theory, neofunctionalism is a ‘tendency’, characterised
by the following propositions (Alexander 1985: 10):
1) An open and pluralistic description of society as a whole.
2) An even-handed apportionment when it comes to action vs. structure (or
action vs. order).
3) Integration is viewed as a possibility; deviance and social control are considered
realities.
4) Discernment between personality, culture, and society.
5) Differentiation is viewed as the central driving force producing social change.
6) The development of concepts and theory is considered to be independent of
all the levels involved in sociologic analysis.
Post-positivism submits that a theory can be discussed, examined, verified, and
elaborated with reference to other theories rather than empirical research. In other
words, the referent for a theory might be another theory rather than an ensemble
of facts. Theories are viewed as if they represent the ‘empirical observations’.
Alexander is critical of empirically-based inferences in social sciences. One of the
fundamental differences between social sciences and natural sciences is that
theoretical perspectives always permeate every work that social scientists do.
Sociological theory, therefore, can be scientifically significant irrespective of its
ability and capacity to explain empirical observations.

2.3 SUMMARY
The early nineteen century saw the rise of the functional theory and by the 1960’s
it was at its pinnacle represented by scholars’ of outstanding merit of that time. But
the approach was also levied with criticisms as the functional approach was
inherently teleological, i.e., explanations are given in terms of ‘purposes’ or ‘goals’.
The method emphasised more on society here and now- ‘collectivity’ and did not
call attention to the ‘individual’. Neo-functionalism worked on the aspects that
were not considered by the followers of the functional approach. The neo-
functionalism school also has its share of criticisms as it has been termed as
conservative and antagonistic to change, as it emphasis is on social order rather
than on change.
References
Abrahamson, Mark. 2001. ‘Functional, Conflict and Nonfunctional Theories’. In
George Ritzer and Barry Smart (eds), Handbook of Social Theory. Sage
Publications (pp. 141-51).
30
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 1982. Positivism, Presuppositions and Current Functionalism, Structural-
Functionalism and Neo-
Controversies. Theoretical Logic in Sociology. Vol. 1. Berkeley: University of Functionalism
California Press.
_________________ 1998. Neofunctionalism and After. London: Blackwell.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. (ed). 1985. Neofunctionalism. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. and Paul Colomy. 1985. Toward Neo-functionalism.
Sociological Theory, 3: 11-23.
Barnard, Alan. 2000. History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, Percy. 1968. Modern Social Theory. New York: Basic Books.
Davis, Kingsley. 1959. ‘The Myth of Functional Analysis as a Special Method in
Sociology and Anthropology’. In American Sociological Review. 24: 757-72.
Durkheim, Émile. 1893. The Division of Labour in Society. Glencoe: The Free
Press.
—————————— 1895. The Rules of the Sociological Method. New
York: The Free Press.
—————————— 1915. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life.
London: Allen and Unwin.
Giddens, Anthony. 1973. The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies. London:
Hutchinson.
Gouldner, Alvin W. 1973. For Sociology. London: Allen Lane.
Harris, Marvin. 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory, A History of Theories
of Culture. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
Kuper, Adam. 1973. Anthropologists and Anthropology: The Modern British
School. London: Routledge.
Levy, Jr., Marion J. 1968. ‘Functional Analysis: Structural-Functional Analysis’. In
International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences. McMillan Co. and Free Press.
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: George
Routledge & Sons.
—————————————— 1926. ‘Anthropology’. Encyclopedia
Britannica. First Supplementary Volume.
—————————————— 1944. A Scientific Theory of Culture and
Other Essays. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Merton, Robert K. 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The
Free Press (Revised and Enlarged Edition).
Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. New York: The Free Press.
—————————— 1975. ‘The Present Status of Structural-Functional
Theory in Sociology’. In Lewis A. Coser (ed), The Idea of Social Structure:
Papers in Honour of Robert K. Merton. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
31
Anthropological Theories-I Parsons, Talcott and Gerald M. Platt. 1973. The American University. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1922. The Andaman Islanders. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
—————————————— 1952. Structure and Function in Primitive
Society: Essays and Addresses. London: Cohen & West.
Redfield, Robert. 1955. Peasant Society and Culture. Chicago: Chicago University
Press.
Rocher, Guy. 1974. Talcott Parsons and American Sociology. London: Nelson.
Ritzer, George. 2000. Modern Sociological Theory. McGraw Hill Higher
Education.
Smelser, Neil. 1959. Social Change in the Industrial Revolution. Chicago:
University of Chicago press.
Turner, Jonathan and A. Z. Maryanski. 1979. Functionalism. Mento Park,
California: Benjamin/Cummings.
Turner, Jonathan H. 1987. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Jaipur: Rawat
Publications.
Wallace, Ruth A. and Alison Wolf. 1980. Contemporary Sociological Theory.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Suggested Reading
Barnard, Alan. 2000. History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Harris, Marvin. 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory, A History of Theories
of Culture. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
Kuper, Adam. 1973. Anthropologists and Anthropology: The Modern British
School. London: Routledge.
Sample Questions
1) Discuss the premises of Functionalism.
2) Compare and contrast the works of Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski in
relation to the functional theory.
3) Discuss the works of Talcott Parsons and Robert k. Merton in functionalism.
4) Critically evaluate the functional theory.
5) Discuss the problems that needs to be addressed in neo-functionalism.

32
UNIT 3 SOCIAL ORGANISATION AND
DYNAMIC THEORIES OF
STRUCTURE
Contents
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Social Organisation and Social Structure
3.3 Dynamic Theories of Structure
3.3.1 Social Structure is a Reality: A.R. Radcliffe-Brown’s Contribution

3.3.2 George Peter Murdock’s view on Social Structure

3.3.3 Social Structure is a Model: Contribution of Claude Lévi-Strauss

3.3.4 A Synthesis of Structural Functionalism: Contribution of S.F Nadel

3.3.5 Edmund Leach on Social Structure

3.3.6 Raymond Firth on Social Structure

3.3.7 Contribution of Meyer Fortes

3.3.8 Social Structure Refers to Relations between Groups: The Contribution of E.E.
Evans-Pritchard

3.3.9 Talcott Parsons on Social Structure

3.3.10 Emile Durkheim on Social Structure

3.3.11 Rodney Needham on Social Structure

3.4 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions

Learning Objectives

After going through this unit, you will be able to:
 define Social Organisation and Social Structure;
 describe about the dynamic theories of social structure; and
 indicate the importance underlying these theories from an anthropological
perspective.

3.1 INTRODUCTION
In this lesson we are going to try and understand about ‘Social Organisation and
Dynamic Theories of Structure.’ The term ‘structure’ (Latin structura from struere,
to construct) has been applied to human societies since the 19th century. Before
that time, its use was more common in other fields such as construction or biology.
The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (1999) gives three meanings of the 33
Anthropological Theories-I term structure: (i) the way in which something is organised, built, or put together
(e.g., the structure of the human body); (ii) a particular system, pattern, procedure,
or institution (e.g., class structure, salary structure); and (iii) a thing made up of
several parts put together in a particular way (e.g., a single-storey structure).
In Social anthropology a study on structure will encompass all the three meanings.
The term structure, will thereby imply an ‘interconnectedness’ of parts, i.e., the
parts of a society are not isolated entities, but are brought together in a set of
relationships. Spencer developed the organic analogy, believing that this analogy
will be greatly valid if we are able to show not only that society is like an organism
but also that ‘organism is like society’ (see Barnes, H.E. 1948; Harris 1968). Why
organic analogy is used more than other analogies such as of the solar system, and
later, of atomic and chemical systems – is because an organism is far more
concrete than other systems, and is easy to understand, comprehend, and explain.
This analogy was basic to the understanding of the concept of social structure, a
term used for the first time by Spencer.
For those who regard structure as an important analytical concept, the world is
an organised entity; it comprises interconnected parts, where each part is to be
studied in relationship with other parts. Thus, ‘Structure refers to the way in which
the parts of an entity are interconnected so that the entity emerges as an integrated
whole, which for the purpose of analysis can be broken down into individual
parts.’

3.2 SOCIAL ORGANISATION AND SOCIAL

STRUCTURE
‘Social organisation’ has tended to be used loosely to refer to the sum total of
activities performed in a given social context. So we must understand that social
organisation which defines the roles individuals play in relation to one another is
mainly concerned with social action whereas social structure which defines the
statuses of actors performing such roles are more concerned with the formal
relations between people. We are all aware of the fact that all human groups of
a society are organised and the individual components function through interrelation
and interaction. Social organisation implies some degree of unification, a putting
together of diverse elements into common relation. To do this, advantage may be
taken of existing structural principles or variant procedures may be adopted. This
involves the exercise of choice, the making of decisions.
Herbert Spencer who used the term ‘function’ for the analytical study of society
perceived close parallels between the human society and biological organism. He
believed that just like the interrelated parts of a machine function to keep the
machine working in a similar fashion there is functional dependence of different
parts of the society for maintaining the integrity of the society. Durkheim tried to
explain this concept with social phenomenon. Malinowski used the term social
organisation and tried to define it in terms of purposive manner in which people
acted upon their environment to satisfy their needs thereby putting forward what
is called the theory of functionalism. However Radcliffe-Brown later modified
Malinowski’s concept, emphasising upon distinguishing the structural function from
the function of Malinowski. Brown has made a clear cut distinction between social
structure and social organisation. According to him, social structure refers to
arrangement of persons, whereas social organisation refers to arrangement of
34 activities of two or more persons which are adjusted to give a united combined
activity. He perceived social organisation as the arrangement of ‘roles’ associated Social Organisation and
Dynamic Theories of
with ‘statuses.’, which ultimately constitute social structure. Levi-Strauss, and many Structure
other anthropologists, have consistently employed the term ‘social structure’ for
what Radcliffe-Brown called ‘structural form’. Lévi-Strauss even uses ‘social
structure’ to refer to a still higher degree of abstraction—the structure of social
relations in all societies, as well as that within a particular society.
Parsons’ view of the relation between social organisation and social structure
(1951) was essentially the same as that of Radcliffe-Brown, but in addition he
posited the idea of the social system, which comprises both. Parsons distinguished
four levels of this system: social values, institutional patterns, specialised collectivities
(groups), and roles performed by individuals in these collectivities or groups. To
complicate things further, Murdock’s (1949) famous book by the title Social
Structure seems to suggest a very wide meaning of ‘social structure’, one which
bears little relation to the more precise formulations of other theorists, though it
probably comes closer to the usual meaning of ‘social organisation’.
‘Social structure’ has usually been employed for the social context itself, or more
precisely for the set of social relations which link individuals in a society. Writers
who are mainly concerned with social action tend to concentrate on social
organisation which defines the roles individuals play in relation to one another.
Those who are concerned more with the formal relations between people tend to
concentrate on social structure, which defines the statuses of actors performing
such roles. Thus, social organisation is of greater interest to Malinowskian
functionalists, and to some extent processualists, notably Raymond Firth (1951).
Social structure is of greater interest to those whose approaches are descended
from classic structural-functionalist and structuralist traditions.
According to Raymond Firth (1951) the arrangement of parts or elements constitutes
social structure how people in the society get things done constitutes social
organisation. The concern of structural studies will be to outline the fundamental
social constituents that are revealed in the forms of basic social relations. Structural
elements give shape to the society just like the anatomical framework give shape
to human body. The study of social structure is indispensable to delineate the
functions of the society to understand the continuity of social life.
Social Organisation, on the other hand is not limited to the ideal pattern of social
relations. It indicates the factors to change i. e, the extent to which the social
standard deviate as an influence of different external factors. Therefore if social
structure is conceived as a model of action, the social organisation will be the
reality. According to Firth, a structural analysis alone can not interpret social
change. Analysis of the structural aspect necessitates the analysis of the organisational
aspect.
Social organisation can be explained by the examples of social groups, industrial
groups, and sport groups. When we think about the organisation of work in
factory, we understand that there are managers, foreman and other workers who
tend to carry out different activities for the functioning of the factory as a whole.
This arrangement of activities reveals the organisational aspect of the factory. In
a similar manner, social structure can be explained by the examples of army and
tribal groups, which reveal arrangement of persons in institutionalised form. Thus,
an organisation is arrangement of relationship within the total activities of an
institution. For example, activities of various members of household may be subject
to some regular arrangement, and arrangement of these activities is its organisation. 35
Anthropological Theories-I The arrangement of activities of one family may differ from another household,
which is structurally of the same order. Radcliffe-Brown makes this distinction
clear by stipulating that ‘when we are dealing with structural system, we are
concerned with a system of social positions .While in an organisation, we deal with
a system of roles.’ In the study of social structure, we deal with total network of
social relationships, and not such relationship themselves.
For a clear understanding of the terms social structure and social organisation, let
us take into consideration the Garo society which is a matrilineal tribe inhabiting
basically in the state of Meghalaya. The Garos follow matriliny in descent and
inheritance and their residence is matrilocal. They also have a distinct dialect of
their own. All these features give the Garo society a typical structure. An
Organisational study on the other hand will encompass the study of the various
traditional aspects of Garo social life i.e., family types, clans kinship, marriage,
political system, educational system, religious beliefs and practices coupled with
the significant changes in traditional Garo society due to their conversion to
Christianity and contacts with other contemporary Indian societies. The total study
of a society including the structural aspect is what we call an organisational study.

3.3 DYNAMIC THEORIES OF STRUCTURE

As we go further into the unit we will as students of anthropology be able to
understand how the theory of social structure has attracted the attention of these
scholars whose findings, interpretations and analysis of the elements of social
structure has revealed the dynamic nature of social structure. This section will deal
with examining the contributions of Radcliffe-Brown, G. P. Murdock, Levi-Strauss,
S.F. Nadel, Edmund Leach, Raymond Firth, Meyer Fortes, Evans-Pritchard,
T.Parsons, Emile Durkheim and Rodney Needham to the understanding of the
dynamic theories of social structure.

3.3.1 Social Structure is a Reality: A. R. Radcliffe-Brown’s

Contribution
When we speak of social structure, we must remember as said earlier that Spencer
who coined the term social structure did not offer a theoretical perspective on it.
However his analogy between societies and organisms influenced later scholars in
developing the concepts of structure and function. For instance, Émile Durkheim
(1938 [1895]), although a staunch critic of Spencer, was inspired by his organic
analogy, and used the term ‘social morphology’, by which he meant what we
mean by the term ‘social structure’. Durkheim’s sociology exercised an indelible
impact on the British social anthropologist, A. R. Radcliffe–Brown, the chief pioneer
of British School of Structuralism. Besides his contribution to what he called the
‘structural-functional approach’, one of his important contributions was to the
understanding of the concept of social structure. He used the concept of social
structure for the first time as early as 1914, while delivering his presidential address
to Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain.
Radcliffe-Brown (1952) who believes that social phenomena are investigated by
methods similar to those used in natural and biological sciences makes an important
distinction between an ‘individual’ and a ‘person’. As an individual, ‘he is a
biological organism’ which keeps on carrying out a multitude of physiological and
psychological functions till the time he is alive. As a ‘person’, the human being is
a ‘complex of social relationships’. It is the unit of study for sociologists and social
36
anthropologists. Radcliffe-Brown uses the term ‘social personality’ for the ‘position’ Social Organisation and
Dynamic Theories of
a human being occupies in a social structure. It however does not imply that the Structure
position remains the same throughout the life of an individual, for it changes over
time. We study persons in terms of social structure and we study social structures
in terms of persons who are the unit of what it is composed. So we need to
understand that society is not a ‘haphazard conjunction of persons’, rather an
organised system where norms and values control the relationships between persons.
According to Radcliffe-Brown all social relations of person to person, i.e.,
interpersonal relations (for example, the kinship structure of any society) and the
differentiation of individuals and of classes by their social role (for instance, the
relation between men and women, employers and employees, etc,) are in fact
concerned with relations between persons, which norms and values of that society
condition.
Radcliffe-Brown further stated that social structure is that concrete reality that
comprises the ‘set of actually existing relations at a given moment of time, which
link together certain human beings.’ We can conduct direct observation on social
structure – we can see the ‘actually existing relations’, describe and classify them,
and understand the relations of persons with others. Social structure is observable,
empirical, and fully amenable to study by methods of natural and biological sciences.
According to Radcliffe-Brown both the social structure and organism are prone
to change yet they are stable. Social structure continues over time, a kind of
continuity that Radcliffe-Brown calls ‘dynamic continuity’. It is like the ‘organic
structure of a living body’. By change he means that organs of both the structure
are liable to development and destruction As a living body constantly renews itself
by replacing its cells and energy level, in the same way, the actual ‘social life
renews the social structure.’ Relations between people change over time. While
the social structure changes over time, there remains an underlying continuity and
relative constancy, which designates its structural form. This certainly does not
imply that the structural form is static — it also changes, sometimes gradually,
sometimes with suddenness, as happens in cases of revolution. But even then,
some kind of a continuity of structure is maintained. Our job as sociologists and
social anthropologists is to discover the structural form of society. It is to move
from particular to general, or in the language of Radcliffe-Brown, from ‘ideographic’
to ‘nomothetic’.
Reflection and Action

What does Radcliffe-Brown mean by dynamic continuity?

Radcliffe-Brown’s attempt was praiseworthy, for it was the first rigorous attempt
to define the concept of social structure, rather than just taking its meaning for
granted. However, it led to many questions and confusions. If social structure is
a collectivity of interpersonal relations, real and observable, then what is society?
Do we study society and find its structure?
These questions clearly show that while there is no confusion between the categories
of particular and general, confusion prevails with respect to the distinction between
‘society’ and ‘social structure’, ‘social life’ and ‘social structure’, and the ‘structural
form’ of a social structure and the ‘structural form’ of social structures. One more
observation: what Radcliffe-Brown understands by the term ‘structural type’ is
what many understand by the term ‘social structure’. And, what Radcliffe-Brown
calls ‘social structure’ is what many would call ‘society’.
37
Anthropological Theories-I 3.3.2 George Peter Murdock’s view on Social Structure
Murdock like the other American anthropologists of his times has been more
critical in their acceptance of pure functionalism. i.e., synchronic functionalism..
His book ‘Social Structure’ was most explicit on the point of functionalism. He
tried to form a harmonious synthesis of cross cultural comparisons by combining
the historical, functional, psychological and statistical methods.

3.3.3 Social Structure is a Model: Contribution of Claude

Lévi-Strauss
Perhaps the most provocative and debatable contribution to the concept of social
structure was that of Claude Lévi-Strauss, the French structuralist, who is famous
for his ingenious cross-cultural analysis of myths and kinship systems. Levi-Strauss
believes that structure of society is but a surface manifestation of fundamental
mental processes. If for functionalism, society is a ‘kind of living creature’, consisting
of parts, which can be ‘dissected and distinguished’, for structuralism, it is the
analogy from language that helps us in conceptualising society. From the study of
a given piece of language, the linguist tries to arrive at its grammar, the underlying
rules which make an expression meaningful, although the speakers of that language
may not know about it. Similarly, the structuralist tries to infer its underlying
structure from a given piece of social behaviour. In structuralism, the shift is from
observable behaviour to structure, from organic analogy to language (Barnard
2000). Further, structuralism submits that the set of relations between different
parts can be transformed into ‘something’ that appears to be different from what
it was earlier. It is the idea of transformation — of one into another that lies at
the core of structuralism, rather than the quality of relations.
Lévi-Strauss says that social structure is not a field of study; it is not a ‘province
of enquiry’. We do not study social structure, but it is an explanatory method and
can be used in any kind of social studies. Here, Lévi-Strauss distinguishes the
concept of social structure from that of social relations. The latter are the ‘raw
data of social experience’ – they are the relations between people, empirical and
observable. It is from social relations that models comprising the social structure
are built. Although the models are built from raw, empirical reality, they cannot be
reduced to it. The ensemble of social relations in a given society can be described,
but social structure is an anthropologist’s construction, built for the purpose of
analysis.
Reflection and Action

How does Levi-Strauss distinguish between the concept of social structure and social
relations?

Lévi-Strauss claimed that social structure and the social relations that are its
constituents are theoretical constructions used to model social life. He believed
that a major goal of social anthropology was to identify social structures and
formal relationships between them and that qualitative or discrete mathematics
would be a necessary tool to do this. He makes three distinctions: first, between
observation and experimentation on models; second, the conscious and unconscious
character of the models; and third, between mechanical and statistical models. The
observation of social relations and the construction of models after these facts
need to be distinguished from ‘experiments’ on models. By experimentation, Lévi-
Strauss means the ‘controlled comparison’ of models of the same or of a different
38 kind, with an intention to identify the model that accounts best for the observed
facts. In a structural analysis, the first step is to observe the facts without any bias, Social Organisation and
Dynamic Theories of
then to describe them in relationship to themselves and in relation to the whole. Structure
From this, models are constructed, and in the final analysis, the best model is
chosen. This distinction is with reference to the anthropologist who studies society.
By comparison, the distinction between conscious and unconscious models is
made with reference to the society under study.
Conscious models are the “insider’s models”: according to which the society
views itself. Underneath these models are ‘deeper structures’, the unconscious
models, which the society does not perceive directly or consciously. Anthropologists
principally work with the models that they construct from the deeper lying
phenomena, rather than with conscious models. It is because, Lévi-Strauss says,
the aim of conscious models is to ‘perpetuate the phenomena’ and not to ‘explain’
it.
Let us now come to the last distinction. The classic formulation of mechanical
models is that they are those models which lie on the same scale as the phenomenon
is. And, when they — the model and the phenomenon — lie on a different scale,
they are called statistical models. Unfortunately, as critics have noted, Lévi-Strauss
does not explain the meaning of the ‘same scale’. But from the example he has
given, it seems that he is concerned with the quantitative differences between
‘what people say’ and ‘what they do’. To make it clear, Lévi-Strauss gives the
example of the laws of marriage. When there is no difference between marriage
rules and social groupings — the two are placed on the same scale — the model
formed will be mechanical. And when several factors affect the type of marriage
and people have no option but to deviate from the rule, the model formed will be
statistical; like the difference between the prescriptive and preferential systems of
marriage.

3.3.4 A Synthesis of Structural Functionalism: Contribution

of S.F. Nadel
Nadel developed the theory of social structure in his posthumously published
book entitled The Theory of Social Structure (1957). Nadel’s central argument
was simply that the structuralist orthodoxy was inadequate by itself – it has to be
wedded to a functionalist perspective.
Nadel disagrees with Radcliffe-Brown’s idea that social structure is an observable
entity, but an abstraction from it. At the same time, he rejects Lévi-Strauss’s view
that social structure has nothing to do with empirical reality. From Radcliffe-
Brown, he borrows the idea that each person occupies a position in the social
structure, but from an empirical level of inter-personal interaction, he moves to a
level of abstraction where the person becomes the actor who plays a role with
respect to the others. This abstraction, however, does not imply that it loses touch
with reality. Nadel (1957: 150) writes: I consider social structure, of whatever
degree of refinement, to be still the social reality itself, or an aspect of it, not the
logic behind it…
We must therefore understand that for Nadel, the components of social structure
are roles and the pattern (or design) of interconnected roles constitutes the social
structure of a society. His definition of social structure is as follows (1957: 12):
‘we arrive at the structure of a society through abstracting from the concrete
population and its behaviour the pattern or network (or ‘system’) of relationships
obtaining ‘between actors in their capacity of playing roles relative to one another’. 39
Anthropological Theories-I Nadel feels that when describing structure, we abstract relational features from the
totality of the perceived data, ignoring all that is not in order or arrangement in
brief, we define the positions relative to one another of the component parts.
Structures can be transposed irrespective of the concrete data manifesting it;
differently expressed, the parts composing any structure can vary widely in their
concrete character without changing the identity of the structure.
Nadel now translates all this into the language appropriate to the analysis of
societies. To begin with societies are made up of people; societies have boundaries
people either belonging to them or not and people belong to a society in virtue
of rules under which they stand and which impose on them regular determinate
ways of acting towards and in regard to one another. For determinate ways of
acting towards or in regard to one another we usually say relationships and we
indicate that they follow from rules by calling them institutionalised or social
relationships. We identify the mutual ways of acting of individuals as relationships
only when the former exhibit some consistency and uniformity since without these
attributes they would merely be single or disjointed acts. Most relationships lack
this simple uniformity. Rather the concrete behaviour occurring in them will always
be diversified and more or less widely variable intentionally changing with the
circumstances it will be constant or consistent only in its general character in its
capacity to indicate a certain type of mutuality or linkage.
Nadel concludes that we arrive at the structure of a society through abstracting
from the concrete population and its behaviour, the pattern or network of
relationships obtaining between actors in their capacity of playing roles relative to
one another.
Reflection and Action

What does Nadel imply by a synthesis of structural functionalism?

Nadel has tried to explain in this definition that structure refers to a definable
articulation, an ordered arrangement of parts. Nadel therefore says that structure
indicates a transportable being, relatively invariants, while the parts themselves are
variable. According to him, there are three elements of society: (i) a group of
people, (ii) institutionalised rules according to which members of the group interact,
(iii) an institutionalised pattern or expression of these interactions. The institutionalised
rules or patterns do not change easily and this creates orderliness in society. These
rules determine the status and roles of the individuals. There is an order among
these rules and status also which provide an ordered arrangement of human beings.
According to Nadel there are three dichotomies to resolve which are aspects of
structure: (i) structure as opposed to function, (ii) structure as opposed to qualitative
character and (iii) structure as opposed to process. Unless we resolve these
dichotomies, we are unable to give a satisfactory account of social structure.
Social behaviour which is institutionalised involves relatively determinate ways of
action within and between groups over periods of time. The institutionalised
behaviour characterised by consistency of the relationships may not always be
concrete behaviour. It varies in detail according to occasion and circumstances but
its general characters which allows it to be subsumed in an identical category of
relationship are clearly bound by the convention of a particular society. What we
mean to say is that all these contain an element of abstraction; they are all categories
which we infer from a number of observed sequences or actions. Therefore the
problem is to find a way of expressing the relationship between individuals acting
40 as individuals and as their acting as part of a social network.
3.3.5 Edmund Leach on Social Structure Social Organisation and
Dynamic Theories of
Structure
The British anthropologist, Edmund Leach who disliked synchronic functionalism
also made significant contribution to the idea of social structure as a model,
although there are many significant differences between the approaches of Lévi-
Strauss and Leach to structuralism. Leach has dealt with change without abandoning
the useful notions of structure and function. For instance, whereas Lévi-Strauss is
interested in unearthing the ‘universal structures’ – structures applicable to all
human societies at all point of time — Leach applies the method of structuralism
to understand the local (or regional) structures. Because of this, some term Leach’s
approach ‘neo-structural’ (Kuper 1996 [1973]). Leach has formulated a conception
of social structure that is “essentially the same as Lévi-Strauss’s” (Nutini 1970:
76). Like Lévi-Strauss, Leach divides the‘social universe’ into different
epistemological categories: the raw data of social experience (i.e., social relations)
and the models that are built from it. Models are not empirical; they are the
‘logical constructions’ in the mind of the anthropologist. Like Lévi-Strauss, Leach
also arrives at the distinction between the mechanical and statistical models, i.e.,
models built respectively on ‘what people say’ and ‘what people do’, but he calls
mechanical models ‘jural rules’ and statistical models ‘statistical norms’. The
meaning Leach gives to ‘jural rules’ and ‘statistical norms’ is essentially the same
which Lévi-Strauss gives to mechanical and statistical models.
But two important differences stand out. First, for Lévi-Strauss both mechanical
and statistical models are of roughly equal analytical value and they complement
each other. For Leach, jural rules and statistical norms should be treated as
separate frames of reference. In an analysis, the statistical norms should have
priority over the jural rules. We should begin our study with the actual behaviour
of people, the deviations that occur and the conformity they achieve. Second,
Leach points out that mechanical models or jural rules are qualitative rules of
behaviour. Sanctions support them and they have the power of coercion. Statistical
models or norms are only ‘statistical averages of individual behaviour’. They do
not have any coercive power.
In his hands, functionalism became dynamic and diachronic. The best known critic
of Radcliffe-Brown’s type of structuralism is E.R Leach. He contends that the aim
of social anthropology should be generalisation rather than comparison and
challenges Radcliffe-Brown’s conception of social structure and the comparative
method.

3.3.6 Raymond Firth on Social Structure

Raymond Firth also disliked synchronic functionalism and like Leach dealt with
dynamic or diachronic functionalism. Raymond Firth was concerned with the nature
of individuals and the choices they make. As mentioned earlier he focuses on
observed activities as he sets out his impressions on structural-functionalism. He
made distinction between social structure and social organisation. While the
arrangement of parts or elements constitutes social structure how people in the
society get things done constitutes social organisation.
Firth in his book Elements of Social Organisation (1951) emphasises the necessity
to distinguish between social structure and social organisation and says that the
more one thinks of the structure of a society in abstract terms as of group relations
or of ideal patterns the more necessity it is to think separately of social organisation
in terms of concrete activity. Firth sums up –the fulfilment of the moral obligations
laid down by structural requirements is conditioned by individual interests. 41
Anthropological Theories-I 3.3.7 Contribution of Meyer Fortes
In his article The Structure of Unilineal Descent Groups (1953) Fortes has
analysed the African kinship groups. His analysis of the lineage organisation has
come mainly from Radcliffe Brown’s formulation of the structural principles found
in all kinship groups. According to Fortes the social structure should be thought
of in terms of levels of organisation. He says that we can investigate the total social
structure of a given community at the level of local organisation at the level of
kinship at the level of corporate group structure of government and at that of ritual
institutions. These levels are connected in some sort of hierarchy. It is important
to perceive and state the fact that all levels of structure are involved in every social
relationship and activity.
Fortes believes that the study of the unilineal descent groups as a part of total
social system means studying its functions in the widest framework of social structure
and that of the political organisation. He shows that descent is fundamentally a
jural concept. He sees its significance in the connecting link between the external
political or legal aspect of unilineal descent groups and the internal or domestic
aspect. The dynamic character of lineage structure can be seen most easily in the
balance that is reached between its external relations and its internal structure.
Maintaining the stable condition in the social structure is one of the chief functions
of lineage systems.

3.3.8 Social Structure Refers to Relations between Groups:

The Contribution of E.E. Evans-Pritchard
Evans-Pritchard’s description of the elements of Nuer Society (1940) and their
interrelationship guided him to the concept of social structure. Instead of beginning
with the idea of person, as did Radcliffe-Brown, he began with viewing social
structure in terms of groups. To quote him (1940: 262): By social structure we
mean relations between groups which have a high degree of consistency and
constancy. The processes of life and death condition individuals, but the structure
of society endures. It is clear that for Evans-Pritchard, social structure deals with
units which are largely invariant, i.e., groups. What Radcliffe-Brown means by
‘structural form’ is what Evans-Pritchard means by ‘social structure’. The groups
considered for describing social structure may be called ‘structural groups’ – the
examples of which among the Nuer are territorial groups, lineages and age-sets.
Evans-Pritchard does not consider the family as a ‘structural group’ but he does
acknowledge the fact that family is essential for the preservation of structure
Reflecting on the example of the Nuer, Evans-Pritchard says that the tribe is not
a haphazard congregation of residential units. Thus, structure is a ‘relation between
groups’.
To sum up: for Evans-Pritchard, the parts of social structure, among which structural
relations are to be described, are groups that endure over time. Social structure
is not an empirical entity for him. Therefore, social structure is an anthropologist’s
abstraction from the existing reality. It should be kept in mind here that for Evans-
Pritchard (1951), social anthropology is not a branch of natural science, as it is
for Radcliffe-Brown, but it is a kind of historiography. Its kinship is with history,
and not natural and biological sciences.

3.3.9 Talcott Parsons on Social Structure

Talcott Parsons like his British counterparts also emphasised the importance of
42
roles in defining social structure and the problem of how to relate the static
concept of structure to the dynamic aspects of social change. According to Parsons, Social Organisation and
Dynamic Theories of
social structure is a term applied to the particular arrangement of the interrelated Structure
institutions, agencies and social patterns as well as the status and roles, which each
person assumes in the group. He emphasised that all the units of social structure
i.e. institutions, agencies, social patterns, status and roles are invisible and intangible
and hence are abstract. Customs, traditions and conventions of society determines
the status and role of individuals which finally leads to the formation of different
agencies, institutions and patterns. The social structure of a society is built when
all these institutions, agencies and patterns are interrelated and organised in a
particular manner. Social structure is concerned with the interrelationships between
these units which constitute the society. The ordered arrangement between this
units is what Parsons calls social structure.
What is being said is that the structure of a social system is defined with respect
to the ‘institutionalised patterns of normative culture’. All these when interrelated
and organised in a particular manner will build the social structure of society.

3.3.10 Emile Durkheim on Social Structure

The concept of structure and function also appeared in the writings of French
anthropologist, Emile Durkheim in his books Division of Labour (1893) and
Rules of Sociological Method (1895). He has also treated society like an organism.
He opines that as an organism makes the body alive through fulfillment of essential
needs, the society also tends to exist through fulfillment of essential needs. He uses
the term function to refer to the activities by which the essential needs of the
society are fulfilled. According to Durkheim, the structural units of a society such
as family, religion, kinship, political and economic organisation contribute valuable
function for maintaining the order of society.
Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski were influenced by Durkheim’s concept of
Functionalism. Brown refers to Durkheim’s definition of function which states that
‘the function of social institution is correspondence between it and the needs of
the social organism.’Durkheim thus made a systematic formulation of the analogy
between society and organic life, As the life of an organism is considered to be
the functioning of its organic structure, therefore social life is conceived by Durkheim
to be the functioning of social structure.

3.3.11 Rodney Needham on Social Structure

Rodney Needham was one of the leading British social anthropologists of his
generation. Together with Sir Edmund Leach and Mary Douglas, he brought
structuralism across the Channel and anglicised it in the process. In the early
1950s, the structural-functionalist approach which had made British anthropology
a world leader was beginning to languish from its rigorous but over-extended
empiricism. By chance, Needham spotted a copy of Claude Lévi-Strauss’s Les
Structures élémentaires de la Parenté (1949) in Blackwell’s the week before he
went on fieldwork to Borneo. Primed by his knowledge of Dutch structural
anthropology, he quickly realised its significance and its concern with conceptual
structure over social organisation.
Structuralism thus provided him with a radically new interpretation of kinship
systems, the bedrock of social structure in small-scale societies. Back in Oxford,
he industriously put this approach into practice in a series of brilliant papers in
which he emphasised the importance of alliance, through marriage, over that of
descent, through lineages. Never scared of fomenting lively debate, his first great 43
Anthropological Theories-I work, Structure and Sentiment (1962), demonstrated devastatingly the power of
structuralist approaches over psychological ones.
But in 1969 Lévi-Strauss somewhat unfairly attacked Needham’s interpretation of
his work in the preface to the English edition of his kinship work, which Needham
as his leading British disciple had so carefully translated, as The Elementary
Structures of Kinship. From then on, Needham ploughed his own structuralist
path producing central work on systems of classification, cognitive universals,
indigenous psychologies, and kinship theory. His first theoretical interest was the
extremely complex systems of kinship and marriage known as “prescriptive alliance”.
In these, a man has to marry a relative in a certain category, such as the mother’s
brother’s daughter, and it was as an expert in the very demanding analysis of these
systems that he first made his professional mark with a short but devastating
monograph, Structure and Sentiment. This refuted the claim that the rules of
these systems could be explained by the particular feelings that people would have
towards different categories of relative.
Needham strongly agreed with Evans-Pritchard that British social anthropology
could benefit from the ideas of Durkheim, Mauss, Hertz and others of the Année
Sociologique school. He took a leading part in translating and introducing this, and
also translated some work of German and Dutch scholars into English.
As mentioned earlier Structure and Sentiment had been a defense of Lévi-
Strauss, and Needham organised the translation of his Elementary Structures of
Kinship; but in the course of the word-by-word analysis of the text that this
involved he became increasingly critical of what he saw as Lévi-Strauss’s casual
and inaccurate handling of his data. But although he came to regard Lévi-Straussian
structuralism itself as banal and empty, certain elements of structuralist thinking,
especially the importance of binary opposition, remained crucial to Needham’s
thinking.
He believed that the global comparisons made by social anthropologists reveal
that there are only very limited numbers of ways in which kinship systems and
marriage rules can be constituted. So too, underlying all the diversity of myth,
ritual, and social organisation there are a fairly limited number of what Needham
called “primary factors”; these are found all over the world, if not in every society
then regardless of language or historical associations.
Examples are the same three colours of black, white and red, which also tend to
have similar associations; sacred numbers, almost always below 10; the association
of the right hand with men, the sun, odd numbers, and hardness, and the left hand
with female, the moon, even numbers, and softness; the use of percussive sounds
to mark a transition between two states, such as a new moon or a wedding; a
distinction between sacred and secular authority, and so on.
These symbolic elements occur in a limited number of relations, in particular:
opposition, exchange, alternation, reversal, inversion, and transition across a
boundary. So archetypal figures such as the witch, and the half-man (with one eye,
one arm, and one leg, all on the same side), are complexes made up of these
primary factors, which are also the basic building blocks of a great deal of myth
and ritual, and of important aspects of social organisation. In Needham’s view,
these are not “beliefs” that have been consciously formulated, nor are they the
expressions of any discernible inner states, but are direct expressions of the working
of the human brain, which is why they are independent of language and culture.
44
 Social Organisation and
3.4 SUMMARY Dynamic Theories of
Structure
The concept of social structure has been a ‘pleasant puzzle’, to remember the
words of A.L. Kroeber (1948), to which, at one time, almost every anthropologist
and sociologist tried to make a contribution, either by drawing attention to the part
(or parts) of society that seemed important to the author, or by lending support
to an already existing idea or theory of social structure. As noted in the beginning,
the debate concerning social structure has centered around two issues: (i) among
whom parts of society are there structural relations? and (ii) is social structure
‘real’ or a ‘model’ which the investigator constructs? Of the two major opinions
on social structure, Lévi-Strauss’s is closely connected to his method of structuralism
– social structure is a ‘model’ devised for undertaking the study of social behaviour
(relations and experiences). Thus Levi-Strauss’s structuralism has become concerned
with understanding cultural and social patterns in terms of the universal mental
processes that are rooted in the biochemistry of the human brain. For Radcliffe-
Brown, social structure is an ‘empirical’ entity, constituting the subject matter of
social anthropology and sociology. Murdock like the other American anthropologists
of his times has been more critical in their acceptance of pure functionalism. i.e.
synchronic functionalism. S.F.Nadel however proposes to combine the views of
both Radcliffe-Brown and Levi-Strauss. Nadel has tried to explain in this definition
that structure refers to a definable articulation, an ordered arrangement of parts.
He has emphasised that social structure refers to the network of social relations
which is created among human beings when they interact with each other, according
to their status in accordance with the patterns of society. E.R.Leach who disliked
synchronic functionalism dealt with change without abandoning the useful notions
of structure and function is considered as the best known critic of Radcliffe-
Brown’s type of structuralism. Leach applies the method of structuralism to
understand the local (or regional) structures. Because of this, some term Leach’s
approach ‘neo-structural’ (Kuper 1996 [1973]). Raymond Firth also disliked
synchronic functionalism and like Leach dealt with dynamic or diachronic
functionalism. He equally proposed that variations of actual behaviour should be
observed and recorded in order to discover the process of change. Meyer Fortes
regarded social structure as not only an aspect of culture but the entire culture of
a given people handled in a special frame of theory. Evans-Pritchard’s description
of the elements of Nuer society and their interrelationship guided him to the
concept of social structure. Instead of beginning with the idea of person, as did
Radcliffe-Brown, he began with viewing social structure in terms of groups. What
Radcliffe-Brown means by ‘structural form’ is what Evans-Pritchard means by
‘social structure’. Durkhiem, who made a systematic formulation of the analogy
between society and organic life thinks that just like the life of an organism is
considered to be the functioning of its organic structure, social life is conceived by
him to be the functioning of social structure. Rodney Needham who was initially
fascinated by structuralism and inspired by linguistics, attempted to explain the
diversities of human culture by a few basic and universal structures of the brain.
References
Barnard, Alan. 2000. History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Barnes, H. E. 1948. Historical Sociology: Its Origins and Development. New
York: Philosophical Library.
45
Anthropological Theories-I Barnes, R.H. 2001. ‘Structuralism’. In N.J. Smelser and P.B. Baltes (eds),
International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier.
(pp. 15222-15225).
Evans-Pritchard, E.E. 1940. Nuer Society. Oxford: Clarendon.
________________________ 1951. Social Anthropology. London: Cohen &
West.
Durkheim, Emile. 1893. Division of Labour. New York. Free Press.
____________________1895. Rules of Sociological Method. Ed. by George
E.G Catlin, Eight Edition. 1938. New York: Free Press.
Firth, R. 1951. Elements of Social Organisation. London: Watts.
Fortes, Meyer. 1953. ‘The Structure of Unilineal Descent Groups’. American
Anthropologist. New Series Vol. 55 No-1 Jan-Mar. Blackwell Publishing.
Harris, Marvin. 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory, A History of Theories
of Culture. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
Kroeber, A .L. 1948. Anthropology. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Kuper, Adam. 1973. Anthropologists and Anthropology: The Modern British
School. London: Routledge. Reprint 1996.
Kuper, Adam (ed.). 1977. The Social Anthropology of Radcliffe-Brown. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Leach, Edmund R. 1954. Political Systems of Highland Burma. Boston: Beacon
Press.
_________________ 1961. Rethinking Anthropology. London: Athlone Press.
_________________ 1968. ‘Social Structure’. In International Encyclopedia
of Social Sciences. Volume 14. McMillan Co. and Free Press (pp. 482-489).
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1953. ‘Social structure’, in A.L. Kroeber (ed.) Anthropology
Today: An Encyclopedic Inventory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
___________________1949. Elementary Structures of Kinship. Revised edition
1969. London: Tavistock.
Murdock, G.P. 1949 Social Structure, New York: The Free Press.
Nadel, S.F. 1957. The Theory of Social Structure. London: Cohen & West Ltd.
Needham, Rodney. 1962. Structure and Sentiment. A Test Case in Anthropology.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nutini,Hugo G.1970. ‘Some Considerations on the Nature of Social Structure and
Model Building: A Critique of Claude Levi-Strauss and Edmund Leach’. In E.
Nelson Hayes and Tanya Hayes (eds.), Claude Levi- Strauss, The Anthropologist
as Hero. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press. (pp 70- 122).
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 1999. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Parsons, T. 1951. The Social System. New York: The Free Press.

46
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1952. Structure and Function in Primitive Society. Social Organisation and
Dynamic Theories of
London: Cohen & West. Structure

——[1953] 1977. ‘Letter to Lévi-Strauss’, in A.Kuper (ed.) The Social

Anthropology of Radcliffe-Brown. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Roy Basu, Indrani. 2005. Anthropology the Study of Man. New Delhi: S. Chand
& Company Ltd. (pp 521-522).
Suggested Reading
Kuper, Adam. 1973. Anthropologists and Anthropology: The Modern British
School. London: Routledge. Reprint 1996.
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1952. Structure and Function in Primitive Society.
London: Cohen & West.
——[1953] 1977. ‘Letter to Lévi-Strauss’, in A.Kuper (ed.) The Social
Anthropology of Radcliffe-Brown. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Upadhyay, V.S. & Gaya Pandey.1990. History of Anthropological Thought.
New Delhi: Concept Publishing House. (pp 233- 298).
Sample Questions
1) Define Social Organisation and Social structure.
2) Critically examine the contributions of A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, G.P. Murdock,
Levis-Strauss, Leach, Firth, Meyer Fortes, T. Parsons, Nadel, Needham,
Durkheim and Evans-Pritchard to the dynamic theories of social structure.

47
 MAN-001
Social Anthropology
Indira Gandhi
National Open University
School of Social Sciences

Block

4
ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORIES-II
UNIT 1
Culture and Personality 5
UNIT 2
Marxism 21
UNIT 3
Structuralism 30
UNIT 4
Feminism, Post-modernism and Post-colonialism 41
Expert Committee
Professor I J S Bansal Professor V.K.Srivastava Dr. S.M. Patnaik
Retired, Department of Principal, Hindu College Associate Professor
Human Biology University of Delhi Department of Anthropology
Punjabi University, Patiala Delhi University of Delhi
Professor K K Misra Professor Sudhakar Rao Delhi
Director Department of Anthropology Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh
Indira Gandhi Rashtriya University of Hyderabad Assistant Professor
Manav Sangrahalaya Hyderabad Department of Anthropology
Bhopal Professor. Subhadra M. University of Delhi
Professor Ranjana Ray Channa Delhi
Retired, Department of Department of Anthropology Faculty of Anthropology
Anthropology University of Delhi SOSS, IGNOU
Calcutta University, Kolkata Delhi
Dr. Rashmi Sinha
Professor P. Chengal Reddy Professor P Vijay Prakash
Reader
Retired, Department of Department of Anthropology
Anthropology Andhra University Dr. Mitoo Das
S V University, Tirupati Visakhapatnam Assistant Professor
Professor R. K. Pathak Dr. Nita Mathur Dr. Rukshana Zaman
Department of Anthropology Associate Professor Assistant Professor
Panjab University Faculty of Sociology Dr. P. Venkatrama
Chandigarh School of Social Sciences Assistant Professor
Professor A K Kapoor Indira Gandhi National Open Dr. K. Anil Kumar
Department of Anthropology University, New Delhi Assistant Professor
University of Delhi, Delhi
Programme Coordinator: Dr. Rashmi Sinha, IGNOU, New Delhi
Course Coordinator : Dr. Rukshana Zaman, IGNOU, New Delhi

Block Preparation Team

Unit Writers Unit 3 Content Editor
Dr. V. K. Srivastava Professor Subhadra M.
Unit 1
Principal, Hindu College Channa
Dr. K. Anil. Kumar
Delhi Department of Anthropology
Assistant Professor
University of Delhi, Delhi
Discipline of Anthropology Unit 4
SOSS, IGNOU Dr. Mitoo Das Language Editor
Assistant Professor Dr. Parmod Kumar
Unit 2
Discipline of Anthropology Assistant Professor
Dr. S.M Patnaik
SOSS, IGNOU Discipline of English
Associate Professor
School of Humanities
Department of Anthropology
IGNOU, New Delhi.
University of Delhi, Delhi
Authors are responsible for the academic content of this course as far as the copyright issues are concerned.

Print Production
Mr. Manjit Singh Cover Design
Section Officer (Publication) Dr. Mitoo Das
School of Social Sciences, IGNOU Assistant Professor, Anthropology, SOSS, IGNOU
August, 2011
© Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2011
ISBN:
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or any
other means, without permission in writing from the copyright holder.
Further information on the Indira Gandhi National Open University courses may be obtained
from the University’s office at Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110 068 or the official website of
IGNOU at www.ignou.ac.in
Printed and published on behalf of Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi by Director,
SOSS, IGNOU.
Laser Typeset at Graphic Printers, 204, Pankaj Tower, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110091.
Printed at :
BLOCK 4 ANTHROPOLOGICAL
THEORIES-II
Introduction
Anthropology made forays into different perceptions about society and culture once it
became clear that the structural-functional models were not workable, at least in the
light of the post –colonial and post-World War II developments in the global scenario.
Not all these theories were however derived from new roots or beginnings. The concept
of cultural configuration or patterns or ethos, which laid the foundations for the culture
and personality school was derived from German intellectual roots of the Gestalt
psychology and found its way into the American Cultural tradition through the persona
of Franz Boas. From the Forties onwards we also see the influence of USA increasing
in anthropology, in direct proportion to its global political presence. However counter
to the presence of USA was the strong influence of Marxism in intellectual circles all
over the world but largely emanating from France. The towering presence of French
liberal Left thinking was found in anthropology also and we had a vibrant engagement
with not only Marxist but Neo-Marxist thinking also deriving from Althusser and Lacan.
The neo –Marxist influence went deep into reformulating the concept of culture itself
and right from Julian Steward onwards we find that the dialectical method informed the
notion of social change and reformulated the entire manner of understanding culture
and society, not as static or as given traditions but as vibrant and ongoing processes.
Change was no longer external but an aspect of normal ongoing society.
Post colonial intellectual streams were critical of the positivist methodology and feminist
thinking established a decentralised view of looking at the world, where one could gaze
from the margins and construct different versions of the social reality as different from
the dominant point of view that was at least in the early period of anthropology (and of
most other disciplines) both andocentric and Eurocentric.
The structuralism of Levi-Strauss was one of the last attempts to create a universal
frame of human knowledge based on the deep structures of the human mind that to
Levi-Strauss appeared to be dialectical. Thus Structuralism was also influenced by
Marxism in being essentially dialectical and also looking for the reality at levels deeper
than the apparent or obvious. Levi-Strauss had a lasting influence on anthropology and
influenced many other scholars, most notably Leach. However the positivist stand of
structuralism was finally taken over by post-structuralist and post-modern theory. The
essential essence of these theories was to situate knowledge in its historical and political
context. The feminist and post-colonial scholars like Donna Harraway and Edward
Said showed that the knowledge and science propagated by European and male scholars
was not ‘factual’ but subjectively constructed out of their colonial, capitalist and classical
economic bias. In the turning around of social and cultural theory we also see the
influence of a new science of Physics that emerged in the 20th century that looked
critically at a dualism of matter and mind. The more human beings have been searching
for knowledge the more baffled they are becoming as to the true essence of this universe.
Therefore social science is far more focused on contestation, confusion and
deconstruction of established truths than ever before.
UNIT 1 CULTURE AND PERSONALITY
Contents
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Meaning and Determinants of Culture and Personality
1.3 Culture and Personality School of Thought
1.3.1 Impact of Personality on Culture
1.3.2 Impact of Culture on Personality Formation
1.3.3 Impact of Culture on Personality and Vice-versa

1.4 Criticisms of Culture and Personality Theory

1.5 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions

Learning Objectives

At the end of this unit, you will be able to:
 explain how personality play significant role in the formation of cultural pattern;
 understand the impact of culture on personality formation; and
 know the impact of both culture and personality on each other in the formation
of cultural group.

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The culture personality school of thought began principally in the United States in
the 1930s.The above school explained relationships between childrearing customs
and human behaviours in different societies. The culture personality theory combined
elements of psychology, anthropology, and sociology, but principally the theory
involved the application of psychoanalytic principles to ethnographic data. This
unit deals with different anthropological writings surrounding this theme.

1.2 MEANING AND DETERMINANTS OF CULTURE

AND PERSONALITY
The term culture and personality has been used in several senses, both popularly
and psychologically. Before going into discussion of theory let us first discuss the
meaning and determinants of culture and personality. Culture is a term practically
used in everyday life. Anthropological meaning of culture is different from its
popular meaning. Defining culture has never been as simple for anthropologists.
It is no wonder in anthropology; culture has over 300 definitions of this concept.
For the convenience of learners culture herein is used to mean any knowledge that
a person/individual has acquired as a member of his/her society. Such knowledge
is important because it subsequently influences the shaping of his/her personality.
It was widely believed that early enculturation in particular has very important 5
Anthropological Theories-II bearing on personality development of the child as he/she grows into adulthood.
The conceptualisation of culture is by no means a simple matter. One possible way
to think about culture is that “culture is to society what memory is to individuals”
(Kluckhohn 1954). It includes what has worked in the experience of a society, so
that it was worth transmitting to future generations.
The term personality is derived from the Latin word persona meaning a mask or
character. Personality is a patterned body of habits, traits, attitudes and ideas of
an individual as these are organised externally into roles and statuses and as they
relate internally to motivation, goals and various aspects of selfhood. It is a term
used in routine life as the distinctive way a person thinks, feels and behaves. But
in anthropology, the term is used in a different sense. Funder (1997) defined
personality as “an individual’s characteristic pattern of thought, emotion, and
behaviour, together with the psychological mechanisms—hidden or not-behind
those patterns”. Whereas Ralph Linton (1945) defines personality as the individual’s
mental qualities the sum total of his rational faculties, perceptions, ideas, habits and
conditional emotional responses. He states that there is a close relation between
personality and culture of the society to which the individual belongs. The personality
of every individual within the society develops and functions in constant association
with its culture. Personality affects culture and culture affects personality. In short
he says personality embraces the total organised aggregate of psychological
processes and status pertaining to the individual.
There are four main factors or determinants, which affect the personality formation.
They are environment, heredity, culture and peculiar experiences. The influence of
geographical or physical environment plays very important role to determine the
variation in personality construction of members of a group. According to physical
environment humans comes to form ideas and attitudes where he/she lives in. A
close relationship exists between environment, culture and personality. To the
amount that the environment determines cultural development and to the extent
that culture in turn determines personality. In the 18th century Montesquieu claimed
that the bravery of those blessed by a cold climate enables them to maintain their
liberties. Great heat weakens courage while cold causes certain vigor of body and
mind. The people those who live in mountain as well as deserts areas are usually
bold, hard and powerful. Nevertheless physical conditions are more permissive
and limiting factors than causative factors. People who live in mountain as well as
in deserts areas set the limits within which the personality develops. For example
Andaman tribes have different cultural personality than Fiji tribes because of the
fact that the above two cultural groups develop in two different geographical
environments.
Heredity is another factor which determines the traits of human personality. Some
of the similarities in individual/group personality are said to be due to his common
heredity. Some set of biological needs and capacities are inherited by human
group in every society. These common biological needs and capacities explain
some of the similarities in personality of the particular group. For example
humankind tends to resemble his/her parents in physical appearance and intelligence.
However, human heredity does not mould human personality alone and
independently. There is assumption that functioning of human life in human beings
there are genes for normal personality traits as well as there are genes for other
aspects. Heredity is one of determinants that provides the materials out of which
experience will mould the personality. Experience determines the way these materials
will be used. Because of his/her heredity an individual may be energetic but
6
whether he is active on his own belief or on behalf of others is a matter of his Culture and Personality
training.
Culture plays a valuable role in personality development. In many countries all
over the world, the influence of culture on personality formation can be seen in
different cultural groups. According to some anthropologists and sociologists
personality is the subjective aspect of culture. They look at personality and culture
as two sides of same coin. Spiro had perceived that the development of personality
and the acquisition of culture are not different processes but one and the same
learning process. He considered Personality as an individual aspect of culture
while culture is a collective aspect of personality. In every culture particular type
of personality developed. Certain cultural environment sets its participant members
off from other human beings operating under different cultural environments.
According to Frank culture is a coercive influence dominating the individual and
molding his personality by virtue of the ideas, conceptions and beliefs which had
brought to bear on him through communal life. The culture furnishes the raw
material of out of which the individual makes his life. The social institutions of the
particular society affect the personality of the group members. In every society
from the moment of birth, the child is treated in such ways which shape his
personality. Every culture applies a series of general influences upon the individuals
who grow up under it. It can be summed up that culture greatly moulds personality
of individual or group. The ideas and behaviour of the individuals are largely the
results of cultural background. However, it should not be concluded that culture
is a massive dye that shapes all that come under it with an identical pattern.
Personality traits differ within culture. Personality is not totally determined by
culture even though no personality escapes its influence. It is only one determinant
among others.
Last but not the least personality is also determined by another factor, namely
situational experiences. In this there are two types of experiences one those that
stem from continuous association with one’s group, second those that arise suddenly
and are not likely to recur. In type one people who interact with the child daily
has a major influence on his personality. For example the personality of parents
does more to affect a child’s personality. The overall process of socialisation;
ranging from social rituals to table manners to getting along with others are
consciously inculcated in the child by the parents. The child learns everything from
his parents’ language to behaviour. In the type situational experiences the relationship
of the child with the mother, father and siblings affect profoundly the organisation
of his drives and emotions, the deeper and subconscious aspects of his personality.
In the second type group influence is relatively greater in early childhood. Child’s
personality moulds by group interaction. Personality may also be inferred by social
situations. According to social researchers an individual may show honesty in one
situation and not in another. The same is true for other personality traits also.
Personality traits tend to be specific responses to particular situations rather than
general behaviour patterns. It is a dynamic unity with a creative potential.
The above various determinant factors are responsible for personality formation,
development and maintenance. Further than the combined influence of these factors
however the relative contribution of each factor to the development of personality
varies with the characteristic or personality process involved and perhaps with the
individual concerned. However, there is no way yet known to measure the effect
of each determinant factor or to state how the factors combine to produce a given
result. For example, the behaviour of juvenile delinquent is affected by his heredity
7
Anthropological Theories-II and by his family. But how much is contributed by each factor cannot be measured
in exact terms.
The term personality, character and temperament have been used synonymously
by many scholars in various disciplines. Many disciplines like biology, psychology,
sociology and anthropology have taken keen interest in the study of personality.
It is because of the interdisciplinary approach the term personality has been used
to denote various meanings. A holistic study of personality can be done only by
multidisciplinary approach like biologists deal with physiological characteristics,
sociologists can attempt to know with the influence of social environment,
Psychologists with mental attributes, whereas anthropologists are concerned with
the relationship between culture and personality.
Psychological and anthropological aspect is the final aspect to the study of culture
and personality. In this particular aspect we can include cultural background,
interest, sentiment, attitudes, values, temperament, impulse, aptitude, and motivation
of an individual.
Activity

Try to assess different cultures and their personalities in your area from anthropological
perspective.

1.3 CULTURE AND PERSONALITY SCHOOL OF

THOUGHT
The culture personality school of thought began principally in the United States in
the 1930s.The above school explained relationships between childrearing customs
and human behaviours in different societies. The culture personality theory combined
elements of psychology, anthropology, and sociology, but principally theory involved
the application of psychoanalytic principles to ethnographic data. The school
emphasised the cultural moulding of the personality and focused on the development
of the individual. Culture-and-personality theorists argued that personality types
were created in socialisation, and they placed particular emphasis on child-rearing
practices such as feeding, weaning, and toilet training. The pioneers of this school
of thought were students of Franz Boas and Kroeber. They include American
anthropologists like Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead, Linton, Kardiner and CoraDu-
Bois.
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was one of the first psychologists to break the
barrier between anthropology and psychology. His best known anthropological
work is Totem and Taboo. In his book, Freud provides an insightful description
to taboos and their origination; yet his theory on the origin of totems is somewhat
speculative. His main work on the origin of totemism, incest taboo, exogamy and
the Oedipus complex, is well known, for he argued the existence of a primal
horde, the leader of which was the oldest male, who assumed exclusive sexual
rights over all females in the group. Frustrated, the sons murdered and ate their
father; but overcome by guilt afterwards, the sons decided to obey commands and
abstain from sexual intercourse with their mothers and sisters. Selecting a totem
animal as a symbolic father substitute, they declared that it must be protected
during the year and consumed only on ritual occasions. These ritual totem meals
thus reenacted their original deed and reinforced their self-imposed incest
prohibitions. Freud thus, concluded that all cultures originate from this sacrificial
meal.
8
Best known for his psychoanalysis, Freud saw the trauma of childhood reflected Culture and Personality
in the neuroses of adults. He established the Oedipus complex as a universal story
in which the son, jealous of his father’s attentions on his mother, entertains hostility
towards the father and develops an erotic attachment to his mother. This desire
is felt among all men; yet is buried by repression and then resurfaces in the actions
of adulthood. Freud’s psychoanalysis was an attempt to uncover the repressed
childhood trauma through a series of word associations, dream analysis, and free-
flow talking.
His Oedipus complex analysis (in which a son hates his father for his strict authority
and is jealous of his sexual prerogatives over the mother, yet loves him for strength
and protection) among all societies, was also highly criticised and Malinowski,
who tested this hypothesis among the matrilineal Trobriand society (1922), rejected
Freud’s views on the universality of the Oedipus complex. Franz Boas (1858-
1942), though he was not interested in psychology, reacted to Freud’s analysis
and said that his method was one sided and could do nothing to advance
understanding of cultural development. Kroeber (1876-1960) rejected Freud’s
conjectures by the phrase “bewilderingly fertile imagination”. At the same time
Kroeber, realised the importance of the psychological dimension of culture, which
he felt should not be ignored. This Freudian hypothesis influenced early
anthropological research on culture and personality giving birth to what is known
as Psychological Anthropology.
The primary aim of the culture and personality school of thought, is to examine the
interrelationships between culture and personality. The attempts of this school are
to study culture as it is embodied in the character of its members, rather than
seeking to analyse culture as it is manifested in material items or social institutions.

1.3.1 Impact of Personality on Culture

Ruth Benedict (1887-1948) a student of Franz Boas, documented in her PhD
dissertation the rapidly deteriorating Native American societies, providing the impetus
to pursue culture and personality studies. Through her work on the patterning of
culture at an individual level, Benedict opened anthropology into a much larger
discussion between the disciplines of anthropology and psychology. Idea of
“pattern” was already in use before her, but credit goes to her for providing a
methodological model for studying human culture in terms of “pattern” rather than
social contents. She was of the opinion that life crisis rites are only one of the
several ways in which patterns of culture emerge and are reflected in the behaviour
of members of a group. All the basic institutions that are a part of the culture, tend
to mirror the overall pattern for that culture. This point was successfully highlighted
in her book Patterns of Culture (1934) which is considered to be a classic work
in anthropology.
Ruth Benedict consideration of cultures as integrated wholes where each is
configured to be different from all other cultures; is perhaps one of the most
significant. She also stressed that a culture is organised around a basic theme, and
that all of the various elements of that culture fit together. A culture according to
Benedict is analogous to an individual in that it is more or less a consistent pattern
of thought and action. Hence, she says any analysis of culture requires a
psychological approach. According to her when traits and complexes become
related to each other in functional roles, a cultural pattern is formed. Many cultural
patterns integrate themselves into a functional whole and form a special design of
a whole culture. This special design of whole culture is called configuration of 9
Anthropological Theories-II culture. The integration of culture is on the basis of tendency seen in all aspects
of culture. This tendency is called by Benedict “special genius” that brings about
integration. She says there are two types of geniuses found in human society i.e.
Apollonian and Dionysian. In Apollonian pattern, one will see the existence of
peace, discipline and kindness. The Dionysian culture is characterised by a great
deal of changes and aggressiveness. These two geniuses mold the personality of
the members of their group. The Apollonian personality compels members of the
group to behave in one form and the Dionysian personality in the other. This will
lead to the formation of special cultural characteristics for the group concerned,
thus personality influencing the culture.
Applying this approach to cross-cultural studies she did her fieldwork among the
Zuni, Cochiti and Pima tribes of America. Benedict looked at different societies
and described them in terms of their basic personality configurations. Pointing out
how these personality types fit in with the overall culture. In her monograph
Patterns of Culture (1934) she discussed, through literature, contrastive personality
types between Zuni of the Southwest America and Kwakiutl of the Northeast
Coast of North America. The primary occupations of the two communities are
different, the Zuni are foragers in a resource-rich environment whereas the Kwakiutl
are agriculturists. She describes Zunis as very cooperative, never excessive in any
aspect of their life. The typical Zuni was a person who sought to mingle with the
group, and who did not wish to stand out as a superior among the other members
of the tribe. Again she went on to point out how this basic personality type was
reinforced in other elements of Zuni culture. Child training patterns were designed
to suppress individuality. Initiation ceremonies were characterised by a lack of
ordeal, and the youths were initiated in a group setting. Marriage was relatively
casual. Leadership among the Zuni was ignored whenever possible, and was
accepted only with great reluctance. Priests were low key individuals and special
positions of power were delegated on a group basis, so that there was a medicine
society rather than a single powerful medicine man. Among them death was an
occasion for little mourning.
While comparing her study she found cultural configuration of Kwakiutl much
different from that of the Zuni. According to cultural pattern Kwakiutl were
characterised by a frenzied outlook, excess being the rule rather than the exception.
They were ambitious and striving, and individuality was emphasised in every aspect
of their life. The ideal man among the community was the one who always attempted
to prove his superiority. Child rearing practices reinforced this pattern, emphasising
the achievement of the individual over cooperation with the group. In the initiation
ceremonies, a boy was expected go out by himself and experience a personal
relationship with the supernatural. Marriage entailed tremendous celebration
Leadership among this community was characterised by a constant struggle for
power, which must be sought by any possible means. Religious positions included
that of the shaman, a priest who wielded enormous personal power. Even the
death ritual among the Kwakiutl reinforced this overall configuration. A death was
a major event, an occasion for elabourate mourning and was not accepted calmly
and peacefully as among the Zuni.
She considered the Zuni to be non-competitive, non-aggressive, and gentle etc.,
whereas the Kwakiutl to be characterised by strife, factionalism, painful ceremonies,
etc. On the basis of above characteristics in her view the two tribal communities
are represented by to contrastive psychological attributes on the basis of which
she describe Zuni as Apollonian and Kwakiutl as, Dionysian after the Greek Gods
10
of wine and light (i.e. wine as Dionysian and light as Apollonian) respectively. Culture and Personality
These categories were derived from the work of Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Birth
of Tragedy (1956), a study on the origins of Greek drama. Benedict rejected
Freud’s notions of cultural evolution as unscientific and ethnocentric, and remained
loyal to Wilhel Dilthy, who believed that the objective of psychology was to
understand the inner mind and who proposed existence of different worldviews,
which were much like the categories she used to describe the above personality
types. She says it is a pattern that describes the typical member of the society, and
to which all members conform to some extent.
During the Second World War the need was felt to understand the national
characteristics of Japan and some of the American anthropologists helped in by
analysing it through the Japanese films, and books on the history and culture of
Japan. They concluded that the strict toilet training among the Japanese made
them aggressive fighter in warfare. Ruth Benedict made a significant contribution
in developing and then applying the “content analysis method” to study the culture
at a distance. This content analysis method was developed by Benedict, when
anthropologist could not freely travel to do fieldwork among the indigenous societies
during World War II. The U.S. office of War information had asked her to
undertake research on occupied or enemy nation. She selected Japan as her first
target and wrote the famous work The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (1946)
depicting the culture of that nation in a holistic manner, although she never visited
Japan. She gathered material for her monograph from historical documents,
literature readings of Japanese life and interviews of Japanese immigrants. After
going through all these data properly, she analysed and arrived at many significant
conclusions about the Japanese society. To study culture at a distance it was first
of its kind in the anthropological research. She describes Japanese culture has two
methods of child rearing. In Japan during childhood an individual is given full love,
freedom, care and cooperation. But when he or she reaches the stage of
adolescence, a strict discipline is imposed. He or she is asked to behave in manner
which will be pleasant and appealing to elders. She or he as adolescence is not
expected to break cultural traditions. In fact the individual has to work according
to the instructions provided by the family traditions. This paradox in personality
traits of Japanese appears due to different cultural traditions of rearing in two
periods, i.e. childhood and adolescence. She compares childrearing practices in
Japan to the national flower of Japan Chrysanthemum and the Sword.
Chrysanthemum symbolises the socialisation of a child during childhood. At the
time of childhood, the Japanese parents take every care of their children to make
them blossom like a chrysanthemum flower. When the children are fully blossomed
like adolescents, they have to face a tough life. Parents leave them to earn something
and lead independent life. As a result of this, children become aggressive and
violent. A sword always hangs on their neck, because they do not seek cooperation
from the elders.
During the late forties the school flourished with some of the best known studies
on national character like Ruth Benedict’s Chrysanthemum and the Sword (1946)
on the Japanese national character and Geoffrey Gorer and John Rickman’s The
People of Great Russia: A Psychological Study (1949). The interest in
understanding national character though faded after 1950s. Because in their studies
the above authors tried, following the neo-Freudian approach, to link early
childrearing practices with adult personality.

11
Anthropological Theories-II 1.3.2 Impact of Culture on Personality Formation
Margaret Mead (1901-1978) another student of Franz Boas, also investigated
the relationship between culture and personality. Her monograph Coming of Age
in Samoa (1949) established her as one of the leading lady anthropologists of the
day. Starting as a configurationalist, Mead also wrote about national character.
Hired in World War II by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), Mead researched
the national character of England and compared it to that found within the United
States. She determined that in each society the norms for interaction between the
sexes differed, leading to many misunderstandings between the two otherwise
similar cultures.
In her well-known book Coming of Age in Samoa, based on nine months intensive
fieldwork, compares Samoan with American adolescent girls. She hypothesized
that the stresses related to puberty in girls were culturally and not biologically
determined, as her study showed such stresses were mainly associated with
American adolescents whereas the Samoan adolescents had relatively an easy
transition into sexual maturation.
While studying Samoa she found that the whole cultural mood in Samoa was much
less emotional than that in America. For example, the facts of birth, death and sex
were not hidden from Samoan children. Premarital sex was considered natural and
did not demand strong emotional involvements and adolescents were not confronted
with the necessity of selecting from a variety of often conflicting standards of ethics
and values. Adolescence was, thus, not marked by storm and stress in Samoa, but
was simply a part of the gradual development of life. The major point of the study
was, in Mead’s own words (1939) “the documentation, over and over, of the fact
that human nature is not rigid and unyielding”.
In her study on Samoan, Margaret Mead claims that children are taught early in
their life that if they behave well or are quiet and obedient they can have their
good way of life. Arrogance, flippancy and courage are not the qualities emphasised
either for boy or girl. The children are expected to get up early, be obedient and
cheerful, play with children of their own sex, etc. and the adults are expected to
be industrious, skillful, loyal to their relatives, wise, peaceful, serene, gentle,
generous, altruistic, etc.
During fieldwork she observed that, little girls move about together and have
antagonistic and avoidance relationship with boys. On the other hand, when they
grow up boys and girls begin to interact during parties and fishing expeditions. As
long as a boy and a girl are not committing incest any amorous activities between
them, including slipping into the bush together, are considered natural and adults
pay little attention to such relationships. As a result, the transition from adolescence
to adulthood is smooth and stress-free unlike such transition among the Americans.
Hence she concluded that cultural conditioning, not biological changes associated
with adolescence, makes it stressful. Criticisms notwithstanding, subsequent studies
have lent support to her basic theory that childhood upbringing influences formation
of adult personality.
Mead’s finding on Samoa was very much supported by Edward Sapir, who realised
that the anthropological studies of personality represented entirely a new approach
to the understanding of culture. He also argued that the application of psycho-
analytic methods, in the study of culture, would add a new dimension to ethnological
field work and analysis, he was so much interested in this psycho-analytic method.
12
After studying the Samoan society, Mead studied the personality formation of the Culture and Personality
children of New Guinea with special reference to Manus tribe, which was published
as-Growing up in New Guinea (1930). This study is concerned with the kind of
enculturation processes by which Manus of New Guinea brought their children up
from infancy to childhood and childhood to adulthood. In fact, the book deals with
educative role of culture in development of personality of child through different
ages of life such as infancy, childhood and adulthood etc.
The third important book of Mead is entitled Sex and Temperament in Three
Primitive Societies (1935). In this particular study Mead deals with the impact
of culture on personality formation. In this study like Benedict, Mead compared
three different cultures, namely Arapesh, Mundugumor and Tschambuli, to test the
range of variation of cultural patterns. The study was to understand why societies
living in same area differ in their character, personality and temperament and why
within the same society, temperaments of male and female differ. From her study
she found that in Arapesh, cultural environments are such that both males and
females have submissive temperament. In their culture, such personality traits are
the matter of great praise and all members in this society follow these cultural traits
with great enthusiasm. Among Mundugumor society, both males and females are
aggressive. In this society, the personality traits of its members are reflected by
such characters as suspiciousness, competition, quarrelsomeness, ego, jealousy,
and unkindness. The cultural environment of Mundugumor is such that every member
is found to be in struggle, conflict, and competition with each other. These cultural
practices have direct bearing upon the personality formation of members of
Mundugumor. The cultural traditions of Tschambuli are such that males acquire
submissive temperament and females possess aggressive character. It is a matrilineal
society dominated by female authority. The submissive character among males and
aggressive character among females of their culture are reflected in the personality
traits of Tschambuli (Upadhyay and Pandey, 1993).
From the above discussion of these three societies Mead reflected that differences
in personality types of male and female in the same society or in different societies
are due to cultural processes, which differ from one cultural group to another or
from one society to another. She concludes by saying that it is a culture influence
which moulds the character, temperament and personality of members of the
group.
Mead did not confine herself to the study of character, temperament and personality
of different cultural groups. She opinioned that the study of national character can
be done by the culture and personality approach. Culture has been developed by
human beings and is successively learned by each generation. The learned behaviour
is reflected in the character of group of nation. Thus, the study of national character
has historical depth of traditions, continuity and change as various dimensions. In
her study Keep Your Powder Dry: An Anthropologist Looks at America (1942),
she deals with the national character of America. She did not find difference in the
personality of a baby in America as compared to Japan and Russia. Thus, the
early personality was similar. They gradually start differing as the growth follows
and family education and school education become effective.
Activity

What influence has your cultural background had on you? Explain in your own words

13
Anthropological Theories-II 1.3.3 Impact of Culture on Personality and Vice-versa
The other early anthropologists who had made significant contribution to this field
are Ralph Linton (1893-1953), Abram Kardiner (1891-1981), and Cora Du Bois
(1903-1991). The three authors regard culture and personality as interdependent
and complementary to each other. They tried to correlate the type of cultural
patterns with the type of individual personalities obtained in that society. They
firmly believed that as a consequence of continuous contact with a particular type
of cultural pattern, similar types of personalities emerge. Linton was a co-founder
of the basic personality structure theory with Kardiner. He sought to establish a
basic personality for each culture. After studying the cultural behaviour of different
societies Ralph Linton (1945) noted three types of culture viz;
1) real culture (actual behaviour)
2) Ideal culture (Philosophical and traditional culture)
3) Culture construct (what is written on cultural elements etc.)
Real culture is the sum total of behaviour of the members of the society, which are
learned and shared in particular situations. A real culture pattern represents a
limited range of behaviour within which the response of the members of a society
to a particular situation will normally be form. Thus various individuals can behave
differently but still in accordance with a real culture pattern.
Ideal culture pattern is formed by philosophical traditions. In this, some traits of
culture are regarded as ideals.
Linton stated that there is a difference between the way of life of people and what
we study and write about. Both are different dimensions of culture. The former is
reality and the latter our understanding of the same. If the former is called culture
the latter can be called culture construct. It is an abstraction from the reality which
is the actual human behaviour.
While studying different aspects of culture and personality, he suggested some
more concepts vis., basic personality, status personality, social inventor etc. regarding
basic culture he argued that in a society all the individuals undergo a similar type
of socialisation, custom, traditions etc., and therefore, individuals acquire a common
set of habits, which may be called a basic personality of the society. He suggested
that in a society there are certain individuals, who are granted some special
privileges, which lead to form a status personality. Considering social inventor, he
argued that in a society some individuals do not follow the old traditional rules and
customs of the society, but they try to imitate some other norms, behaviour or
mode of living or make certain new discoveries, which are laid down on the
society in course of time, and he called such individuals as social inventors. He
also discussed (1936) about different types of role, played by an individual in the
society. The term role, according to Linton refers to the rules for behaviour
appropriate to a given status or social position. This classical definition of role,
given by Linton, has been useful in functional analysis within a synchronic frame
work. However, he prescribed some criterias to the characteristics as person
needs to become eligible for a particular social role. He identified two kinds of
status, vis., ascribed and achieved status. According to him ascribed roles usually
come by birth. For instance roles based on age, sex, kinship, and caste etc., are
ascribed status. Whereas he says some efforts must be made to qualify for an
achieved status. For example occupational roles, especially leadership, doctor,
14 engineer, lawyer etc are achieved status.
Abram Kardiner (1891-1981) a student of Sigmund Freud by profession was a Culture and Personality
psychoanalyst. He along with Ralph Linton argued, that while culture and personality
were similarly integrated, a specific casual relationship existed between them.
In response to the configurationalist approach Kardinar, along with Linton
developed the concept “basic personality type” in his book, Psychological Frontiers
of Society (1945). The theory basic personality type is a collection of fundamental
personality traits shared by normal members of a society acquired by adapting to
a culture. The above theory was formulated after reading Freud’s The Future of
an Illusion (1928/1961) in which he argues that children’s early life experiences
determine their later religious life. Similar to Freud, Kardiner understood that the
foundations of personality development were laid in early stage of childhood.
Further Kardiner argued that since basic childrearing procedures are common in
a society they resulted in some common personality traits among members of a
society. He said that the basic personality exists in the context of particular cultural
institutions or patterned ways of doing things in a society. Such social institutions
are of primary and secondary types. Primary cultural institutions include kinship,
childrearing, sexuality and subsistence, which are widely shared by societies. The
shared personality traits across the societies are what constitute the basic personality
structure. The secondary cultural institutions, on the other hand, include religion,
rituals, folkways, norms etc. Between primary and secondary institutions, he poses
the basic personality structure. According to him, childhood plays significant role
in the formation of basic personality structure. Thus, the basic personality type
expresses itself in the group’s ideologies, in emotional and cognitive orientation to
life and death. He compared two communities the Tanala, who were horticulturists
with the Betsileo, who were intensive cultivators of wet paddy. According to him,
the emphasis on secondary institutions like magic and spirit possession among the
latter tribe came from the anxiety that demands of irrigated agriculture produced
in their basic personality structure. From his study he concluded that diversity in
personality types in a culture increased with increased social and political complexity.
Following the Basic Personality Construct of Kardiner, Cora Du Bois also
formulated a similar construct which she named ‘Modal Personality’ involving a
more statistical concept. Here, the basic personality is expressed in the most
frequent type of patterned individual behaviour observed in a society. Du Bois
(1903- ) was heavily influenced by the work of Abram Kardiner and Ralph
Linton. Her experience as an ethnographer and psychologist provided a valuable
link in the chain of thought of the culture and personality school. Du Bois modified
Kardiner and Linton’s notion of basic personality structure with her modal personality
theory. She assumed that a certain personality structure occurs most frequently
within a society, but that it is not necessarily common to all members of that
society. Modal personality defined as the personality typical of a culturally bounded
population, as indicated by the central tendency of a defined frequency distribution.
To develop the concept of modal personality Kardiner gathered data through
psychological tests, which include projective tests Rorschach, or “ink-blot” test,
and the TAT (or Thematic Apperception Test). TAT consists of pictures that the
respondents are asked to explain or describe. The above tests combined with
observation of frequency of certain behaviours, collection of life histories and
dreams, and analysis of oral literature.
Incidentally, Kardiner did not have the kind of data he needed to prove his theory.
To overcome this handicap, Cora Du Bois went to Alor Island in the Dutch East
Indies where she collected variety of ethnographic and psychological data. When 15
Anthropological Theories-II she returned in 1939 she along with Kardiner analysed the data and arrived at the
same conclusions about basic characteristics of Alorese personality. On the basis
of this work she proposed ‘modal personality’ by which she meant the statistically
most common personality type. This approach allowed interplay between culture
and personality, and provided for variation in personality that exists in any society.
This was an improvement upon Kardiner’s ‘basic personality theory’ because of
its ability to explain for the variation in personality types within a given culture.
She published the findings of her research on Alor in the year (1945) under the
title The People of Alora: A Social Psychological Study of East Indian Island.
For her research purpose, she spent almost eighteen months on the island of Alor,
in eastern Indonesia. Her experiments were of three kinds:
1) She collected information on child-rearing;
2) She collected eight biographies, each with dream material; and
3) She administered a broad range of projective tests –the Rorschach test to
thirty-seven subjects, a word-association test to thirty-six subjects, and a
drawing test to fifty-five children.
Du Bois broke new ground when she asked specialists in various fields to assess
and interpret her projective materials independently. These authorities were given
no background briefing on Alorese culture or attitudes; neither were they permitted
to see Du Bois’ general ethnographies notes or interpretations. Abraham Kardiner
was given the life histories, Emil Oberholzer the Rorschachs and Trude Schmidt-
Waehner the children’s drawings. Working with only these materials, each prepared
an evaluation. The effectiveness of the test procedure employed by Du Bois, and
her success in eliminating her own emotional or cultural biases, were confirmed by
the work of these independent authorities. To a remarkable degree, their findings
concurred with hers.
A rather unfavourable modal personality for the Alorese emerged from this many-
sided investigation. Alorese of both sexes are described by Du Bois and her
colleagues as suspicious and antagonistic, prone to violent and emotional outbursts,
often of a jealous nature. They tend to be uninterested in the world around them,
slovenly in workmanship, and lacking an interest in goals. Kardiner drew attention
to the absence of idealised parental figures in the life stories. Oberholzer noted the
lack of capacity for sustained creative effort, indicated by his reading of the
Rorschach scores. Schmidt-Waehner identified a lack of imagination and a strong
sense of loneliness in the children’s drawings.
Turning to the possible causative influences, Du Bois and her co-researchers
focused on the experiences of the Alorese during infancy and early childhood, up
to the age of six or so. At the root of much of Alorese personality development,
they suggested, is the division of labour in that society. Women are the major food
suppliers, working daily in the family gardens, while men occupy themselves with
commercial affairs, usually the trading of pigs, gongs and kettledrums. Within
about two weeks after giving birth, the mother returns to her outdoor work,
leaving the infant with the father, a grandparent, or an older sibling. She deprives
the newborn child of the comfort of a maternal presence and of breat-feeding for
most of the day. The infant thus experiences oral frustration and resultant anxiety.
At the same time, the baby suffers bewildering switches in attention, from loving
and petting to neglect and bad-tempered rejection. Thus, maternal neglect is viewed
as being largely responsible for the Alorese personality.
16
 Culture and Personality
Activity

Using the different aspects of culture, list as many specific examples as you can how
different aspects of culture influence personality development and maintenance.

After 1950s Culture and personality research disseminated among others, by a

comparison of several societies’ quality of data is improved in the school of
thought. For example, one such coordinated research project on child-rearing
practices conducted by six teams in different parts of the world like northern
India, Mexico, Okinawa, the Philippines, New England, and East Africa. In all the
parts the research teams used common field guide and research techniques. They
studied about 50 to 100 families randomly in each culture, observing as well as
interviewing them about nurturing, self-reliance, responsibility, achievement-
orientation, dominance, obedience, aggression, sociability, etc. and ranked the
societies on the basis of psychological tones of child rearing, which were then
linked with certain cultural traits like presence or absence of warfare (Whiting
1963).
In (1965) Walter Goldschmidt conducted a research project to understand cultural,
psychological, and ecological variation among four African groups, vis., the Hehe,
Kamba, Pokot, and Sebei. Among the four communities occupation was different,
some herded, some cultivated, and others did both. On the other hand Robert
Edgerton, the researcher, gathered psychological data from eight different
communities with one pastoral and one agricultural for each. He drew a sample
of at least 30 adults from each sex and community and interviewed 505 persons.
In order to evaluate the personality differences among the communities, he analysed
responses to questions, inkblot plates and colour slides. It was thus based on
statistical data with objective parameters unlike the earlier (pre-1950s) culture and
personality researches based mostly on impressions.
The outcome of the above project is as follows. Kambas had male dominance,
fear of poverty and restrained emotions; Hehe were aggressive, formal, mistrusting,
and secretive; and other personality traits marked Pokot and Sebei. The latter two
groups valued both sons and daughters and prophets; the former two valued just
sons, land, and wealth. Economic backgrounds were also found to have important
influence on personality: agriculturists consulted sorcerers, took group decisions,
valued hard work, were hostile and suspicious, and were able to control their
emotions and impulses whereas the pastoralists were individualistic, did not value
hard work, were direct, open and realistic.

1.4 CRITICISMS OF CULTURE AND PERSONALITY

THEORY
Despite criticisms of their work from various quarters studies of Benedict and
Mead are best known and widely read, particularly in introductory courses in
Anthropology. The following are the major criticism against the culture and
personality school. Both Benedict and Mead assumed culture as given and
determining personality but neither of them demonstrated how it happened. They
completely disregarded historical analysis. Because Benedict believed that each
society had a wide range of cultural options to choose from she did not explain
why a society chooses one and not the others. Benedict has been criticised on her
studies because of her strong belief that cultures have logical constancy. She has
been criticised for saying that Pueblo in her study they did take alcohol during her
17
Anthropological Theories-II fieldwork and they still do. She has been criticised for her statement like ignoring
aspects of cooperation among Kwakiutl and strife, suicide and alcoholism among
the Zuni cultures. Applying individual personality attributes to characterise whole
cultures was also considered to be risky, as was later found from national character
studies. Derek Freeman strongly criticised whose findings are completely
contradictory to those of Meads. In her Samoan study she found the girls carefree
about sexual experimentation whereas Freeman found a strict virginity complex
among them. During their studies Mead noticed a free male-female relationship,
while he found male-female hostility. The differences occur in their studies because
their fieldwork was conducted in different Samoan villages at the time-gap of 15
years.
Prior to Freeman, Marvin Harris has criticised Mead for being too generalised
about the emotions of Samoan girls. In her defense she emphasised on the
significance of providing clarification rather than demonstration of facts particularly
about intangible and psychological aspects of human behaviour.
Morris Opler criticised this configurationalist approach stating that there are not
only two bases of cultural integration but many. Thus, this approach is very narrow.
Even in small societies Kardiner’s basic personality structure could not explain the
variation in personality traits for this reason he has been criticised. Later on the
weakness of the theory was taken care of by Du Bois’ in modal personality
theory.

1.5 SUMMARY
Culture and Personality, sometimes also known as Psychological Anthropology,
investigates the role of culture in forming personality in an “ecocultural framework,”
and considers problems of individual adjustments to demands of culture.

The theory was influenced by and neo-Freudian psychology, which emphasised

the primacy of infantile and early childhood experience in shaping the personality.
Following the development of this school, many anthropologists attempted to
study the national characters (representative personality types) across cultures. In
so doing, anthropologists have employed the psychological concepts such as
conditioned stimuli and responses, drives, rewards, punishments, conflicts, dreams,
ego systems, id impulses, attitudes, values, cognitive orientations, ideas, etc.

References

Benedict, Ruth. 1934. Patterns of Culture. New York: Houghton Miffin.

Benedict, Ruth. 1946. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese
Behaviour. Boston: Houghton Miffin.

Du Bois, Cora. 1944. The People of Alor: A Social-Psychological Study of an

East Indian Island. University of Minnesota Press.

Freud, S. 1918. Totem and Taboo. A.A.Brill (trans.), New York.

Funder, D. 1997. The Personality Puzzle. New York: Norton.

Goldschmidt, W. 1965. ‘Theory and Strategy in the Study of Cultural Adaptability’.

American Anthropologist, 67:402-07 Hunt, Robert C., ed. 1967. Personalities
18
and Cultures: Readings in Psychological Anthropology. New York: Natural Culture and Personality
History Press

Kardiner, A., Ralph Linton, J. West et al. 1945. The Psychological Frontiers of
Society. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kluckhohn, C. 1954. ‘Culture and Behaviour’. In Handbook of Social Psychology.

Ed. G Lindzey, 2:921–76. Cambridge: MA:Addison-Wesley.

Linton, Ralph. 1945. Cultural Background of Personality. New York: Appleton-

Century-Crofts.

___________________ 1936. The Study of Man. New York: Appleton-Century-

Crofts.

Mead, Margaret. 1928. Coming of Age in Samoa: A Psychological Study of

Primitive Youth for Western Civilisation. New York: Morrow.

___________________ 1930. Crowing up in New Guinea. New York: Blue

Ribbon.

___________________ 1935. Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive

Societies. New York: Marrow.

Nietzsche, Friedrich 1956. The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy of Morals.
Trans. Francis Golffing. New York: Anchor Books.

Upadhyay, V.S & Gaya Pandey. 1993. History of Anthropological Thought.

New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company. Reprint 2002.

Whiting, B. B. 1963. Six Cultures: Studies of Child Rearing. New York: Wiley.

Suggested Reading

Barnouw, Victor. 1985. Culture and Personality. 4th Edition. Homewood, Ill.:
Dorsey Press.

Kottak, Conrad Phillip. 1996. Anthropology: The Exploration of Human

Diversity. New York: McGraw.

McGee, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms. 1996. Anthropological Theory: An

Introductory History. London: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Norbeck, Edward, D. P. Williams, and W. McCord, eds. 1968. The Study of

Personality: An Interdisciplinary Appraisal. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.

Wallace, Anthony F. C. 1970. Culture and Personality. 2nd Edition. New York:
Random House.

Whiting, John W. M and I Child. 1953. Child Training and Personality: A

Cross-cultural Study. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Williams, Thomas Rhys. 1990. Cultural Anthropology. New Jersey: Prentice-

Hall.

19
Anthropological Theories-II Sample Questions
1) What are the basic principles on which the school of Culture and Personality
is based?
2) Critically discuss Ruth Benedict’s book, ‘The Patterns of Culture’.
3) What do you understand by National Character? Give examples of studies
done on this concept.
4) What is basic personality and modal personality? Discuss.
5) What are the major points on which the culture and personality school has
been criticised?

20
UNIT 2 MARXISM
Contents
2.1 Introduction
2.2 History and Development of Marxism
2.2.1 Marxism as a theory
2.2.1.1 Modes of Production
2.2.1.2 Class and Class Conflict

2.3 Marxist Anthropology – An Overview

2.4 Critical Assessment
2.5 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions

Learning Objectives

This unit would enable you to know:
 the background of Marxism as a theory;
 use of Marxism in anthropological work; and
 critical evaluation of Marxism.

2.1 INTRODUCTION
This unit would deal with Marxism as an anthropological theory. We would trace
the roots of Marxism how it developed from a theory originally forwarded by Karl
Marx (1818-83) one of the greatest intellectuals of the nineteenth century. Marx
was widely known as a political activists and his Communist Manifesto was one
of the most widely circulated political pamphlet known in history. Friedrich Engels
worked closely with Karl Marx and contributed to the theories. Marxism as a
theory was not rooted in any academic discipline. It had developed as a theory
in practice for the labour class. Alhough it has dealt largely with the sociological,
economical and anthropological issues. It entered Anthropology very late as a
theory. Initially it was conceived as a sociological theory because the concept of
class central to it was seen as a character of urban and western societies only.
Anthropology was initially regarded as a subject dealing with classless societies
and therefore Marxism was not seen as relevant.

2.2 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF MARXISM

In order to understand the Marxian ideology and its adaptation by anthropologists
we must first understand the philosophy and theory postulated by Karl Marx. The
writings of Karl Marx had inspiration from Hegel’s work, whose dialectical
methodology was used to propagate the theory of social change by Marx. Though
an inspiration yet, Hegel came under the spanner of Marx’s criticisms, as the
21
Anthropological Theories-II latter’s ideas were more inclined as a social and political activist. Before we move
into the depths of the theory let’s have a quick understanding of Hegel’s dialectical
ideology.
Hegel had the notion that thesis and antithesis leads to a synthesis, what in other
words is understood as the dialectical view of the world. In Hegel’s work, human
mind is the Creator of the material world, but it gets alienated from it and this mind
and material duality is the thesis and antithesis that seeks resolution in unity that
can come only from the Spirit or when mind recognises that matter is its own
creation and ceases to be controlled by it. This leads to alienation, wherein the
mind no longer recognises the matter as its own creation.
Marx’s general idea about society is known as his theory of historical materialism.
It is historical because Marx has traced the evolution of human society from one
stage to another. It is called materialistic because Marx has interpreted the evolution
of society in terms of its material or economic bases. Marx’s major contribution
was his view of society; unlike other intellectuals he did not see society as an
organism but as a hierarchical structure. The earlier view put forward by Hegel,
was that ideas were the cause of change. He supported it by saying “I think
therefore I am.” On the contrary Marx said ‘I am therefore I think.’ For Hegel
it was consciousness which determine our experiences. His was an ideological
approach unlike Marx’s materialism. For Marx human being comes first and then
comes the ideas. Marx said that the ideas were the result of objective reality. Thus
he argued ‘if we want to think we need to eat first’.

2.2.1 Marxism as a Theory

Marx’s theory basically deals with the contradictions found in the capitalist society
of his time. He stated that the most crucial fact is the fact of production. If human
being has to live, it has to eat and thus, he argues is the reason one produces. He
considered production as a social process. In this system of production human
beings enter into relations which are ‘independent of their will’. It means these
relations existed before the individuals entered into the relations and these would
be continued in the future unless they are changed. Herein, let’s understand
according to Marx what is the base of society and then we would move on to how
in this society class and conflict arises.
2.2.1.1 Modes of Production
Karl Marx identified in his theory two components of production in a society that
forms its backbone – a) The material component – it consists of the material,
thing, resources, capital, technology and so one can call them means of production
through which production is done. E.g. – land. b) Ownership of means of production
– it comprises those who all are working on the resources. These are always
social components. It is called relation of production. The nature of these relations
would vary from society to society.
These two together are called mode of production which according to Marx
forms the base of economic infrastructure of the society. This economic framework
also called as infrastructure supports the structures on which society is founded-
the institution of law, politics, and ideology. Marx used the word superstructure
to define it. For Marx base and superstructure can be identified. A change in the
base brings change in the superstructure. Means of production keeps evolving. It
changes frequently. Marx defined it in terms of human creativity. As human beings
have innovative ideas technologies and other means of production keep on changing.
22 On the other hand the relation of production lags behind. This starts stopping
means of production. This emerges a contradiction between these two. Thus, Marxism
relation of production has to change keep pace with the means of production. This
contradiction brings change to the whole system i.e. superstructure. Marx believed
that this kind of contradiction brings dynamicity to the system. Marx applied it to
the human society. For him, central to the understanding of society is the mode
of production.
Marx developed a generalised history of modes of production from primitive
communism to present-day capitalism. Marx’s view of a mode of production was
that it was made up of the forces of production, which were the technological
means by which society produced the goods it wanted, and the relations of
production, which specified the relations between people pertaining to both the
division of labour and the division of the items produced. As a generalisation, it
is possible to say that early in this century there was a tendency to economic and
technological determinism on the part of Marxist thinkers. Here the division between
base and superstructure in society has been vital. The base is seen to be composed
of the economic forces of society: the forces and relations of production. These
influence the superstructure of society, made up of the social divisions into kin
groups or classes and the ideological apparatus or worldview of the group. Those
holding to a strict division between base and superstructure see cause flowing in
one direction from the forces of production, such that once one can understand
these forces all other elements of society become clear. These views bring them
close to those of Leslie White, who saw the energy-processing capacity of society
as crucial.
2.2.1.2 Class and Class Conflict
Both Marx and Engels were greatly influenced by Morgan’s Ancient Society
(1877). Morgan had described three stages of human society in an evolutionary
sequence- savagery, barbarism and civilisation. Basing on this, Engels defined
primitive communism. Morgan had described savagery and barbarism of having
total equality. Primitive communism was derived from this concept that the society
in the primitive time had total equality. Engels defines that in primitive communism
there is no man and man contradiction. Marx and Engels accepted the egalitarian
concept for tribal societies. This concept was more or less imaginary. It served the
purpose that human society was not a class ridden society in the beginning rather
it was class free. It means that human society can come to an equal stage in times
to come.
It was developed in an evolutionary manner by both Marx and Engels. In ancient
human society there was no man and man contradiction but man and nature
contradiction was there. They argued that for this, there was a need to control
nature. Gradually improvisation of technique took place to control nature. Not all
the people at a time, but some people were able to discover these techniques and
they were able to have control over some lands. Two stages emerged in the
society – the people who had the technologies and the others who had not the
technologies and became dependent upon the fist type. Those who had the
technological advantages took others under them. From here comes two categories
of people – the masters and the slaves. Masters had the control over resources
and the slaves could not. Slavery evolved into feudalism where the dominant mode
of production was agriculture. Again two groups emerged- lords and the vessels.
Then comes the stage where factory was founded and production became more
and more technologically oriented. This is the capitalist mode of production. Again
two groups of people came into existence – the capitalists and the bourgeois.
23
Anthropological Theories-II PRIMITIVE COMMUNISM

SLAVARY MASTER-SLAVE (UN free to sell labour)

BARBARISM LORD-VESSEL (relatively un-free)

CAPITALISM CAPITALISTS-PROLITERIATES (free)

COMMUNISM

As we move downward the class becomes free to sell labour. This dual class
structure was derived by Marx. Marx identified basically two classes- the class
who own the production and the other who operate upon the production. The
change from savagery to barbarism indicates the change in mode of production.
In these stages also class conflict was there, but the kind of class conflict that
according to Marx would lead to communism dwell in the capitalist society.
Herein, the key concept is Marx’s definition of class, defined in terms of ownership
of property. Such ownership vests a person with the power to exclude others from
the property and to use it for personal purposes. In relation to property, Marx’s
had divided the society into three categories: the bourgeoisie class (who own the
means of production such as machinery and factory buildings, and whose source
of income is profit), landowners (whose income is rent), and the proletariat class
(who own their labour and sell it for a wage). According to Marx, the proletariat
class is always looked down by the bourgeoisie class and the fruits of labour are
not rightly distributed among the proletariat class. This leads to a class conflict
beings and one day it would reach its pinnacle and the whole structure would fall
leading to a new type of economy and government.
Reflection: Dialectical Logic of Karl Marx

Karl Marx a positivist with a scientific vision uses Hegel’s dialectical theory to create
a materialistic history where economic forces and relations create contradictions that
move the system forward. The society as conceived by Karl Marx in a Capitalist
economy has two classes- the bourgeoisie (the ruling class- the haves) and the
proletariat class (the working class- the have not’s). Marx stated that in such a society
there is a gap between the two classes and as the gap widens- the rich becoming richer
by exploiting the labour class and the latter becoming poorer that alienation comes into
play. The exploitation passing through the various stages reaches the Utopian wherein
all ceases to exist and it would be the end of history.

Later on Marx’s theory faced criticism because of its futuristic aspect. The prediction
that the present capitalist society would change with a revolution and finally it will
bring equality has not been fulfilled. Capitalism continued, as the revolution came
to the feudalistic society but not to the capitalistic society. Scholars argued at one
point that Marxists is one method along with other methods. Moreover, time and
again in history it has been noted that the Capitalist economy has rebounded. It
neither died away nor did it change to a new system, as in the case of the Great
Depression in the early 1930’s, whereas the fall of the USSR a Socialists economy
was a setback to the predictions of Marx’s theory.
As stated above the theory of Marx was denounced by his contemporaries and
it was only in the 20th century that it was revived and scholars from various fields
started using the concept in their fields. Thus, the works based on Marx’s ideology
is known as Marxism. In the next section we would see how Marxian ideas were
applied by Anthropologists.

24
 Marxism
2.3 MARXIST ANTHROSPOLOGY – AN OVERVIEW
In the theoretical field, Marxism has faced many criticisms. The main criticism that
centers on this theory is about its futuristic attitude towards human society. Marx
extensively dealt with his concern about how capitalist society would change and
how communism would take place. To satisfy this Marx described certain stages
of human society and showed how communism would take place gradually. Along
with this, Marxism greatly dealt with the issue of equality. Marx vigorously talked
about the equality for all. It is amazing how little academic influence it had in the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the west (in areas like Russia,
influence was crucial and early). This general lack of influence also makes more
striking the Marxist thought of Gordon Childe, the only major figure in Anthropology
in the English-speaking world to be a self-professed Marxist. The relative poverty
of writings by both Marx and Engels on anthropological topics, in terms of both
their numbers and scope, has left Marxist anthropologists and archaeologists with
a series of basic principles pertaining to the process of labour and the social and
ideological relations resulting from that process, but little in the way of specific
models to apply to non-capitalist societies. Also, over the century since Marx died
there have been subtle currents within Marxist thought which have subjected
principles drawn from Marx to constant criticism and revision. We can artificially
separate two elements of Marx’s thought which have been influential in anthropology
in different ways: his general philosophical approach and his historical scheme of
social change.
The interface of anthropology and Marxism begins with structuralism, as the theorists
of the late sixties and early seventies denounced classical functionalism as inadequate;
unable to explain the social realities such as imperialism and exploitation, with
reference to colonial anthropology. As mentioned Morgan’s Ancient Society had
inspired Marx and Engels, but Terray examines Morgan in the framework of
Althusser’s over determination. Morgan had put forward several germs of thought,
in the form of Idea of Property, Idea of family, Idea of Governance and the
Modes of subsistence. His ethnical periods are not arbitrary or unconnected
evolution of these ideas, like Tylor’s version of evolution, but a coming together
of stages of these institutions, where they are compatible with each other. In a
similar tone to Althusser’s over determination, the compatibility /incompatibilities
are measured against the modes of subsistence. Thus a particular form of family,
a particular form of government and a particular form of property are brought
together in an ethnical period provided they are also compatible with the Mode
of subsistence in that period. Thus according to Terrey, we can look upon Morgan
as the father of structuralism, as the Ethnical periods have an internal structure of
logical compatibility.
However the application of a classical Marxist model to the kind of societies
studied by anthropologists proved problematic as is evident from the debate
surrounding the concept of Lineage Mode of Production, favoured by some hard
core Marxist scholars like Terray. According to some lineages may be seen as
ruled by elders who exploit the labour of the young men for their political gains.
But ethnographic examples do not always show that elders get brides for themselves,
with the bride price created by the labour of the young men and that are later
passed on to the young men. In most lineage societies with few exceptions the
elders get the brides for the young men and are managers rather than usurpers of
wealth. Almost all tribal societies work on the basis of rights of user rather than
25
Anthropological Theories-II rights of possession and the elders are seen as guardians and trustees and not
owners, so they cannot be equated with the Bourgeoisie of the capitalist societies.
Moreover we cannot say that the older and younger generations are classes in any
true sense of the word; as the classes are closed entities and the generations are
not; everyone who is young at one point of time has a chance of growing into an
elder.
Yet structuralism and Marxism were seen as analogous especially by the school
of French structuralists such as Maurice Godelier and Claude Meillasoux. Like
Marxism, structuralism also believed that the surface appearance of things or the
evident social world had an underlying deeper level of reality that was a logical
structure capable of explaining the overlying varieties of factual data by a single
logical schema. Thus for Marx the variations of history were explainable by the
structural principle of contradictions and a dialectical mechanism of social
transformation; thus no matter how diverse the apparent phenomenon, the underlying
structural possibilities are limited. This was in direct contradiction to the empiricist
methods of British social anthropology that assumed the factual reality to be the
social structure. Marxism is a nomothetic as against an ideographic theory. It has
a high level of generalisation and abstraction and a scientific endeavour to look for
underlying logical structures. Levi-Strauss comes close to this form of analysis
except that he is more interested in the abstract symbolic world of myths and
representations than the realm of the political and the economic.
The French structuralist school or what may be called as the New Economic
Anthropology is based quite solidly on Marxist interpretations. Maurice Godelier,
one of the leading intellectuals of this school tried to resolve the issue of applying
a Marxist model to a non-capitalist society. According to him it is not the form of
the institution that is important but rather its function so that it is not necessary that
anthropologists go looking for the economic and the political as institutions where
they do not exist. Rather, in those societies, where these institutions are not
autonomous the existing institutions such as kinship and religion themselves act as
economic and ideological aspects of society. Thus kinship for example will act as
both infrastructure and as super structure, provided we look towards the way
kinship functions. These he calls as the ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ relations.
For example caste has an economic dimension such as providing for a societal
division of labour, a systematic exchange of resources and labour, property relations
and distribution and control of resources that act as a infrastructure. At the same
time it has a ritual and mythical dimension that is the super structure; thus the same
institution has the structural possibility of acting as both infrastructure and super
structure. In a similar fashion we have Claude Meillasoux’s classic work, Maidens,
Meals and Money, where he gives a Marxist interpretation of both hunting, food
gathering and shifting cultivation showing how they differ from the agricultural
societies. His analysis of kinship is thus based on the economic aspect of kinship
and according to Meillasoux, where kinship has apparently very little to contribute
to economy, like in the band societies that have as their productive unit a largely
fluid organisation, namely the band, whose membership varies over time and
space in accordance with the environmental needs. More importantly the productive
cycle is very short, and whatever is brought into the camp is consumed in a very
short time (also for lack of storage technology). In this kind of economy each
band is largely independent of the earlier generations and other relationships.
Since there is no continuity of productive cycle the value of kinship is very little
and he calls them “pre-kinship” societies as they have little structural representation
26 of kinship ties like family and lineage. The collective identity of the band is more
important than individual parentage and thus the family ties too are weak. Immediate Marxism
sharing and cooperation rather than long term or delayed consumption is the norm.
The children belong more to the community than to the individual parents. Thus
Meillasoux constructed a historical materialist schema of pre-capitalist or domestic
economies.
A very important contribution of Marxism was to show that institutions or societies
are not created as it is; there are logical connections between the material conditions
and the historical circumstances that gave rise to them. A particularly critical point
of view was developed with respect to imperialism and colonisation and the
deliberate ignoring of conflict and war by the functionalists. For example George
Balandier, in his book Political Anthropology has criticised Evans-Pritchard and
Meyer Fortes for their designation of some societies as acephalous or stateless,
saying that many of these societies so designated were actually flourishing kingdoms
that became depopulated and dispersed under the colonial aggression. In fact the
entire notion of static, ageless societies has been critically appraised by Eric Wolf,
in his book, Europe and the People without History. The introduction of history
into anthropology was largely attributed to Marxism and so was the incorporation
of conflict and disruption as part of an ethnography.
While British anthropology with few exceptions like Peter Worsley and Max
Gluckmann, had largely avoided Marxism or any reference to it, till quite late,
American Anthropology had shown the influence of Marxism, from the early
twentieth century without always explicit acknowledgment. Thus Leslie White and
Julian Steward, both neo-evolutionists had turned obviously to the techno-economic
dimensions of society as causative of social evolution. While White talks of Energy
and evolution also giving more determining role to the subsistence dimension of
culture; Steward reformulated the concept of culture to make it look more like a
Marxist model of society. His Core culture, with its direct relationship to environment
and comprising the techno-economic dimensions of society has been given a
determining role in evolution, with the peripheral culture playing a more passive
role and resembling the super structure. Since both White and Steward were
talking of culture rather than social systems, they make no direct connection to
Marxism, yet the influence of dialectical materialism and a hierarchical structure of
culture with a techno-economic determinism is found in both theories. Although
Sahlins emerges as a strong critic of Leslie White and his technological determinism,
yet he too forms a strong critical appraisal of capitalism in his description of what
he calls as a Domestic Mode of Production.
In fact while White is more inclined towards a materialist version of Marxism,
Sahlins is more inclined towards the Philosophical dimensions, emphasising the
dehumanisation brought about by capitalism and the alienation of a materialist
world view as propagated by modernity.

2.4 CRITICAL ASSESSMENT

Like any other theory Marxism has also certain criticism. The basic points are
discussed below:
1) Marx’s theory overtly concentrated on ‘economic relationships’ leading to a
number of criticisms:
a) Marxism over-emphasis the importance of economic relationships and
suggests that this economic relationships determine all other relationships
(family, education, friendship, religious and so forth). 27
Anthropological Theories-II b) Marxists tend to overlook other forms of (non-economic) conflict or
tries to explain these conflicts as ultimately having economic roots. Radical
feminists, for example, argue that the roots of male - female conflict are
not simply economic (to do with social class) but patriarchal. Marxism
– both old and modern - has ignored the role and position of women
in society.
2) The subjective interpretations of individuals are under-emphasised when looking
at the way in which people see and act in the social world. A person’s
subjective interpretation of their class, for example, might be quite different
to their objective class position.
3) Capitalism, as an economic and political system, has proven to be more
durable and flexible than Marx maintained. In modern social systems, for
example, the advent of Communism does not appear imminent.

2.5 SUMMARY
In this unit the students have been acquainted with the basic tenets of Marxism and
how it has influenced anthropological theories and practices. The concept of
materialism derived from Marxists thoughts have given impetus to many of the
anthropological works and also in many areas of intellectual thinking. The focus
on history and consideration of social change as inherent aspect of society,
recognition of exploitation, conflict and protest, the assessment of role governance
and economy have all lent a rich nuanced depth to anthropological writings in the
present century.
References
Althusser, Louis. 1971. Lenin and Philosophy. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Aron, Raymond. 1965. Main Currents in Sociological Thought. Vol. 1. U.K:
Penguin Books.
Bloch, Maurice. 2004. (reprint) Marxism and Anthropology: The History of a
Relationship. Routledge.
Collins, Randall. 1997. Theoretical Sociology. (Indian ed), Jaipur: Rawat Pub.
Raison. Timothy, (ed.) 1979. (Rev. Ed) The Founding Fathers of Social Science.
London: Social Press.
David, Seddon. (ed.) 1978. Relations of Production: Marxist Approaches to
Economic Anthropology, G.B: Frank Cass &Co.
Donham, D.L. 1999. History, Power, Ideology: Central Issues in Marxism and
Anthropology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Engels, Friedrich. 1850/1967. The Origin of the Family, Private property and
the State. New York: International Publishers.
Frank, Andre Gunder. 1967. Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin
America. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Giddens, Anthony. 1981. A Comparative Critique of Historical Materialism.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Godelier, Maurice. 1972. Rationality and Irrationality in Economics. Trans.
28 Brian Pearce, London: New Left Books.
Gramsci, Antonio. 1928/1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New Marxism
York: International Publishers.
Kaplan, David and Robert A Manners. 1972. Culture Theory. Illinois: Waveland
Press.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1971. Every day Life in the Modern World. London: Allen
Lane.
Lukacs, Georg. 1923/1971. History and Class Consciousness. Cambridge:
Mass. MIT Press.
Marcuse, Herbert. 1964. One-Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press.
Marx, Karl. 1842-44/1971. The Early Texts. Ed. David McLellan. Oxford: Black
Well.
__________1848. (reprint). The Communist Manifesto. Penguin.
__________1867, 1885, 1894 (1967). Capital. 3 Vols. New York: International
Publishers.
Meillasoux, Claude. 1981. Maidens, Meal and Money: Capitalism and the
Domestic Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Terray, Emmanuel. 1972. Marxism and “Primitive” Societies: Two Studies.
New York: Monthly Review Press.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1980. (reprint) The Modern World System. Vols. 1& 2
New York: Academic Press.
Suggested Reading
Godelier, Maurice. 1972. Rationality and Irrationality in Economics. Trans.
Brian Pearce, London: New Left Books.
Marx, Karl. 1842-44/1971. The Early Texts. Ed. David McLellan. Oxford: Black
Well.
__________1848. (reprint). The Communist Manifesto. Penguin.
__________1867, 1885, 1894 (1967). Capital. 3 Vols. New York: International
Publishers
Terray, Emmanuel. 1972. Marxism and “Primitive” Societies: Two Studies.
New York: Monthly Review Press.
Sample Questions
1) State how Marxism developed as a theory.
2) Elucidate the contribution of Marxism in anthropological arena.

29
 UNIT 3 STRUCTURALISM
Contents
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Claude Levi-Strauss: His Life and Works
3.3 The Example of Totemism
3.3.1 The Method
3.3.2 The Analysis
3.3.3 Summary of the Study of Totemism

3.4 Final Comments

References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Structuralism is the name given to a method of analysing social relations and
cultural products, which came into existence in the 1950s. Although it had its
origin in linguistics, particularly from the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, it acquired
popularity in anthropology, from where it impacted the other disciplines in social
sciences and humanities. It gives primacy to pattern over substance. The meaning
of a particular phenomenon or system comes through knowing how things fit
together, and not from understanding things in isolation. A characteristic that
structuralism and structural-functional approach share in common is that both are
concerned with relations between things.
However, there are certain dissimilarities between the two. Structural-functional
approach is interested in finding order within social relations. Structuralism, on the
other hand, endeavours to find the structures of thought and the structure of
society. Structural-functional approach follows inductive reasoning; from the
particular, it moves to the general. Structuralism subscribes to deductive logic. It
begins with certain premises. They are followed carefully to the point they lead to.
Aspects from geometry and algebra are kept in mind while working with
structuralism. For structuralism, logical possibilities are worked out first and then
it is seen, how reality fits. For true structuralists, there is no reality except the
relations between things.

3.2 CLAUDE LEVI-STRAUSS: HIS LIFE AND

WORKS
Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908-2009) is often described as the ‘last French intellectual
giant’, the ‘founder of structuralism in anthropology’, and the ‘father of modern
anthropology’. Born on 28 November 1908 in Belgium, he was one of the greatest
social anthropologists of the twentieth century, ruling the intellectual circles from
the 1950s to the 1980s, after which the popularity of his method (known as
structuralism) depressed with new approaches and paradigms taking its place, but
he never went to the backseat. Even when structuralism did not have many admirers,
30 it was taught in courses of sociology and anthropology and the author whose work
was singularly attended to was none other than Lévi-Strauss. Each year he was Structuralism
read by scholars from anthropology and the other disciplines with new insights and
renewed interest, since he was one of the few anthropologists whose popularity
spread beyond the confines of social anthropology. He was (and is) read avidly
in literature. Although he did not do, at one time, it was thought that every social
fact, and every product of human activity and mind, of any society, simple or
complex, could be analysed following the method that Lévi-Strauss had proposed
and defended.
In 1935, Lévi-Strauss got an appointment at the University of São Paulo to teach
sociology. His stay in Brazil exposed him to the ‘anthropological other’. He had
already read Robert Lowie’s Primitive Society and formed a conception of how
anthropological studies were to be carried out. Lévi-Strauss said: “I had gone to
Brazil because I wanted to become an anthropologist. And I had been attracted
to an anthropology very different from that of Durkheim, who was not a fieldworker,
while I was learning about fieldwork through the English and the Americans.”
During the first year of his stay in the University, he started ethnographic projects
with his students, working on the folklore of the surrounding areas of São Paulo.
He then went to the Mato Grosso among the Caduveo and Bororo tribes; he
described his first fieldwork in the following words: “I was in a state of intense
intellectual excitement. I felt I was reliving the adventures of the first sixteenth
century explorers. I was discovering the New World for myself. Everything seemed
mythical; the scenery, the plants, the animals…”
From his field stay with the Caduveo, he brought decorated pottery and hides
painted with motifs, and from Bororo, the ornaments made of feathers, animal
teeth and claws. Some of the exhibits that he had brought were, in his words,
‘truly spectacular’. He put up an exhibition of these objects in 1936, on the basis
of which he got a grant from Musée de L’Homme (which later became Centre
National de la Recherche Scientifique) to carry out a field expedition to the
Nambikwara.
A big article that Lévi-Strauss wrote on the Bororo (which appeared in the Journal
de la Sociéte des Américanistes) attracted the attention of Robert Lowie, who
invited him to the New School of Social Research to take up a teaching assignment.
Lévi-Strauss’s stay in New York was extremely fruitful. He had a chance to look
at the rich material that the American anthropologists had collected on the Indian
communities. He went about analysing it, but at the same time carried several short
first-hand field studies, although they were not of the same league as was the
masterly fieldwork that Bronislaw Malinowski had carried out among the Trobriand
Islanders. However, whatever fieldwork he carried out, he thought, was enough
to give him an insight into the ‘other’. He saw himself as an analyst and a synthesizer
of the material that had already been collected. Since his aim was to understand
the working of the human mind, he wanted to have a look at the ethnographic
facts and the material cultural objects from different cultural contexts. In other
words, Lévi-Strauss was not interested in producing a text (i.e., a monograph) on
a particular culture, but a text that addressed the understanding of the ‘Universal
Man’ rather than the ‘particular man’.
At the Ecole Libre des Hautes Etudes, where Lévi-Strauss had taken up teaching
responsibilities, Alexandre Koyré introduced him to the founder of the Prague
School of Linguistics, Roman Jacobson. This relationship with Jacobson developed
into a ‘friendship of forty years without a break’; it was in the words of Lévi-
Strauss, ‘the beginning of a brotherly friendship.’ This friendship also introduced 31
Anthropological Theories-II Lévi-Strauss to structuralism. Before that he said that he was a “kind of naïve
structuralist, a structuralist without knowing it.” Jacobson introduced him to the
methodology of structuralism as it had been formed in the discipline of linguistics.
Incidentally, Jacobson also attended Lévi-Strauss’s lectures on kinship and advised
him to write about it. Inspired by Jacobson, Lévi-Strauss started writing The
Elementary Structures of Kinship in 1943 and finished it in 1947.
This work offered a new approach to the study of kinship systems that has come
to be known as ‘alliance theory’ in opposition to what is called ‘descent theory’,
which was put forth by British anthropologists (such as A.R. Radcliffe-Brown,
Meyer Fortes) and was the dominant theory in kinship studies till then. The emphasis
of descent theory was on the transmission of property, office, ritual complex, and
rights and obligations across the generations (either in the father’s or mother’s line,
or in both the lines), which produced solidarity among the members of the group
related by the ties of consanguinity. Lineage was seen as a corporate group,
property-holding and organising labour on the lines of blood ties. In this set of
ideas, marriage was secondary: since one could not marry one’s sister or daughter,
because of the rule of incest taboo, one married a woman from another group.
The primary objective of marriage was the procreation of the descent group.
Lévi-Strauss’s alliance theory brought marriage to the centre. The function of
marriage was not just procreative. It was far more important, for it led to the
building of a string of relations between groups, respectively called the ‘wife-
givers’ and ‘wife-takers’. In this context, the concept of incest taboo acquires a
central place. It is the ‘pre-social’ social fact; if society is a social fact, which
explains and accounts for a number of other social facts, the fact that explains
society, its emergence and functioning, is incest taboo. For Lévi-Strauss, it is the
‘cornerstone’ of human society. The logical outcome of the prohibition of incest
is a system of exchange. It is not only the negative aspect of the rule of incest
taboo that needs to be recognised, as was the case with the descent theorists.
What was significant to Lévi-Strauss was the positive aspect – it is not only that
I do not marry my sister but I also give her in marriage to another man whose
sister I then marry. ‘Sister exchange’ creates a ‘federation’ between exchanging
groups. Societies are also distinguished with respect to where there is a ‘positive
rule of marriage’ (the genealogical specification of the relative to whom one should
marry) and where such a rule does not exist.
Lévi-Strauss’s work on kinship, the English translation of which was only available
in 1969, twenty years after its publication in French, introduced a new approach
to the study of kinship and exchange. That marriage is an ‘exchange of women’
– where women are a ‘value’ as well as a ‘sign’ – and groups are perpetually
linked by cycles of reciprocity, was a fresh way of looking at systems of kinship.
Although there were acrimonious debates between the descent and alliance theories
(particularly those British anthropologists who subscribed to alliance theory), there
was no doubt that Lévi-Strauss’s Elementary Structures acquired the reputation
of a work without which no study of kinship and marriage was ever complete.
And, even after sixty years of its publication, it is still read with profit. Lévi-
Strauss had planned to write a second volume on complex structures of kinship,
where the positive rule of marriage did not exist, but he could never do so, as his
attention shifted to the study and analysis of myths.
In 1958 came a collection of his essays, in which he had made use of the
methodology of structuralism, called Anthropologie Structurale, the English
32
translation of which under the title Structural Anthropology appeared in 1963. Structuralism
This volume also carried his famous essay on the concept of social structure
(which was published in Anthropology Today edited by A.L. Kroeber), wherein
he had argued that ‘social structure is a model’ rather than an empirical entity and
a ‘province of inquiry’ as was the view of Radcliffe-Brown.
In 1962 came his Le Totemism (The Totemism) and La Pensée Sauvage (The
Savage Mind). Both these books marked a shift in his interest from the study of
kinship to that of religion. In The Totemism, which we shall discuss below as an
example of the application of the structural method, he tried to lay the ‘problem
of totemism to rest’ once and forever, arguing that totems were modes of
classification; they were ‘good to think’ rather than ‘good to eat’. The binary
opposition of nature and culture that evolved in his kinship study was further
developed here. Rejecting the utilitarian theory of totemism, Lévi-Strauss examined
the merits of the second theory of totemism that Radcliffe-Brown had proposed.
In The Savage Mind, dedicated to the memory of Merleau-Ponty, Lévi-Strauss’s
central point was that the thoughts of the ‘primitive people’ were in no way inferior
to those of the ‘Westerners’.
Between 1964 and 1971 were published Lévi-Strauss’s magnum opus, the four
volume Mythologiques series. In total, these volumes, running into two thousand
pages, analyse 813 myths and their more than one thousand versions. The Raw
and the Cooked analyses myths from South America, particularly central and
eastern Brazil. The second volume, From Honey to Ashes is also concerned with
South America, but deals with myths both from the south and the north. The
Origin of Table Manners begins with a myth that is South American, but from
further north. The final volume, The Naked Man, is entirely North American. The
interesting fact Lévi-Strauss finds is that the “most apparent similarities between
myths are found between the regions of the New World that are geographically
most distant.” Beginning with the mythology of central Brazil and then moving out
to other geographical areas, and then returning to Brazil, Lévi-Strauss realises that
“depending upon the case, the myths of neighbouring peoples coincide, partially
overlap, answer, or contradict one another.” Thus, the analysis of each myth
‘implied that of others’. Taken as the centre, the myth ‘radiates variants around
it.’ It spreads from one neighbour to another in ‘several directions at once.’ His
book, The Jealous Potter, was also a part of the series on the analysis of myths.
The important fact here is that in spite of his widely acclaimed volumes on mythology,
Lévi-Strauss thought that the science of myths was in its infancy. Histoire de Lynx
(1991) and Regarder, Écouter, Lire (1993), which discuss his aesthetic and
intellectual interests, were his last works.
In one of the courses Lévi-Strauss taught at the Collége de France, he asked
questions pertaining to the future of anthropology. Although the traditional societies
with which anthropology is concerned are fast changing – some are disappearing
as well – anthropologists have done a commendable work of recording as
meticulously as possible the life styles and thought patterns of these people. Lévi-
Strauss thought that anthropology was not an ‘endangered science’; however, its
character would be transformed in future. Perhaps, it would not be an ‘object of
fieldwork’. Anthropologists would become philologists, historians of ideas, and
specialists in civilisations, and they would then work with the help of the documents
that the earlier observers had prepared. Regarding his own work, Lévi-Strauss
said that it ‘signaled a moment in anthropological thought’ and he would be
remembered for that.
33
Anthropological Theories-II For Lévi-Strauss, structuralism implies a search for deep, invisible, and innate
structures universal to humankind. These unapparent and hidden structures manifest
in surface (and conscious) behaviour that varies from one culture to the other.
Conscious structures are a ‘misnomer’. Therefore, we have to discover the
underlying ‘unconscious’ structures, and how they are transformed into ‘conscious’
structures.
Lévi-Strauss created a stir in anthropology. Some scholars set aside their own line
of enquiry for the time being to experiment with his method, whereas the others
reacted more critically to his ideas. But nowhere was his impact total and complete
– he could not create an ‘academic lineage’. His idea of ‘universal structures’ of
human mind has been labeled by some as his ‘cosmic ambition’, generalising about
human society as a whole. While British anthropologists (especially Edmund Leach,
Rodney Needham) in the 1950s and 1960s were impressed with Lévi-Strauss,
they were not in agreement with his abstract search for universal patterns. They
tended to apply structuralism at a ‘micro’ (or ‘regional’) level. Another example
is of the work of Louis Dumont, a student of Marcel Mauss, who in his work
Homo Hierarchicus (1967) presented a regional-structural understanding of social
hierarchy in India. The approach of applying structural methodology at a micro
level is known as ‘neo-structuralism’.

3.3 THE EXAMPLE OF TOTEMISM

Lévi-Strauss’s Totemism, as mentioned earlier, was published in French in 1962.
A year later came its English translation, done by an Oxford anthropologist, Rodney
Needham, and it carried more than fifty pages of Introduction written by Roger
C. Poole. In appreciation of this book, Poole (p. 9) wrote:
In Totemism Lévi-Strauss takes up an old and hoary anthropological problem,
and gives it such a radical treatment that when we lay down the book we have
to look at the world with new eyes.
Before we proceed with Lévi-Strauss’s analysis, let us firstly understand the
meaning of totemism.
Totemism refers to an institution, mostly found among the tribal community, where
the members of each of its clans consider themselves as having descended from
a plant, or animal, or any other animate or inanimate object, for which they have
a special feeling of veneration, which leads to the formation of a ritual relationship
with that object. The plant, animal, or any other object is called ‘totem’; the word
‘totem’, Lévi-Strauss says (p. 86), is taken from the Ojibwa, an Algonquin language
of the region to the north of the Great Lakes of Northern America. The members
who share the same totem constitute a ‘totemic group’. People have a special
reverential attitude towards their totem – they abstain from killing and/or eating it,
or they may sacrifice and eat it on ceremonial occasions; death of the totem may
be ritually mourned; grand celebrations take place in some societies for the
multiplication of totems; and totems may be approached for showering blessings
and granting long term welfare. In other words, the totem becomes the centre of
beliefs and ritual action.
Lévi-Strauss does not believe in the ‘reality’ of totemism. He says that totemism
was ‘invented’ and became one of the most favourite anthropological subjects to
be investigated with an aim to find its origins and varieties, with the Victorian
scholars in the second half of the nineteenth century. By contrast, Lévi-Strauss’s
34
study is not of totemism; it is of totemic phenomena. In other words, it is an Structuralism
‘adjectival study’, and not a ‘substantive study’, which means that it is a ‘study
of the phenomena that happen to be totemic’ rather than ‘what is contained in or
what is the substance of totemism’. At his command, Lévi-Strauss has the same
data that were available to his predecessors, but the question he asks is entirely
new. He does not ask the same question that had been repeatedly asked earlier
by several scholars, vis. ‘What is totemism?’ His question is ‘How are totemic
phenomena arranged?’ The move from ‘what’ to ‘how’ was radical at that time
(during the 1960s); and Lévi-Strauss’s interpretation of totemism was a distinct
break with the earlier analyses of totemism (whether they were evolutionary, or
diffusionistic, or functional). It is because of this distinctiveness that Poole (p. 9)
writes that with Lévi-Strauss, “the ‘problem’ of totemism has been laid to rest
once and for all.”
Lévi-Strauss offers a critique of the explanations that had been (and were) in
vogue at that time. Firstly, he rejects the thesis that the members of the American
school (Franz Boas, Robert Lowie, A.L. Kroeber) put forth, according to which
the totemic phenomena are not a reality sui generic. In other words, totemism
does not have its own existence and laws; rather it is a product of the general
tendency among the ‘primitives’ to identify individuals and social groups with
animal and plant worlds. Lévi-Strauss finds this explanation highly simplistic. He
also criticises the functional views of totemism; for instance, Durkheim’s explanation
that totemism binds people in a ‘moral community’ called the church, or Malinowski’s
idea that the Trobrianders have totems because they are of utilitarian value, for
they provide food to people. Malinowski’s explanation (which Lévi-Strauss sums
up in words like ‘totems are good to eat’) lacks universality, since there are
societies that have totems of non-utilitarian value, and it would be difficult to find
the needs that the totem fulfils. Durkheim’s thesis of religion as promoting social
solidarity may be applicable in societies each with a single religion, but not societies
with religious pluralism. Moreover, the functional theory is concerned with the
contribution an institution makes towards the maintenance of the whole society,
rather than how it is arranged. In other words, the functional theory of totemism
deals with the contribution the beliefs and practices of totemism make to the
maintenance and well-being of society rather than what is the structure of totemism,
and how it is a product of human mind.

3.3.1 The Method

Lévi-Strauss’s Totemism is principally an exercise in methodology. He does not
look for the unity of the phenomenon of totemism; rather, he breaks it down into
various visual and intellectual codes. He does not intend to explain totemism,
rather he deciphers it – its arrangement. In the first chapter of his book (p. 84),
Lévi-Strauss summarises his methodological programme, which is as follows:
1) Define the phenomenon under study as a relation between two or more
terms, real or supposed;
2) construct a table of possible permutations between these terms;
3) take this table as the general object of analysis which, at this level only, can
yield necessary connections, the empirical phenomenon considered at the
beginning being only one possible combination among others, the complete
system of which must be reconstructed beforehand.
35
Anthropological Theories-II We may give here a simple example to understand this from the realm of kinship.
Descent, for instance, can be traced from the father or the mother. Let us call the
descent traced from the father ‘p’, and the mother ‘q’. Now, let us assign them
their respective values: if the side (whether the father’s or the mother’s) is recognised,
we denote it by 1, and if it is not recognised, it is denoted as 0. Now, we can
construct the table of the possible permutations: where (1) p is 1, and q is 0; (2)
p is 0, and q is 1; (3) p is 1, and q is 1; and (4) p is 0 and q is 0. The first
permutation yields the patrilineal society, the second, matrilineal, the third, bilineal,
and the last possibility does not exist empirically.
Let us now move to how Lévi-Strauss applies this to totemism. He says that
totemism covers relations between things falling in two series – one natural (animals,
plants) and the other cultural (persons, clans). For Lévi-Strauss, the ‘problem’ of
totemism arises when two separate chains of experience (one of nature and the
other of culture) are confused. Human beings identify themselves with nature in a
myriad of ways, and the other thing is that they describe their social groups by
names drawn from the world of animals and plants. These two experiences are
different, but totemism results when there is any kind of overlap between these
orders. Further, Lévi-Strauss writes: ‘The natural series comprises on the one
hand categories, on the other particulars; the cultural series comprises groups
and persons.’ He chooses these terms rather arbitrarily to distinguish, in each
series, two modes of existence – collective and individual – and also, to keep
these series distinct. Lévi-Strauss says that any terms could be used provided they
are distinct.
NATURE Category Particular
CULTURE Group Person
These two sets of terms can be associated in four ways, as is the case with the
example given earlier.
1 2 3 4
NATURE Category Category Particular Particular
CULTURE Group Person Person Group
Totemism thus establishes a relationship between human beings (culture) and nature,
and, as shown above, this relationship can be divided into four types, and we can
find empirical examples of each one of them.
Lévi-Strauss says that the example of the first is the Australian totemism (‘sex
totems’ and ‘social totems’) that postulates a relationship between a natural category
and a cultural group. The example of the second is the ‘individual’ totemism of the
North American Indians. Among them, an individual reconciles himself with a
natural category. For an example of the third combination, Lévi-Strauss takes the
case of the Mota (in the Banks Islands) where a child is thought to be the
‘incarnation of an animal or plant found or eaten by the mother when she first
became aware that she was pregnant’ (p. 85), or what has come to be known as
‘incarnational totemism’. Another example of this category may come from certain
tribes of the Algonquin group, who believe that a special relation is established
between the newborn child and whichever animal is seen to approach the family
cabin. The fourth combination (group-particular combination) may be exemplified
with cases from tribes of Polynesia and Africa, where certain animals (such as
garden lisards in New Zealand, sacred crocodiles and lions and leopards in Africa)
are protected and venerated (the sacred animal totemism).
36
The four combinations are equivalent. It is because they result from the same Structuralism
operation (i.e., the permutation of the elements that comprise a phenomenon). But,
in the anthropological literature that Lévi-Strauss examines, it is only the first two
that have been included in the domain of totemism, while the other two have only
been related to totemism in an indirect way. Some authors have not considered
the last two variants of totemism in their discussion. Here, Lévi-Strauss observes
that the ‘problem of totemism’ (or what is called the ‘totemic illusion’) results from
the ‘distortion of a semantic field to which belong phenomena of the same type.’
The outcome of this is that certain aspects (or the first and second types of
totemic phenomena) have been singled out at the expense of others (the third and
fourth types), which gives an impression of ‘originality’ and ‘strangeness’ that they
do not in reality possess.

3.3.2 The Analysis

The fourth chapter of Lévi-Strauss’s Totemism, titled ‘Towards the Intellect’,
presents the work of Raymond Firth, Mayer Fortes, Edward Evans-Pritchard,
and the second theory of totemism (of 1951) that Alfred Radcliffe-Brown gave,
as containing the germs of a correct interpretation of totemic phenomenon making
possible a fully adequate explanation of its content and form. Radcliffe-Brown’s
first theory of totemism was utilitarian and culture-specific, quite like Malinowski’s
theory. By comparison, Firth and Fortes do not succumb to an arbitrary explanation
or to any factitious evidence. Both of them think that the relationship between
totemic systems and natural species is based on a perception of resemblance
between them. In Fortes’s work on the Tallensi, animals and ancestors resemble
each other. Animals are apt symbols for the livingness of ancestors. Fortes shows
that among the Tallensi, animals symbolise the potential aggressiveness of ancestors.
Lévi-Strauss applauds the attempt of Firth and Fortes, for they move from a point
of view centred on subjective utility (the utilitarian hypothesis) to one of objective
analogy. But Lévi-Strauss goes further than this: he says ‘it is not the resemblances,
but the differences, which resemble each other’ (p. 149). In totemism, the
resemblance is between the two systems of differences. Let us understand its
meaning with the help of an example: the relationship between two clans is like the
relationship between two animals, or two birds, or an animal and a bird. It is the
difference between the two series that resembles each other.
Undoubtedly, Firth and Fortes make a good beginning in interpreting totemism.
But we have to move from external analogy (the external resemblance) to internal
homology (the identity at the internal level). For Lévi-Strauss, it is Evans-Pritchard’s
analysis of Nuer religion that allows us to move from the external resemblance to
internal homology. Among the Nuer, the twins are regarded as ‘birds’, not because
they are confused with birds or look like them. It is because, the twins, in relation
to other persons, are ‘persons of the above’ in relation to ‘persons from below’.
And, with respect to birds, they are ‘birds of below’ in relation to ‘birds from
above’. The relationship between twins and other men is like the relationship that
is deemed to exist between the ‘birds of below’ and the ‘birds of above’. It is a
good example of the ‘differences which resemble each other’ in the ‘two systems
of differences’. If the statement – or the code – ‘twins are birds’ directs us to look
for some external image, then we are surely bound to be led astray. But if we look
into the internal homology in the Nuer system, then we will be closer to the
understanding of the code.

37
Anthropological Theories-II At this level, Lévi-Strauss introduces the second theory of Radcliffe-Brown that
has taken a decisive and innovatory step in interpreting totemism. Instead of
asking, ‘Why all these birds?’, Radcliffe-Brown asks: ‘Why particularly eagle-
hawk and crow, and other pairs?’ Lévi-Strauss considers this question as marking
the beginning of a genuine structural analysis. In fact, Radcliffe-Brown observes
in this analysis of totemism that the kind of structure with which we are concerned
is the ‘union of opposites.’
Evans-Pritchard and Radcliffe-Brown, thus, recognise two principles of
interpretation which Lévi-Strauss deems fundamental. In his analysis of Nuer religion,
Evans-Pritchard shows that the basis of totemic phenomena lies in the interrelation
of natural species with social groupings according to the logically conceived
processes of metaphor and analogy. In his second theory, Radcliffe-Brown realises
the necessity of an explanation which illuminates the principle governing the selection
and association of specific pairs of species and types used in classification. These
two ideas, Lévi-Strauss thinks, help in the reintegration of content with form, and
it is from them that he begins.
Totemism, for Lévi-Strauss, is a mode of classification. Totemic classifications are
regarded as a ‘means of thinking’ governed by less rigid conditions than what we
find in the case of language, and these conditions are satisfied fairly easily, even
when some events may be adverse. The functions that totemism fulfill are cognitive
and intellectual: ‘totems are not good to eat, they are good to think’. The problem
of totemism disappears when we realise that all humans, at all points of time, are
concerned with one or the other mode of classification, and all classifications
operate using mechanisms of differentiation, opposition, and substitution. Totemic
phenomena form one aspect of a ‘general classificatory ideology’. If it is so, then
the problem of totemism, in terms of something distinct that demands an explanation,
disappears. Jenkins (1979: 101) writes: ‘Totemism becomes analytically dissolved
and forms one expression of a general ideological mode of classification.’
But it does not imply that totemism is static. Although the nature of the conditions
under which totemism functions have not been stated clearly, it is clear from the
examples that Lévi-Strauss has given that totemism is able to adapt to changes.
To illustrate this, a hypothetical example may be taken up. Suppose a society has
three clans totemically associated respectively with bear (land), eagle (sky), and
turtle (water). Because of demographic changes, the bear clan becomes extinct,
but the turtle clan enlarges, and in course of time, splits into two parts. The society
faces this change in two ways. First, the same totemic association might be
preserved in a damaged form so that the only classificatory/symbolic correlation
is now between sky (eagle) and water (turtle). Second, a new correlation may be
generated by using the defining characteristics of the species turtle to distinguish
between two clans still identified with it. This becomes the basis for the formation
of a new symbolic opposition. If, for example, colour is used, yellow and grey
turtles may become totemic associations. Yellow and grey may be regarded as
expressive of the basic distinction between day and night perhaps. A second
system of the same formal type as the first is easily formed through the process
of differentiation and opposition (see diagrams of the first and second systems
below).

38
First System Structuralism

Three clans of a tribe

Bear (land) Eagle (sky) Turtle (water)

Second System

Two clans of the tribe

Eagle Turtle

Turtle

Yellow turtle Grey turtle

As is clear, the opposition between sky (eagle) and water (turtle) is split and a
new opposition is created by the contrast of day (yellow) and night (grey). In this
way, the problems caused by demographic imbalances (i.e., extinction of a clan
or the enlargement of the other) are structurally resolved, and the system continues.

3.3.3 Summary of the Study of Totemism

To sum up, totemic phenomena are nothing but modes of classification. They
provide tribal communities with consciously or unconsciously held concepts which
guide their social actions. Food taboos, economic exchanges and kinship relations
can be conceptualised and organised using schemes which are comparable to the
totemic homology between natural species and social characteristics. Lévi-Strauss
(1962) also extends this analysis to understand the relation between totemism and
caste system. Totemism is a relationship between man and nature. Similarities and
differences between natural species are used to understand the similarities and
differences between human beings. Totemism, which for people is a type of religion,
is a way of understanding similarities and differences between man and nature.
That is the reason why Poole says that with Lévi-Strauss, the problem of totemism
has been laid to rest once and for ever. To quote Poole (p. 9):
If we talk about ‘totemism’ any more, it will be in ignorance of Lévi-Strauss or
in spite of him.

39
Anthropological Theories-II
3.3 FINAL COMMENTS
This lesson has introduced you to the basic tenets of structuralism. We have
principally focused on the work of Claude Levi-Strauss, illustrating it with the
example of totemism, since he is regarded as the main exponent of this method.
As was stated earlier, Levi-Strauss worked on kinship, totemism, and myths, and
was interested in discovering the underlying structures, which he thought were
universal. He was interested in knowing how human mind worked.
That was where his contemporaries and scholars sympathetic to his approach
differed with him. They thought that Levi-Strauss was too ambitious in his approach.
The structures he was looking for were more his creation than those that emerged
from the facts of actual existence. These scholars applied structuralism to the
understanding of local, regional systems, and this approach came to be known as
‘neo-structuralism’. One of its proponents was Edmund Leach, the British
anthropologist.
Leach was certainly critical of the structural-functional ideas, but one thing he
learnt from this was researching people’s actual ideas, rather than discovering the
so-called universal mental structures. In his work, Leach made a distinction between
‘jural rules’ and ‘statistical norms’. Whilst the first referred to the rules as these
were in the minds of people, the second were the rules in actual practice.
Structuralism is a-historical, which means that the structures it discovers cut across
the time dimension. These are applicable to all societies at all points of time. This
is one proposition of structuralism that has invited a number of criticisms. A good
method is one which takes care of both the dimensions of time and space.
References
Jenkins, Alan. 1979. The Social Theory of Claude Lévi-Strauss. London: The
Macmillan Press Ltd.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1962. The Bear and the Barber. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute, 93: 1-11.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1963. Totemism. Penguin Books.
Suggested Reading
Jenkins, Alan. 1979. The Social Theory of Claude Lévi-Strauss. London: The
Macmillan Press Ltd.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1962. ‘The Bear and the Barber’. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute, 93: 1-11.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1963. Totemism. Penguin Books
Sample Questions
1) Define structuralism. What are its main aspects? How does it differ from
structural-functional approach?
2) Discuss the salient aspects of the works of Claude Levi-Strauss.
3) Delineate the features of the structural method.
4) What is totemism? Give its structural analysis.
5) How does Levi-Strauss’s analysis of totemism differ from that of the others?
Discuss.
40
UNIT 4 FEMINISM, POST-MODERNISM
AND POST-COLONIALISM
Contents
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Feminism
4.2.1 Feminist Theory in Anthropology

4.3 Post-modernism
4.3.1 Modernity, Modernism and Modernisation
4.3.2 Post-modernity and Post-modernism
4.3.3 Influencing Figures of Post-modernism

4.4 Post-colonialism
4.4.1 Leading Post-colonial Thinkers

4.5 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions

Learning Objectives

After studying this unit, you will be able to:
 Understand and define feminism;
 Comprehend how studying gender, forms an important part of our intellectual
discourse and its deliverance;
 Understand and define post-modernism;
 Comprehend how the use of subjectivity in post-modernism provides a new
perspective and how discourses should vie to be open for different views
rather than being closed and definitive;
 Understand and define post-colonialism; and
 Comprehend how post-colonialism as a theory tries to bring out the angst felt
by the colonies against the colonisers. Learn how It tries to built upon the
experiences of the colonial past and how colonial influences had left an
impact on the post-colonial world, be it in describing class, gender, migration
etc from examples of post colonial thinkers.

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Theoretical perspectives in anthropology have always basically tried to understand
society and culture and how they reproduce themselves. In this context, we will
deliberate upon three theories of anthropology which can be said to be contributive
in deciphering the issues and concerns of the contemporary global scenario. These
theories, feminism, post-modernism and post-colonialism have had their origin in
the mid-to-later half of the twentieth century. By going into social complexities 41
Anthropological Theories-II they show us a path to understand issues like gender, race, ethnicity, class, caste
and any other matter. In this unit we take the three one by one and try to place
before the student knowledge about their development, necessity, critique and
their usage in comprehending culture and society.

4.2 FEMINISM
In this portion we will look at feminist concerns and how anthropology as a social
science includes the feminist perspective to comprehend issues of gender in society.
Let us first have a brief knowledge about what Feminism is. Feminism is understood
as a social and political movement which argues for equal rights and opportunities
for women all over the world. It is from this movement, theorisation of the structure
of society in terms of gender arose. Popularly called feminist theory, it concentrates
on the understanding of how unequal gender statuses came into being and how
gender is constructed in society particularly in the presence of patriarchy. This
very movement when studied from a theoretical perspective is called feminist
theory. Anthropology among other subjects uses this perspective to study and
understand gender inequality and the discrimination that they face in society. It
absorbs into its arena issues of difference, representation and critiques of power
and knowledge in terms of gender. In this we look into the roles played by women
in society and the experiences they go through. In anthropology, feminist theory
also concentrates in learning how people accept and get used to oppression and
also how in many cases oppressive structures are resisted and attempts are made
to change them. Here it involves the study of gender and power and involves
integrating theories of structure, agency and practice.
Feminsim also takes a critical look at the way in which knowledge has been
produced as knowledge not only from a male centric point of view but also from
a dominant position in society (caste, medicine, science, etc.) have all been shown
to be andocentric, widely found in the works of scholars such as Bernard Cohen,
Donna Harraway and Annette Wiener.

4.2.1 Feminist Theory in Anthropology

In this part of the unit we will discuss feminist theory and its use in anthropology
according to the stages that feminism has been categorised into. There are clearly
three stages in feminism which are divided into first wave, second wave and third
wave feminism. Before first wave feminism which is also known as the suffrage
movement (because it fought for women’s right to vote) anthropological work was
conducted by men and the ethnographies collected was mainly based on the
information provided by men respondents about their societies. The first wave
feminist movement occurred visibly from the mid 19 th century to the early 20 th
century. Feminist theory first came into use in anthropology when during first wave
feminist movement anthropologists finally used views and perspectives of women
respondents in their ethnographic studies. In this way they brought to the forefront
experiences and social behaviour of women which along with the views of men
gave anthropological study newer understanding of societies and their intricacies.
Moreover such studies were started basically by women anthropologists that opened
up a new avenue of accessibility and more complete data.
Among women ethnographers of that time women who helped in bringing this
change were Elsie Clews Parsons, Alice Fletcher and Phyllis Kaberry. Elsie Clews
Parsons had her training in Sociology. She ventured into anthropology after meeting
42 stalwarts like Sapir, Lowie and Boas. Although she was not an academic, she
conducted many ethnographic studies and in the process so she tried to make the Feminism, Post-
modernism and Post-
women respondents question and rethink their position in society. Another American colonialism
anthropologist who did enough ethnographic work on American Indians, Alice
Fletcher can also be termed as a feminist who wrote about women in her work
but yet the issues of representation and interpretation remained. During this time
in Britain, anthropologist Phyllis Kaberry concentrated on the social and political
issues women faced in society, their relationship with men clubbed with the study
of religion. Her book examining gender equations called Women of the Grassfields
(1952) is considered a classic, which emphasised on women and development.
Some male anthropologists of this time did study women in their research but it
was not with an interest to represent them but more in the context of their presence
in kinship and marriage studies.
Studies centering on women did start from the 1920s with Margaret Mead being
one of pioneers in forwarding such studies. The period from 1920s to 1980s falls
under second wave feminism where sex and gender were seen as clearly separate
categories. While sex is used to describe a person biologically, gender is used to
define a person culturally. Margaret Mead brought in her work a distinction which
was earlier missing in anthropological studies where all women were seen to go
through the same experiences all over the world. Mead pointed out that, women
in different cultures had different experiences. She was the first to opine that
behaviour in women is not natural but was culturally driven. Her works Coming
of Age in Samoa (1928) and Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies
(1935) showed the role of culture in people’s development. In her opinion it was
cultural factors that were primarly responsible in shaping notions of femininity and
masculinity and not the biological and given fact of sex.
In the mid twentieth century works of philosophers, Simone de Beviour and Betty
Friedan significantly contributed to the development of feminist theory in
Anthropology. de Beviour’s book The Second Sex (1952) is considered to be a
cult piece which provides a radical understanding of the meaning of gender. She
postulated that women are not born as women but acquires the definition of
woman gradually by the role she plays in society. Friedan’s Feminine Mystique
(1963) is notably the most influential book of the last century that peeped into the
world of American housewives and brought out the fact that women even with
their worldly material pleasures were not happy to just remain in their households
as housewives. It was this book in fact which paved the way for second wave
feminism, which among other things looks into inequality in the workplace family,
reproductive rights and sexuality.
Anthropologist Eleanor Leacock’s work on gender discrimination was noteworthy
in influencing second wave feminism. Her studies pointed out that all forms of
female subordination is due to the presence of the existing capitalist system. She
argued on this with the help of Marx’s and Engels’ celebrated works Das Kapital
(1867) and The Origins of Family, Private Property and the State (1884).
In the 1970s, anthropologists Michelle Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere questioned
the male centric biases in anthropological studies. Rosaldo and Lamphere brought
out the book Woman, Culture and Society (1974), the first book to completely
look into gender and woman’s status in society in lieu of the existence of the
hierarchical structure allowing them to behave in manners which limit them.
Feminist Anthropology properly established itself as an important aspect of
anthropological study in the 1970s. This was finally a reaction to be continuing 43
Anthropological Theories-II male bias in the subject. Noteworthy scholars are Rayna Reiter, Gayle Rubin and
Sherry Ortner. Reiter came out with her book Toward an Anthropology of
Women (1975) where she pointed out that men and women have separate social
behaviour and this provides ample reason for women being studied as part of
anthropological investigation. Another anthropologist of her time, Gayle Rubin also
supported the study of gender and introduced the sex/gender system in 1975. This
system suggested that biological behaviour was separate from social behaviour, as
differences in gender behaviour was constructed politically and socially rather than
being designed by nature. Another pioneer of that time, Sherry Ortner in her Is
Female to Male as Nature is to Culture? (1974), equated men with culture and
women with nature and put forward the hypothesis that sicne men dominate nature,
they dominate women too. This equation was derived from the nineteenth century
Baconian posulate that denied women any intellectual capacity and relegated them
to the status of reproductive machines. Engels’ submission that women worked
hard in the domestic sphere but are nothing but unpaid labourers, gave rise to
Marxists feminist theory that examined women’s subordination, economically or
otherwise that is contained in the division of labour. Some famous Marxists feminist
philosophers of the 70s were Shirley Ardner, Pat Caplan and Janet Bujura. They
all researched on the role of women in production and reproduction.
Box: A comparative example

It is imperative to the study of Anthropology and its feminist concerns that we discuss
the contribution of Annete Weiner, in terms of her restudy of Branislow Malinowski’s
Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922) and his other works based on the lives of the
Trobriand Islanders. The knowledge of this study is constructive in the study of
feminist theory in anthropology as Malinowski, popular for his contribution to many
new ideas, methods and innovations in anthropological study overlooked the importance
of women and their roles in his study. This comparative study by Weiner hence can
be cited to reestablish the fact that anthropologists were in the past not concerned with
the roles played by women in societies and the identities they held. In her famous work
Women of Value: Men of Renown (1976) she refuted Malinowski’s explanation of women
in the Trobriand Islands, that they were dominated by their men. She put forward a non-
androcentric appraisal, where she suggested that not only were women at par with their
male counterparts, in many areas, but it was the women who were the dominant ones
in the society. While Malinowski was interested in learning about magic, religion,
kinship and economy, Weiner along with these was also interested in the sexes and
sexuality. Their main difference laid in the way they interpreted the Trobrian Islanders.
While Malinowski did not clarify women’s position in his descriptions, 50 years later
Weiner did so through her elucidations. While Malinowski describe roles and statuses
of women through conversations he had with the men folk, not considering the fact that
women too might have a stance in the world they lived in. Weiner’s perspective, that
of understanding women by conversing to them directly brought out an alternate
explanation of their lives, that women controlled the wealth and thus had authority on
the Trobriand society. Her re-interpretation suggested that rather than just being equal,
they were in fact dominant as the power of wealth and economy was in their hands.
This example helps us to learn that study of gender in all their aspects is important,
and what anthropology lacked in the past is now comfortably filled in by feminist
perspective in anthropology in the study of society in which both gender accommodate
various spaces.

With the 1980s came third wave feminism which is all about accepting differences
and conflicts in gender. This theory embraces issues of gender and sexuality as
cores, which includes questions of variation in gender, like queer theory, transgender,
sex-positivity (people have social expectations out of the physical body), post-
modernism, post-structuralism, post-colonialism, more so by Edward Said’s
Orientalism(1979), anti-racism, women from third world countries including women
44
of colour etc. However main concerns in these remained oppression and Feminism, Post-
modernism and Post-
empowerment. colonialism

Herietta Moore’s book Feminism and Anthropology (1988), explored two main
points: one that gender difference is connected to other social differences like
power, class, ethnicity, race etc and second that anthropological research
fundamentally is ruled by “sexist ideology” the main being the subject being called
the study of man. Here even women anthropologists while conducting research, in
most of the 20th century fell under the dictates of masculine models. It is only by
countering these ideas and questioning oneself, can a woman scholar researching
women and society could clearly decipher and stand for the experiences women
of different colours, class, ethnicity all over the world face.
There are certain theories that influence feminist studies in Anthropology. They are
practice theory, theory of positionality, performance theory and queer theory.
Practice theory emerges from Marx’s notion that every social activity is praxis,
that is, a practice. This theory emphasises about behaviours related to restrictions
and equality. It views from a feminist perspective how people live their lives in
reality and what is practiced. This view came as a reaction to Durkheim’s idea of
sacred and profane where he suggested that women did not have any symbolic
role to play. It tries to understand how systems maintain their continuity even with
their existing inequalities and differences. It moreover argues about ideas which
exhibit all activities of society to be of contrasting natures.
A view of the essentialist scholars of second wave feminism faces much flak in the
late 1980s. It had suggested that women should value their female essence and
should make positive use of their feminine characteristics. This was called cultural
feminism where women instead of taking part in “manly” activities should accentuate
their own abilities. The propounders of this idea were Adrienne Rich and Mary
Daly. This notion was denounced during the third wave by an intervention called
the theory of positionality. The major denouncers were French post-structuralists.
They pointed out that while celebrating female capacities of women the idea
ignored the patriarchal oppressive bodies who are responsible for creating such
feminine talents. The theory of positionality says that instead of uplifting women
cultural feminism actually takes away concepts created to fight female oppression
and it ends up doing nothing but create “negative feminism.”
A recent theory in feminist anthropological studies is performance theory. It talks
about how individuals perform their duties in everyday life. It shows that gender
is created through discourse, while sex creates gender. Judith Butler, eminent
feminist and author of Gender Trouble states that performance of individuals is the
creation of discourses. Works of Bourdieu, Sahlins etc have influenced performance
advocates.
The last recent theory used in feminist anthropology is Queer theory. This theory
voices that what is socially considered normal, advocating heterosexuality may not
really be correct. It challenges this “accepted sexual preference”. It also emphasises
how enculturation has a huge role to play in the identification of conventional
sexuality. Main contributions in queer theory has been influence by Foucault and
has been advocated by current day feminist philosophers like Judith Butler, Monique
Witting, Diane Mayne, Nancy Scheper Hughes, Lila Abu-Lughod etc.

45
Anthropological Theories-II
4.3 POST-MODERNISM
We now come to the description of another contemporary theory, i.e. post-
modernism. This is a theory which is highly debated amongst scholars. It is very
difficult to define postmodernism as there is no single unifying definition of it. Post-
modernism was a dramatic break from modernism (described in the first paragraph
of sub-section 4.3.1) and it is of course a continuation of it. Post-modernism is
associated with modernism. The term Post means later. Hence what came after
modernism may be seen as post-modernism. It arose as a movement which
contradicted the modernist idea. It started with the arts and architecture where
outlooks which were based on modernism were rejected. It tried to break
conventions and look for ideas beyond ordinary explanation, where self and the
other, the subject and the object gets combined or dissolved. From arts and
architecture, post-modernism as a theoretical deliberation entered into other spheres
of study where it questioned constructed social realities. As in the arts,
postmodernism in anthropology too interrogates into definite ordering of life, for
example, the employers and the employed, men and women, patriarchy and
matriarchy and many more other such examples which we usually find to be
placed normatively. Post-modernism suggests that instead of studying these either
in isolation or specific realities, it is necessary to view them as combined, plural
and comparable.
In anthropology, post-modernism has been provided with many explanations by
many philosophers. Here we note Melford Spiro’s reflections on postmodernism
which is rather detailed than the unclear description of the theory. He says “The
postmodernist critique of science consists of two interrelated arguments,
epistemological and ideological. Both are based on subjectivity. First, because of
the subjectivity of the human object, anthropology, according to the epistemological
argument cannot be a science; and in any event the subjectivity of the human
subject precludes the possibility of science discovering objective truth. Second,
since objectivity is an illusion, science according to the ideological argument,
subverts oppressed groups, females, ethnics, third-world peoples” (1996).
Before we go describe and talk about the different concerns related to
postmodernism in Anthropology, we need to learn a little about the different
movements which led to its origin and development.

4.3.1 Modernity, Modernism and Modernisation

These terms are interlinked. They came into being during the renaissance. Madan
Sarup in An Introductory Guide to Post-structuralism and Postmodernism,
defines Modernity as “the progressive economic and administrative rationalisation
and differentiation of the social world” (1993). Modernism was defined as “an
aesthetic development which brought about a radical shift in consciousness and a
violent transformation of social conditions in the late 19 th and 20th centuries.”
(‘Postmodernism’ by Chris Snipp-Walmsley in Patricia Waugh’s ed. Literary
Theory and Criticism, 2006). It was illustrated by two concerns: Self-
consciousness and reflexiveness. The period when modernity and modernism were
studied was started with new changes in society. The transition was seen in political
and economic spheres where the change was from feudalism to industrialism.
Religion got a back seat with the rise of the enlightenment movement. Urbanisation
also took place. All these realities and more led scholars to theorise. This is the
period which is termed as modernisation that also marks the advent of positivism
46
and scientific thinking. The designation of anthropology as a science was because Feminism, Post-
modernism and Post-
of modernist thinking that prioritised rationality. colonialism

4.3.2 Post-modernity and Post-modernism

While modernism as a theory in modernity associated itself with ideas like identity,
authority, unanimity, inevitability etc, post-modernism looks into difference,
multiplicity, cynicism, documentation etc. Post-modernism deliberates that an
objective and impartial view of a culture, which is not one’s own is unattainable.
Post-modernist anthropological investigation started in the 1960s, which noted
that earlier anthropological documentation was based on social and political
frameworks which were validated by objective explanation. This, post-modernism
depicts as irrational as culture and the world, usually is perceived on the basis of
one’s own personal experiences and one’s own cultural life. As much as one may
want to be objective in one’s interpretation of other cultures, on is unable to let
go of the ingrained biases. Post-modern anthropologists try to correct this situation
by trying to be sensitive and subjective as much as possible. In other words the
postmodern anthropologists attempt to scrutinise, interpret and appraise existing
guidelines of anthropology and at the same time try to survey its codes, regularity
and procedures of study.
Simply putting Anthropologists, if they provide their own interpretations it might be
boggled by issues of power and wealth which postmodernism tries to defy. This
means that they have consider the views of the culture studied and put them forth.
Post modernism does not recognise any objective truth or facts; reducing everything
to a subjectivity that cannot be evaluated by any rational principle. This for others
who do not follow the post modern theoretical path, is threatening and therefore
they tend to criticise the postmodern perspective by pointing that postmodernism
follows a moral model route. Moral model they insist, decry empirical and scientific
data. In fact they feel that a postmodern anthropological approach does not allow
a common ground of understanding. Thus the debate today is one of whether
representation of knowledge should be based on scientific or subjective and
reflexive hence more humanist approach. The post modern author involves the
subjects of her study into her analysis.

4.3.3 Influencing Figures of Postmodernism

In social sciences, Friedrich Nietzche and Martin Heidegger, German philosophers,
were the first who inspired postmodern philosophy. However it was the French
philosophers like Jacques Derrida, Jean Baudrillard, Michel Foucault etc. who
actually developed the theory. Anthropologists who were encouraged to forward
this thought are Clifford Geertz, James Clifford, Goerge Marcus, Nancy Hughes
etc.
We now provide a brief introduction of these scholars to get a better grasp of the
ideas that they postulated.
Jean Baudrillard (1929-2007): Baudrillard was a sociologist by training who used
the post modern perspective to explain the world as a set of models. He does so
by dividing modernity and postmodernity into two parts. For him every incident
in life has already taken place and the worl has nothing new to offer. This got him
the name of a skeptical postmodernist, based on Rosenau’s (1992) division of
postmodernists into skeptical postmodernists or affirmative postmodernists. For
Baudrillard the postmodern era started with the introduction of mass media, more 47
Anthropological Theories-II specifically cinema and photography. He defined the world to be nothing but
images and images are replications. For him truth and science do not hold their
real meaning. Truth according to Baudrillard in society is what is agreed upon and
science is any mode of explanation.
Jacques Derrida (1930-2004): Derrida too is a skeptical postmodernist. He was
known as a poststructuralist. He popularised the concept of deconstruction in
post-structuralism and postmodernism. Deconstruction suggests that whatever is
documented is to be critiqued or analytically reviewed, to reveal the relationship
of meaning between texts. He also questions the western viewpoint on reason. He
asserts that it is dominated by “metaphysics of presence”. He argued that anything
that was viewed with reason should not be seen as a stable and immortal paradigm.
His basic interest was to challenge concepts of truth, knowledge and truth. He
proposes that there should be reasoning on reasoning itself. In other words rationality
can be contextual and there can be more than one way of reasoning or gaining
knowledge.
Michel Foucault (1926-1984): Foucault was a French philosopher of repute and
his tenets on postmodernism still hold much weight. For him the truths which are
considered by society as permanent, in reality changes with time. Foucault study
was basically about the politics of power and how it changes. This was in fact one
of the basis of postmodernism. He questioned the facts which were placed in
chronological order to describe historical events. He believed that there are hidden
parts, parts which are not accounted for, in history which contain concealed
knowledge. These however do play a role in giving societies identities. It is due
to developing such ideas about truth and knowledge, Faucault is considered to be
one of the prime postmodernists. His theory of discourse tells us that there is no
absolute truth but truth is constructed out of people talking about it and in this talk
there is the entire theory of power that plays itself out. Thus powerful voices are
heard more than subordinated ones or many are not heard at at all. Thus a
discourse is how people negotiate their points of view and how marginal voices
make attempts to make themselves heard.
The main adherents of postmodernism in anthropology are discussed below.
Clifford Geertz (1926-2006): Clifford Geertz though prominently known for his
work on postmodernism in Anthropology had himself conflicting views about the
theory. However his thoughts on post-modernism in anthropology can be divided
into two parts. The first half of post-modernism was controlled by literature mostly
with concentration on text, genre, style of writing, narration, fiction, dialogue,
allegory, representation, symbols etc while the second half of post-modernism
dealt with the political aspect of societies. He delved into issues of authority,
power and power structure. Issues studied in post-colonialism related to power
equations was also deliberated by Geertz, for example, colonialism and power,
racism, exoticism. He also questioned the use of narratives about colonies by the
Western colonisers and their own understanding of them which differs with the
post-modern arena. This connects his views with post-colonialism.
Do note: Clifford Geertz is also known for his work on religion and interpretive
theory which is not discussed here.
James Clifford: Like all core post-modernists, James Clifford also advocated the
idea that an objective viewpoint in studying and writing ethnography is not possible.
For him ethnography makes the author describe it with persuasion where her/his
48 preferences unconsciously come forward. Hence for Clifford, to deconstruct or
critique the way ethnographies are written is the main essence of post-modernism. Feminism, Post-
modernism and Post-
To do away with the rhetoric by which ethnographers assert power, ethnographies colonialism
should be more descriptive than being completely interpretive. His views therefore
are in total contrast with Clifford Geertz who has been interpretive to a large
extent in his ethnographic explanations. James Clifford, states that the balance
between the ethnographers’ understanding of a group and the group themselves
can be maintain through a holistic perspective.
Nancy Scheper-Hughes (1944- –) Nancy Scheper-Hughes is a professor in
Medical Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley. She believes that
cultures and societies cannot be studied or valued without morally or ethically
understanding them. Only by taking ethics into consideration while studying a
society can anthropologists reflect analytically. These views of hers are noticed in
her works Primacy of the Ethical (2006) and Death without Weeping (1993).
This postmodern perspective of hers thus suggests that Anthropologists should be
made responsible for depicting or failing to depict the discipline as a crucial
instrument while describing significant historical periods.

4.4 POST-COLONIALISM
To describe post-colonial theory broadly, it is concerned with the production of
knowledge and the representations made of the colonies by the scholars who
were part of the colonisers. It thus has to do with happenings of exclusions,
disparagement and struggle under colonial rule. So we may say that the word
Post-colonialism addresses the historical, political, cultural and textual consequences
of the colonial experience between the West (colonisers) and the non-West
(colonised). The period examined in this theory dates back from the 16th century
to the present day. To specify, Postcolonial cultures, texts and politics are interested
in reactions to colonial subjugation which can be said to be adverse and disputable.
In fact it is not the critical analysis of what was visibly oppositional but what was
actually subtle, sly, oblique and seemingly crafty in their demonstration of dissent.
Thus Post-colonialism is an analytical “theoretical approach in cultural and literary
studies. However it also designates a politics of transformational resistance to
unjust and unequal forms of political and cultural authority which extends back
across the twentieth century and beyond.” (Postcolonialism by E.Boehmer in
Patricia Waugh’s ed. Literary Theory and Criticism, 2006).
Like feminism and post-modern movements, post-colonialism came to be used in
anthropological studies as a theory used to exhibit a sort of disciplinary amendment
to conjunctural exigencies. The main issues handled in postcolonial theory are
alterity, diaspora, eurocentrism, hybridity and imperialism. Alterity in post-colonialism
is a lack of identification with some part of one’s personality or one’s group. It
specifically refers to the attempts by the colonisers to understand themselves, that
is Europeans, by posting an alter, the non-European societies. The evolutionary
theory for example tried to put forward the so called non-Europeans as ‘primitives’
or representing the past of Europe. Diaspora indicates people who are either
forced or tempted to leave their own homelands and settle in some other part of
the world and in the process also adapt another culture. Eurocentrism is the way
by which consciously or otherwise European or western ideas, culture, norms etc.
are stressed at the expense of other cultures. It is effectively seen in the terms
modernisation and development, both of which means in reality to be Westernised.
Hybridity is a pertinent notion in post-colonialism. It talks about the mingling or
mixing of cultural symbols and customs between the colonising and the colonised 49
Anthropological Theories-II cultures. This mingling can be enriching or it may turn out to be oppressive,
depending on how it has been added to the culture. Finally Imperialism refers to
having control or authoritative power either through direct state domination or
indirectly through economic or political control. The main challenge for postcolonial
writers is to reinvent and bring to life their own cultures and also fight prejudices
about them.
The Post-colonial movement originated as an anti-colonial political resistance
enunciated as part of the dialogue on national liberation. It made its shift to
accommodate itself in the cosmopolitan world of academics with much vivacity
with the introduction of the text Orientalism by Edward Said. This piece of work
itself became a postcolonial theory which was conveniently used by settler intellectuals
of the Third world countries to discuss the social and political identities and their
constructions which is specific to that setting. Interestingly it was the Bandung
conference held in 1955 which incepted postcolonial thought as a ‘political grammar’
and introduced the ‘eruption of the native’. The native here are the people who
came to be seen as a symbolic representation of the other by the imperial domain
as understood by the metropolitan academic. Finally Post-colonialism gave birth
to counter-narratives, as cited by Edward Said, “to challenge and resist settled
metropolitan histories, forms and modes of thought’. (in Representing the Colonised:
Anthropology’s Interlocutors, Critical Enquiry, 15: 205-225, 1989).
In Anthropology Post-colonialism had to make its foray as the beginnings of the
subject was attached to the colonies and the description of their inhabitants provided
by the administrators, missionaries, western travelers etc, who kept their superiority
intact while recounting narratives about the other.
We now talk about some of the main advocates of this theory who have contributed
tremendously to its development.

4.4.1 Leading Post-colonial Thinkers

The main figures of post-colonialism are Edward Said, Gayatri Spivak, Arjun
Appadurai, Akbar Ahmed, Homi Bhaba and of course many others. However in
this unit we provide a brief description of the work of these three thinkers and
their post colonial interventions.
Edward Said: The political text “Orientalism” written by Edward Said, brought
ideas of Post-colonialism in the forefront where the main tenant was about how
the way western people measured up people of the East. Said analysed the
European dominating power and their ways of understanding and controlling other
peoples and that they were shown as weak, inferior, secondary, effeminate and
unable to rule themselves. In his own words it was “a western style for dominating,
restructuring and having authority over the Orient.” (1979, Orientalism). Therefore
the Orientalist discussion made a clear demarcation between the rulers and the
ruled. Anyone who did not conform to the value based image of the dominant
European identity was an Oriental. However later on, Said’s idea of Orientalism
did receive some fierce contestation, especially in the 1980s. The notion he had
generalised that all empires rule their colonies in the same way was the main point
of dispute. He was also criticised for his apparent assertion for alternative humanism.
His assumption that the colonised were completely being subdued and made into
the object of Western systems of knowledge also came under attack. Edward
Said however cleared the protestations in his later work, Culture and Imperialism
(1993) where along with the western dialectics, also discusses the anti or
50 postcolonial response.
Gayatri Spivak: Gayatri Spivak is an Indian theorist based in the United States. Feminism, Post-
modernism and Post-
She is most famous for her essay on Can the Subaltern Speak?, which is colonialism
considered to be one of the main defining texts of post-colonialism. Her main
argument in post-colonialism has been about the heterogeneity of colonial
oppression. She has been prominent since the beginning of postcolonial studies,
i.e. the 1980s where she pointed out the differences both understated and noticeable
which separate and demarcate the people called natives or the colonised. These
natives or others in her comprehension also include migrants and asylum seekers.
For her colonial oppression I not monolithic and oppressions in one area or
among one people can be of different kinds and so is the kind s of othering. She
tries to investigate the contradictions witin colonial oppression and consciousness
and for this she adapts her mentor’s (Jacque Derrida, who has been described
above) technique of deconstruction. Specifically she questions the particular
gendered forms which certainly offers opportunities for differentiation and hence
brings forth the heterogenous colonial experiences. The term subaltern which Spivak
uses in her pivotal book has been derived from the work of the Italian Marxist,
Antonio Gramsci. For him Subaltern denotes the non-elite social classes and the
proletariat. When Spivak used the term subaltern while studying such states under
colonialism, she tried to use it for groups even lower than as used by Gramsci.
For example she tries to include tribals, unscheduled castes, untouchables and of
course the women within such groups. For Spivak it is also concerning for her that
mostly postcolonial studies on women are done b women of the first world nations
who while talking about the women who are or have lived colonial lives, displace
their thoughts or replace them with their own voices.
Arjun Appadurai: Arjun Appadurai is an anthropolgist who is interested in post-
colonialism, modernity and globalisation. Appadurai’s involvement in post-colonial
studies is noticed in his work called Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions
of Globalisation (1996). Appaduari falls under the immigrant intellectual who
writes about the south Asians and the effect of modernit on them, from a post-
colonial perspective, of course guided b the main premises of Edward Said. For
him, the postcolonial construction of relations in a transnational world is not base
on how global capital plays in creating multiple types of communities (as has been
theorised by other postcolonialsts). But he asserts that it is not possible singly for
a centre/periphery engagement to create a post –colonial moment. For him it is the
movement of people, migration, diaspora who create new types of relations in
today’s world. For him the emergent global communities are creations of mass
migration movements which have changed the way the world exists. It is no more
a world based on European value-laden ways and this for him is the post-colonial
moment. For him there may be five kind of imagined landscapes: ethnoscapes,
technoscapes, financescapes, mediascapes and ideoscapes. He makes a postcolonial
intervention to describe his imagined scapesto describe the economic and political
domination that is faced by today’s postcolonial states. He postulates that such
imagined spaces are there in contemporary world spaces and that they are hidden
by the networks of diaspora, technologies, electronic media etc. His postcolonial
thoughts are of importance as he tries to look into the uneven flows of global
capital, peoples and communities and their diverse experiences and cultural
processes in or from former colonised spaces. His argument of the imagined
spaces for people in movement and to see the cultural rather than culture, he
establishes a new route in postcolonial studies which tries to understand the links
between nationalism, diaspora, cultural proesses an globalisation in a postcolonial
world.
51
Anthropological Theories-II
4.5 SUMMARY
Thus we end our discussion on Feminist theory, Post-modernism and Post-
colonialism in Anthropology by noting that these theories explore many perspectives.
The contribution of the first theory, i.e., feminism in anthropology has been to
provide a gendered methodology where it has been shown that the truth is subjective
and that the male point of view is usually biased. Also since women are marginal
to all societies, their point of view encompasses other marginal categories also.
The intersectionality of gender with other forms of oppression like caste, class,
race and ethnicity has also been a major contribution of the gendered approach.
It not only includes the representation of women, voicing their concerns and rights
in diverse societies but also includes the voice of the researchers, women or men,
engaging themselves in such feminist studies. It is the job of the feminist
anthropologist to provide ways and means by which women in different parts of
the world, having different cultures can empower themselves to lead a freer
existence.
In the second theory, i.e. Post-modernism, we can note that it was the postmodern
perspective in Anthropology that provided an opportunity for anthropologists to
reassess the way they critically appraise culture. This perspective makes the
anthropologists to be sensitive and include a holistic approach, by adding different
interpretations of any culture rather than just delivering their own viewpoint.
However followers of postmodern anthropology do find criticism at the hands of
anthropologists who consider empirical findings to be the truth and thus denounce
this moral code used by the postmodernists. Postmodernism with its many
dimensions remains a movement of existing debate and it is up to the anthropologists
to follow the path which enriches the subject in the study of culture.
Lastly in Post-colonialism, we can see that in today’s globalised world, Anthropology
has a significant link with this theory as within the study of society and culture, it
is interested in learning about the self and the other, how the other identifies
oneself, about the ravages of the western world upon their colonies etc. Today’s
post colonial arenas offer much interventions as the creation of mass movements,
immigrations, migrations, diaspora allow ample opportunities for anthropology to
barge in and critically view the reasons behind such upheavals. Moreover Post-
colonialism also allows deliberation on gender, race, ethnic identities etc from an
anthropological perspective. These points clearly suggest that in today’s
contemporary anthropological scenario, post colonialism remains a pertinent outlook
to the world that we live in.
References
Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of
Globalisation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Boehmer, E. 2006. “Post-colonialism” in Literary Theory and Criticism. Patricia
Waugh (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Beauvoir, Simone. 1952. The Second Sex. New York: Knopf.
Engels, Friedrich. (1884) 2004. The Origin of Family, Private Property and
the State. Chippendale: Resistance Books.
Freidan, Betty. 1963. The Feminine Mystique. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
52
Kayberry, Phyllis M. (1952) 2003. Women of the Grassfields. London: Routledge. Feminism, Post-
modernism and Post-
Malinowski, B. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge & colonialism

Kegan Paul.
Marx, Karl. (1867) 1996. Das Kapital: A Critique of Political Economy.
Washington D.C.: Regnery Gateway.
Mead, Margaret, (1928) 1953. Coming of Age in Samoa: A Psychological
Study of Primitive youth for Western Civilisation. New York: The Modern
Library.
Mead, Margaret. (1935) 1977. Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive
Societies. New York & London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Moore, H. L. 1988. Feminism and Anthropology. Cambridge: Polity Press
Ortner, S. 1974. “Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?” in Woman, Culture
and Society. Michelle Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere (eds.). Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Rosaldo, M.Z. and Louise Lamphere (ed). 1974. Woman, Culture and Society.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Reiter, Rayna R. (ed). 1975. Toward an Anthropology of Women. New York &
London: Monthly Review Press.
Said, Edward W. 1979. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.
Said, Edward W. 1989. “Representing the Colonised: Anthropology’s Interlocutors”
in Critical Enquiry, Vol 15, Number 4. page 217.
Sarup, Madan. (1988) 1993. An Introductory Guide to Post-structuralism and
Post-modernism. Georgia: University of Georgia Press.
Snipp-Walmsley, Chris. 2006. “Postmodernism”in Literary Theory and Criticism.
Patricia Waugh (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spiro, Melford E. “Postmodernist Anthropology, Subjectivity, and Science: A
Modernist Critique” in Comparative Studies in Society and History. Andrew
Shryock (ed.) Vol. 38, No. 4, (Oct., 1996).
Weiner, Annette. 1976. Women of Value, Men of Renown. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
Rosenau, Pauline M. 1992. Post-modernism and the Social Sciences: Insights,
Inroads and Intrusions. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. 1993. Death without Weeping: The Violence of
Everyday Life in Brazil. California: University of California Press.
Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. 2006. “The Primacy of the Ethical: Propositions for a
Militant Anthropology” in Anthropology in Theory: Issues in Epistemology.
Henrietta Moore and Todd Sanders (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. “Can the Subaltern Speak?”in Marxism and
the Interpretation of Culture. Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg (eds).
Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
53
Anthropological Theories-II Suggested Reading
Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of
Globalisation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble. London: Routledge.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Layton, Robert. 1997. An Introduction to Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Moore, Henrietta. 1988. Feminism and Anthropology. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Said, Edward W. 1979. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.
Sample Questions
1) Define Feminism, Post-modernism and Post-colonialism.
2) Why is the study of gender important?
3) How does a post-modernist perspective help in anthropological study?
4) Can a post-colonial study be done in India? Elabourate.
5) Explain the relevance of these theories in present day Anthropology.
6) Write about at least two exponents from each of these three theories and also
explain how their work can be used in studying society and culture.

54
 MAN-001
Social Anthropology
Indira Gandhi
National Open University
School of Social Sciences

Block

5
KINSHIP, MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
UNIT 1
Kinship 5
UNIT 2
Descent and Alliance Theories 19
UNIT 3
Marriage 29
UNIT 4
Family 39
UNIT 5
Kinship, Family and Marriage in India 50
Expert Committee
Professor I J S Bansal Professor V.K.Srivastava Dr. S.M. Patnaik
Retired, Department of Principal, Hindu College Associate Professor
Human Biology University of Delhi Department of Anthropology
Punjabi University, Patiala Delhi University of Delhi
Professor K K Misra Professor Sudhakar Rao Delhi
Director Department of Anthropology Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh
Indira Gandhi Rashtriya University of Hyderabad Assistant Professor
Manav Sangrahalaya Hyderabad Department of Anthropology
Bhopal Professor. Subhadra M. University of Delhi
Professor Ranjana Ray Channa Delhi
Retired, Department of Department of Anthropology Faculty of Anthropology
Anthropology University of Delhi SOSS, IGNOU
Calcutta University, Kolkata Delhi
Dr. Rashmi Sinha
Professor P. Chengal Reddy Professor P Vijay Prakash
Reader
Retired, Department of Department of Anthropology
Anthropology Andhra University Dr. Mitoo Das
S V University, Tirupati Visakhapatnam Assistant Professor
Professor R. K. Pathak Dr. Nita Mathur Dr. Rukshana Zaman
Department of Anthropology Associate Professor Assistant Professor
Panjab University Faculty of Sociology Dr. P. Venkatrama
Chandigarh School of Social Sciences Assistant Professor
Professor A K Kapoor Indira Gandhi National Open Dr. K. Anil Kumar
Department of Anthropology University, New Delhi Assistant Professor
University of Delhi, Delhi
Programme Coordinator: Dr. Rashmi Sinha, IGNOU, New Delhi
Course Coordinator : Dr. Rukshana Zaman, IGNOU, New Delhi

Block Preparation Team

Unit Writers Unit 5 Content Editor
Professor Subhadra M. Professor Irshad Ali (Retd.)
Units 1, 3 and 4
Channa Department of Anthropology
Dr. Rukshana Zaman
Department of Anthropology Gauhati University
Assistant Professor
University of Delhi, Delhi Guwahati
Discipline of Anthropology
SOSS, IGNOU, New Delhi Language Editor
Dr. Parmod Kumar
Unit 2
Assistant Professor
Dr. Mitoo Das
Discipline of English
Assistant Professor
School of Humanities
Discipline of Anthropology
IGNOU, New Delhi
SOSS, IGNOU
Authors are responsible for the academic content of this course as far as the copyright issues are concerned.

Print Production
Mr. Manjit Singh Cover Design
Section Officer (Publication) Dr. Mitoo Das
School of Social Sciences, IGNOU Assistant Professor, Anthropology, SOSS, IGNOU
August, 2011
© Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2011
ISBN:
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or any
other means, without permission in writing from the copyright holder.
Further information on the Indira Gandhi National Open University courses may be obtained
from the University’s office at Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110 068 or the official website of
IGNOU at www.ignou.ac.in
Printed and published on behalf of Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi by Director,
SOSS, IGNOU.
Laser Typeset at Graphic Printers, 204, Pankaj Tower, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110091.
Printed at :
BLOCK 5 KINSHIP, MARRIAGE AND
FAMILY
Introduction
The character and quality of social relations based on kinship, marriage and family are
of paramount importance in all societies. The primary reason for this is that kinship,
marriage and family play a dominant role in social systems.
Kinship refers to human relationships by blood or consanguinity affinity with relations
brought by marriage. Kinship relations are actually or fictiously traced through parent-
child or sibling relations, and recognised for social purposes. The first unit delves into
the basic concept of Kinship. In each kinship system, a set of terms are used in addressing
or speaking of relatives. In the kinship systems more usually associated with simpler
societies the terms used in addressing or speaking of relatives are termed as ‘classificatory
terminology’. Lewis Henry Morgan developed the distinction between ‘classificatory’
and ‘descriptive’ kinship terms (i.e. between merging or distinguishing lineal and
collateral). The three related aspects of kinship – ‘lineage’, ‘clan’ and ‘descent’ are
also being discussed in this section.
The second unit on Descent and Alliance Theories reflects upon these defunct theories.
In the contemporary scenario though not functional, the theories give an insight into the
constitution of family, sib, clan, moiety, marriage, exchange etc.
Unit 3 on Marriage provides the preliminary definition of ‘marriage’. Marriage confers
acknowledged social status of the offspring, a matter of great importance in regard to
such matters as inheritance and succession. This unit details the different types of
marriages. ‘Monogamy’ is the custom of being married to only one person at a particular
time. Polygamy may be ‘polyandry’ (plural husbands) or ‘polygyny’ (plural wives).
Laws of prohibition and injunction that regulate marriage are being dealt with herein.
Under prohibition, sex relations between individuals related in certain prohibited degrees
of kinship is considered as ‘incest’. This unit gives an anthropological insight on marriage.
The family is the smallest and most basic social unit based on descent and filiation. The
fourth unit on ‘Family’, explores the kin based relationship and how extending outward
from the circle of family, people operate as a member of larger kin groups which too
have descent and affinity as their constituent bases. The elementary or simple family is
a group consisting of a father and mother and their children, whether they are living
together or not. The compound families are of three types: a group consisting of a man
and two or more wives and their children (polygynous); a group consisting of a woman
with two or more husbands and her children (polyandrous); and a group formed by the
remarriage of a widow or widower having children by a former marriage. The notion of
physiological parenthood and socially recognised parenthood is present in the context
of the family and forms a part for discussion in this unit.
Finally, the last unit in this block, ‘Kinship, Marriage and Family in India’ summarizes
the earlier units with examples from India. This unit discusses in depth the rules of
kinship, family and marriage as prevalent in the caste and tribal societies of India.
UNIT 1 KINSHIP
Contents
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Idea of Kinship
1.2.1 What is Kinship? Concept and Definitions
1.2.2 Definitions of Some Basic Terms Used in Kinship

1.3 A Brief History of Kinship Studies in Anthropology

1.3.1 Morgan’s Kinship System
1.3.2 Contemporary Kinship Studies in the Late 20 th Century

1.4 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions
Learning Objectives

This unit will help you to understand:
 what is Kinship all about?
 some of the terms used in kinship parlance. The different ways in which
kinship systems categorizes the kins;
 the early studies related to kinship especially of Morgan; and
 the shift in focus in kinship studies in the 20th century.

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Human beings are known as social animals even though many species have shown
social behaviour, what sets humans apart is the complexity of our social organisation.
This unit will introduce the students to the concept of kinship. The underlying
factors that help a person trace his/her kinsman. The concentration herein would
be in understanding the terminologies used in kinship and in tracing relations. We
would also discuss in this unit the early studies in kinship and how with the
changing times the focus of kinship studies have also changed and the addition of
new kinship terminologies which were not studied till recnt times.

1.2 IDEA OF KINSHIP

As soon as a human child is born it enters this world with some given characters
like a system of beliefs, a language, parents and siblings and many other relationships
and sometimes social positions, like a potential heir to a throne, a priestly position,
an occupation or a vocation in life. Such are the ascriptive characters of what is
understood as social personhood. Thus to be born is to have an identity as a
member of a society and a receiver of a culture. But these social identities can
only be reproduced through marriage or a socially recognised bond rather than by
mere mating. To be human is to reproduce socially and not simply biologically.
Every human is embedded in a network of relationships that can be called kinship
relationships that are either based on the notions of putative blood connections or 5
Kinship, Marriage and of marriage as a socially recognised bond; what in anthropological terminology are
Family
known as consanguineal and affinal relationships; that is relations by blood and
by marriage respectively. Relatives by blood are those who are recognised culturally
to be so and not who are genetically connected, as with the case of adoption,
fostering and step-relations.
The basic principle of kinship is to keep these two categories separate. In other
words those who are supposed to be blood relatives can never be joined by
marriage and in all human societies these rules appear as the fundamental rule of
incest taboo. Apart from the basic relationships of parents and children and
siblings, there is a wide variation in the rules of incest taboo, like the taboo on
marrying within the same village in Northern India and the variations in rules of
marrying children of one’s parent’s siblings. In a few historical instances like the
Egyptian royal family, even the incest taboo between siblings could be broken, but
such was very rare. The definition of who is a blood relative is not determined
biologically but socially and thus kinship is about the social interpretation of putative
biological relations. It is the concept of legitimacy that determines the social
recognition of parent child relationships and not the fact of a biological descent.

1.2.1 What is Kinship? Concept and Definitions

The term kinship enfolds in it the various organisations of a society. Inheritance
and property rights, political office and the composition of local communities are
all embedded in kinship. In societies where ancestor worship was practiced, even
religion was based on kinship. To understand the intricacies of the term kinship
let’s start with a few definitions of kinship.
Kinship and marriage are about the basic facts of life. They are about ‘birth, and
conception, and death’, the eternal round that seemed to depress the poet but
which excites, among others, the anthropologist. Man is an animal, but he puts the
basic facts of life to work for himself in ways that no other animal does or can,
Fox (1996 [1967]: 27). While, Godelier, (1998: 387) stated that Kinship appears
as a huge field of social and mental realities stretching between two poles. One
is highly abstract: it concerns kinship terminologies and the marriage principles or
rules they implicitly contain or that are associated with them. The other is highly
concrete: it concerns individuals and their bodies, bodies marked by the position
of the individual in kinship relations. Deeply embedded in them are the
representations that legitimize these relations through an intimacy of blood, bone,
flesh, and soul. Between these two poles lie all the economic, political, and symbolic
stakes involved from the outset in the interplay of kinship relations or, conversely,
that make use of them. Stone, (1997: 5) recognised Kinship as a relationship
between persons based on descent or marriage. If the relationship between one
person and another is considered by them to involve descent, the two are
consanguines (“blood”) relatives. If the relationship has been established through
marriage, it is affinal. Encyclopaedia Britannica in its webpage has defined Kinship
as the socially recognised relationship between people in a culture who are or are
held to be biologically related or who are given the status of relatives by marriage,
adoption, or other ritual. Kinship is the broad-ranging term for all the relationships
that people are born into or create later in life and that are considered binding in
the eyes of their society. Although customs vary as to which bonds are accorded
greater weight, their very acknowledgment defines individuals and the roles that
society expects them to play. Tonkinson, (1991:57), stated in his work that Kinship
is a system of social relationships that are expressed in a biological idiom, using
6
terms like “mother”, “son,” and so on. It is best visualized as a mass of networks
of relatedness, not two of which are identical, that radiate from each individual. Kinship
Kinship is the basic organising principle in small-scale societies like those of the
Aborigines and provides a model for interpersonal behaviour.
From the above definitions of kinship it can be summed up that kinship determines
the journey in a man’s life. From birth to death it is the rules of kinship which
governs the rites of passage. Kinship through its systematic organisation, rules of
marriage and descent ascribes to a person whom he can marry, who would bear
his children, who would inherit his property (either son or daughter) and ultimately
at the time of demise who would conduct the last rites. These rules differ in
different societies and in order to understand the rules of kinship in different
societies the next section would help you to get acquainted with some of the terms
frequently used in kinship.

1.2.2 Definitions of Some Basic Terms Used in Kinship

Before we embark on the history of Kinship, it would be beneficial to understand
some of the basic premises and the definitions on which kinship relations are
based.
Descent refers to a person’s affiliation and association with his/her kinsman. In
a patrilineal society a person traces his descent through father while in a matrilineal
society descent is traced through the mother. Descent Group comprises of
people having a common ancestor, the common ancestor can either be a living,
non living or mythical being like an animal, tree, human being, thunder etc. Rules
of descent can be divided into two distinct types a. Unilineal and b. Cognatic or
Non-Unilineal descent. Unilineal Descent is a descent group where lineage is
traced either through the father’s or mother’s side. Herein, only one parents
descent is taken into account based on the type of society – matriarchy or whether
patriarchy. In a partilineal society it is traced through the father while in a matrilineal
society it is traced through the mother.
Patrilineal Descent is a kinship system based on patriarchy where inheritance,
status, authority or property is traced through males only. It is also known as
agnatic descent. For example: sons and daughters belong to their father’s descent
group, sons’ children both sons and daughters will be a part of grandfather’s
descent group, but the daughter’s children would belong to her husband’s descent
group. Many of the societies of the world belong to this realm like the classical
Romans, the Chinese and also the Hindu society of India. In the Hindu society,
the rule of descent follows the transfer of authority and immovable property to the
oldest son or the first born commonly known as primogeniture.
Matrilineal Descent is a kinship system based on matriarchy where inheritance,
status, authority and property is traced through females only. It is also known as
uterine descent. A matrilineal descent group comprises of a woman, her siblings,
her own children, her sisters children and her daughters’ children. The Ashanti of
Ghana studied by Meyer Fortes, the Trobriand Islanders of Western Pacific studied
by Malinowski, some of the societies of Indonesia, Malaysia, some Native American
tribes like Navajo, Cherokee and Iroquois, and also some of the tribes in India
like the Khasis of North East India and the Nayars of southern India are examples
of societies with matrilineal descent. Among the Ashanti of Ghana, the authority
lies with the mother’s brother and a son inherits the property of the mother’s
brother, whereas among the Khasis of Meghalaya of North East India the immovable
property like the ancestral house is inherited by the youngest daughter from her
7
Kinship, Marriage and mother’s mother (grandmother) and is known as the Kakhaddu. Herein, the rule
Family
of descent lies in the ultimo geniture that is the youngest in the family.
Double Descent is a kinship system in which descent is traced through both the
paternal and maternal side. In such a descent system for certain aspects descent
is traced through the mother while for other aspects descent is traced through the
father. Usually the distinction is that fixed or immovable property is handed down
from father to son while the movable property moves from mother to daughter
which may include small livestock’s, agricultural produce and also items of cultural
value like jewelry etc. As in the case of Sumi Nagas of Nagaland, which is
basically a patrilineal society during marriage Achiku a traditional necklace is
handed down from mother to daughter and moves in the same line. This necklace
if acquired from the market has no value but is treasured as a family heirloom if
passed on from mother to daughter (example related by one of the Sumi Naga
participants in a seminar). Other example of double descent well described is seen
among the Yako of Nigeria, Forde (1967:285-332).
Ambilineal descent is a form of descent wherein a person can choose the kingroup
to affiliate with which he wants to affiliate with, either his father’s kingroup or his
mothers. Bilateral descent is a kinship system wherein a person gives equal emphasis
to both his mother’s and father’s kin. Lineal kinship or the direct line of
consanguinity is the relationship between persons, one of whom is a descendant
of the other. Examples are like from father to son, grandfather to grandson etc.
In a partilineal society, people tend to remember their ancestry for several
generations like in the case of Tallensi of Ghana sometimes they could trace the
lineal descent upto fourteen generations. Collateral kinship is the relationship
between people who descend from a common ancestor but are not in a direct line.
Examples are the relation between two brothers, cousin to cousin etc.
In Kinship studies Ego plays a vital role. Ego is the respondent through whom a
relationship is traced. It can be a male or a female for example if the ego is (C)
the son of a person (A) then all relations in this case would be traced through C.
For better understanding please refer to the diagram below showing Ego (C’s)
family genealogy.
=
A B

(ego) =
C E D

F G
Fig. 1.1
As stated above in the diagram the EGO is C son of A. Let’s, see how the
relations would be traced in this situation if we start from the EGO. Ego is A’s son
that is father is A, and mother is B while D is his sister (sibling). E is ego’s wife,
and F and D are his two sons. Herein, for male the sign is  and the female is
 , the = sign signifies marriage, while  stands for divorce, and  connects
parents and children, connects siblings while  or  signifies death.
8
 Reflection and Activity Kinship

Trace your line of descent and explain the category of descent it falls under: a. Unilateral
or b. Cognatic descent group. To assist you below a representation of each group is
given:

a. Unilateral descent groups comprise of kingroups who trace their descent either
through the male or female line.

b. Cognatic descent groups comprises of kingroups who trace descent from both the
male and female lines. Double descent, ambilineal descent and bilateral descent are
types of cognatic descent groups.

Clan consists of members who trace their origin to a common ancestor which can
be a living or non-living being without knowing the genealogical links to that
ancestor. It is also defined as a unilateral exogamous group. Totemism is the
belief that people are related to a particular animal, plant or natural object by
virtue of descent from a common ancestral spirit. A totemic clan traces their origin
to some particular non human object like the tiger, a bird, thunder etc. Examples
of totemic clans are found all over the world like Africa, Asia, Australia, Eastern
Europe, Western Europe, and the Arctic polar region. Among the Kimberly tribe
of Australian Aborigines one of the clans traces their origin to the butcher bird
(karadada).
The term Phraty is derived from the Greek term phrater meaning brother. Phratry
is basically a kin group comprising of several clans based on brotherhood mostly
through common descent and is a consanguineous group. A moiety is the literal
division of the society in two halves. A moiety consists of many phratries and it
is a bigger unit than a phratry. All moieties have phratries in it but a phratry need
not be a moiety. As per legends, northern Kimberley tribe of Australia has two
moieties and is represented by two birds, Wodoi the Spotted Nightjar, and Djungun
the Owlet Nightjar (http://www.aboriginalculture.com.au/socialorganisation.shtml,
accessed on 29th March, 2010). The moieties are exogamous that is they marry
outside of their moiety and never within the same moiety.
Endogamy and Exogamy are two concepts which we would be referring to in
terms of marriage, which also follows the kinship rules. Endogamy is the practice
of marrying within the group. In most of the tribes and caste based societies the
rule of endogamy exists. For example among the Naga Tribe of North East India
there are different Naga Tribes like the Semi, Ao, Sumi, Angami etc. The tribes
rarely marry outside their own tribes. Likewise in the caste based system of India
a caste group always marries within their own caste like a Brahmin would marry
a Brahmin and not a Kshatriya. Exogamy is marrying out. Within the tribe and
caste the system rule of exogamy is followed by which a person has to marry
outside his own clan while in a caste based society one has to marry outside his
gotra. Herein the moiety and phraty also comes into play. As stated earlier a
moiety is exogamous and one has to marry into the other moiety.

1.3 A BRIEF HISTORY OF KINSHIP STUDIES IN

ANTHROPOLOGY
The study of Kinship has its home in anthropology since the early 19th century. In
the initial ages it emerged as a subject which became an integral part of social
anthropology and the anthropologists engaged themselves in collecting data on
genealogies. The terminologies used in describing kinship relation took centre
9
Kinship, Marriage and stage in social anthropological studies but by the turn of the century the new
Family
generation of anthropologists started questioning the relevance of collecting
genealogies when it was looking at the society from Marxist and Feminist
perspectives. Kinship studies were on the verge of collapse as the than
anthropologists moved on to explore new avenues in anthropology. It was with the
work of Schneider that there was a revival of kinship studies which tend to be
historically grounded, focus on everyday experiences, and understandings,
representation of gender, power and differences. Thus, under this section we
would take up Kinship studies in two perspectives: i) Morgan’s Kinship system
which laid the basis for the study of Kinship and ii) Contemporary Kinship studies
how it emerged and what are the aspects under its consideration.

1.3.1 Morgan’s Kinship System

In Anthropological parlance Lewis Henry Morgan took up the initial studies on
Kinship. Morgan’s idea of kinship was reflected in his two major works Systems
of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family (1870) and Ancient
Society (1877) which consisted of ethnographic data collected from the Iroquois,
an American tribe during his student days. Later he also acted on behalf of the
Iroquois in cases related to land rights. As mentioned in Unit 1, Block 3 Morgan
coined and described the terms Classificatory and Descriptive systems of kinship
relationships. Morgan discovered that the Iroquois had two types of terminologies
referring to their kinsman. He stated that in the classificatory system the Iroquois
merged lineal kin with the collateral kins who were linked through the same ties
(sex), like for example a father’s brother is classified as a father (both having the
same ties through men) and a mother’s sister as mother (again both having same
ties through female). While on the other hand distinguished lineals from collaterals
who were not linked through the same ties, for example mother’s brother had a
separate term of reference Uncle (being related differently-different sex) and father’s
sister as Aunt. Likewise, parallel cousins (father’s brothers’ children and mother’s
sisters’ children) were considered as siblings whereas cross cousins (father’s sisters’
children and mother’s brothers’ children) were not considered as siblings.
Morgan’s descriptive system on the other hand classified all collaterals together
and kept them separate from the lineal kin. The descriptive system is commonly
seen in the European societies where parents (father/mother) are distinguished
from all collaterals, who themselves have common terms of reference regardless
of the line of descent (uncle, aunt, nephew, niece). The Iroquois Kinship System
clearly shows the distinction between the classificatory and the descriptive system.

= = = = =
C A A B B D

G H E F E Ego F E F G H

Fig. 1.2: Iroquios kinship system

Adapted from: Nanda, Serena and Richard L. Warms. 2010: 184

Herein, this figure we see that the Ego has the same term of reference for the kins with the
same numbers. Under this system with unilineal descent mother’s side of the family (B and
10
D) is distinguished from father’s side of the family (A and C), and cross cousins Kinship
( and ) from parallel cousins ( and ).

Morgan later discovered that Ojibwa Indians had the same classificatory and
descriptive kinship terminology as the Iroquois, though the language spoken was
completely different. Similarly, it was discovered that Tamil and Telegu populations
of South India shared similar kinship terminologies as with the Iroquois and the
Ojibwa Indians. The South Indian kinship later came to be known as Dravidian
kinship. This part related to Kinship system in India would be taken up in detail
in unit 5 of this same block.
The Eskimo’s also had both classificatory and descriptive terms; in addition to sex
and generation, and further distinguishes between lineal and collateral kins. Lineal
relatives have highly descriptive terms; collateral relatives have highly classificatory
terms. This kinship system came to be known as Eskimo Kinship.

= = = = =
F E F E A B E F F E

G G G G C Ego D G G G G

Fig.: 1.3: Eskimo kinship system

Adapted from: Nanda, Serena and Richard L. Warms. 2010: 184

In the Eskimo kinship a clear cut distinction is seen between the lineal and collateral
relations. Ego uses one set of terms to refer to his lineal relations (A, B, C and D) and
another set of term to refer to his collateral relations (E.F and G).

Even the Omaha Kinship is like the Iroquois, but further distinguishes between
mother’s side and father’s side. Relatives on the mother’s side of the family have
more classificatory terms, while relatives on the father’s side have more descriptive
terms.

= = = = =
C A A B B D

= = = = =
G H E F E Ego F E F D B

D K G H G H D B E F
Fig.: 1.4: Omaha kinship system

Adapted from: Nanda, Serena and Richard L. Warms. 2010: 185

In the Omaha kinship a bifurcate merging system is seen among the patrilineal relations. Like
in the Iroquois system it merges father and father’s brother and mother and mother’s sister.
However, in addition it merges generations in mother’s side. So, men who are members of
Ego’s mother’s patrilineage are referred to by same term as for mother’s brother, regardless
of age or generation. 11
Kinship, Marriage and While the Crow Kinship is also like Iroquois, but further distinguishes between
Family
mother’s side and father’s side. Relatives on the mother’s side of the family have
more descriptive terms, and relatives on the father’s side have more classificatory
terms.

= = = = =
C A A B B C

A D E F E Ego F E F G H
Fig.: 1.5: Crow kinship system

Adapted from: Nanda, Serena and Richard L. Warms. 2010: 185

The Crow kinship system is similar to Omaha Kinship system but is found among matrilineal
society. Like the Omaha system it merges father and father’s brother and mother and
mother’s sister. However, unlike the Omaha system, it merges generations on the father’s
side. So, all women who are members of Ego’s father’s matrilineage are referred to by same
term as for father’s sister, regardless of age or generation

Variations on the classificatory terminology was also observed by Morgan among

certain groups called as Malayan but rephrased as Hawaiian or generational by
later anthropologists. Under this kinship terminology mostly related to Polynesia
each generation of males have one term while the females have another. Under
such a system there is no distinction in terminology for relations from matrikin-
mother’s side and patrikin- father’s side belonging to the same gender, lineal and
collateral belonging to the same generation.

= = = = =
A B A B A B B A A B

C D C D C Ego D C D C D
Fig.: 1.6: Hawaiian kinship system

Adapted from: Nanda, Serena and Richard L. Warms. 2010: 184

In the Hawaiian kinship the primary distinctions are between men and women and between
generations. All members of the Ego’s generation are designated by the same terms Ego
uses for brother and sister. All members of Ego’s parent’s generation are designated by the
same term Ego uses for mother and father.

Sudanese Kinship on the other hand was more descriptive that is no two relatives
share the same term.

= = = = =
K L M N O P Q R S T

C D E F A Ego B G H I J
Fig.: 1.7 Sudanese kinship system

Adapted from: Nanda, Serena and Richard L. Warms. 2010: 185

12
The Sudanese kinship system occurs most frequently in societies with substantial hierarchy Kinship
and distinctions of class. It includes a separate term for each relative.

Based on the above studies Morgan explained the evolution from a supposed form of
primitive promiscuity. This was seen as a primordial situation in which the human
population was divided into hordes with no form of marriage or restriction on sexual
intercourse. Leading to a situation where children could identify their mothers only.
Morgan related this state to the Malayan system of kinship.
Morgan’s idea of Kinship was at par with the works of Johann J. Bachofen, a
Swiss lawyer who postulated the theory of ‘matriarchate’ in which women ruled
the society, later on followed by ‘patriarchate’ where marriage and family became
a part of society. Scottish lawyer John McLennan working in the same lines
postulated ‘survivals’ in terms of ritual expressions – of bride capture and female
infanticides. According to McLennan for the early hunters and gathers a daughter
was a liability whereas a wife was an asset. As daughters were killed off it led to
competition for wives, which was eased by the practice for polyandry – a marriage
where a woman can have more than one husband at the same time. While Sir
Henry Maine (1861) a lawyer by profession from his experience of administrative
work in India claimed that the earliest form of social organisation was the patrilineal
family under the absolute authority of father-husband. Maine thus placed family at
the start of social evolution followed by development of other social organisations
as descent, clan etc. The conflict between historical priority of clan or family
persisted into the 20th century. W. Robertson Smith (1885), Sir James Frazer
(1910) and Emile Durkheim (1912) correlated the development of clans to early
forms of religion involving blood, sacrifice and totemism. The association of religion
with clan postulated by Durkheim in The Elementary Forms of Religious Life,
(1912) was shown to be inappropriate by Alexander Goldenweiser a follower of
Franz Boas. Although Radcliffe-Brown tried to revive the theory of Durkheim, an
attempt which was put to rest by Levi-Strauss stating that clan is merely cognitive
as it only provides an understanding of social universe.
An alternative approach was put forward by Malinowski, for whom nuclear family
was the fundamental unit in society and dismissed kinship terminology as kinship
algebra way to confusing to the understanding of ways of society. W.H.R. Rivers
conceptualised the Genealogical method for collecting kin terms. The genealogical
terminology used in many genealogical charts describes relatives of the Ego in
question. Below a list of abbreviations is provided alongwith a diagrammatic
representation which would help in tracing genealogical relationships. The
abbreviations may be used to distinguish a single or compound relationship, such
as BC for brother’s children, MBD for a mother’s brother’s daughter, and so
forth.
 B = Brother
 C = Child(ren)
 D = Daughter
 F = Father
 GC = Grandchild(ren)
 GP = Grandparent(s)
 P = Parent
 S = Son
13
Kinship, Marriage and  Z = Sister
Family
 W = Wife
 H = Husband
 SP = Spouse
 LA = In-law
 SI = Sibling
 M = Mother
 (m.s.) = male speaking
 (f.s.) = female speaking

GF GM
G

F M

Ego W Z ZH

ZS ZD
S
S D

Fig.: 1.8

Reflection and Action

Trace the genealogy of your family considering yourself as the Ego. Also utilize the
symbols to show the relations.

1.3.2 Contemporary Kinship Studies in the Late 20th Century

The shift of Kinship studies in terms of focus from emphasis on terminologies,
tracing genealogies and usage was seen in Schneider’s work American Kinship
A Cultural Account, (1968) which centered on symbols and meanings. It was an
exemplary work in terms of interpretative anthropology. He was focused on
representing American Kinship in terms of symbols and meanings rather than on
kinship statuses, roles and institutions. He himself had stated that his book be
considered as an “account of what Americans say when they talk about kinship
………the symbols which are American Kinship”. His work presented Kinship
in a more lucid way pertaining to the symbols such as ‘family’, ‘home’ etc. which
till date remains a significant insight to kinship in North America and Britain.
Levis- Strauss’s concern was mainly with the understanding of the underlying
relationships among the constituent elements in kinship. His search for ‘deep
structures’ capable of revealing the workings of the Mind was seen in his analysis
of the structural significance of ties of marriage and alliance, the ways in which
they link descent units of various kinds. Claude Lévi-Strauss, The Elementary
Structures of Kinship (1969) was a move from descent to alliance which redefined
14
the study from kinship, and marriage in particular to a critical reevaluation of the Kinship

entailments of descent and various dimensions of unilinear groups. While under the
same pattern of studying structures Kelly developed upon sibling ship as a principle
of social order with principles of descent, filiations and affinity. Kelly’s Etoro
Social Structure: A Study in Structural Contradictions (1977) is a landmark
work wherein the deviation was seen with the focus being on siblings rather than
parent-child relations in kinship.
The early 70s also saw a rise in Feminists writing and the influence was also seen
in the works related to kinship. Some of the major works of the time were G.
Rubin’s, The traffic in women: notes on the ‘political economy’ of sex, (1975)
and Worlds of Pain: Life in the working class family, (1976). Among other
criticisms Levi Strauss’s “exchange of women” came under strong criticisms in
Rubin’s works. Levi Strauss in his work has portrayed women as a means of
exchange and a passage for political gains. In Evans-Pritchard’s ethnography on
the Nuers, he had also elaborated on the bride price/wealth of cattle exchange to
show the wealth of a tribe, a means of establishing political ties between two
tribes. Among the Nagas of North East India bride price is also a common
practice. It’s a system wherein a brides family is compensated for the loss of one
earning member in the family.
Goody’s work Family and Inheritance: Rural Society in Western Europe 1200-
1800, (1976) was a departure from the study of kinship as structure, as it considered
continuity and change in kinship and inheritance based on historic data as well. Le
Roy Ladurie and others have during the time relied on legal records and archival
material to discover the kinship ties in relation to peasant testimony on marriage,
sexual division of labour etc. In relation to historical change Sahlin’s work brings
into focus the role of ambiguity and structural contradictions in historical change.
Michael G. Peletz, A Share of the Harvest: Kinship, Property and Social History
Among the Malays of Rembau (1988) and Reason and Passion: Representations
of Gender in Malay Society (1996) focuses on the changes in kinship, gender
and social structure in the Malays a matrilineal society associated with British
colonialisation, coming in contact with globalisation and Islamic nationalism and
reform.
The rise in societies with social class and social institutions saw the effects in the
receding status of women in the context of breaking up of the kin-based societies.
There was also a shift in the power and production system with the coming up of
the states where the economy determines the mode of production as opposed to
the kinship dominated mode of production in the segmentary societies. Meillassoux
and Godelier showed the relation of lineage and production in a society. Herein
these studies the Marxist tradition is seen.
In the present era we are also concerned with complex kinship related questions
due to the new means of reproductive technologies such as sperm banks, in vitro
fertilization (IVF) and surrogate motherhood. Herein the question lies with maternal
rights whom to be considered as a mother- the biological mother who donates an
egg, in such cases a husband’s sperm is fertilized in controlled laboratory atmosphere
with a woman’s egg besides his wife (as she is not able to produce eggs due to
various medical reasons) and then implanted into another woman’s womb for
gestation, or the surrogate mother who carried the child in her womb for nine
months? Kinship studies have also encompassed the Kinship relations based on
choice and not ‘blood’. Weston’s, Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship,
(1996) relates the present day gay and lesbian relationships and the legalization of 15
Kinship, Marriage and the same in some countries thereby creating new types of families and marriages.
Family
These would be further taken up in the units on Family and Marriage in the same
block.

1.4 SUMMARY
To sum up we can state that Kinship is one of the integral avenues of study in
social anthropology. Kinship as we had seen is a social recognition of the biological
ties and it takes into its fold adoption also. Kinsman cannot change their kinship
ties and one has to follow the rules of kinship in descent and marriage. A man has
two types of kin groups those related by blood ties, his cognates and those related
by marriage- affines. One shares different types of relationship with his kinsmen
based on the type of society either patrilineal or matrilineal. In a patrilineal society
all relations are traced through his father while in a matrilineal society the ties are
traced through the mother. Inheritance, descent and authority are based on the
type of society patriarchy or matriarchy. In the history of Kinship we had seen that
kinship study has been enveloped in controversies. In the late 20th century there
were times when anthropologists had negated the relevance of kinship studies as
ethnocentric and build upon certain western ideas about kinship. In the words of
Malinowski kinship is ‘kinship algebra’ and the collection of genealogies had no
meaning. Kinship studies however, in the late 20 th century came up with a new
vision and it moved beyond the realms of collection of genealogy. With the coming
of modernism and feminism kinship studies ventured to new avenues and also took
into its fold the study of latest trends that is of the gay and lesbian kinship. Thus,
we can say that kinship studies are very much prerogative in the study of social
anthropology and would remain so in the long run. In the upcoming unit, we would
discuss about the theories of descent and alliance which helped in shaping kinship
ties.
References
Barnes, J. A. 1961. ‘Physical and Social Kinship’. Philosophy of Science. 28 (3):
296–299
Encyclopaedia Britannica at http://www.britannica.com/ accessed on 29th March,
2011.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1951. Kinship and Marriage among the Nuer. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Forde, Daryll. 1967. ‘Double Descent Among the Yako’. In African Systems of
Kinship and Marriage. A. R. Radcliffe-Brown and Daryll Fordes, eds., London:
Oxford University Press.
Fox , R. 1996. Kinship and Marriage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
[Penguin Books Ltd], [1967].
Godelier M. 1998. ‘Afterword: Transformation and Lines of Evolution’. In M.
Godelier, T.R. Trautmann & F.E. Tjon Sie Fat (eds.). Transformations of kinship.
Washington & London: Smithsonian Institution, p. 386-413.
Goody, J, Thirsk J Thompson EP. 1976. (ed.) Family and Inheritance: Rural
Society in Western Europe 1200-1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://www.aboriginalculture.com.au/socialorganisation.shtml
16
Kelly, R. 1977. Etoro Social Structure: A Study in Structural Contradictions. Kinship
Ann Arbor: University Mich. Press.
Levis- Strauss. 1969. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Great Britain: Eyre
and Spottiswoode.
Mair, Lucy. 1977. An Introduction to Social Anthropology. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Nanda, Serena and Richard L. Warms. 2010. Cultural Anthropology. 10th Edition.
United Kingdom: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Parkins, Robert and Linda Stone. (ed.). 2004. Kinship and Family: An
Anthropological Reader.MA: Blackwell. Malden.
Peletz, Michael G. 1988. A Share of the Harvest: Kinship, Property and Social
History Among the Malays of Rembau. Berkley: University of California Press.
___________ 1995. ‘Kinship Studies in Late Twentieth-Century Anthropology’.
In Annual Review in Anthropology: 24:343-72.
___________ 1996. Reason and Passion: Representations of Gender in Malaya
society. Berkley: University of California Press.
Rubins, G. 1975. The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘political economy’ of
sex.
___________ 1976. Worlds of Pain: Life in the Working-Class family. New
York: Basic Books.
Schneider, DM. 1968. American Kinship: A Cultural Account. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Stone L. 1997. Kinship and Gender: An Introduction. Boulder: Westview Press.
Tonkinson R. 1991. ‘The Mardu Aborigines: Living the Dream in Australiaís Desert’.
(2e.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Case Studies in cultural
Anthropology, [1978].
Weston, Kath. (ed.). 1997. Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays Kinship. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Suggested Reading
Fox , R. 1996. Kinship and Marriage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
[Penguin Books Ltd], [1967].
Nanda, Serena and Richard L. Warms. 2010. Cultural Anthropology. 10th Edition.
United Kingdom: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Parkins, Robert and Linda Stone. (ed.). 2004. Kinship and Family: An
Anthropological Reader. MA: Blackwell. Malden.
Peletz, Michael G. 1995. ‘Kinship Studies in Late Twentieth-Century Anthropology’.
In Annual Review in Anthropology: 24:343-72.

17
Kinship, Marriage and Sample Questions
Family
1) What is kinship?
2) What is the relationship between kinship and descent explain with examples.
3) What is matrilineal descent?
4) Give examples of patrilineal descent.
5) Discuss critically Morgan’s classificatory and descriptive kinship.

18
UNIT 2 DESCENT AND ALLIANCE
THEORIES
Contents
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Descent Theory
2.2.1 Development of Descent Theory
2.2.2 Main Exponents and Critical Evaluation
2.2.3 Counter Theories
2.2.4 Conclusion

2.3 Alliance Theory

2.3.1 Development of Alliance Theory
2.3.2 Main Exponent
2.3.3 Analytical Assessment
2.3.4 Conclusion

2.4 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions

Learning Objectives

From this unit we will be able to:
 know about the theories (descent and alliance) which explain kinship;
 see how the existing theories have motivated many scholars in the formulation
of new theories; and
 how various kinship ties shaped these theories.
Also comprehend that though these theories are defunct in the contemporary
scenario, they still provide an insight into the constitution of family, sib, clan,
moiety, marriage, exchange etc.

2.1 INTRODUCTION
In this unit we will deal with two theories which sought to understand kinship
relations in an elaborate way. As we have already learnt in the last chapter, kinship
is the relationship between individuals who are connected through genealogy, either
biologically or culturally. When relationships are created through birth it leads to
descent groups or consanguineals and when relationships are created through
marriage, it forms affinal groups. Based on these relationships, two theories of
kinship were advocated, the first as early as the 40s and the second was discussed
in the 60s. These theories, descent and alliance are in today’s anthropological
enquiry considered almost defunct for various reasons which we will try to decipher
in this unit. However as these theories formed an important part in kinship studies
it is important for the student to have knowledge about these.
19
Kinship, Marriage and
Family 2.2 DESCENT THEORY
2.2.1 Development of Descent Theory
Descent theory also known as lineage theory came to the fore in the 1940s with
the publication of books like The Nuer (1940), African Political Systems (1940)
etc. This theory was in much demand in the discussion of social structure in British
anthropology after the 2nd World War. It had much influence over anthropological
studies till the mid-60s but with the downfall of the British Empire and its loss of
colonies, the theory also sort of fizzled out. However its presence in certain works
even now, like descriptions in ethnographic monographs, or its use by French
Marxists to understand the lineage mode of production etc. makes it eligible
enough for some intellectual enquiry.
Descent theory when it first became popular, it seemed to be a new idea, a
revelation, but deeper studies exhibit that it was actually a part of the ongoing
changes in ideas and notions which took place in the study of anthropology.
Descent theory, in order to be explained clearly can be divided into two periods,
the classical and the modern. Both these periods have three stages each. The first
phase of the classical period involves the creation of the new models of descent
which was done by Henry Maine and Lewis Henry Morgan. These models were
revised and given a new form by some anthropologists of that time, more notably
by John F. McLennan. Finally in the third stage these models were empirically
made use of in field studies by students of Franz Boas. The classical phase
reached a low and remained mere speculations after this but were revived all of
a sudden by British Africanists, and the modern phase of descent theory came up.
The main issues in both the periods however were the same even though the
approach applied to study them differed. The issues were relationship between
blood and soil, kinship and territory, family and clan etc.

2.2.2 Main Exponents and Critical Evaluation

Henry S Maine formulates and discusses the patriarchal theory in his work Ancient
Law (1861) which postulates how society was formed and grounded by families
ruled by the eldest surviving male in it. He also talked about how families formed
aggregations. With the death of the father, the sons stay behind together creating
extended ties of kinship and a broader polity of sorts which formed the basis of
societies. It was much later that attachment to territory created rivalry among
blood ties, which became a matter of study of social organisation. This extended
patriarchal family is known as a unilineal development. It allowed jural stability and
endurance. His opposition towards concepts of societies based on kinship and
those based on territory became the accepted norm in his subsequent generation.
It was Mclennan and Morgan who deliberated that human societies are
fundamentally promiscuous rather than being based on family. In fact promiscuity
only led to matriliny first instead of patriliny as it first created the mother/ child
bond. Patriliny developed much later with the introduction of marriage and legal
paternity.
The descent model of society developed in two ways, one in which theorists
rearranged the fundamentals in a new way to produce assumed patterns of historical
development. The second way was by using the model to cultural sources and to
ethnographic work of native communities. For example, McLennan and Morgan
20
stressed about the importance of exogamy in clans or totemism, was found to be
a common factor in kin groups. Emile Durkheim, in his Division of Labour in Descent and Alliance
Theories
Society (1893) tried to understand how clan based societies operated in reality.
For him, they would be together through mutual solidarity which he named
mechanical solidarity. Clans however also created territorial segments. According
to him this comes out from division of labour and the complex groups thus formed
were united by function. This is what he termed as organic solidarity.
Another development in this theory took place in the early twentieth century where
Boas’ students made use of Morgan’s model in reference to studies they conducted
among American Indians. For Example, John Swanton wrote on the social
organisation of American Indians. He questioned the historical validity of matrilineal
clans as postulated by Morgan. His work showed that many North American
tribes were not matrilineal and if at all matrilineal than they were not advanced than
family based units as deduced by Morgan. Another ethnographer, Frank Speck
demonstrated in 1915 that the Algonkian hunter-gatherers have families and they
are also associated to territories. This evidence too refuted Morgan’s claims.
R.H. Lowie summarized the critique of Morgan by noting that all data showed that
family has been present in all stages of culture. He also noted that there is no fixed
succession of maternal and paternal descent. Both higher and lower civilizations
in many cases give importance to paternal side of the family. His final postulation
was, family (bilateral) and clan, sib, moiety (unilateral) are rooted in local and
consanguinal factor.
The prominent British anthropologists of that time, like Rivers and Radcliffe-Brown
were clearly associated in their views with their American counterparts, more so
with Maine and McLennan than Morgan. The debate about the historical superiority
of ‘father right’ or ‘mother right’ was done away with. Family as a group and its
existence from a very early time was accepted. Clans for the British anthropologists
were associated with territories though for Rivers clans are based on common
descent than on territory. Morgan had identified the classificatory kinship
terminology, though initially was connected to forms of group marriage, later on
got linked to the presence of exogamous clans. Rivers too supported this notion
later on, in relation to studying kinship relationships in America, India, Africa,
Australia etc.
The British and American scholars only differed from each other when Rivers and
Radcliffe-Brown started investigating the corporate role of descent groups. Rivers
talked about ‘descent’ in terms of the way in which membership of a group is
recognised and also for modes of transmission of property, rank etc. but the
second notion was not accepted as these processes do not correspond to each
other all the time. Radcliffe-Brown’s essay on “Patrilineal and Matrilineal Succession”
gave Rivers’ points a concrete basis. He noted that social organisations needed
endurance and finality. Hence societies required corporations which can be either
based on territorial ties or kinship ties. Such kin based ties are unilineal descent
groups which describe group membership on a descent criterion. Radcliffe-Brown
based his ideas from his work on The Social Organisation of Australian Tribes
(1931).
It was A.L. Kroeber who however put forward a critique of Radcliffe Brown’s
study. His critique was mainly on descent theory of Radcliffe Brown, where he
disagreed to his claim of placing descent groups at the centre in Australia. For
Kroeber, moiety, clan and any other unilateral descent groups play secondary
parts in many societies and are not central. Family or clan did not actually have 21
Kinship, Marriage and any historical character about who followed whom. In societies where clans played
Family
an important role, they were always found with basic family units.
The clan model did not die away but came back to the forefront as a functional
model known as lineage model. It was basically used for the understanding of
contemporary relationships between institutions, more so to study particular African
example of segmentary lineage system. The field studies associated with this
functionalist model was aimed at analysis of living societies. Hence relationship
between territorial group and descent groups or between families and lineages
were with the help of this model deciphered as real problems rather than historical
issues.
Works on the Nuer by Evans-Pritchard and the Tallensi by Meyer Fortes developed
theoretical explorations and definition of typologies. In Fortes “The Structure of
Unilineal Descent Groups” (American Anthropologist, 1953) he submitted the
segmentary lineage model as an important offering of British Anthropology of his
times. His formulation suggested that the structure of unilineal descent group could
be generalised and its position in the complete social system can be viewed. For
example he particularly talked about the existing continuous nature of such lineages
in Africa and their political role specially where political centralisation was not
strong. Thus the social structure would exhibit how territory and descent would
connect with each other.
During that time, more classificatory studies continued. They tried to look at the
variety and types of descent groups, how corporateness could be recognised and
the importance to be devoted to unilineality. Leach however, was against typologizing
and even spoke against basic categories like matrilineal and patrilineal. There were
others who supported the pattern of sets of variables rather than the increase of
types and subtypes.

2.2.3 Counter Theories

Considering that so much of effort and time was used for creating the perfect
descent theories, it nevertheless faded out in the 1960s because of the many
complicacies and misunderstandings created by the ideas postulated by the thinkers.
In the 1960s in fact it faced the main challenge from a model which was designed
by Levi-Strauss based on the primitive social structure. It was referred to as the
Alliance theory. This model too agreed to the existence of segmentary organisation
of unilineal descent groups but posited the main arena of the system in exchanges
of marriage between such exogenous groups.
This alternative also critiqued Radcliffe-Brown by offering another interpretation
on the relationship between family and clan. For Radcliffe-Brown the universal
family created sentiments which took solidarity among siblings to a larger grouping
while Levi-Strauss stated the siblings can be linked through the exchange of sisters
in marriage. Similarly Edmund Leach argued on Fortes’ complementary filiation.
For Fortes, ties of affinity while generating importance to ties of descent came
under the expression, which Fortes called complementary filiation. For Leach both
segmentary lineage systems and primitive states could be identified by the system
of preferential unilateral marriage alliances which finally is linked to local descent
groups.
A neo-Malinowskian model was introduced during the same time which was
called the Transactional theory. In his study of a village named Pul Eliya in Sri
22 Lanka, Edmund Leach postulated that the reasoning behind social action was to
be seen at the level of individual management of resources for personal gain. This Descent and Alliance
Theories
was in contrast to the segmentary lineage model. Human beings and the community’s
action are based on kinship and descent principles. For him human beings are
dependent on a territory for their livelihood. Thus the conflict between territory
and descent was brought up again in Leach’s work. However Leach did not
distinguish between kinship relations and between individuals though it works as
a significant critique of descent theories.

2.2.4 Conclusion
In contemporary anthropological study of social systems, the descent model has
no credibility. It does not look into the local models or notions that societies
possess in their own realm. And it is not a ‘repetitive series’ of descent groups
which are essential for organising political and economic events. It however helps
in the study of kinship in anthropology, as it gives us ideas about how earlier
societies were made up. It also helps in moulding itself into other boarder models
of society. Beyond these Descent theories offer no significant contribution in
anthropology today.
Reflection and Action

Delineate the features of the Descent theory.

2.3 ALLIANCE THEORY

2.3.1 Development of Alliance Theory
The alliance theory in the study of kinship is also known as the general theory of
exchange. It bears its roots to the French structuralist Claude Lévi-Strauss and
hence is also known as the structural way of studying kinship ties. The alliance
theory was first discussed in Lévi-Strauss’ monumental book named Les Structures
élémentaires de la parenté (1949). Its English version is known as Elementary
Sturctures of Kinship. Alliance theory was quite popular during the 1960s and
went on to be discussed and deliberated till the 1980s where the issue of incest
taboo was taken up by not only anthropologists but also by psychologists, political
philosophers etc. Alliance theory tries to enquire about how inter-individual
relationships are woven and how finally they constitute society.
The theory developed to study those kinds of kinship systems which exemplify
positive marriage (cross-cousin marriage) rules. However besides providing
conjectures on marriage, it also provides a general theoretical awareness about
kinship. The study of marriage rules have been used from the initial days of kinship
studies to comprehend kinship terminologies. Scholars like W.H.R. Rivers also
used marriage (symmetrical cross-cousin marriage) and terminology (bifurcate
merging) and tried to exhibit a relationship between each other. For him the
marriage rule is the cause and the terminology is the effect. Australian kinship
system, which is quite perplexing, was also studied elaborately by anthropologists
to be familiar with their descent system. They too made use of marriage alliances
for this. Most scholars agree with each other on the notion that in symmetrical
cross-cousin marriage pacts, double descent is always seen, directly or indirectly.
However exponents of descent theories tried to go on about this through various
instances, like for example B.Z. Seligman’s tries to convert types of marriage to
forms of descent or Radcliffe-Brown’s extra stress upon descent where he finds
it worrying that the Australian kinship system has a core matrilineal exogamy along 23
Kinship, Marriage and with what he mentions as classic Australian patrilineal system. Radcliffe-Brown did
Family
accept that relationship between individuals and marriage rules are more important
than descent groups. However, coming back to alliance theory and its development,
Lévi-Strauss’ alliance theory was in complete defiance to Radcliffe-Brown’s
functionalist theory.

2.3.2 Main Exponent

Alliance theory was categorically created by Claude Lévi-Strauss, though analytical
assessment has been also offered by Rodney Needham and Louis Dumont. Lévi
Strauss studied and observed the connections formed between consanguinity and
affinity in his investigation of non-European societies. These two are both opposed
and complementary to each other. Due to this rules of preferential marriage and
marriage prohibitions are an incorporated part of this theory. Such rules in fact rise
due to the connection between blood ties and affinal ties. It is the marriage ties,
according to Levi Strauss and many of his contemporaries which create
interdependence between families and lineages.
According to Levi-Strauss alliance theory is based on incest taboo and the
prohibition of incest is recognised universally. It is viewed as a fundamental condition
of human social life. A man is not allowed to make a woman his wife who is his
immediate kin and in fact he has to give her away to another man. It is this
prohibition of incest that led human groups to follow exogamy. Lévi-Struass says
this prohibition is beyond any sociological explanation and clearly shows a difference
between consanguinity and affinity as the basis of kinship system. For him incest
taboo is thus seen as a negative prescription and it is only because of this that men
had to move out of the core kinship group or come in from another group to it.
This theory has much similarity with Sigmund Freud’s work Totem and Taboo
(1913).
This process of incest taboo where a daughter or sister is sent to a different family
commences a circle of exchange of women. Strauss views marriage as primarily
a process of exchange (between one men and other men or between one domestic
group and others). He observes positive marriage rules from the negative
prescriptions of prohibition. The main notion of alliance theory is then a reciprocal
exchange which creates affinity. It is the positive marriage rules which regulates
this exchange and thus gives rise to what Strauss call ‘elementary’ structures.
For Lévi-Strauss, there are two models of structure in the study of kinship and
exchange in marriage. When women in the ego’s group are proposed to another
group which is eligible for such exchange then such a situation may be called as
elementary structures of kinship. Similarly if the group of possible spouses for the
women are not known and kept open in the ego’s group, excluding particular kin
people like the nuclear family, an uncle, an aunt etc, this Strauss terms as complex
structures of kinship. This is easily seen in the western scenario.
In a society, keeping in mind incest prohibition, a kinship system is made up of
a combination of many traits, like inheritance, affinity, descent, residence etc. and
an understanding is reached by the combination of these features as a whole. If
all the transmission between these features takes place systematically between
generations in one and the same line it is known as harmonic while it is said to
be disharmonic if some of it is passed patrilineally and some matrilineally. It was
observed that the rules of cross cousin marriage where it exists is associated with
this. Theoretically from this, three types of affinal relations can exist, bilateral,
24
matirlateral and patrilateral. In bilateral cross cousin marriage, the spouse is mother’s Descent and Alliance
Theories
brother’s child and father’s sister’s child. It forms a self sufficient unit as two
intermarrying groups exchange women as wives. Lévi-Strauss calls this closed or
restricted exchange. He also connected it with disharmonic transmission.
In contrast to this, he talks about the implications of matrilineal cross-cousin
marriage. Here a man marries his mother’s brother’s daughter. So to elaborate if
a given line A gives their women to Line B and themselves take women from C,
finally at the end a circle is formed where Z after receiving from Y, will give back
to A. This is what Levi-Strauss class generalised form of exchange. It is opposed
to the closed type as it first consists of three groups and can accommodate any
number of groups. This type has similarities to harmonic transmissions, which are
either matrilineal or patrilineal.
It is the network of relationships which shows the identity of the intermarrying
group. Relationships that come out of different generations within the same group
of affines are terminologically compared. It is due to intermarriage being directionally
adapted to, hence a group does not receive wives from a group to which it gives
its daughters, as has been mentioned above. A possibility of disparity in status is
noted between wife-givers and wife takers. Levi-Strauss’ third type, the patrilateral
type has been superficially dealt with. It seems to be there in his discussion as a
failed hybrid of the other two.
Lévi-Strauss’ model tried to offer a proper description of cross-cousin marriage,
exchange of sisters, rules of exogamy etc. He postulated that it is the marriage
rules which after a certain period generate social structures. This he says is because
marriages are a coming together of not just two individuals but also of two groups.
With his root for such relationships as based on incest taboo, he formulated that
it was because of it that natural impulses were kept under check and it also
created the division of labour based on sex. We have discussed the former notion
in the above paragraphs about how women are exchanged and the latter idea
prescirbes work for women at a domestic level. As noted this exchange of wives
are arrangements which advances inter-group alliances and helps in creating
structures of social networks. The kinship structures that Levi-Strauss proposed
were of three kinds, which are created out from two types of exchange. They are
elementary, semi-complex and complex structures.
The first i. e. elementary structures are centered on rules of positive marriage
which indicate whom an individual can marry. Elementary systems work on two
forms of exchange, direct exchange or restricted exchange between two groups
of people which is symmetric. In restricted exchange, father’s sister and mother’s
brother marry and the children born out of them become bilateral cross cousins.
Then to maintain the continuity the two lineages marry again. Restricted exchange
structures are not very common.
Elementary structures have another form of exchange which is called generalised
exchange. Here a man can marry either his mother’s brother’s daughter, which is
a matrilateral cross-cousin marriage or his father’s sister’s daughter, which is a
patrilateral cross cousin marriage. These forms of exchange give rise to asymmetry
between three groups. According to Levi-Strauss matrilateral cross cousin marriages
are common in Asia, especially among the Kachin.
Compared to restricted exchange, generalised exchange was considered to be
finer as it permitted the incorporation of innumerable numbers of groups. Levi-
25
Strauss gave the example of Amazonian tribes who followed restricted form of
Kinship, Marriage and exchange. They were considered to be unstable as they usually were made up of
Family
moieties which broke quite regularly.
Generalised exchange on the other hand allows more amalgamation but exhibits
hierarchy. The wife – givers are superior to wife takers and the last wife taking
group is much inferior to the first wife giving group. Such disparities can weaken
the complete structure of society. Levi Strauss gave the example of the Kachins,
in Elementary Structures of Kinship, to show such behaviour. Levi-Strauss noted
that the matrilateral cross- cousin marriage was better than the patrilateral one,
from the structure point of view. As the exchange sequences are not very long as
the direction of wife exchange is inverted every successive generation, hence it has
less probability to create social integrity. As has been mentioned earlier patrilateral
cross-cousin marriage is very rare and hence not clearly touched by Levi-Strauss.
The peril that matrilateral cross cousin marriage faces is that group A as a giver
has to wait to get a wife from a group which would be very far from the line and
not much obligated to give a woman for marriage. A delay which might be caused
is not found in restricted exchange system.
Between Elementary and Complex structures, Levi-Strauss contributed to a third
structure, the semi-complex structure. It is also known as the Crow-Omaha system
as it is found among the Crow and Omaha native Indians of North America. It is
in many instances like the elementary structures, as for example it also contains
negative marriage rules and almost have rules like prescribing marriage to some
groups.

2.3.3 Analytical Assessment

Levi-Strauss’ alliance theory is not without its flaws. His arguments are based on
societies about which he has given examples of, which are clearly viripotestal and
also that his ideas of marriage was simple. The fundamental character and
explanatory value of exchange as defined by Levi Strauss faced some extreme
criticism. For supporters of consanguinity as a self-explanatory system, the
prohibiton of incest as the basis for the difference in consanguinity and affinity is
redundant. Marriage as been seen as a form of exchange was also questioned,
one because women were seen as possessions, private properties and also because
exchange was used in too wide a sense that it lost its meaning. Strauss’ main
confronter, R. Needham tried to make clear cut distinction between prescription
and preference in rules of marriage. For Needham, prescription on its own has
structural involvements in the whole social system. He states that if prescription
rules are seen not only as a marriage rule but as significant in the entire system,
then the danger arises in underrating the importance of other types, like preferential
marriage. These too have structural elements and the distinctions are sometimes
not visible at all.
The main development in the alliance theory which was observed was that there
was a refinement of the concept of alliance and to make to more empirical, it was
given a more structural identity. Initially the theory was mostly concerned with the
exchange of women between greater exogamous components of the society.
Needham tried to improve the notion that matrilateral marriage rules would result
in groups intermarrying in a circle. It was suggested that the marriage circle was
too limited in number and the people involved should be aware of them. Needham
further asserts that such alliance cycles do exist, and that too implicitly, however
their existence does not bring to an end the function or meaning of marriage
26
alliance. Levi-Strauss himself noted that conscious rules were to be considered Descent and Alliance
Theories
more important than their results in terms of exchange. In the absence of cycles,
the fundamental relationship can be formed from one of the many types of
consanguinal relationship between paired local descent groups. Louis Dumont
points out that where marriage alliance does not result in a system of exchange at
the level of group as a totality, it remains an integral part of the system of categories
and roles as understood by the people studied.
Needham further criticizes Levi-Srauss’ structuralism by calling the mediating
concepts of reciprocity and exchange as facing distinctive opposition. The basic
assimilation is not of groups but of categories as is viewed by the social mind,
where marriage rule is nothing but a gamut of ideas. Social relationships are
demarcated by classification and Needham perceived that asymmetrical
intermarriage, though could not function with less than three alliance groups, can
be dualistically theorized. This was in accordance to a complete dualist arrangement.
Louis Dumont like Needham states that structural entailments which are observed
are diverse from the group scheme on which attention was initially given. The
phrase marriage alliance hence includes both a generic phenomenon of intellectual
assimilation and a particular fact of group integration. Dumont further states that
this structural theory in its limited arena on its own rises above the prejudices in
our own culture. For him words like cross-cousin marriage maybe useful in theory
but in real life is deceptive. A concrete comprehension can be reached according
to him when the marriage rule which is known as marriage alliance is viewed as
offering a diachronic aspect which is only connected to descent or consanguinity.
If this can be done then it will be possible to go beyond our margins of thought
built upon our own society and make evaluations and appraisals on the basis of
the key perceptions involved, in this case consanguinity and affinity.

2.3.4 Conclusion
Allaince theory though quite categorical did not continue to work as a speculation
which bore definite fruits. A lot more was anticipated from the theory. The inference
of marriage alliance for status, economy, and political organisation was never
clearly explained. The etymological investigation remained defectively structural.
The study of terminologies did not finally help in comprehending or bettering this
theory. Though alliance theory had much greater explanatory value than descent
theory, yet in today’s contemporary anthropological setting, investigations have
minimized their interest in kinship studies to understand the diversity of kinship
systems. Hence the question of universal kinship structures remains unanswered
due to which the debates between descent and alliance theories have shrunk.

2.4 SUMMARY
To summarize the unit, we may say that in the study of kinship, two theories – the
descent theory and the alliance theory were proposed by anthropologists. This
was to work out the different structures of kinship through the models based on
birth and marriage ties. However these theories though intricate and complex in
their description and a matter of much debate while they were animate, lost their
significance and worth as they were in reality and in today’s understanding of
society, not enough persuasive or credible. These theories are obsolete in the
present scenario yet their knowledge is necessary for the student as it did play an
important role in the development of kinship studies in anthropology in the past.
27
Kinship, Marriage and References
Family
Durkheim, Emile. (1893)1997. The Division of Labour in Society. New York:
Free Press.
Evans-Pritchard, E.E. 1940. The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood
and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Fortes, Meyer and E.E. Evans-Pritchard (eds.). 1940. African Political Systems.
London: Oxford University Press.
Fortes, Meyer. 1953. ‘The Structure of Unilineal Descent Groups’. In D. A.
Baerreirs, A. Spoehr and S.L. Washburn (eds.), American Anthropologist, Vol.
55, No. 1 (pp. 17-41). Chicago: The American Anthropological Association.
Freud, Sigmund. (1913) 1918. Totem and Taboo: Resemblences between the
Psychic Lives of Savages and Nuerotics. New York: Moffat, Yard and Company.
Levi, Strauss. (1949) 1969. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Boston:
Beacon Press.
Maine, Henry. (1861). 2006. Ancient Law. London: Book Jungle.
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1931. The Social Organisation of Australian Tribes.
Melbourne: Macmillan and co., limited.
Speck, F.G. 1915. ‘The Family Band as the Basis of Algonkian Social
Organisation’. In Am. Anthropol. 17: 289- 305
Suggested Reading
Parkin, Robert. 1997. Kinship: An Introduction to Basic Concepts. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Parkin, Robert and Linda Stone (eds.) 2004. Kinship and Family: An
Anthropological Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Schneider, David. A. 1984. A Critique of the Study of Kinship. Michigan: The
University of Michigan Press.
Sample Questions
1) What are the two theories in the study of kinship?
2) Give a detailed analysis of descent theory.
3) Explain how Levi-Strauss designed alliance theory. What were its main
deliberations?
4) How clearly did these theories help in the study of kinship?

28
UNIT 3 MARRIAGE
Contents
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Concepts, Meaning and Definitions
3.2.1 Prescribed and Preferential Marriages
3.2.2 Types of Marriages
3.2.3 Ways of Acquiring a Mate
3.2.4 Divorce

3.3 Functions of Marriage

3.4 Changing Dimensions of Marriage
3.5 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions

Learning Objectives

After reading this unit, the students should be able to:
 define the different rules and types associated with marriage;
 outline the various functions of a marriage; and
 discuss changing aspects of marriage in the contemporary times.

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Marriage is a phenomena found in all types of societies though the pattern of
marriage differs in different societies. The first section of the unit would introduce
the students to the concept, definition and meaning of marriage, the various types
of marraiges that are prevalent in different societies. Herein, we would be able to
answer the question as to why marriage rules though not similar among the different
societies yet have almost the same functions. With the changing times, marriage
too has come under the hammer and the institution itself is going through various
changes. These would be discussed in the last section of this unit.

3.2 CONCEPTS, MEANING AND DEFINITIONS

Marriage by most anthropologists has been described as a universal phenomena
yet the debate continues as to how marriage came into existence. In the early
year’s social thinkers and anthropologists basically the followers of the theory of
evolutionism were of the opinion that human beings lived in a state of promiscuity
where individual marriage did not exist. In such a society all the men had access
to all the women and the children thus, born were the responisbility of the society
at large. This slowly gave rise to group marriages to bring regulation and general
order in the society where either many men were married to several women or
sereval men were married to a single woman and vice- versa. However, later in 29
Kinship, Marriage and the day the natural instinct of jealousy imbedded in human beings has been assumed
Family
as the reason behind single marriages to restore harmony in a society. So far in
the theoretical part Block 3 unit 1 Classical Theories, and also in Block 1 unit 2
Philosophical and Historical Foundations of Social Anthropology, we have discussed
that the earlier societies were nomadic and the rule of the age was anarchy, so it
is impossible to state exactly where and when marriage first originated. While
anthropologists like Bachofen, Das Mutterrecht (1861), McLennan Primitive
Marriage (1865) and others were of the view that society emerged out of mother
right, there were others like Sir Henry Maine through his work Ancient Law,
(1861) postulated that since the emergence of soceity the rule was partiarchy. So
far this goes, the debate continues. Leaving this aside let’s start with understanding
what the term ‘marriage’ stands for, instead of trying to focus on how marriage
originated, through some of the definitions provided by anthropologists who had
worked in this field.
George Peter Murdock (1949) has defined marriage as a universal institution that
involves residential co-habitation, economic co-operation and the formation of the
nuclear family. While Westermarck had emphasised on marriage as a recognised
union between a man and a woman, that the spouse live together and that the
couple have clearly recognised mutual sexual rights. These definitions could not be
considered as universal definition of marriage as it failed to encompass types of
marriages such as polygynous and polyandrous marriages. Such definitions also
did not take into account marriages where the spouses lived in separate residences
and societies where the responsibility of the child lies with the mother’s brother
rather than with the biological father. These are some of the aspects which we
would take up in later part of the unit.
Kathleen Gough (1959) in her study of the Nayars has defined marriage as a
‘relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which
provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by
the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal
members of his society or social stratum’. This definition of marriage by Gough
took into consideration polyandry which was missing in the earlier definitions.
While, Edward Westermarck in a later edition of his book, The History of Human
Marraiges, fifth edition rewritten 1921 due to the criticisms levied redefined
marriage as a social institution which may be defined as a relation of one or more
men to one or more women that is recognised by custom or law, and involves
certain rights and duties both in the case of parties entering the union and in the
case of the children born in it. However, among the Azande of Sudan where
marraiges based on homosexuality is a prescribed norm it does not find a place
in the above definitions of marriage.
William N. Stephens defined marriage as ‘a socially legitimate sexual union, begun
with public pronouncement undertaken with the idea of permanence, assumed with
more or less explicit marriage contract which spells out reciprocal economic
obligations between spouses, and their future children’. This definition also fails to
take into considertaion the taboos that exist in various societies related to marriage.
Thus, for the convinience of anthropological discourse we would refer to the
definition of marriage as in Notes and Queries (given below) to understand the
types of marriages acceptable and practiced in 80% of the societies across the
world. The other forms of marriages would be taken up as variations from the
prescribed norm as they are acceptable only in a few societies.
30
“Marriage is a union between a man and a woman such that the children born to Marriage
the woman are recognised as legitimate offspring of both partners” (Notes and
Queries on Anthropology 1951: 111).

3.2.1 Prescribed and Preferential Marriages

Societies have their own norms when it comes to marriage whom to marry and
who is out of bounds. In certain societies there are certain rules of suitability based
on which a person has to acquire a mate. While selecting one’s mate one has to
follow certain rules and choose the bride/groom within these norms. A man/woman
might be prohibited from acquiring a mate who does not fall under the suitable
category as for example in the Hindu society a woman belonging to a higher caste
cannot marry a man belonging to a caste lower than her. Such, rules when strictly
followed even though when very few members of the suitable category are available
is termed as prescribed norms. The rules which are preferred but not strictly
followed are known as preferential norms. Cross cousin marriage in many societies
is seen as a preferential norm.
Incest taboo is a universal norm for almost all societies, which pertains to restrictions
in marriage and sexual relations among certain categories of close relatives generally
related by blood like father and daughter, mother and son and sometimes also
parallel cousins. Though, incest taboo was not prevalent among the earlier Greek
and the Hawaiian royal families where it was a prescribed norm for marriage. In
these ancient royal families it was believed that royalty could only be passed down
to the child of two royal family members, usually a brother and sister. The Tallensi
of Ghana also does not strongly prescribe to the norm of incest taboo between
brother and sister while a relationship between a man and the wife of a lineage
mate is an unpardonable sin (Mair, 1997).
The rules of either endogamy or exogamy are also prescribed norms in many
societies to which a man has to adhere while acquiring a mate. Endogamy refers
to marriage within a group, while exogamy means marriage outside the group.
Endogamy encompasses marriage within the believers of the same faith or religion,
caste in Hindu society and within members of the same tribe.
In societies where endogamy is prevalent parallel cousin marriage is the preferential
norm. Among such societies marriage between first cousins is permitted, though
where the rule of lineage exogamy is practiced cousin belonging to different lineage
is preferred. For easy understanding; the children of siblings of opposite sex
(brother- sister) - are called cross-cousins; while the children of siblings of the
same sex (brother-brother) are called parallel cousins. In many of the Islamic
societies a man marries his father’s brother’s daughter known as parallel cousin
marriage which is a very rare form of endogamy. The Kurds of eastern and
southeastern Turkey still continue with the practice of parallel cousin marriage.
Cross-cousin marriages are the preferential norm in societies where the rule of
exogamy is adhered to. A man’s lineage is traced either through his mother’s or
father’s side. If the lineage is traced through the father than marriage with his
aunt’s (father’s sisters) daughter is the preferred norm and when lineage is traced
through the mother than the preferred norm for marriage is mother’s brother’s
daughter. When a man marries a daughter of his mother’s brother it’s a matrilateral
cross-cousin marriage while if he marries a daughter of his father’s sister then
it’s a patrilateral cross-cousin marriage.
31
Kinship, Marriage and Matrilateral cross cousin marriages are common in many of the matrilineal societies
Family
like the Kachins and the Purum as described by Edmund Leach in his work ‘The
Political System of HighLand Burma: A Study of the Kachins Social Structure’
(1970), while Meyer Fortes had described the Ashanti and Tallensi of Ghana. In
such societies the rules of descent and authority lies with the mother’s brother and
as such marriage to his daughter puts an end to all such questions of inheritance,
authority and it is a way to avoid conflicts which we would discuss more fully later.
Besides the above mentioned prescribed and preferential marriages, levirate and
sororate at times form a prescribed norm for widows and widowers in a few
societies. Levirate is a marriage form, in which after the decease of an elder
brother the younger brother is obliged to marry the widow. The term levirate is
derived from the Latin word levir meaning husband’s brother. This is a type of
marriage often seen in societies where exogamy is not prevalent. Sororate on the
other hand is a practice in which a widower marries’s his dead wife’s sister.
Reflection and Action
Find out the various preferential and prescribed norms for marriage in your own society
and also reflect upon the reasons for the same.

3.2.2 Types of Marriages

Depending on the type of society, the marriage pattern and style also vary. Before
going into the depth of the topic let’s outline the types of marriages universally
found which are (a) Monogamy and (b) Polygamy. Monogamy is a form of
marriage in which the practice is to have only one spouse at one time. In the
western world the divorce rate is increasingly higher and serial monogamy is
witnessed. Serial monogamy pertains to a state where a man has a series of
wives one after the other, but only one wife at any given point of time. Thus, in
the United States where divorce rate is high but only monogamy is legal, serial
monogamy is widely noticed. In societies like the Hindu society of India monogamy
pertains to non-serial monogamy where a man has a single wife throughout his
life. In such societies the divorce rate is rare and as such it is the preferred norm.
Polygamy is a term derived from the Greek word polys gamos meaning often
married. It is a form of marriage in which an individual has more than one spouse
at any given time, or married to more than one individual. In polygamy when a
marriage involves one man with many women it is known as polygyny. The wives
of a man if sisters or related then such a marriage is known as sororal polygyny.
In many of the Islamic countries this practice is prevalent. In some Australian
Aboriginal societies, the elder brother often marries the two eldest sisters. While
the younger sisters of the wives’ would also marry their sisters’ husband’s younger
brother or brothers. This is said to create a clear advantage in power and self-
sufficiency in these societies. The Swazi society of Africa practice sororal polygyny.
In societies practicising sororal polygyny it is believed that two sisters have better
chances of getting along with one another rather than two unrelated women who
have not grown up together. It is a resilient approach because sisters are assumed
to have less of a competitive approach towards their husband’s affection because
as sisters they would be more inclined towards maintaining harmony and live in
mutual understanding.
The rules of residence in sororal polygyny differ from society to society. In some
societies the wives co-habits like among the Zulus of South Africa, while in the
Swazi society each wife sets up separate residence. Upon death of a husband, the
32 marriage does not come to an end. A blood relative of the husband assumes full
responsibility of providing domestic, economic, and material support for the Marriage
women. If the wives of a man are not rleated such a marriage is known as non-
sororal polygyny. In the Coromo islands non-sororal polygyny is practiced (Madan
& Majumdar, Mair et.al).
Polyandry derives its name from the Greek word poly ‘many’ and andros ‘man’.
Thus, in this type of marriage a woman is married to more than one man. Societies
where polyandry has been found are Tibet, Canadian Arctic, northern parts of
Nepal, Nigeria, Bhutan, parts of India and Sri Lanka. It is also encountered in
some regions of Mongolia, among the Mosuo people in China, and in some
societies of Sub-Saharan African such as the Maasai people in Kenya and northern
Tanzania and American indigenous communities. Polyandry has been practised in
several cultures — in the Jaunsar-Bawar region in Uttarakhand, among the Nairs,
Theeyas and Todas of South India, and the Nishi of Arunachal Pradesh. Indian
examples would be detailed in Unit 5 Kinship, Marriage and Family in India, of
the same block. The Guanches, the first known inhabitants of the Canary Islands,
practiced polyandry until their disappearance.
Fraternal polyandry refers to a marriage in which a woman is married to two
or more brothers also known as adelphic polyandry. The term fraternal has its
origin in the Latin term frater- ‘brother’. Account of Fraternal polyandry in Indian
Hindu society is seen in the great epic Mahabharata where the five Pandava
brothers were married to princess Draupadi. Polyandry is found in certain regions
of Tibet and Nepal as a socially accepted practice.
The type of marriage where a woman is either married to a number of non-related
men or related kinsmen (clan brothers) such a marriage is known as non-fraternal
polyandry. In the recent past the Todas’ of southern India practiced both fraternal
and non-fraternal polyandry where the husbands were either brothers or related
kinsmen but with the changing age monogamy has made inroads into this society
and is fast becoming a part. Though among the Nayars of Malabar Coast of
Southern India the husbands were not related they had to belong to a social strata
equivalent to that of the woman as prescribed by the society. In societies where
polyandry is practiced, when a woman becomes pregnant the paternity is not
ascribed to the biological father (genitor) but is accepted through a ceremony
wherein any one of the brothers as sociological father (pater) can assume social
responsibility of the child by paying the midwife, as in the case of the Nayars of
Southern India. While in some cases the eldest brother assumes the responsibility
of the child in case of fraternal polyandry (Gough 1959, Mair 1997).
When the husbands of a woman are father and son such a marriage is known as
familial polyandry. It is a very rare form of polyandry and has been found
prevalent among the Tibetians. There are many speculations for such a marriage
and one of them relates to the small population size of the tibetians and the high
altitude in which they live. A wife if taken from other communities who live in the
low lands, it becomes difficult for her to adjust to the harsh climatic conditions and
as such sharing a wife by father and son is taken up as an option.
Polygynandry another variety of polygamy pertians to a marriage where several
men are married to several women or a man has many wives and a woman has
many husbands at any given time. Such marriages were prevalent among the
Marquesans of Polynesia and also among the Todas of the Nilgiri hills and the
Khasas of Jaunsar Bawar of India.
33
Kinship, Marriage and 3.2.3 Ways of Acquiring a Mate
Family
Marriage as the term implies has a lot of connotation in different societies. It does
not just mean a man finding a girl to be his wife. Even when a man chooses a mate
for himself he has to ascribe to the norms of the society while claiming his bride.
Herein, we would outline some of the prescribed customs in societies through
which a man can acquire a mate.
Marriage by negotiation is a very frequently practised way of acquiring a mate.
It is found in most of the simple societies like the Ituri of Congo region in Africa,
Siwai of Soloman Islands, the aboriginals of Australia, Andamanese of Andaman
Islands and also in complex societies like the Hindu society of India, China, Japan,
Europe and America. In such a system either the girl’s family or the boy’s family
(as per the custom) puts forward a propsal for marriage through a thrid party or
mediator. This third party is generally someone known to both the would be bride
and groom’s family. In Indian context it is also known as arranged marriage. In
earlier times the bride and groom meet each other only during the wedding, but
this rigidity is being relaxed now a days. In such a system bride price, bride
wealth, dowry also has an important role to play and it is usually a long drawn
process where consensus of the bride and groom’s family is all done by the
mediator.
Bridewealth is usually the compensation given upon marriage by the family of a
groom to the bride’s family. Varieties of currencies and goods are used for paying
the bridewealth depending upon the societies. Mostly the bridewealth is movable
property given by the groom’s family. For example reindeers are given as
bridewealth by the reindeer-herding Chukchee, sheep by the Navajo, cattles by
the Nuers, Maasai and Samburu of Africa, spears in Somalia etc. The amount of
bridewealth to be paid is based on various factors of which some are related to
the status of the broom’s family and others on the bride and her social acceptance
as prescribed by the society. For example: if a woman has given birth to a pre-
nuptial child than her bridewealth is very low whereas among the Kipsigis of
western Kenya if the distance of the brides natal home is very far away from the
marital home than the bride wealth is very high as she is able to spend less time
at her natal home and devote more time to the domestic chores in the husbands
home. In some cases if the groom’s family is not able to pay the bridewealth than
compensation is made in the means of bride service in the form of labour wherein
the groom goes to the brides house and helps in the hunting, farming and other
related activities. The time span of the bride service varies from society to society
and it might last from a few months to several years (Nanda et.al). Dowry on the
other hand is the transfer of goods and money from the bride’s family to the
groom’s family. Previously a practiced norm in the Hindu society, the tradition of
dowry was prohibited in 1961 under Indian civil law and subsequently by Sections
304B and 498a of the Indian Penal Code. The move was made to protect the
women from dowry related harassment and domestic violence.
Marriage by exchange also forms a part of the marriage by negotiation system.
Herein, such a system the bride price or bride wealth, whichever is applicable to
the society, is waived off by marriage through exchange. This happens generally
if there are daughters or sisters for exchange for the grooms. This helps in not only
forming an alliance but also strengthens the bond between groups. Examples of
such excahnge is seen is societies of Australia, Melanesia, Tive of Nigeria and also
in the some of the tribes in India- Muria Gonds, Baiga of Bustar and the Koya
34 and the Saora of Andhra Pradesh. (Majumdar 1986, Jha 1994 et.al)
Marriage by service is found among some of the tribes in North East India. Marriage
Among the Naga’s of North East India the bride wealth forms a part of the
marriage negotiation and if the groom’s party is not able to pay the bride wealth
then the compensation is through service. The boy works for the bride’s family
and only when the brides family is satisfied that the marriage is solemnised.
Marriage by probation invloves the consent of the brides parents alongwith the
girls consent wherein the groom stays at the brides place on trial basis. Herein,
the groom is allowed to stay with the girl so that they both get to know each
others temperament and if the girl likes the boy the marriage takes place, else the
boy has to pay compensation in cash to the girl’s family. Among the Kukis of
Manipur of India such a marriage is a practised norm (ibid).
Marriage by capture is found in many societies. The capture can be a physical
capture or a ceremonial one. Among the tribes of Yahomamo of Venezuela, Northern
Brazil and the Nagas of Nagaland in India during raids the men from one village
capture and take home females of the other village and marry them as wives. Such
a situation is ascribed as physical capture. In ceremonial capture a boy desiring
to marry a girl propositions her in a community fair or festival and makes his
intentions towards her known by either holding her hand or marking her with
vermillion as in the case of Kharia and the Birhor of Bihar (ibid).
Marriage by intrusion is a type of marriage wherein a girl forces her way into
the boy’s house and forces him to accept her as his spouse. Such marriages are
seen in Birhor and Ho of Bihar and also among the Kamars of Madhya Pradesh.
Marriage by trial is a process in which the groom has to prove his strength and
valour while claiming his bride. In the two great Indian epics Mahabharata and the
Ramayana we have examples of how Draupadi and Sita were claimed by Arjuna
and Lord Rama after they proved their skills in the swayamvar (a gathering where
the eligible males are invited to prove their strength to claim the bride). Such
marriages by trail are still found in many societies in India and some of the
examples are the Bhils of Rajasthan and the Nagas of Nagaland.
Marriage by Elopement is a customary marriage in some societies whereas
looked down in others. In societies where a huge amount of wealth is required for
the marriage rituals and which is usually difficult for the families to bear in such
societies marriage by elopment has come up as a customary practice. Such marriage
is quite in vogue among the Karbis of Karbi Anglong district of Assam. In other
cases marriage by elopment takes place when either of the prospective groom or
bride’s family does not approve of the wedding or when marriage is fixed with a
distasteful partner. In such a case, the would be bride elopes with the partner of
her choice. Such marriage by eleopment is seen in almost all parts of the world
(ibid).

3.2.4 Divorce
Divorce is the situation wherein the husband and wife separates and gives up the
vows of marriage. It can happen due to many reasons and the most common one
is incompatibility of the two partners. Divorce is a situation which can be unpleasant
and painful for both the parties as it leads not only to physical separation of two
people, but all that has been build up during the time together like family, children
and material objects. Divorce is also a universally accepted norm as marriage but
still it is looked down in many societies more so in the case of the wife in a
patrilineal society. 35
Kinship, Marriage and
Family 3.3 FUNCTIONS OF MARRIAGE
Marriage is a sanction for two people to spend their lives together and it has many
implications and functions related to it. Some of the functions are mentioned
herein.
Biological Function
The most important function of a marriage is to beget children. The society gives
recognition to children born out of wedlock and the children thus born are ascribed
status as per the norms of the society. A society basically channelizes the sexual
rights through the institution of marriage and it helps in mating within the rules and
regulations as ascribed by a society. This helps in maintaining the norms of incest
taboo also.
Economic Functions
In order to do away with the discrimination of labour by sex, marriage comes in
as a protective measure wherein the men share their produce with the wives.
Marriage leads to an economic co-operation between men and women ensuring
the survival of every individual in a society.
Social Function
Marriage is the way to forming a family. A marriage sanctions the status of both
husband and wife in a society and thus, they are also collectively accepted by
society as husband and wife. In many societies there are norms where only a
married person can take part in the rituals. For example in the Hindu society there
is a ritual during wedding in which the bride is blessed with oil. In this ceremony
atleast seven married women hold a ring with the tip of their right hand forefinger
on the brides head. Oil then is poured on this ring by the married women. It is
believed that the oil which pours down from the head to below takes away all the
evil and brings in good luck to the would be husband and wife. Normally, widows
and divorcees do not take part in such rituals. Marriage helps in forming new
kinsmen and widening his network.

3.4 DEVIATIONS IN MARRIAGE

Till now we have discussed the general trend that we had seen in the societies so
far that has been observed and written by anthropologists at different times. Herein
this section we would discuss about the deviations in the marriage rules and the
coming up of new types of kinship and family due to a change in the pattern of
mate selection. In the present era two new types of relationship has emerged
which were not prominent in the earlier days – lesbian and gay relationship. A
lesbian relationship is based on the liking of a girl for another girl instead of a man
as it happens in the normal course. Anthropologist Gill Shepherd explored female
sexual relationships among Swahili Muslims in Mombasa, Kenya, and found that
relationships between females were perfectly acceptable, as were relationships
between men. Women were allowed to choose other women as sexual partners
after they are married; so many such women also have a husband at home, or are
widowed or divorced (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cultural_Anthropology/
Marriage,_Reproduction_and_Kinship#Lesbianism_in_Mombasa accessed on 23rd
March, 2011). In other cases in the present day a women has sanction by law to
take up another women as legally wedded. Such marriages are certified by law
in a few American States like Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
36 Vermont, plus Washington, D.C. and the Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon. In 2005
Canada through the enactment of the civil marriage act became the fourth country Marriage
in the world to accept same sex marriages.
On the other hand a ‘gay relationship’ is based on a man having a liking for other
man commonly known as homosexual relationship. In Nicaragua, the ideal for
masculinity is “machismo”, and being described as a man who is dominant, active,
and violent. While, in the U.S., the term machismo refers to a man dominating his
female partner, often described as male chauvinism. However, in Nicaragua, this
can also be applied to the sexual relationship between man. Greek mythology and
Greek history is galore with reference to homosexual relationships. One example
is the story of Apollo and Hyacinthus; Apollo fell in love with a mortal boy,
Hyacinthus, and became a mentor to the youth. He taught Hyacinthus the art of
war and sports and visited him often. Other Greek gods and Greek heroes have
stories attributed to them about their same-sex relationships, Zeus and Hercules
among them.
When talking about movements for homosexual rights Brazil emerges as the first
country to take up this issue. What sets them apart however is the promenience
with which same-sex rights is being fought for in their culture. SOMOS was the
first organised homosexual group formed in 1979 in Brazil. As of today there are
over 70 groups that are interested in gay rights operating within the country. The
São Paulo Gay Pride Parade is also one of the largest in the world, with over 2
million particpants a year. Even the Brazilian President, Luiz Lula, has been fighting
to pass a ‘homophobia law’ which would count criticizing homosexual behaviour
as a crime (ht t p://en.wikibo o ks.o rg/wiki/Cult ural_Ant hropo lo gy/
Marriage,_Reproduction_and_Kinship#Homosexuality_in_Brazil accessed on 25th
March, 2011). Nepal on the other hand has accepted same sex marriage and
thus, many same sex people from different countries come to exchange their
marriages vow’s, which otherwise is banned in their own country.

3.5 SUMMARY
We can sum up the unit by stating that marriage is a universal phenomena ascribed
and prefered in all human societies. The type of marriage and ways of acquiring
a mate varies from society to society. Marriage has a legal sanction to it and the
children born of wedlock are always accepted by the society. It is the means of
achieving economic and social security for the wife and the children. In course of
time marriage has seen many changes like the lesbian and gay weddings but till
date it is very much a part of society, though at times debates have arised for the
need of marriage when two people are willing to live together.
References
Bachofen, Johann J. (1861) 1948. Das Mutterrecht. 2 vols. 3d ed. Edited by
Karl Meuli. Basel: Schwabe.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1951. Kinship and Marriage Among the Nuer. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
________________ 1956. Nuer Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ferraro, Gary and Susan Andreatta. 2010. Cultural Anthropology: An Applied
Perspective. Eight edition. USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Fortes, Meyer. 1945. The Dynamics of Clanship among the Tallensi. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
37
Kinship, Marriage and Fox, Robin. 1967. Kinship and Marriage. An Anthropological Perspective.
Family
Baltimore: Penguin.
Gough, Kathleen. 1959. The Nayars and the Definition of Marriage. “Journal
of the Royal Anthropological Institute”, 89: 23-34.
Hutter, Mark. ed. 2003. The Family Experience: A Reader in Cultural Diversity.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Maine, Henry. 1861. Ancient Law: Its Connection with the Early History of
Society, and its Relation to Modern Ideas. 1931 reprint London: J.M. Dent.
Mair, Lucy. 1977. An Introduction to Social Anthropology. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Majumdar, D.N. and T.N. Madan. 1986. An Introduction to Social Anthropology.
Fifth National Impression 1990. Darya Ganj, New Delhi: National Publishing
House.
McLennan, John F. 1865. Primitive Marriage: An Enquiry into the Origin of
the Form of Capture in Marriage Ceremonies. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles
Black.
Morgan, Lewis Henry. 1877. Ancient Society. First Indian publication 1944.
Calcutta: Bharati Publication.
Murdock, George P. 1949 Social Structure. New York: Macmillan.
Nanda, Serena and Richard L. Warms. 2011. Cultural Anthropology. 10th Edition,
United Kingdom: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Royal Anthropological Institute. 1951. Notes and Queries on Anthropology. 6th
edition. London: Routledge and Kegan.
Westermarck, Edward. 1922. The History of Human Marriage. The Allerton
Book Company.
Suggested Reading
Fox, Robin. 1967. Kinship and Marriage. An Anthropological Perspective.
Baltimore: Penguin.
Mair, Lucy. 1977. An Introduction to Social Anthropology. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Nanda, Serena and Richard L. Warms. 2011. Cultural Anthropology. 10th Edition,
United Kingdom: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Sample Questions
1) What is marriage?
2) What is prescribed and preferential marriage?
3) What is fraternal polyandry? Illustrate with the help of examples.
4) What is the difference between bride wealth, bride service and dowry?
5) Examine the functions of marriage.

38
UNIT 4 FAMILY
Contents
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Concepts, Meaning and Definitions
4.3 Functions of a Family
4.4 Changing dimensions of Family
4.5 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions

Learning Objectives 
After reading this unit the students should be able to:
 define the different forms of family;
 outline the various functions of a family; and
 discuss changing aspects of family in the contemporary time.

4.1 INTRODUCTION
When a child is born, he/ she is born into a family which is known as the smallest
social unit. Family is the social unit which endows the child with social norms,
values, rules and regulations through the process of enculturation. This unit would
help the students understand the social institution of family, how it emerged, its
concepts, definitions and functions as a social unit. The focus would also be on
the changing dimensions that have taken place in the family structure.
A family is established through marriage which is known as the nuclear family;
the unit of one set of parents and children, is often embedded in larger groupings
like joint families, lineages, clans and domestic groups of various kinds. The relatives
connected through the father or the patriline are called as agnates and those
connected through the mother or matriline are called as uterine, a combination of
these or all relatives from side of both parents are called as cognates. The basic
family also presupposes a monogamous marriage while in actuality there can be
a polygamous marriage by virtue of which even the basic unit may be differently
constituted. Since the incest taboo makes the family discontinuous over generations,
every adult belongs to two families, one in which he/she is born and another that
is established through marriage; these are known respectively as the family of
orientation and the family of procreation. Let us now consider each of these
aspects in details.

4.2 CONCEPTS, MEANINGS AND DEFINITIONS

How has the concept of family emerged? Was family always a part of society?
These are certain questions which would be taken up in this section alongwith the
various definitions of family postulated by anthropologists. The word family has its
origin in the Latin word familia derived from famulus meaning servant. Familia 39
Kinship, Marriage and must have been used to refer to all the slaves and servants living under one roof,
Family
including the entire household that is the master, on the one hand, and the wife,
children and servants living under his control. Today when we use the term family
it covers all the various groups of relatives representing a household (all the
individuals living under one roof), gens (all those descended from a common
ancestor), agnatic (relatives on the father’s side) and cognatic (relatives on the
mother’s side, and then by extension all blood relatives).
The family though considered universal in nature found in all types and levels of
societies and cultures, yet it is difficult to trace the origin. In the early years of the
anthropological history the origin of family, how it emerged in society was much
discussed and debated. Followers of the evolutionary theory were of the opinion
that family as an institution has evolved just like the society. Lewis Henry Morgan
in his work Ancient Society (1877) stated that in the early societies the concept
of family was not prevalent. Such societies were nomads and promiscus where
free sex relations were prevalent thus, the role of the father was not important and
the mother-sib was the earliest form of grouping. He stated, ‘The principal institutions
of mankind originated in savagery, were developed in barbarism, and are maturing
in civilization. In like manner, the family has passed through successive forms, and
created great systems of consanguinity and affinity which have remained to the
present time. These systems, which record the relationships existing in the family
of the period, when each system respectively was formed, contain an instructive
record of the experience of mankind while the family was advancing from the
consanguine, through intermediate forms, to the monogamian’ (1877:18). Though
today, Morgan’s evolutinary scheme is not followed, his work is important as he
gave the first classification of five forms of family based on five different types of
marriage.
1) The Consanguine family was founded upon the intermarriage of brothers and
sisters in a group. Evidence still remains in the oldest of existing systems of
Consanguinity, the Malayan, tending to show that this, the first form of the
family, was anciently as universal as this system of consanguinity which it
created.
2) The Punaluan family its name is derived from the Hawaiian relationship of
Punalua. It was founded upon the intermarriage of several brothers to each
other’s wives in a group; and of several sisters to each other’s husbands in
a group. But the term brother, as here used, included the first, second, third,
and even more remote male cousins, all of whom were considered brothers
to each other, as we consider own brothers; and the term sister included the
first, second, third, and even more remote female cousins, all of whom were
sisters to each other, the same as own sisters. This form of the family
supervened upon the consanguine. It created the Turanian and Ganowanian
systems of consanguinity. Both this and the previous form belong to the
period of savagery.
3) The Syndyasmian or pairing of family founded upon the marriage of single
pairs, without giving the right of exclusive cohabitation to any person over the
other. The term Syndyasmian is derived from syndyazo, meaning to pair. It
was the germ of the Monogamian Family. Divorce or separation was at the
option of both husband and wife. This form of the family failed to create a
system of consanguinity.

40
4) The Patriarchal family comprising of marriage of one man to several wives, Family
each wife being secluded from every other. The term is here used in a
restricted sense to define the special family of the Hebrew pastoral tribes, the
chiefs and principal men of which practised polygamy. It exercised but little
influence upon human affairs for want of universality.
5) The Monogamian family was founded upon marriage between single pairs,
with the married couple having exclusive cohabitation with one another the
latter constituting the essential of the institution. It is pre-eminently the family
of civilized society, and was therefore essentially modern. This form of the
family also created an independent system of consanguinity (Morgan, 1877:
40-41).
Westermarck (1853-1936) who had done a detailed study of the institution of
marriage concluded that the family emerged due to male possessiveness and jealousy.
In his work The History of Human Marriage (1922) he asserted that with the
growing concept of property, males started the insititution of family to protect and
safeguard their property. This theory was a direct criticism of Morgan’s theory
wherein the origin of family was ascribed to the bonding of mother- sib.
Westermarck though an adherent follower of evolutionism went a bit too far while
postulating the origin of monogamy as he traced it to the mammals and the birds.
Activity

Before we move on to define a family let us start with a simple task. Please list down
the names of the persons you would like to include in your family. Now if you have
listed the names of your family members, I am sure there would be many variations to
the list. Some of you might have included the names of your parents and siblings only,
while others might have also added grandparents adopted brothers/sisters or cousins
who stay with you. Likewise, the definition of family has variations as there are different
types and forms of families. There has always been a universal problem in defining a
family, so herein we would discuss some of the definitions which has tried to encompass
the meaning of family in totality.

During the early 19th century evolutionary anthropologists had described family as
a group based on marriage, common residence, emotional bonds and stipulation
of doemstic services. While in the early 20th century R.H. Lowie defined family
as a group based on material relations, rights and duties of parenthood, common
habitation and reciprocal relations between parents and children. Ralph Linton
similarly defined family as a group that involves marriage, rights and duties of
parents and children. George Peter Murdock, (1949) examined 192 societies and
formulated a definition of family as ‘the family is a social group characterised by
common residence, economic co-operation, and reproduction. It includes both
sexes, atleast two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and
one or more children, own or adopted’. The chart presented below shows the
different types of families as constructed by George Peter Murdock.

41
Kinship, Marriage and
Family FAMILY

(Nuclear family) (Composite family)

(Polygamous family) (Extended family)

(Polygamous family) (Polyandrous family)

(Patrilocal (Matrilocal (Avunculocal (Bilocal (Fraternal

extended extended extended extended extended
family) family) family) family) family)

Adapted from Makhan Jha, An Introduction to Social Anthropology 1995 (reprint) pp 74.

Nuclear Family consists of a married couple (man and woman) with their children
own or adopted. In certain cases one or more additional persons may also reside
with them. This type of family is prevalent in alomost all societies. Compact in
nature this type is very popular in the present day world where there is a continuous
struggle for economic subsistence.
Composite family is composed of two or more nuclear families which can be
divided into polygamous family and the extended family. The polygamous
family includes three varients based on marriage polyandry, polygyny and
polyandrous (refer to Unit- 3 of the same block for details). An extended family
consists of two or more nuclear families affiliated through extension of the parent-
child relationship. Based on the post-marital residence, an extended family can be
of the following types.
 Patrilocal family is composed of two or more nuclear families residing at
the same house, it is an extension of the father son relationship. Such a family
comrpises of a man and his wife and their sons and the sons’ wives and
childrens.
 A matrilocal family is founded with two or more nuclear families affiliated
through an extension of mother daughter relationship. It consists of a family
comprising of a woman her daughters and the daughters’ husbands and children.
 The bilocal extended family is a combination of patrilocal extended family
and matrilocal extended family. The extended family consists of two or more
lineally related kinfolk of the same sex and their spouses and offspring
occupying a single household and under the authority of a household head.
 The Avunculocal extended family consists of two or more nuclear families
affiliated through an extension of maternal-uncle and sisters son relationship.
Such a family includes a nuclear family formed by a man his wife and daughters
42 and the nuclear family formed by his sister’s son and wife and children.
 The Faternal Joint Family is a family system, like a patrilineal extended family Family
wherein the family comrpises of a man and his wife and their sons and the
sons’ wives and childrens. We can say that in such a family three generations
of kins live together. At times, such a family can be traced upto ten or so
generations living in the same residence and sharing common hearth.
In the later half of the 20th century anthropologists tried to define family in terms
of certain criteria important from the society’s point of view. According to Edmund
Leach a group to be called a family should compromise either one or several of
the following criteria: marriage, legal paternity and maternity, monopoly of the
couple over each other’s sexuality, rights of the spouses to each others labour
services, rights of both the spouses over property to establish a joint fund of
property for the benefit of the children, and a socially significant relationship of
affinity between each spouse and the relatives of the other. Evans-Pritchard also
gave a classification of types of family based on his study of The Nuers (1940)
of Sudan. His classification is more suited for the patrilineal society.
 The simple legal family comrpising of a married couple and their children.
This type of family is commonly known as a natural family.
 The complex legal family or the polygamous family where a number of
separate families are linked by their relationship to a common father.
 The ghost family which consits of the ghost (pater), his wife, their children
and the kinsmen who became their genitor in virtue of his duty towards the
ghost. The ghost family is concieved when a young man dies who has not
married yet. So a young man from the dead man’s lineage marries a woman
on behalf of the dead man and generates a family for the dead man. The
children born out of such a marriage are known as the ghost’s children and
bear his name.
Variations in a Family System
From the above discussion we can describe the family as a domestic group in
which a couple (parents) and children own or adopted live together. Yet there are
societies where the same norms are not applicable. Meyer Fortes (1945) in his
study of Ashanti of Ghana has described a society where the husband and wife
after marriage continues to live with their respective family of orientation, a reason
why the people of Ashanti like to find spouses in their own village. Lucy Mair
(1997) discussing Fortes work reflects on the description of how an Ashanti
village at sunset is full of young children carrying steaming dishes on their heads
from mother to father- sometimes it also becomes an exchange between two
houses. Thus, in such a family system the husband is a visiting husband and his role
as a father is limited to procreation alone. The upbringing of his children lies with
the kins of the wife’s family whereas he is responsible for the upbringing of his
sister’s children. Likewise, among the Nayars of South India also, the same system
of visiting husband is seen as discussed in Unit-3 of the same block and herein
like the Ashanti of Ghana the responsibility of the child rests with the mother’s
lineage. The Khasis of Meghalaya and the Garos of Garo Hills of Meghalaya are
two matrilineal societies where, in the first society the husband comes to live with
the wife’s family, while in the latter the husband is a visiting husband. While among
the Hopi’s of Southwest Amercia a man after marriage moves on to live with his
wife’s family in which he has important economic responsibilities but few ritual
obligations. In Hopi society also like the other matrilineal societies the man is
43
Kinship, Marriage and responsible and retains authority and leadership for his sister’s son and is not
Family
responible for his own children.
On the other hand among the matrilineal Trobriand islanders a practice is prevalent
wherein a boy grows up in his father’s family and after marriage when he sets up
house he is expected to live in the village of his mother’s brother. Herein, this
system the domestic authority which lies with the father is fullfilled and also the
jural authority that is authority in matters of distribution of property etc. that lies
with the mother’s brother is also successfully fulfilled. The Trobrianders also practice
the marriage of mother’s brother’s daughter and as such when a boy sets up
house in his mother’s brother’s village the bride is not removed from the vicinity
of her kin. Likewise, among the Yao and Cewa of Malawi a man immediately
after marriage has to live in his wife’s home and later he can setup house at the
village of his own matrilineal kin. In such a case by the time his daughters are of
marriageable age he becomes the head of the family to which the daughters’
husbands come (Mair, 1977).
The ghost marriage as described by Evans- Pritchard in his study of the Nuers is
also a variation in the family system as it is not found in all societies. Then there
is also the practice of a woman usually a barren woman paying bridewealth and
establishing the right to count another woman’s children as her own. In such a case
the barren woman is usually a diviner who thus, attains wealth to pay for the bride
price. The woman-husband in this case can select a man to co-habitat with her
‘wife’ and produce children who would be than known as her own (Mair, 1997).
Such a practice is seen among the Nuers, Zulus and the Yoruba societies.
Family types based on Residence
Family types can be categorized based on the type of residence also. In North
American society it is customary for the newly wedded couple to take up residence
in a place of their own, apart from the relatives of either spouse. This is known
as neolocal residence (that is a new place). Thus, a new family basically known
as nuclear family is formed with only husband and wife and later on their children,
own or adopted. When the newly married couple takes up residence in the groom’s
father’s house in a partilocal family such a residence is known as patrilocal or
virilocal residence. On the other hand a matrilocal or uxorilocal residence is
created when the couple takes up residence in a matrilocal family i.e, with the
bride’s family. In some societies like the Ashanti of Ghana a couple after marriage
resides with the groom’s mother’s brother’s family or maternal uncles house known
as avunculocal residence. Again in some societies a married couple has the
choice of living with relatives of either spouse (the husband or the wife). A residence
thus formed is known as ambilocal or bilocal residence.
Reflection and Action

Analyse your family using the geneological method as discussed in Unit 1 of this Block.
Describe what kind of a residence and family pattern it has.

Is Marriage and Family Universal?

In the earlier block also we have discussed marriage in length and we have come
to the conclusion that marriage leads to a family. But there is an example from the
Na society of China wherein there is no word for the term ‘marriage’ in their
language (Blumerfield 2004, Geertz 2001, Harrell 2002). The institution in which
the men and women are joined in sexual and reproductive partnerships is called
44 sese. In this system a man spends the night in a lover’s house and goes away in
the morning. The sese relationship does not hold any notion of fidelity, permanence, Family
paternal responsibility for children born or any form of economic obligations (Shih,
2001). A child born is the responsibility of the mother and her sisters and brothers.
A Na household comprises of mother and her sons and daughters, sisters and their
children and the brothers.
Household and Family
Many a times there is confusion between the term family and household. So let’s
first try to understand the term household and what it comprises of. Household has
been defined by Haviland (2003) as the basic residential unit where economic
production, consumption, inheritance, child rearing and shelter are organised and
implemented. The members of a household at times share a common hearth. Let’s
take the example of the Mundurucu of the Amazon who organise themselves
around a household. They have a unique system by which all men and boys above
13 years of age live together whereas all the women and children below 13 years
of age live together (Haviland, 2003). Herein, we see that household is an extention
of family, a family can be a household but a household need not be a family. To
make this statement clear let’s take another example from the present day situation.
We see a lot of students moving out of their native place and settling in some other
city or going abroad for higher education. These students usually on a shoe string
budget like to share accomodation with fellow stduents. Thus, two to three students
take up residence and start sharing space and eating together. This makes them
share a hearth but they are not necessarily members of the same family but belong
to different families.

4.3 FUNCTIONS OF A FAMILY

The family as a social group is universal in nature and its existence is seen at all
levels of cultures. Thus, the family having a status in society also has certain
responsibilities and functions. The basic functions of a family are outlined below:
 Satisfaction of biological need
The family as an institution regularises the satisfatcion of biological needs. It
serves for the institutionalisation of mating a primodial need among all humans.
Family helps in channeling of sexual outlets by defining the norms with whom
one can mate and who are out of bound in the terms of incest taboo. Family
thus helps in establishing a legal father for a woman’s children and a legal
mother for a man’s children.
 Reproduction and Inbibing Social Values
A child as we have learnt is born into a family. As soon as a child is born
into a family he is entitled to certain social position, system of beliefs, language,
parents and kins as per the family sytem that he is born into. This family
nutures the child and imbibe in him the ways of the society through the
process of enculturation preparing him to accept statuses of adulthood.
 Economic
A family as a social group is responsible for satisfying the basic needs of its
members like food, clothes and shelter. In order to achieve this objective all
the members of a family cooperate and divide the work among themselves
and make contribution towards the upkeeping of the family. Emile Durkheim
in his book Division of labour has brought forth this fact and laid emphasis
on economic satisfaction of the need of a family. It thus, serves as the 45
Kinship, Marriage and organisation of a complementary division of labour between spouses which at
Family
the same time allocates to each member of the family certain rights in the
labour of the other and in such goods or property as they may acquire
through their individual or joint efforts.
 Educational
A family provides for the linkage of each spouse and the offspring within the
wider network of kinsmen. It establishes relationships of descent and affinity.
Sociological fatherhood is determined to place the responsibility for the child
on a specific adult. There must be jural fatherhood to regularise transference
of statuses from one generation to the next. A cooperative division of labour
makes for greater efficiency and skill in the work that need to be done. Each
sex can perform many skills equally well, but each sex is likely to develop
those skills it uses more often. The basic functions of the family may be
performed with varying degrees of effectiveness from culture to culture. The
way the details of the functions are carried out can produce remarkably
different individual personalities of children and adult (Madan & Majumdar
1990, Jha 1995 et.al).

4.4 CHANGING DIMENSION OF FAMILY

Till now we have been focusing on the traditional norms and what comprises a
family. We have been concerned with the classical terminology in which a family
has been described and concieved but with the changing times the composition,
meaning and definition of family have also under gone changes. The high divorce
rate and remarriage in the present era leads to a tangled nuclear family leading to
the creation of complex kinship relations also. Presently the blended family is
coming up which comprises of networks which include previously divorced spouses
and their new marriage partners and sometimes children from the previous marriages,
as well as multiple sets of grandparents and other similar relations also. Then,
again there is the surrogate motherhood as discussed in Unit 1 of the same block
which also leads to a different type of family besides adoption. Divorces at times
also lead to families with a single parent either the children staying with mother or
at times with father. In the present day scenario single parenthood and a single
parent household is fast overtaking the nuclear family due to the rise in divorces.
Society being dynamic, we see a lot of changes and such changes have occurred
in the family system and the conception of the family itself. As we have learnt in
the last section of the Unit 1 about lesbian and gay kinship, these new patterns
have also arisen in the family structure – lesbian and gay family. In a lesbian and
gay family the partners usually adopt kids of either sex. There has been a lot of
debate in the recent past on whether or not a same sex couple should be allowed
to parent children, whether artificially implanted or adopted. This debate has gone
on for so long mainly because many religious groups believe that children can only
be properly parented by a father and mother combination. As most of the religions
do not sanction the union of same sex couples and also believe that the child will
suffer if parented by the same sex (Nanda & Warms, 2011). While the upcoming
feminist movement and many welfare agencies have strongly vouched for the
competency of two people as adults regardless of gender to be allowed to adopt
a child and care for the same. This fact is based on the idea that heterosexual
couples often have problems raising children, too. Research has found no major
differences in parenting or child development between families headed by two
46 mothers and other fatherless families. In 2008, Judge Cindy S. Lederman overturned
a Florida state law that prevented homosexual couples from adopting children, Family
stating no “moral or scientific reason for banning gays and lesbians from adopting”,
despite the state’s arguments otherwise (CNN US website accessed on 31 st
March, 2011). While, on the other hand Arkansas has recently banned all unwed
couples from adopting; a law aimed specifically at homosexual couples.
Lesbian and gay couples apart there has also been a trend of two people sharing
a live-in-relationship and begetting children without confirming to the age old
tradition of marriage. In case of live-in-relationship the partners stay as a family
on their personal consensus without undergoing the rituals of marriage which
pronounce a man and a woman as husband and wife. As in the case of family,
cases of domestic violence and rape have also come up in these live-in-relationships.
Presently, in India such cases of doemstic household violence and rape in a live-
in-relationship have been sanctioned by law to be addressed by the family court.
Reflection

Indian Law: Domestic Violence Act 2005

‘Different court judgments have discussed on different disputes pertaining to live-in

relationships. Live-in relationships are now considered at par with marriage under a new
Indian law pertaining to domestic violence. The provisions of the Domestic Violence Act,
2005 are now extended to those who are in live-in relationships as well. The amendments
intend to protect the victims of domestic abuse in live-in relationships. Section 2 (g) of
the aforementioned Act provides that a relationship between two individuals who live
together or have lived together in the past is considered as a domestic relationship. A
woman who is in a live-in relationship can seek legal relief against her partner in case
of abuse and harassment. Further, the new law also protects Indian women who are
trapped in fraudulent or invalid marriages.

http://www.lawisgreek.com/court-judgments-live-relationships-and-related-disputes,
accessed on 14th March, 2011.

Live-in-relationships has been legalised in many countries and thus, falls under the
purview of anthropological study of family. Students need to understand and
evaluate the live-in-relationship pattern, how the emotional bonding takes place
between parents and children, and the working of the kinship relations without a
formal sanction (marriage).

4.5 SUMMARY
From the above discussion on family we can summarize that family has been a
way of bringing togther two people who stay with each other to continue the
functions as administered by society. The question of when and how family as a
social structure came into being is still debatable. Family like other institutions has
also gone through many changes and we see a lot of variations in the family system
in the traditional societies. But in the present era most of the traditional societies
with polygamous and polyandrous family systems are turning into nuclear families.
Likewise, a few changes have also come up in the developed societies. The
blended families, live-in-relationships, gay and lesbian families are new entities in
the developing world and though initially there were lots of resistences yet it has
become an accepted norm in the present day scenario.

47
Kinship, Marriage and References
Family
Blumerfield, Tami. 2004. Walking Marriages. Anthropology Newsletter. 45 (5).
CNN US Websit e ht t p://art icles.cnn.co m/2008-11-25/us/
florida.gay.adoption_1_martin-gill-homosexual-adoption-florida-ban?_s=PM:US
David, Levinson & Martin Malone. 1980. Toward Explaining Human Culture.
New Haven, Conn: HRAF Press.
Durkheim, Emile. 1893. The Division of Labour in Society. Trans. Lewis A.
Coser Reprint in 1997. New York: Free Press.
Ernest, L. Schusky. 1965. Manual for Kinship Analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1940. The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood
and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
_____________ 1956. Nuer Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ferraro, Gary and Susan Andreatta. 2010. Cultural Anthropology: An Applied
Perspective (eight edition). USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Fox, Robin. 1967. Kinship and Marriage. Baltimore, Md.: Penguin.
Geertz, Clifford. 2001. ‘The Visit: Review of Cai Hua,’ ‘A Society without Fathers
or Husbands: The Na of China’. New York Review of Books. 18th October: 48
(16).
Harrell, Steven. 2002. Book Review of a Society without Fathers or Husbands:
The Na of China by Cai Hua, trans. Asti Hustvedt, American Anthropologists
104 (3): 982-983.
Haviland, W.A. 2003. Anthropology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Jha, Makhan. 1945. An Introduction to Social Anthropology. New Delhi: Vikas
Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
Julius, Gould & William L. Kolb. eds. 1964. A Dictionary of the Social Sciences.
New York: The Free Press.
Mair, Lucy. 1997. An Introduction to Social Anthropology. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Morgan, Lewis H. 1877. Ancient Society. London: Macmillan & Company. Reprint
(1944) Indian Edition. Bharati Library.
Murdock, George Peter. 1949. Social Structure. New York: Macmillan.
Nanda, Serena and Richard L.Warms. 2011. Cultural Anthropology. 10th Edition.
United Kingdom: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Nelson, Graburn. ed. 1971. Readings in Kinship and Social Structure. New
York: Harper and Row.
Parkin, Robert and Linda Stone. ed. 2004. Kinship and Family: A
Anthropological Reader. USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Roger, Keesing. 1975. Kin Groups and Social Structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart
48 and Winston.
Shih, Chaun-Kang. 2001. ‘Genesis of Marriage among the Moso and Empire Family
Building in Late Imperial China. The Journal of Asian Studies 60(2): 381-412.
Westermarck, Edward. 1922. The History of Human Marriage. The Allerton
Book Company.
Suggested Readings
Mair, Lucy. 1997. An Introduction to Social Anthropology. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Nanda, Serena and Richard L.Warms. 2011. Cultural Anthropology. 10th Edition.
United Kingdom: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Parkin, Robert and Linda Stone. ed. 2004. Kinship and Family: A
Anthropological Reader. USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Sample Questions
1) Define family.
2) Delineate the categorization of family as given by Morgan.
3) State in brief the different types of family as listed by Murdock.
4) Critically discuss the matrilineal and the patrilineal type of families.
6) Discuss the changing dimensions in family in the contemporary society.

49
 UNIT 5 KINSHIP, FAMILY AND MARRIAGE
IN INDIA
Contents
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Marriage
5.2.1 Caste and Marriage
5.3 North and South Indian Kinship
5.4 Family
5.4.1 Household Dimension of the Family
5.5 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions

Learning Objective

At the end of the unit, you should be able to:
 describe the marriage patterns in the Indian scenario;
 explain the difference in North and South Indian kinship; and
 discuss the household dimension of family in Indian context.

5.1 INTRODUCTION
This unit will introduce the students to the concepts of kinship, family and marriage
with illustrative examples from India. We shall touch upon a few debates and also
see that at times the representation of Indian society has been more idealistic than
actual. We shall make an attempt to represent the family and marriage practices
of all sections of Indian society rather than being confined to the sanskritic or
textual norms. It must be emphasised that although marriage and family are universal
for human societies the form and practices vary considerably across cultures and
are also not static, and change with times and situations. As the definitions of
kinship, marriage and family has been elaborated in the earlier units, they would
not be taken up here.

5.2 MARRIAGE
There has been considerable debate about the definition of marriage given the
huge ethnographic variations in what passes as marriage in various societies. The
basic working definition of marriage appeared in the Notes and Queries (1951)
“Marriage is a union between a man and a woman such that the children born to
the woman are recognised as legitimate offspring of both parents”. However such
a definition of marriage as is obvious is highly Eurocentric and has limited cross
cultural applicability. Among the Nuer for example, a rich widow with no children
can enter into a ghost marriage with a young and fertile woman so that the children
born to the ‘wife’ are socially considered as children of the dead man and become
50 legitimate heirs. In India the practice of Niyoga enabled a young widow to achieve
the same end through a brother /classificatory brother or family priest. However Kinship, Family and
Marriage in India
as Kathleen Gough has pointed out the fact of producing legitimate children does
remain the most important function of marriage. She was replying to scholars like
Edmund Leach who were of the opinion that the Nayars of Kerala did not have
a real marriage as the father had no role in the identity of the children who took
on the mother’s name and identity in a matrilineal system of inheritance. The
society had no social role of father as the children were begotten through visiting
husbands who were only sexual partners to the mother and had no rights over
their children. The mother’s brother wielded authority in households comprising of
brothers and sisters and the sister’s children. However Gough points out that
every Nayar woman did undergo a marriage ceremony with a person of proper
caste ranking and wore the tali (a kind of necklace worn as a sign of marital
status). Although the husband did not have any social role, he did have a ritual
status of legitimizing the woman to be socially sanctioned to bear legitimate children.
A woman observed pollution rites at the death of this husband like a woman
would of a regular husband. More importantly if a woman bore a child before this
marriage ceremony the child would be considered illegitimate and the mother and
child banished. Thus a Nayar marriage was a proper marriage in bestowing legal
and social status on the child. She gave a often quoted definition of marriage as
“—a relationship between a woman and one or more other person, which provides
that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules
of the relationship, is accorded full birth status rights common to normal members
of his society or social stratum” (Gough 1959:32).
Gough’s definition takes care of polygamy that is both polygyny, where a man
may have more than one wife and polyandry, where a woman may have more
than one husband. While polygyny was practiced in many parts of world and is
often associated with horticulture and the practice of bride-wealth, polyandry is
found only in South Asia. Polygyny is associated with those economies where
women play a significant role in the economy, like in hoe cultivation and also
where the number of wives signifies high social status as among the aristocracy of
the East. However polyandry is confined to some rare geographical regions
especially among some communities of the Himalayas, like the Jaunsaries and
Kinnauries; also among some Tibetan and Bhutiya communities. In most such
societies it takes the form of fraternal polyandry where a group of brothers may
have a wife in common. In Hindu mythology polyandry is described in the
Mahabharata where five Pandava brothers have a common wife in Draupadi.
Some scholars have criticized Gough’s definition in that she does not take into
account those societies where children from concubines may also have legitimate
status.
Polygyny has often given rise to conflicts of succession between children, especially
sons of co-wives, as depicted in the popular Hindu epic The Ramayana. According
to law giver Manu, the son of a wife of proper caste ranking and who has been
married in the most appropriate manner, that is gifted as a virgin by her father with
proper ritual has more rights than the sons of other wives and concubines.

5.2.1 Caste and Marriage

In India caste and marriage are almost inseparable among the Hindu majority and
except the indigenous populations, caste is found even among Muslims and Christians
in India. Caste does not aptly describe the Indian social organisation based on two
levels of differentiation, one at the abstract level of Varna, where all beings are 51
Kinship, Marriage and divided into four broad and ranked categories, Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas
Family
and Shudra; plus a category that lies outside the varna system the untouchables
(asprcya or achuyt). At the actual level of social interaction including marriage
and kinship it is the ‘jati’ an endogamous and geographically localised group that
is the effective social unit. Thus jati is an extended kin group as for any person
all relationships of blood and marriage will lie inside one’s own jati. However
rules of exogamy were operative within the jati in the form of gotra exogamy and
sapinda exogamy.
Gotra is a group based on socially constructed mythical ancestry, where some
mythical divine being in the form of an ancient sage is considered the common
ancestor of the group. Since only Brahmins could be the descendants of the rishis
(ancient sages), all other varna had probably taken on the gotra of their presiding
family priests. While gotra exogamy is found among all Hindus, the Sa-pinda
(Sa=together, pinda= a ball of rice) rules are applicable mostly in North India.These
include all those who have right to offer panda (ritual offering to a dead person)
to a man. All those who share the same body, metaphorically the same flesh,
belong to the sapinda category. It includes those who are putatively related by
blood and excludes those who are related by marriage, thus a son and brother’s
son is sapinda but not a son-in-law.
Depending upon the community, the rule of sapinda exogamy was extended to all
persons descended from certain generations from the father’s and mother’s side.
The most common expression of this rule was that a person must not marry
someone who may have a direct male ancestor in the direct male (father’s) line
up to seventh ascending generation and up to fifth ascending generation in the
mother’s line. This obviously excluded all collateral kin through the blood line.
In south Indian kinship the rule of Gotra exogamy is prevalent but not that of Sa-
Pinda exogamy as certain persons in collateral lines are eligible for marriage.
Reflection

The Hindu marriage cosmologically evokes the analogy of the seed and the earth, rooted
as it is in an agricultural economy. The three rules of marriage pertaining to the seed and
earth analogy are:

1) Only those children are considered as equal in rank to the father, who are born of
women of equal caste ranking who have been married as virgins. This will be true
for all caste rankings.

2) It is acceptable for a man to marry a woman of lower rank than himself as the power
of the male seed is superior to that of the earth; hence a man’s progeny even if born
of an inferior woman will have his qualities. Thus hypergamous or anuloma (in the
direction of hair) unions are acceptable though not the best.

3) But the opposite is not true. A woman must not marry down, or hypogamy or
pratiloma (against the hair) is not permissible. If a Brahmin woman marries a shudra
the children are lowest of untouchables.

Thus in real terms it means that women of lower castes are accessible to men of
higher castes and women of upper castes are kept out of bounds for all except
men of their own caste and higher. Thus Brahmin women are the most secluded
and shudra women the most accessible. However for a regular marriage, it is
always preferred that the wife should not be of lower caste. But according to the
laws of Manu an upper caste man can take as his secondary wives women of
lower castes.
52
Hypergamy can take different forms in North and South India. Thus among the Kinship, Family and
Marriage in India
Rajputs of N-W India, the Patidars of Gujarat and the Rarhi Brahmins of Bengal
the hypergamy means marriage between ranked groups of the same caste. Here
the child gets the same rank as the father. In South India the hypergamous marriages
take place between castes and the children are given the rank of the mother. A
famous example is that of the Namboodri brahmins and the Nayar women. Only
the eldest Namboodri son was allowed to marry a Namboodri woman and have
children of his own rank, but the younger sons were compelled to go to the Nayar
women as visiting husbands and their children were only identified as the children
of Nayar matriclans. Although they both follow gotra exogamy and jati endogamy,
there are some substantive differences between North Indian and South Indian or
what is more popularly known in anthropological literature as Dravidian kinship
system.

5.3 NORTH AND SOUTH INDIAN KINSHIP

In addition to the practice of polygyny and hypergamy, marriages in North India
are marked by a higher status given to the bride receivers than the bride givers,
thereby giving the man’s family a higher social status than a woman’s family that
has resulted in a general degrading of women in society, where the mother of a
son receives more prestige than the mother of a daughter and the birth of a
daughter is viewed as a lowering of rank of her entire family. Among the status
conscious Rajputs of North-Western India, it is this status consciousness that is
one of the reasons for widespread female infanticide as the father of a daughter
feels socially degraded. This is also the reason why there is no preference for
women exchange, rather women preferably move in the same direction, that is it
is preferred that sisters be married to a set of brothers rather than an exchange
of siblings take place as it is done in Bengal, in the custom of Palti Bodol, where
to save on dowry, siblings can be exchanged if they are otherwise properly matched.
Since the practice of exogamy is done at the village level, entire villages stand in
relations of bride givers and bride receivers with appropriate rankings and taboos.
Thus a person from a bride giving village will not accept even water from a bride
receiving village.
In South India there are two distinct differences, the first is the separation of the
cross and parallel siblings of the parents and a merging of the grandparents
generation in terms of kinship terminology that had led the south Indian kinship
terminology to be labelled as “bifurcate-merging’, the second is the practice of
what was referred to as the practice of cross-cousin marriage by those following
the ‘descent school’ in kinship studies. In South India it is preferred that a boy
marry his mother’s brother’s daughter or his father’s sisters daughter, neither of
which categories is referred to as a ‘sister’ and the father’s sister and mother’s
brother are also referred to by the same term as used for mother-in-law and
father-in-law.
Louis Dumont in his analysis of kinship on what he calls as the principle of affinity,
takes a different theoretical stand. According to Dumont, where there exists
positive marriage regulations, that is some categories of kin are ear marked for
marriage, the following criteria apply;
1) Marriage becomes part of an institution of marriage alliance, which spans the
generations. This is in opposition to the descent theorist’s views that marriage
relations are confined to one generation and only descent runs through
53
generations.
Kinship, Marriage and 2) The concept of affinity should extend so as to include not only those who are
Family
related to a ego by marriage, but also to people who inherit such a relationship
from their parents. Thus a son will inherit an affinal relationship in the form
of his mother’s brother from his father who already has an affinal relationship
of wife’s brother to him. Thus where there is prescribed cross cousin marriage,
the mother’s brother and father’s sister are never consanguines, but always
affines, as inherited from the parents.
3) In terms of kinship terminology such relationships will have an affinal content.
Thus the Dravidian kinship terminology can be described as one where there is
one term for all males and all females in the grand parent’s generation. The two
terms in father’s generation, namely father and mother’s brother are not simply
different but denote two classes of relatives; one consanguineal and the other
affinal. Thus father and mother’s brother are brothers-in-law to each other, or
linked to each other through the mother.

F = M MB

Ego Z

In the same way the relationship to father’s sister is mediated through the mother,
where the brother of one woman is husband to the other.
Such affinal relationships are continued in ego’s generation, become weaker in
ego’s son’s generation and disappear fully in the grandchild’s generation. The
basic structure of the system is of fathers on one side, including the father’s
brother and mother’s sister’s husband and father’s affines on the other, including
mother’s brother and father’s sister’s husband.
According to Dumont we should differentiate between the immediate or synchronic
affine and genealogical or diachronic affines who are affines by virtue of inheriting
an affinal tie from the earlier generation. Dumont also demonstrated how the
concrete expression to the abstract concept of alliance is given differently in
different social systems taking the examples of the matrilineal Kondaiyam Kottai
Maravar and the patrilinial and patrilocal Pramalai Kallar.
For the Kallar, the category of brothers is split into two, the brothers, one’s own
and the sons of the father’s brothers who are part of one’s local or residential kin
group and the sons of one’s mother’s sisters, who are spread in various places,
depending upon where the mothers were located after marriage. Thus although
they are notionally consanguines, the relationship with such relatives is weak as it
is spread over a large geographical area and tends to be forgotten over the
generations, unlike the enduring ties with the patrilineal kin. The father’s sister on
the other hand is born and remains in the father’s house till she gets married. Thus
although terminologically she is an affine, she has an ambiguous position as a weak
affine having been treated as a kin before her marriage. The mother’s brother in
a patrilineal situation is a strong affine.
The situation is just the reverse in the case of the matrilineal Kondaiam Kottai
Maravars, where the opposition between father and mother’s brother is viewed
differently. In the matrilineal situation the father would be an affine and the mother’s
brother a kin, therefore the ambiguity attached to the father’s sister in the patrilineal
case would be attached to the mother’s brother in this case who will be considered
54 a weak affine, while the father’s sister would be considered a strong affine.
In other words as Dumont puts it, the foremost affine in the upper generation is Kinship, Family and
Marriage in India
the affine of the lineally stressed parent, the mother’s brother in the patrilineal
situation and the father’s sister in the matrilineal one.
The distinction between the two categories of relative is also expressed in
ceremonials and gift giving. F.G. Bailey in Orissa and A.C. Mayer in Malwa have
noted that there is a lot of similarity in the ceremonial functions of relatives like
wife’s brother and mother’s brother, even though the former is an affine and the
latter a relative of blood connected through the mother. In a sense both the
relatives are similarly situated as the wife’s brother becomes the mother’s brother
in the next generation; gifts given by both are referred to as mamere in the local
language so that culturally also the two relatives are put in the same bracket. In
opposition to mamere is dan. These are the gifts given by those who have taken
a woman from the group, the father’s sister’s husband and sister’s husband, in
contrast the mamere is given by those who have given a woman to the group.
Thus Dumont has pointed out that essentially from the cultural point of view the
real difference is between wife giver’s and wife receivers and not between uterine
and agnatic kin.
As an example one can take the case of the Sarjupari Brahmins of U.P. who
ignore the sa-pinda rule. But adhere to the two rules that;
Firstly, a lineage does not ‘take’ a girl from a local lineage to which a girl has
been given by them, as the bride receivers are in a permanent position of superiority
symbolized in the ritual of ‘pao-pujan’ ( feet worship).
Secondly, a man does not marry his sister and daughter (including classificatory
ones) into the same family; for this would mean matrilateral cross cousin marriage,
not permissible in North India.
However among the lower castes such as Dhobis, such marriages are permitted.
Among the upper castes the former rule prohibits reversal of marriage between
larger units such as local descent groups and the latter prohibits the repetition of
marriage between smaller units such as families. Among the lower castes such
repetition leads to stronger community formation at the local level, so necessary
for their survival. The lower castes may also practice bride exchange and widow
remarriage.
In the study of south Indian kinship it is seen that ceremonial gifts are given by
those relatives where the affinal relatives are passed down generations that is by
the mother’s brother, father’s sister or father’s sister’s husband, wife givers in all
cases by the rule of prescriptive marriage to the children of parent’s cross sex
siblings.
Among the high status Sarjupari Brahmins the first rule permits repetition of marriage
between lineages but in the same direction, thus taking care of caste norms, but
not particularly of kinship. In south India marriage rules reflect pure kinship norms.
The Sarjupari Brahmins also have the rules of “three houses, thirteen houses, and
one lakh (hundred thousand) and twenty-five thousand” houses arranged vertically.
Similar rules are seen in Bengal among the Dakhin-Rarhi Kayasthas of the “three
houses (Kulin), eight houses and seventy-two houses”, similarly arranged
hierarchically in order of preference. Such status is attributional while the status
difference between bride-givers and bride-takers is interactional.

55
Kinship, Marriage and
Family 5.4 FAMILY
The form of family is both synchronically and diachronically determined. Among
the upper caste Hindus the Mitakshara school of Hindu law is usually followed in
which the Hindu Joint family is one in which all male agnatic members have a share
from birth and they may demand a share in the property as soon as they reach
the legal age of maturity. The male members along with their wives and children
may share the same roof and hearth and are coparcenaries. In addition there may
be other members in a joint household in the form of dependents like orphans and
widows, usually related women born in the family. A joint family is symbolically
united in common worship of some deity looked upon as the benefactor of the
particular lineage or kul.
The head of the family is usually the eldest male member known as the Karta,
who wields considerable power. However as the well known sociologist Arvind
Shah points out the three generational joint family is only an ideal type and rarely
realized in actual practice.
The biggest difference in family organisation is based upon caste, occupation and
economic status. The large undivided joint households were usually found among
the wealthy upper castes, who found it useful to stay together in a large household
with supportive resources like a large house and many servants. It was functional
for the management of large estates and businesses.
On the contrary the lower castes and poorer sections of the people rarely have
enough resources to form joint households. Also their meagre earnings do not
permit the setting up of larger units. If the family lives at subsistence level the daily
earnings or food does not permit any accumulation or cannot be shared among
large number of members, it is each to his own in such a situation. Similar situation
is found among the tribal populations where the joint household is almost unknown.
Thus the projection of the majority of families in India being joint is only a upper
caste, class and an ideal depiction.
With the use of the historical model many anthropologists have criticized this
idealistic assumption. A.M. Shah, a well known sociologists highly regarded for his
work on family, found in his social and historical study of a village in Gujarat that
the kind of family assigned to tradition was not present even in the pre-colonial
era. Let us see what he has to write about Radhvanaj, a village consisting primarily
of upper caste Rajputs and Brahmins (Shah 1998).
“According to the Census of 1825 Radhvanaj had a population of 716 persons
divided into 159 households and there were 25 castes” ......... “73 % of the total
number of households were very small or small in 1825. The ideal of the so-called
joint family household was not very strong in the village and this was even before
the beginning of industrialisation and urbanization”. But even though there were no
joint families, the Rajputs, namely the Rathods of this region formed exogamous
lineage groups. But in the very same village such lineage groups were not found
among the other caste groups. “By and large, strong and elaborate lineage groups
were associated with control over land”. As Shah has further elaborated land
ownership provided stability of residence and facilitated growth of the lineages.
Land ownership also provided power and therefore, lineages with the help of the
unity provided by the kinship bond, tended to be repositories of power.
56 Among low caste occupational groups like the Dhobis (washer men) in northern
India joint living is not found at all, Channa (1985). As rightly pointed out by Shah Kinship, Family and
Marriage in India
land ownership often provides the economic base for joint living. For households
who have to live off their daily earnings it is a difficult proposition to pool in the
earnings at the end of the day and go for joint living. What the earlier authors had
relied upon was an ideal basis for the family based on values and scriptural norms.
But in reality the economic and political considerations determine at the actual
level what shape is going to be taken by the household. The main resource of the
dhobis for example are the households, referred to them as grahak (clients) from
whose houses they get clothes to be washed. As a couple get older their capacity
to wash and iron clothes decrease. When a son grows up he gets a few clients
from his father but most of his clientele he can built up on his own depending upon
the capacity for hard work, initiative and luck both of his own and that of his wife.
Very soon after their marriage young couples prefer to set up their own chullah
or hearth, in other words set themselves up as separate production and consumptions
units separate from their parents. Because the young couple does not want that
they should do all the hard work and the aging parents should share the fruits of
their labour. Unless they get very old and disabled, their children rarely support
parents.
According to Shah, among the upper castes and elite section families of society,
the sentiments and bonds, both economic and social continue to operate even if
the members are living in different locations because of necessities of work, or
lack of urban space or any such factor; For example, children of middle class
families who are settled abroad or in different places within the country, still
consider the parental house as their own, returning for major ceremonies and
events on a regular basis. Economically too the bonds of sharing and cooperation
persist even from a distance. Thus the joint family as noted by Shah is acquiring
a ‘federal’ multi-centred character.
However in some parts of India, apart from the joint families, or joint sentiments
based on monogamous marriages, some different forms of families are also present.
The polyandrous families are still found in some hilly areas like Himachal, where
it is considered good to marry a set of brothers to a single woman so that scarce
resources of land can be preserved and since these communities still depend upon
sheep grazing and agriculture, the undivided household of several brothers and
their wife leads to more prosperity.
Among the Khasis of Meghalaya, the family property and name is inherited in the
female line with the youngest daughter inheriting the family house and property.
The husband of the youngest daughter in a Khasi family comes to live with her and
she is primarily responsible for the performance of all the household rituals. The
family name also runs in the female line. Thus the patrilineal and patrilocal family
is not absolutely universal in India.
The practice of resident-son-in-law, also called ghar-jawai, ghar-jamai or magpa
is found among many communities of India. Among the Bhutiyas and other hill
people it is a common practice with the son-in-law becoming like the adopted son
of his parents in law and even performing their death rituals. Among the Tibetans
and Bhutiyas the daughter has inheritance rights and even when the resident son-
in-law performs the rituals like a son, it is the daughter who is socially recognised
as the mistress of the property and remains dominant over her husband.
The Muslim households usually follow the Hindu pattern with the wealthy families
living in large joint households and the poorer ones living mostly in nuclear families 57
Kinship, Marriage and along with the urban and educated families, which are also nuclear. Although
Family
polygyny is permitted for the Muslims the actual incidence is rather low and not
any different from those of Hindus.
Values of education of women are often cited as factors for the break up of joint
families as are business rivalries and clash of interests. In the traditional joint
households the money was earned from a common estate or business, with
modernisation, the various sons took up jobs according to their own capacities
and conflicts could ensue over different incomes and contributions to the common
pool. Women’s education further complicated matters as they developed more
individuality and resisted being dominated. Yet deference and respect for elders
still persists and most children do not take major decisions without the permission
or consent of their parents.

5.4.1 The House-hold Dimension of the Family

In addition to the class and caste based difference a family can be viewed in terms
of its development over time and Shah has described the developmental cycle of
the Indian family following the model given by Meyer Fortes. Even the simple of
basic family may exhibit different structures depending upon the stage at which it
is found. The basic household in India is called a ‘chullah’ or ghar. The following
possible compositions are possible
1) Husband, wife and unmarried children
2) Husband and Wife (when there are no children born or they have left the
household by marriage or migration)
3) Father and unmarried children (when the wife is dead or divorced)
4) Mother and unmarried children (for same reasons as above)
5) Unmarried brothers and sisters (because of death of parents)
6) A single man or woman (for various reasons of death or separation or
migration).
In the formation of the simple household, the terms “children”, “father” and “mother”
also include all step children and adopted children, step mothers and adoptive
mothers and step father and adoptive fathers so that in reality a simple family may
at times be a ‘compound family’.
The actual power structure of the household may also vary. Thus widowed mothers
may play a considerable significant role in the affairs of their sons even though by
the rules of patriliny the son inherits the father’s status. Similarly the role of women
as wives and daughters may also be significant in certain situations.
As Shah points out the development process of the household is not random but
may follow a pattern depending on the following factors.
1) The demographic factor, like birth, marriage and death and also the sex ratio
and the actual number of persons who come to live in a household by what
is known as the process of accretion.
2) The second depends on the norms of residence that may also vary; like for
example the phenomenon of the resident son-in-law and the norms regarding
residence of parents.
58
 Kinship, Family and
5.5 SUMMARY Marriage in India

In conclusion we can say that it is difficult to have a uniform description of kinship,

family and marriage in India as there is considerable regional variation (Karve
1963, Kolenda 1987), and also across caste and tribal populations. Some significant
regional works are that of Veena Das (1976) and Paul Hershman (1981) on
Punjabi Kinship, Fruzzeti and Ostor (1976) and Ronald Inden (1976) on Bengali
kinship, Dumont (1966) and Trautmann on Dravidian kinship, and Madan (1965)
on Kashmiri kinship, to name a few. One may also refer to the significant
contribution of Leela Dube (1997) to a gendered approach to the study of kinship.
Some unique features such as of caste and kinship and polyandry are found in
South Asia not found anywhere else. Significant differences exist across North and
South India and among lower and upper classes. There have been changes also
in family and kinship norms due to transformations in social and economic variables.
Thus kinship is just not ideational but practical as well serving existing needs of
society.
References
Ahmed, Imtiaz. (ed.). 1976. Family, Kinship and Marriage among Muslims in
India. New Delhi: Monohar Book Service.
Channa, Subhadra. 1985. Tradition and Rationality in Economic Behaviour.
New Delhi: Cosmo Publication.
Das, Veena. 1976. ‘Masks and Faces: An essay on Punjabi Kinship’.
Contributions to Indian Sociology, Vol.10, No.1, Pp 1-30.
Dube, Leela. 1997. Women and Kinship: Comparative Perspectives on Gender
in South and South-East Asia. United Nations University Press.
_____________ 1986. ‘Seed and earth: The symbolism of Biological Reproduction
and Sexual Relations of Production.’ In Leela Dube, Eleanor Leacock and Shirley
Ardner. (eds.) Visibility and Power: Essays on Women in Society and
Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dumont, Louis. 1966. ‘Marriage in India: The Present State of the Question , III-
North India in relation to South’. Contributions to Indian Sociology: Vol.9.
Fruzzeti, Lina and Akos Oster. 1976. ‘Seed and Earth: A Cultural Analysis of
kinship in a Bengali town’. Contributions to Indian Sociology: Vol.10 No.1 pp
97-132.
Gough, Kathleen. 1952. ‘Changing Kinship Usages in the Setting of Political and
Economic Change Among the Nayars of Malabar’. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. 89: 23-34.
Hershman, Paul. 1981. Punjabi Kinship and Marriage. Delhi: Hindustan Publishing
Corporation.
Inden, Ronald B. 1976. Marriage and Rank in Bengali Culture: A History of
Caste and Clan in Middle period Bengal. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Inden, Ronald B and Ralph Nicholas. 1977. Kinship in Bengali Culture. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
59
Kinship, Marriage and Karve, Iravati. 1963. Kinship Organisation in India. Kolkata: Asia Publishing
Family
House.
Kolenda, Pauline. 1987. Regional Differences in Family Structure in India.
Delhi: Rawat Publications.
Madan, T.N. 1965. Family and Kinship: A study of the Pandits of Rural
Kashmir. Kolkata: Asia Publishing House.
Majumdar, D.N. 1962. Himalayan Polyandry: Structure, Functioning and
Culture Change, A Field Study of Jaunsar Bawar. Kolkata: Asia Publishing
House.
Mayer, Adrian C. 1960. Caste and Kinship in Central India. Great Britain:
University of California Press.
Ostor, Akos, Lina Fruzzeti and Steve Barnett. (Eds.). 1983. Concepts of Person,
Kinship, Caste and Marriage in India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shah, A.M. 1973. The Household Dimension of the Family In India. Delhi:
Orient Longman.
Trautmann, Thomas. 1995. Dravidian Kinship. Delhi: Sage Publications.
Suggested Reading
Dube, Leela. 1997. Women and Kinship: Comparative Perspectives on Gender
in South and South-East Asia. United Nations University Press.
Dumont, Louis. 1966. ‘Marriage in India: The Present State of the Question , III-
North India in relation to South’. Contributions to Indian Sociology: Vol.9.
Karve, Iravati. 1963. Kinship Organisation in India. Kolkata: Asia Publishing
House.
Sample Questions
1) Describe the basic principles of South Indian Kinship and how it differs from
North Indian Kinship?
2) Discuss the various forms of the household in India with specific reference to
the developmental cycle.
3) Discuss the relationship between bride-givers and bride takers and its ritual
and ceremonial expression among the upper castes of North India.
4) Discuss the various forms of lineality in India, with suitable examples.
5) Describe the changes in joint families and the nature of the changes.

60
 MAN-001
Social Anthropology
Indira Gandhi
National Open University
School of Social Sciences

Block

6
RELIGION
UNIT 1
Concepts and Approaches to the Study of Religion
(Evolutionary, Psychological, Functional and Marxist) 5
UNIT 2
Rituals and Symbolism 22
UNIT 3
Religious Specialists 33
Expert Committee
Professor I J S Bansal Professor V.K.Srivastava Dr. S.M. Patnaik
Retired, Department of Principal, Hindu College Associate Professor
Human Biology University of Delhi Department of Anthropology
Punjabi University, Patiala Delhi University of Delhi
Professor K K Misra Professor Sudhakar Rao Delhi
Director Department of Anthropology Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh
Indira Gandhi Rashtriya University of Hyderabad Assistant Professor
Manav Sangrahalaya Hyderabad Department of Anthropology
Bhopal Professor. Subhadra M. University of Delhi
Professor Ranjana Ray Channa Delhi
Retired, Department of Department of Anthropology Faculty of Anthropology
Anthropology University of Delhi SOSS, IGNOU
Calcutta University, Kolkata Delhi
Dr. Rashmi Sinha
Professor P. Chengal Reddy Professor P Vijay Prakash
Reader
Retired, Department of Department of Anthropology
Anthropology Andhra University Dr. Mitoo Das
S V University, Tirupati Visakhapatnam Assistant Professor
Professor R. K. Pathak Dr. Nita Mathur Dr. Rukshana Zaman
Department of Anthropology Associate Professor Assistant Professor
Panjab University Faculty of Sociology Dr. P. Venkatrama
Chandigarh School of Social Sciences Assistant Professor
Professor A K Kapoor Indira Gandhi National Open Dr. K. Anil Kumar
Department of Anthropology University, New Delhi Assistant Professor
University of Delhi, Delhi
Programme Coordinator: Dr. Rashmi Sinha, IGNOU, New Delhi
Course Coordinator : Dr. Rukshana Zaman, IGNOU, New Delhi

Block Preparation Team

Unit Writers Content Editor
Professor R. Siva Prasad
Units 1 and 3 Unit 2
Head
Professor N. Sudhakar Rao Professor Subhadra M.
Department of Anthropology
Department of Anthropology Channa
University of Hyderabad
University of Hyderabad Department of Anthropology
Hyderabad University of Delhi, Delhi
Language Editor
Dr. Parmod Kumar
Assistant Professor
Discipline of English
School of Humanities
IGNOU, New Delhi.
Authors are responsible for the academic content of this course as far as the copyright issues are concerned.

Print Production
Mr. Manjit Singh Cover Design
Section Officer (Publication) Dr. Mitoo Das
School of Social Sciences, IGNOU Assistant Professor, Anthropology, SOSS, IGNOU
August, 2011
© Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2011
ISBN:
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or any
other means, without permission in writing from the copyright holder.
Further information on the Indira Gandhi National Open University courses may be obtained
from the University’s office at Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110 068 or the official website of
IGNOU at www.ignou.ac.in
Printed and published on behalf of Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi by Director,
SOSS, IGNOU.
Laser Typeset at Graphic Printers, 204, Pankaj Tower, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110091.
Printed at :
BLOCK 6 RELIGION
Introduction
Since the inception of the discipline Anthropologists have been eliciting the
relationship between religion and society. In traditional societies it has regulated
the lives of the people in different aspects that included economy, polity, life cycle
crisis, etc. Some Marxist structuralists, like Maurice Godelier and Meillassoux,
believed that in societies where religion was predominant, it was regarded as a
mode of production, as is also the case with societies that are predominantly
kinship based, which controlled the production, distribution and relations of
production. The classical example that can be cited is that of the Inca and Hindu
society during the ancient times. In many societies religion is one of the main social
control mechanisms. Even in the present day societies, it plays a very significant
role in controlling and regulating lives of people. Put differently, religion and society
are intricately related, be it tribal, rural, urban, traditional or modern. By and large,
what we notice in traditional societies is that religion is community oriented, while
in the modern societies it is, to a certain extent, individual driven. It is, therefore,
important to understand the way religion and society are intertwined. This Block
on Religion, which contains three Units, acquaints you to the theoretical and
empirical aspects of the relationship between the two. It will provide a good
understanding about the religious specialists, their role in healing, social control,
etc.
Unit1: Concepts and Approaches to the Study of Religion, introduces the
concept of religion as evolved in anthropology differently from the other disciplines
that deal with the subject matter of religion. Anthropological perspective of religion,
unlike the others, reflects the subjects’ perspective or what is aptly known as the
‘field view’. This Unit acquaints you to different concepts involved in the study of
religion from an anthropological perspective. It further assists you in understanding
the anthropological perspective of religion and different approaches to study religion.
In a way, it makes you analyse religion from an anthropological lens.
Unit 2: Rituals and Symbolism, reflects upon the anthropological studies of
rituals replete with symbolism. Anthropologists have immensely contributed to the
studies on symbolism and this unit discusses vividly the perspectives on rituals and
symbolism. It further delineates the way anthropologists analysed rituals as symbolic
communication, as a mark of protest, the use of symbols of rituals in social life of
communities, etc. It also discusses the concepts used in the analysis of rituals and
symbols.
Unit 3: Religious Specialists, outlines the significant role played by the religious
specialists in different societies, be they the agents of social control, health specialists
or mediators (healers), ritual specialists, etc. The unit discerns the role of religious
specialists in a community or society. As part of this, it appraises you to different
types of religious specialists, religious specialisations, and functional differences
among the specialists, besides the relationship between religious specialisation and
the scale of society.
UNIT 1 CONCEPTS AND APPROACHES TO
THE STUDY OF RELIGION
(Evolutionary, Psychological,
Functional and Marxist)
Contents
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Concepts of Religion
1.2.1 Supernatural Beings
1.2.2 Animism
1.2.3 Animatism
1.2.4 Naturism
1.2.5 Totemism
1.2.6 Taboo
1.2.7 Sacred and Profane
1.2.8 Ritual
1.2.9 Myth
1.2.10 Cult

1.3 Religious Symbolism

1.4 Religious Knowledge and Practices
1.4.1 Ancestor Worship
1.4.2 Magic and Magician
1.4.3 Witchcraft and Sorcery
1.4.4 Evil Eye

1.5 Anthropological Approach to Religion

1.5.1 Evolutionary Perspective
1.5.2 Psychological Approach
1.5.3 Functionalist Approach
1.5.4 Structuralist Approach
1.5.5 Marxist Approach
1.5.6 Symbolic Approach

1.6 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions
Learning Objectives

This reading should enable you to understand:
 various concepts in the discourse of religion;
 development of anthropological perspective of religion;
 various approaches to study religion; and
5
 contribution of anthropology to the understanding of religion.
Religion
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The subject matter of religion is dealt with in anthropology differently from the
other disciplines, such as philosophy, theology, comparative religion, religious studies
and so on. It tries to explain not what religion is but why is religion important in
the lives of the people. It basically takes people’s perspective and seeks to find
out how it is important to the people. There is no society that is known so far
without any religious idea. As early as nineteenth century, anthropologists made
attempts to search for earlier forms of religion and religious thoughts and the
courses of change therein. Some intellectuals thought that religion will have no
place where science and technology flourish, but the reality is to the contrary.
Even today in the age of computers, robots and inter-planetary travel religion
plays important roles in the lives of people. Anthropologists are trying to know the
relevance of religion in human societies whether they are technologically advanced
or primitive hunter and gatherers. This obviously raises the question of the
significance of religion in human societies. This unit basically attempts to orient
students to the anthropological perspective of religion.
Anthropological approach of studying human societies as integrated wholes,
considers religion as a part of culture. Each culture is unique in its own way and
each culture can be studied and described. The recent thinking is that the world
can be viewed in multiple ways and, therefore, the representation of culture cannot
be monological, authoritative and bounded. Thus, the anthropological perspective
of religion is the way its practitioners see the world, interpret and see themselves
different from others.
One may begin to have an understanding of the domain of religion with the question
what constitutes religion? And how do we define religion? Anthropologists defined
religion in different ways. But none of these well known definitions adequately
cover all aspects of religion practiced by all human societies. There has been
criticism on each of these definitions for their failure of accounting for one aspect
or the other.
In this unit, the students will be introduced to basic concepts found in anthropological
discourse on religion, and various approaches to study religion such as evolutionary,
psychological, functional, Marxist and symbolic. First, each of the basic concept
is discussed, followed by discussion on anthropological approaches to study religion.
Box No. 1 Definition of Religion

For Edward B. Tylor (1832-1917) religion is the belief in spiritual beings (1871).

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) defines religion as “a unified system of beliefs and

practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden
- beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called Church,
all those who adhere to them” (1961:62).

Clifford Geertz defines religion as (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2)
establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men
[and women] by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and
(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods
and motivations seem uniquely realistic (1973:90).

1.2 CONCEPTS OF RELIGION

The important concepts that appear in the study of religion include supernatural
6 beings – of polytheistic and monotheistic beliefs, forms of religion – animism,
animatism, totemism, ritual, myth, religious symbolism, ancestor worship, magic, Concepts and Approaches to
the Study of Religion
witchcraft and sorcery. Each of these concepts is briefly explained below: (Evolutionary,
Psychological, Functional
1.2.1 Supernatural Beings and Marxist)

There is dichotomy of world into: natural and supernatural. The natural world is
explained in terms of cause and effect relations, whereas the supernatural world
cannot be explained in causal relations alone. Gods, goddesses, god-lings, dead
ancestors, spirits who may be benevolent or malevolent; ghosts, demons, and
other forms, which are usually malevolent, and are powerful than human beings in
their movements and actions that constitute the world of the supernatural beings.
The supernatural beings may be visible at particular point of time, not for all but
for a few, or remain invisible. They are not subject to natural laws and principles,
whereas the natural beings necessarily follow the natural or physical laws and
principles. Theism refers to the beliefs and ideas that focus on supernatural beings
within the religious practices. When the society holds belief in multiple supernatural
beings it is called as polytheistic religion. Hinduism is the best example of having
a number of gods and goddesses in its pantheon. Monotheistic religions are those
having belief in one supreme supernatural being that may be called God or Yahweh
or Allah as in case of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
In several religious practices, the interaction between humans and spiritual beings
are through spirit possession, vision and dreams. The spiritual beings possess
some humans who become media through which other humans and spirit enter into
dialogue. Sometimes, the spirits speak to the human agent who conveys the message
to people. In some cases, the humans get visions or the spirits appear in dreams
to interact with them. Also individuals get into trance for interacting with the spirits.
Thus, links are established between humans and supernatural world.

1.2.2 Animism
The term is coined by E. B. Tylor (1871) to describe the belief in soul or life force
and personality existing in animate and inanimate objects as well as human beings.
Several of the tribal religions hold such beliefs. His theory is that human beings are
rational beings, and attempt to interpret mysterious phenomena like sleeping, dreams
and death with the idea of soul.

1.2.3 Animatism
R. R. Marett (1866-1943) considered that humans believed in impersonal forces
in nature and certain objects. This sort of belief had created in humans religious
feelings of awe, fear, wonder, respect, admiration, and other psychical effects. He
believed that primitive man could not distinguish between the natural and supernatural
and also between living and dead. This condition that prevailed before the
development of the idea of soul is called animatism, which Marrett named after
mana which means power in Polynesia.

1.2.4 Naturism
Max Muller contended that since the gods in various societies were originally from
natural phenomenon, such as sun, thunder, trees, animals, mountains, forests, lakes,
rivers, oceans and so on, the human perception of nature must have had very
powerful agencies for origin of religion. Nature was the greatest surprise, a terror,
a marvel, a miracle which has also been permanent, constant and regular occurrences,
7
Religion and these could not be explained with the known facts. They are believed to have
great influence on the affairs of human beings. The religious thoughts must have
originated from the conceptualisation of nature itself and worship of nature.

1.2.5 Totemism
It is a system of belief in which certain objects, plants or animals have kinship
relationship with social groups. Such animate and inanimate objects stand as
emblems giving identity to the groups and form representations of the groups.
They create religious feelings among the members and form the objects of worship,
reverence and sacredness. According to Durkheim, totemism is the earliest form
of religion and it is quite prominently found among the Australian tribes, and such
phenomena are also noted among the American tribes as well.

1.2.6 Taboo
Taboo a Polynesian concept (tabu/tapu) but widely used in anthropological
literature. It refers to something, use of which is collectively and strictly forbidden
in religious context. The violation of a taboo has different consequences of temporary
defilement, crime to be punished and attracts the sanctions of supernatural beings
and so on. Taboo is associated with mana and Totems are considered taboos.

1.2.7 Sacred and Profane

According to Durkheim, these are central concepts of religion. The sacred refers
to the things or spaces which are set apart for religious purposes, and against
these the profane refers to those considered secular in nature. However, in several
religions there are no equivalent terms and often they overlap also.

1.2.8 Ritual
Ritual, like religion, is difficult to define due to diverse forms and complexity of
the phenomenon. However, one may understand it as a set of formalised actions
performed with symbolic value in a socially relevant context or worshiping a deity
or cult. It is also a customary observance involving stereotyped behaviour. Rituals
vary in form and in content within a particular religion and across religions. They
involve participation of one or more individuals, physical movements or actions,
verbal and non-verbal or symbolic mode of communication based on certain
shared knowledge. Often ritual actions are infused with certain moods and emotional
states and the participants may inwardly assent or dissent from the ritual process.
Box No. 2

Victor Turner defines ritual as “prescribed formal behaviour for occasions not given over
to technical routine, having reference to beliefs in mystical (or non-empirical) beings or
powers regarded as the first and final causes of all effects” (1982:79).

Gluckman and Turner differentiate ritual from ceremony, though both of them are
forms of religious behaviour. Ritual involves social status and transition of one’s
status and, therefore, it is ‘transformative’, while the ceremony is associated with
social status and ‘confirmatory’. But such fine distinction often gets blurred and
difficult to maintain the difference. Rituals are classified as religious, magical,
calendrical, sacred, secular, private, public, sacrificial and totemic and so on.
Anthropologists most often use in their discourses on religion the ‘rites de passage’
of Arnold van Gennep, who analytically isolated a set of rituals called rites of
passage. The rites are organised recognising the change of status of individual in
8
one’s life time, and each of the rites employs three phases: separation; margin (or Concepts and Approaches to
the Study of Religion
limen); and incorporation. Turner elaborates the transitional phase liminality in his (Evolutionary,
study of Ndembu in Zambia. Psychological, Functional
and Marxist)
1.2.9 Myth
Believed to be truthful accounts of the past, the narrative that gives religious
sanctity and sacred character to the account, and is often associated with ritual is
called myth. Well, all myths may not actually depend on the past and necessarily
do not deal with sacred, yet they refer to or hinge upon such putative factors
providing social credibility and acceptability of the account. Well-known myths
are creation myths. Myth is different from legend as the characters in the myth are
usually not humans. They may be supernatural beings or animals or other animate
and inanimate objects and sometimes they are ambiguous characters. Myths
generally offer explanations for the customs and practices. On the other hand,
legends are about culture heroes, historical figures located in historical events,
which are believed to have taken place, that very easily transit into the contemporary
life. Folk tales are not considered sacred but regarded as stories or fiction meant
basically for entertainment. These tales may also include supernatural elements, yet
are essentially secular in nature. The characters in these tales may be human and/
non-humans. The tales exist independent of time and space. There is a strong
relationship between myth and ritual, and there was a debate as to which came
first. It is so because some argued that ritual is the enactment of myth whereas
others had argued that myth arises out of rites. The contemporary studies on
myths find no strict correspondence between the two.
Franz Boas tried to understand the social organisation, religious ideas and practices
of people from their myths. Malinowski argued that myth is a powerful social force
for the native which is relevant to their pragmatic interests. It expresses and
codifies beliefs and works towards efficacy of ritual and provides a practical
guide. However, for Levi-Strauss, myth is a logical model, it is a cultural artefact.
The human mind structures reality and imposes form and content on it. According
to him, myth is an area where human mind enjoys freedom and unrestrained
creative thinking expressed in it. Taking into consideration several limiting factors,
humans think certain conceivable possibilities about the critical problems that they
face. Therefore, myth provides the conceptual frame for social order, but it need
not correspond with the ethnographic facts of social organisation. Levi-Strauss
provided a method for structural analysis of myth. The latter studies of myth point
out the fact that myth interprets the reality but does not necessarily represent the
social order.
Reflection and Action 1

You can find rituals and myths in your own cultural lore. Try to find their relationship,
if there is any.

1.2.10 Cult
The concept of cult is derived from French culte meaning worship or a particular
form of worship. It has been used in both neutral and negative sense. In the
neutral sense of the term it means ‘care’, ‘cultivation’ and ‘tended’, it is a deity
or idol or image of a saint who is venerated and it is concerned with devotion.
However, in the negative sense it refers to the practice of a deviant religious group
or new religious dogma arising out of syncretism, cultural mix of ideas and practices
of different religions. The Cargo cults of Melanesia and Papua New Guinea weave 9
Religion Christian doctrine with native beliefs, in which it is believed that the spirits of dead
would bring the manufactured European goods in ships and airplanes. Similarly,
Caribbean vodum or ‘voodoo’, Cuban santeria and Afro-Brazilian candomble`
deities are referred to as cults.

1.3 RELIGIOUS SYMBOLISM

In a general sense of the term, symbol may be an object, picture, written word,
sound, idea, and colour that represent something else in association, resemblance
or convention. The religious symbolism refers to the idea of how symbols are
employed in religious context. Cross or Swastika or Crescent Moon are religious
symbols found in Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam, respectively. Symbols are
communicative, convey meanings shared by the community. They are associated
with human interests, purposes, ends and means. They are explicitly formulated.
The symbols are dynamic as they evoke moods and emotions and create complex
philosophical contexts in mind. Sacred art, pictures, drawings and designs used in
ritual and religious context convey religious meanings. Turner identifies three
properties of these religious or ritual symbols: condensation, unification of disparate
significata, and polarised meanings. Condensation means representing many ideas,
actions and meanings into a single symbol. For example, the Shiva Ling is
representation of Lord Shiva, divine destruction, male potency, creation and so
on. The unification of disparate significata means unifying diverse elements as in
case of Ndembu ritual the milk tree representing women’s breasts, motherhood,
and principle of matriliny, learning and unity of society. Polarization refers to two
distinguishing poles of meanings as matriliny and patriliny in case of Ndembu
puberty ritual.

1.4 RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES

Religious knowledge in most of the cases is institutionalised. It is developed and
contained in the form of doctrines and practices which anthropologists categorize
as little traditions and great traditions. The little traditions deal with the mundane
issues, whereas the great traditions deal with the philosophical and other worldly
issues. Different institutions are developed in these traditions; in the former case
there is shamanism (a system of belief cantering on the shaman, a religious personage
having curative and psychic powers), spirit possession, oracle or prophecy and in
the latter case, there are institutions of formal learning of religious matters, priesthood
of various orders, monasteries, and so on. In little traditions the knowledge is
passed on orally and by subjective experience, whereas in great tradition the
literature and sacred texts contain the spiritual knowledge. Thus, there is division
between those who have specialised knowledge of supernatural things and those
who are ordinary members of the community.

1.4.1 Ancestor Worship

Worship of deities through rituals is though common practice, the ancestor worship
is more often associated with the little tradition. The great tradition generally
includes the worship of single or multiple deities. However, in Asia, Africa and
other parts of the world, there is the common practice of venerating ancestors; it
is believed that the ancestors continue to hold power over their progeny and affect
the society. This may be understood under the premise that human soul continues
to survive after the death. It is not the same as that of worshiping the dead; it is
10 the respect given to the deified dead person or the transformed spirit of the dead.
The funerary rites are performed for this purpose. In many of the religious practices, Concepts and Approaches to
the Study of Religion
only a few become ancestors and receive ritual attention. Where descent is through (Evolutionary,
males, the ancestors would be male only. In matriliny, as in case of Nayar in India Psychological, Functional
or Ashanti in Africa, the ancestorhood is bestowed upon the mother’s brother who and Marxist)
holds jurisdiction over lineage as lineage head. In some cases, ancestor shrines are
built where regular offerings are made and sacrifices offered. Functionalists like
Malinowski explain this phenomenon as emotional reassurance against the loss.
Meyer Fortes offers explanation in structuralist framework and says that ancestor
worship belongs to the domain of kinship and descent structure supported by the
jural and political order. The ancestor worship is an extension of authority over
successive generations; it is the supernatural idiom of supportive relationship
manifested in religious ideology.

1.4.2 Magic and Magician

Often religious practices include or is supplemented by magic. Magic refers to
certain activity or method by which the supernatural is believed to interfere in the
affairs of humans and bring about particular outcome. Magic and religion are
closely related to each other, though both can be distinguished. There are similarities
between the two as both are related to supernatural, rich in symbolism and involve
in rituals, and yet there are differences. While religion is supplicative, as one seeks
intervention of supernatural and requests for favours, magic is manipulative, one
uses set of formulas which force supernatural to intervene. Durkheim says while
we do not find a single religion without a church (place of worship), there is no
church for magic. Magic is frequently used for public good. According to Frazer,
(1890) magic works on the Law of Sympathy which refers to the association or
agreements of things and it has two parts: Law of Similarity and Law of Contagion.
The Law of Similarity states that an effect resembles its cause. The Law of
Contagion states that things that are once in contact will continue to be in contact.
The Law of Similarity gives rise to homeopathic or imitative magic – like produces
like - and the Law of Contagion gives rise to contagious magic. In imitative magic,
the magician uses an image or figurine to represent a person or animal on which
magical spells are cast or pricks pins to harm the victim. Sometimes, one imitates
totemic species and symbolically acts out copulation for increasing the population
of the species which is practiced among the Australian tribes. In Contagious
magic, a body part of an animal or anything that belongs to a person under the
magical spell affects the animal or the person. In some societies, the claw of tiger
when worn as garland makes a man skilled hunter or an amulet having the image
of god keeps away the bad spirits or demons.
Frazer believed that magic is closer to science, the primitive man’s thinking was
pre-logic. Malinowski observed that the Trobrianders possess sound empirical
and rational knowledge about their environment, they use technology developed
by them to grow gardens and crops and use skills to sail in the sea and involve
in kula exchange. But despite all this knowledge the Trobrianders believe that
there are agencies that influence the natural order. In order to control these forces
and agencies, they use magic. According to him, the function of magic is to
ritualise man’s optimism over fear or ill-luck.

1.4.3 Witchcraft and Sorcery

Magic is mostly used for the public good, witchcraft and sorcery are used for
harming the individuals, and seen as anti-social. Black magic is equated with
witchcraft and sorcery, and these have negative sanction of the society and individuals 11
Religion on whom it is practised. The witch is distinguished from the sorcerer by the fact
that the source of supernatural in case of a witch remains in the body of the witch
that is often inherited also. The sorcerer acquires the art and does not necessarily
pass on to the next generation. The witch generally wills in death and destruction,
whereas the sorcerer performs magical rites to achieve evil ends. Witchcraft is
seen as an evil force bringing misfortune to members of a community. These
religious phenomena are found in many parts of the world, including the scientifically
and technologically developed countries. Christianity recognises the existence of
evil spirits which function under the lordship of Satan or Devil who is hostile to
God, and the witches and sorcerer maintain close liaison with Satan. Evans-
Pritchard (1937) provides a classical example of witchcraft among the Azande in
Africa. According to him, witchcraft provides explanation for the unexplainable
events; it is cultural behaviour dealing with misfortunes; and it helps defining morality.
Reflection and Action 2

Try to find the differences among ritual, magic, witchcraft and sorcery. Do they overlap?

1.4.4 Evil Eye

The belief in evil eye states that some individuals with an evil eye cause illness or
some misfortune by simply looking at others. This explanation is mostly offered
when children become sick in several societies. It is not only by looking but also
praise or any complementary comments. The victims of evil eye are mostly children.
In some cases when prosperous individual or household suddenly encounters
misfortunes, people attribute it to evil eye. Dundes (1981:266-267) identifies some
structural principles that operate in the concept of evil eye. Life depends on non-
renewable resources like semen, milk, blood, saliva, etc. which are liquid, and
drying them up cause illness, which is due to evil eye. There is limited amount of
good, such as health, wealth, etc., and any gain of one individual can only come
at the expense of the other. So, if a person of evil eye acquires more of limited
good, the other will lose. In the equilibrium model of life the haves and have-nots
co-exist in a balanced manner. But the have-nots when become envious, the haves
lose their health or wealth. Further, eyes symbolise breasts or testicles and an evil
eye threatens the supply of such precious liquids like milk or semen.

1.5 ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACH TO

RELIGION
After introducing various concepts found in religious discourses, we draw your
attention to the anthropological theories about religion. These include evolutionary,
psychological, functional, Marxist and symbolic perspectives.
John Lubbock (1834–1913), an English anthropologist, made an early attempt to
combine archaeological evidence of prehistoric people, on the one hand, and
anthropological evidence of primitive people, on the other, to trace the origin and
evolution of religion (Encyclopædia Britannica Online). In this scheme, in the
beginning there was absence of religious ideas and development of fetishism,
followed by nature worship, and totemism (a system of belief involving the
relationship of specific animals to clans), shamanism, anthropomorphism,
monotheism (belief in one god), and finally ethical monotheism. This has
foreshadowed, other forms of evolutionism, which were to become popular later.
In the late nineteenth century with the influential works of Max Muller, W. Robertson
12 Smith, Edward B. Tylor, Marrett, and Sir James G. Frazer, anthropological study
on religion grew at a fast pace. These scholars were first to suggest that tribal Concepts and Approaches to
the Study of Religion
religions might be amenable to study, following the rules of scientific method, and (Evolutionary,
to posit specific methodological procedures for the comparative analysis of religious Psychological, Functional
beliefs and practices. All of them sought to understand religious belief and practices and Marxist)
at most fundamental or basic level.
The anthropology of religion owes a great debt to Emile Durkheim who put
forward the concept of sacred, profane orders, and the so-called supernatural and
natural categories, which have proved to be more beneficial in better understanding
the concept of religion. A strong impetus to subsequent application of Durkheimian
theory is found among the British structural-functionalists, such as Radcliffe-Brown,
E.E. Evans-Pritchard, Meyer Fortes, and Melford Spiro, etc., who also made
significant contributions towards understanding religion. They primarily focussed
on the religion of tribal groups. However, many of the contemporary exponents of
anthropology of religion like Clifford Geertz, Melford Spiro, Victor Turner, Sherry
Ortner, Mary Douglas and Stanley Tambiah have devoted bulk of their attention
to local variants of major world religions – Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and
Christianity and the impact of the world religions in developing countries like Java,
Indonesia, Morocco, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Nepal, and Burma, instead of the
religions of isolated tribal groups. Contemporary ethnographers concentrate on
examining religious diversity in complex societies rather than providing further
documentation for uniformity in tribal religions. Herein, you are provided with a
brief account of each of the dominant theoretical perspectives of anthropology on
religion.

1.5.1 Evolutionary Perspective

Like so much else in anthropology, the study of the religious notions of primitive
people arose within the context of evolutionary theory. Besides their evolutionary
assumption about religion, the followers of evolutionary theory show overwhelming
Eurocentric biases. But it is true that they made valuable contributions to the study
of religion. Most of the nineteenth century anthropologists derive assumptions
about religion from the Judeo-Christian heritage and from their own religious
experiences within that tradition. E.B. Tylor, expounds in his book, Primitive
Culture (1871), that animism is the earliest and most basic religious form. Out of
this evolved fetishism, belief in demons, polytheism, and, finally, monotheism is
derived from the exaltation of a great god, such as the sky god, in a polytheistic
context. He defines religion in such a way that all forms of it could be included,
namely, as ‘the belief in Spiritual Beings’. He firmly states that religion is a cultural
universal, for no known cultures are without such beliefs. Belief in spirits began as
an uncritical but nonetheless rational effort to explain such puzzling empirical
phenomenon as death, dreams and possessions. Herbert Spencer advocated
ancestor worship, a relatively similar system to Tylor’s animism.
The 19th century anthropologists were deeply influenced by the presumptions of
their own society so called ‘Western’. R.R. Marrett (1909), on the other hand
regarded animatism as beginning of religious ideas. As discussed earlier, his derivation
is from ideas as mana (power), mulungu (supreme creator), orenda (magic
power), concepts found in the Pacific, Africa, and America, respectively, referring
to a supernatural power (a kind of supernatural ‘electricity’) that does not
necessarily have the personal connotation of animistic entities and that becomes
especially present in certain men, spirits, or natural objects. Marrett criticizes Tylor
for an overly intellectual approach, as though primitive men used personal forces
as explanatory hypotheses to account for dreams, natural events, and other 13
Religion phenomena. For Marrett, primitive religion is ‘not so much thought out as danced
out,’ and its primary emotional attitude is not so much fear as awe.
For Sir James Frazer human thought is best understood as a progression from
magic to religion to science. By publishing his two volume book titled The Golden
Bough (1890), he attempts to construct a universal theory of magic, religion and
science. According to Frazer, magic is the primordial form of human thought. He
further postulates early man was dominated by magic, which viewed nature as ‘a
series of events occurring in an invariable order without the intervention of personal
agency’. These magicians, according to Frazer, believed in nature and developed
imaginary laws, which are of course, not real. However, in course of time the more
intelligent members of the society, in the state of disillusionment, conceived of
spiritual beings with powers superior to man, who could be induced by propitiation
to alter the course of nature to his advantage. According to Frazer, this was the
stage of religion. Later on this was seen to be an illusion and men entered the
final, the scientific stage of development. Magic, according to Frazer, is based on
the principle of contagion or on ‘sympathy’ or the notion of imitation, said to be
the earliest form. In more advanced societies, Frazer contends, magic eventually
is replaced by religion, and both are finally replaced by science.
For Durkheim, evolutionary advancement consists in the emergence of specific,
analytic, profane ideas about the ‘cause’ or ‘category’ or ‘relationship’ from
diffuse, global, sacred images. These ‘collective representations,’ as he calls them,
of the social order and its moral force included such sacra as ‘mana’, ‘totem’ and
‘god’ (Sills, 1968). The above postulates on religion come from intellectual
theorisation made from the existing reports, travelogues, and Christian missionary
works. These anthropologists never had firsthand experience of non-western cultures
nor did they theorise on the basis of systematic study of culture of the people in
totality and, therefore, they were called armchair anthropologists.
Anthropologists like Franz Boas, Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead and Alfred
Kroeber discredit the speculative evolutionary perspective and seek explanations
for similarities of rituals, myths and symbols found in different cultures through
culture contact. For them cultural dispersion, instead of independent evolution of
religious thoughts and actions, is the reason for such similarities. They emphasise
need for understanding culture as an integrated whole and interpreting the cultural
elements in that pattern, including the religious activities, in a meaningful way.
But, there are others like Emile Durkheim who thinks that emotions of the individuals
and collective consciousness in social environment shape the individuals’ religious
feeling. While, on other hand, Max Weber believes that the beliefs and emotions
have evolved into rational religion and higher thinking in religion. Others such as
Meyer Fortes and Clifford Geertz also recognise the psychological component in
religious behaviour. However, after the evolutionary perspective, psychological
approach to religion based on Sigmund Freud’s approaches of psychoanalysis and
neurotic symptoms has become a dominant approach to understand religion in
anthropology.

1.5.2 Psychological Approach

Few years before World War I, there was the rise of systematic psychologism of
psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud. His thesis is that religious rituals and beliefs are
homologous with neurotic symptoms (Eriksen, 1950). According to him, a deep
subconscious psychological conflict within social groups is responsible for the
14
development of religion. He explains that the psychological conflict between the Concepts and Approaches to
the Study of Religion
father and son, the hatred of son towards father, his desire for killing him and the (Evolutionary,
guilt feeling are the reasons for the creation of totem based on the Oedipus myth. Psychological, Functional
The worship or respect shown to the totemic animal is the reflection of subconscious and Marxist)
conflict between the son and father and the latter’s kinsmen. The psychological
defence mechanisms involve projections to avoid conflict and reduce anxiety. This
is like “I hate X because you hate X”, which can be analysed at cultural level.
Further, the childhood experiences carried out through out adult life in the forms
of images and in this regard dependency of children on parents is significant. The
dependency on parents by the children in the latter part of life is projected on the
spiritual beings.
But Carl Jung takes a different approach taking the projections to cultural level of
a group’s collective consciousness and Oedipus is just one example, and others
include the Trickster, the Hero, Orphan, the Creator, the Sage or Fool, etc.
Following this line of thinking, Kardiner, who is considered as a neo-Freudian,
sought to demonstrate that religious institutions of tribal people are projections of
a “basic personality structures,” formed not by the action of an unconsciously
remembered historical trauma but by the more observable traumas produced by
child-training practices.
Many others like Eriksen (1950) have also been influenced by Freud’s concept.
Eriksen, drawing upon developments in ego personality to be a joint product of
psychobiological maturation, cultural context, and historical experience, interpreted
the religious notions of the Yurok and the Sioux in terms of certain basic modes
of relating to the world. The basic Freudian premise is that religious practices can
be usefully interpreted as expressions of unconscious psychological forces, and
this has become, amid much polemic, an established tradition of enquiry. Ruth
Benedict (1934) in her work has provided a background for all later culture-
personality studies using the same method. She explains cultural patterns of some
American Indians in terms of configurations from certain personality types.
The psychological approach has been superseded by functionalist approach but
recently the significance of psychology once again came to light in a different route
as symbolic anthropology. The context is that there has been a considerable
discussion on ‘primitive thought’ which is different from that of the ‘modern rational
thought’. The former is associated with lack of written language, technology, small
in number and lack of uniformity, etc., and its religion is expressed in ritualistic
activity and magic. The latter is associated with the scriptures, standard religious
activities, rationalisation of behaviour and philosophical approach to life. However,
there are commonalities and continuities in these two forms of thoughts and actions.
In this respect, the approach of Clifford Geertz to religion is significant, as modern
or primitive religion can be understood in an integrated system of thought through
symbolism.

1.5.3 Functionalist Approach

Various forms of functionalism in anthropology—which focus on social patterns
and institutions with reference to their functions in the larger cultural context—
have proved illuminating for wider understanding of religion. This has helped to
discover interrelations between differing aspects of religion as it connects various
institutions. Functionalism emphasises on the interrelations between the various
elements of a social system, and, therefore, pays less attention to evolutionary
origins and the notion of “survivals” – the continuation of primitive elements in a 15
Religion culture. Society is seen as a self-regulating system in which religion, economic
organisation, and kinship form parts of an organic whole. The realm of the sacred
is defined by the attitude people have towards it – rituals are sacred if they are
performed with reverence and awe. Numerous functional aspects of religion include
providing explanation or comfort; sanctions on social, economic and political norms
and institutions; and aiding ecological adaptation and unifying the social group.
Anthropologists like Malinowski, Evans-Pritchard, Radcliffe-Brown, etc., who
approached religion from functionalist perspective provide explanation that satisfies
human needs and solidarity of the group. Malinowski, for instance, in his work on
the Trobriand Islanders emphasises on the close relationship between myth and
ritual. He puts forward the idea of psychological functionalism, religious acts fulfilling
the psychological need and satisfaction. A mortuary ritual, for instance, is intended
to release the soul and prevent it from returning to haunt the living. Like Frazer,
he distinguishes magic from religion which aims at something beyond itself. Its
object is not performance of the rite. In magic the end is the efficacious magic
itself. Evans-Pritchard observes that while emotions, desires, and impulses
undoubtedly play a part in religion, the performance of a religious or magical act
need not automatically produce the psychological effects, as Malinowski supposes.
He argues in Azande religion that witchcraft has to be understood in social context.
In this sense, he agrees with Durkheim but disagrees with the notion that religion
is illusion.
Radcliffe-Brown (1922) provides an account of Andamanese religious beliefs and
ceremonies. He asserts that the Andaman Islanders’ main supernatural beings are
spirits of the dead, associated with the sky, forest, and sea, and nature spirits,
which are thought of as personifications of natural phenomena. Applying Durkheimian
analysis he presents an organic picture of society; religion integrates society and
rituals bring in solidarity of the group. Many anthropologists followed this stream
of approach which however slowly has died out with the criticisms from the newer
theorists. In India M.N. Srinivas’ (1952) study of society and religion among the
Coorgs is an outstanding contribution to the study of religion in functionalist
perspective. He very innovatively integrates social structure with religion which he
finds it operating at different levels – local, regional, peninsular and all India.
Drawing the difference between Indological and sociological approach, he adopts
the latter for a meaningful treatment of religion in relation with the social structure
of the Coorg. He demonstrates that various rituals organised at family, patrilineal
joint family (okka), village and nad level bring in solidarity and unity among
different social segments.

1.5.4 Structuralist Approach

Rejecting functionalist, sociological and psychological approaches as being too
light in interpreting mythology, Levi-Strauss’ (1958) new “structuralism” posited a
universal logical pattern to the human mind and in this perspective religion is of a
totally different phenomenon in nature. He has been unswerving in his search for
the universal structures of human thought and social life. He points out that although
anthropologists have tried studying mythology it has not been successful as myths
are still widely interpreted in conflicting ways: as collective dreams, as the outcome
of a kind of esthetical play, or as the basis of ritual. Mythological figures are
considered as personified abstractions, divinised heroes, or fallen gods. He further
laments that study of mythology has been reduced to either an idle play or a crude
kind of philosophical speculation. His formalistic structuralism tends to reinforce
16
analogies between “primitive” and sophisticated thinking and also provides a new
method of analysing myths and stories. Taking cue from structural linguistics, in Concepts and Approaches to
the Study of Religion
particular the work of Ferdinand Saussure, Levi-Strauss has sought to reveal a (Evolutionary,
grammar of the mind, a kind of universal psychology with a genetic base, which Psychological, Functional
gives rise to social structures. He explains that myth is language: to be known, and and Marxist)
to be told; it is a part of human speech. He further elaborates saying that in order
to provide its specificity we must be able to show that it is both the same thing
as language, and also something different from it. He interestingly analyses myth
with Saussure’s distinction between langue and parole, one being the structural
side of language, and the other the statistical aspect, langue belonging to a reversible
time, parole being non-reversible. Just as there are limits to linguistic variation, so
there are certain basic innate patterns of culture based on a series of binary
oppositions. Thus, all societies distinguish between the raw and the cooked, the
raw standing for nature (and women) and the cooked for culture (and men).
Myths reveal common story lines that can be used to understand the limited
number of ways in which human beings interpret the world. The structural analysis
of myth, which is a pioneering work of Levi-Strauss in anthropology, has influenced
many scholars in the 21st century. Levi-Strauss contends that primitive religious
systems are like all symbolic systems, fundamentally communication systems.
In Indian context Dumont (1959) takes the structuralist perspective of religion
manifested in the worship of village deities. He finds the opposition between
‘purity’ and ‘impurity’ and interdependency of both the values in the religious
thoughts. The ‘purity’ is strongly associated with vegetarian food offered to the
sanskritic gods and ‘impurity’ associated with non-saskritic gods and other spiritual
beings that receive the offering of non-vegetarian foods. The purity is superior to
impurity, and these values have transcended to form the basis of caste system.

1.5.5 Marxist Approach

Karl Marx has been an influential theorist who was very critical of religion, and
his approach depicts religion and religious belief as fictions that support the status
quo and that maintained class differences. Religion reflects false consciousness of
people that diverts their attention from the miseries of their lives. It is the outcome
of human distress that may have been the consequences of human’s struggle with
the nature in the past, but now it is a way to get along with capitalist culture. He
said, “Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the
protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the
heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the
opium of the people.” (1844 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/
df-jahrbucher/law-abs.htm accessed on 2.5.2011).
Maurice Godelier finds Marx’s view of religion as reflection of the real world in
the human mind; the nature is personified unconsciously as objective realities, and
it is both transcendent and independent of human mind. In dealing with the nature,
he says, there is internal structure of relations in which humans alienate themselves.
Godelier (1975) explains this position while analysing the Mbuti Pygmy’s relation
with the forest as hunters. The forest provides animal as well as plant food, but
the Mbuti imagine the forest as kinsman and offer prayer of thanks, as forest is
considered as omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient divinity as it yields food
that sustain them. When a Mbuti dies, his or her breath leaves and mixes with the
wind, which is the breath of the forest. Various rituals that they organise and their
belief patterns show social and organic unity with the nature. Thus, he argues that
the religion of the Mbuti represents both a real and a symbolic action upon the
real and imaginary conditions. The real causes are transformed into the effects of 17
Religion imaginary, and the transcendent causes personified into imaginary omnipotent being
- god. In this nexus of forest, food and society, there is alienation of human
agency. Further, with other examples, Godelier argues that the shamans in the
simple societies mediate between the nature and society in the imaginary conditions
set, and thus shamans acquire power over the equals. With some other examples
he explains that the shamans or priests or the chiefs, who are also priests, exercise
control over the nature and dominate over the people in their collective enterprise
of political and economic dealings. Thus, the class differentiation and exploitative
social relations are inherent in the small societies though such relations are
unconsciously accepted as natural. The religion or ritual is basically used for
maintaining this kind of social order.
Maurice Bloch (1986) views society and culture as natural and these are governed
by general laws of the nature or earthly characters but not divine. Espousing
Robertson-Smith’s ideas on sacrifice, which is essentially social in nature, he
begins his argument that the functionalist perspective of ritual to bring solidarity of
a social group is only one aspect of ritual. The ritual which is very complex is more
stable historically than the beliefs which continue over a period of time. Therefore,
the historical construction of ritual unravels the social determination of ritual. The
functionalists who followed Robertson-Smith reduced every aspect of religion or
ritual to the purpose of providing solidarity to the group implying that ritual is the
outcome of an intentional attempt of the group for solidarity. But for others, such
as Durkheim, ritual is the device by which categories of understanding organising
our perception of nature and of society is created. Thus, there is ontological
problem of ritual, whether the ritual creates solidarity of the group or the group
create the ritual for solidarity, and this has not been resolved so far. For some
others such as Evans-Pritchard, religion offers explanation of the world and
accommodates the things beyond the human perception; it is an intellectualist’s
exercise. Still there is a need to explain why rituals are powerful and why
participation is so important? The Marxist writers offered the explanation of ideology
created phenomenologically and historically by the dominant group. Bloch argues
that ritual must be placed in social context. Symbolism with emotional content and
sociological aspects are to be brought together. The link between the history of
social formation and the ritual has to be established that can help understanding
the social determination of ritual. Further, ritual has propositional force expressed
in the special ritual communication through symbolism as well as speeches and
narratives, and it is necessary to understand the contents of the ritual in order to
grasp what ritual means to the participants and the onlookers.

1.5.6 Symbolic Approach

Evans-Pritchard (1956) first recognised the symbolic aspect of religion, and this
has inspired several anthropologists to approach religion through symbols, the
meanings given by the participants to the elements of religion and rituals, and
interpretations that anthropologists can offer. Victor Turner (1967), Mary Douglas
(1970) and Clifford Geertz (1973) are the important anthropologists that have
contributed for our understanding of religion from symbolic perspective.
Victor Turner’s work on the Ndembu rituals provides a highly detailed and enormous
work on Ndembu religious life which consists of rituals falling under these two
categories – Life cycle crisis ritual and ritual of affliction. His work shows that the
Ndembu society is greatly marked by different ceremonies replete with symbolic
meanings in every act and performance. Along with that his powerful analytic
18 concepts of ‘structure’ and ‘anti-structure’ in analysing the Ndembu society brought
about new dimension in looking at rituals and its symbolic relevance in ritual Concepts and Approaches to
the Study of Religion
context. (Evolutionary,
Psychological, Functional
According to Mary Douglas, there is an enormous literature on religion in the and Marxist)
modern world, but little guidance on how to relate its understandings to the other
branches of social thought. Douglas emphasises that the idea of the dangerous and
powerful sacred is formed by living together and trying to coerce one another to
conform to a moral idea. The sacred can be engraved in the hearts and mind of
the worshippers in more than one way. It represents the society, as experienced;
it is divine order, and what distorts it is unholy and polluting. Human body is the
most appropriate symbol of the society; functioning of bodily parts represents the
social order and disorder. For her, symbols fit well with the empirical experience
of group and individual into a consistent whole. She also worked extensively in
understanding about symbols. She says that symbol has meaning from its relation
to other symbols in a pattern, the pattern gives the meaning. Therefore, no one
item in the pattern can carry meaning by itself isolated from the rest. She further
puts forward that a basic question for understanding natural symbolic systems will
be to know what social conditions are the prototype for the one or the other set
of attitudes to the human body and its fitness or unfitness for figuring godhead.
What are the limits within which the disdain of organic processes can be used as
an idiom for social distance? Douglas also has tried to show that dimensions of
social life that govern the fundamental attitude to spirit and matter. According to
her, symbolic acts accurately convey information about the intentions and commitment
of the actor. She declares that anthropologists are in the habit of using ritual to
mean action and beliefs in the symbolic order without reference to the commitment
or non-commitment of the actors. Symbolic approach is one of the most popular
approaches used by anthropologists to study about human religious behaviours.
Dissatisfied with earlier approaches, Geertz proposes religion as the part of the
cultural system. For him, a symbol means any object, act, event, quality or relation
that serves as a vehicle for a conception. His conception of religion rests on the
notion that people act basically according to the systems of meanings that they
have and the job of anthropologist is to interpret these meanings and provide for
their description. The system of meanings engages continuous dialogue between
the meanings acting upon people and people’s actions upon meaning – the cultural
system shapes and gets shaped by the people. He says, “For an anthropologist,
the importance of religion lies in its capacity to serve, for an individual or for a
group, as a source of general, yet distinctive, conceptions of the world, the self,
and the relations between them, on the one hand—its model of aspect—and of
rooted, no less distinctive “mental” dispositions—its model for aspect—on the
other. From these cultural functions flow, in turn, its social and psychological ones”
(1973:123).
The functional and symbolic approaches have dominated the anthropological study
of religion in the late twentieth century as researchers have become increasingly
concerned with the concept of meaning. Biological, neurological and cognitive
approaches, which have not been dealt here, are gradually gaining popularity and
may dominate the future studies in anthropology of religion.

1.6 SUMMARY
The anthropology of religion has been concerned with the significance of religion
and its role in the lives of people in belief and practice, whether they are
technologically less or more advanced. Given its complexity in forms, variations 19
Religion and practices no precise definition could be given, and as such the anthropologists
have developed new concepts and used some known terms with specific meanings
in the discourse of comprehending religion. Some of the important ones considered
in this unit are: supernatural beings, animism, animatism, naturism, totemism, ritual,
myth, symbols, ancestor worship, magic, witchcraft, sorcery and evil eye. These
are interrelated and often fine distinction has been made between some concepts.
In order to explain this universal phenomenon, the anthropologists offered various
theoretical perspectives, and some of them considered include evolutionary,
psychological, functional, structural, Marxist and symbolism. While all these
frameworks attempt to explain religion in their own terms and tried to grasp the
reality, no single framework explains everything.
References
Bloch, Maurice. 1992. Prey into Hunter: the Politics of a Religious Experience.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benedict, Ruth. 1934. Patterns of Culture. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Douglas, Mary. 1970. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology with a
New Introduction. 1st ed., London and New York: Routledge.
Durkheim, Emile. 1912. Elementary Forms of Religious Life. London: Hollen
Street. Reprint 1961.
Dundes, Alan. 1981. ‘Wet and dry, the evil eye’. In Alland Dundes (ed.) The Evil
Eye: A Case Book. New York and London: Garland. Pp 257-312.
Dumont, Louis. 1959. ‘A structural definition of a folk deity of Tamilnad: Aiyanar
the Lord’. Contributions to Indian Sociology 3: 75-87.
Encyclopædia, Britannica. “The Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition
of Man.” Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Accessed on 2nd May. 2011
Eriksen, Erik H. 1950. Childhood and Society. 2nd ed. 1964. rev. & enl. New
York: Norton.
Evans-Pritchard, E.E. 1937. Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande.
Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press.
_______________ 1956. Nuer Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frazer, James. 1890. The Golden Bough. London: Macmillan.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Godelier, M. 1975. ‘Towards a Marxist Anthropology of Religion’. Dialectical
Anthropology. Vol-1 no. 1: 81-5.
Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1958/1963. Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic
Books. Reprint 1963.
_______________ 1963. Totemism. New York: Basic Books.
Marett, R.R. 1909. The Threshold of Religion. London: Meuthen and Co.
Marx, Karl. 1844. ‘Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of
Right’, Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbiicher, February.
20
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/law-abs.htm. Concepts and Approaches to
the Study of Religion
accessed on 2.5.2011. (Evolutionary,
Psychological, Functional
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1922. The Andaman Islanders: A Study in Social and Marxist)
Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sills, David L. 1968. ‘Religion: Anthropological Study’ (ed.): International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (16 volume edition). New-York: Macmillan
& Co., vol. 13 (Psyc-Samp), pp. 398-406
Srinivas, M.N. 1952. Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Turner, Victor. 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. New
York: Cornell University Press.
Turner, Victor. 1982. ‘From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play’.
New York: PAJ Publications.
Tylor, E.B. 1871. Primitive Culture. 2 Vols. London: John Murray.
Suggested Reading
Durkheim, Emile. 1912/1961. Elementary Forms of Religious Life. London:
Hollen Street
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Turner, Victor. 1982. ‘From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play’.
New York: PAJ Publications.
Sample Questions
1) How do you conceptualise religion with the help of various concepts presented
in this chapter?
2) Based on the meanings associated with each of the religious concepts what
is the relevance of religion in human societies?
3) Are humans rational or irrational with reference to religion? Make your point
from the anthropological theories of religion.
4) Discuss how Marxist approach is closely related to functionalist theory of
religion.
5) In what ways the symbolic approach is an extension of psychological approach
to religion?

21
 UNIT 2 RITUALS AND SYMBOLISM
Contents
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Symbols and Social Life
2.2.1 Ritual
2.2.2 Key Symbols

2.3 Functional Study of Rituals

2.4 Rituals of Liminality
2.5 Rituals as Protest and Change
2.6 Rituals as Communication
2.7 The Nature of Rituals
2.8 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions
Learning Objectives

After reading this unit, you would be able to understand the:
 typology of rituals;
 relevance and functions of rituals; and
 continuity and dynamism of rituals.

2.1 INTRODUCTION
In this unit, we shall discuss the significance of rituals as the performative aspect
of religion. We shall define rituals, discuss their functional aspects and see how
they operate as vehicles of symbolic communication. To be able to describe rituals
in a symbolic frame, we will also understand what symbols mean, how they
operate within human social life. The student will thus gather understanding of the
utilitarian as well as abstract nature of rituals.

2.2 SYMBOLS AND SOCIAL LIFE

Human life consists of a series of symbolic communications that enables us to
weave a meaningful world around us. If we reflect, there is almost nothing in our
lives that is not symbolically constructed – our language, our relationships, our
material culture and the environment. Everything is made meaningful by us and not
by any intrinsic property that it may have, but by the meaning bestowed on it by
the cultural system.
According to Clifford Geertz (1973), sacred symbols instil deep emotional moods
in people that in turn may lead to strong motivations for action. Even in the present
22 day world when humans have made great advances in the field of science, the
most extreme forms of action and even wars are undertaken for the sake of Rituals and Symbolism
religion.
Geertz (1973) has given his theory of thresholds to explain this deeply motivating
power of religious symbols. Humans look towards religion to overcome three
critical thresholds of every human’s life experience, the threshold of reason or the
limits of analytical ability, where on so many occasions we are left only with the
question, “Why?”. It may be when a loved one dies an untimely death or some
event not foreseen takes place. The second is the threshold of suffering; religion
does not give us relief from suffering but only a support to enable us to bear it.
Thus, every religion in its own way tries to explain the reason for suffering thereby
giving the sufferer a psychological strength to bear it, it may be one’s karma or
it may be a promise to inherit the kingdom of heaven. The third threshold is that
of evil or the lack of explanation of not only why evil exists but that it also gives
good dividend. The explanation of why the evil and corrupt prosper in this world
can only be given by religion and nothing else. It is only when we are told about
the separation of Satan from God or about bad karma leading ultimately to a bad
return even if it is in another world that most people feel committed to leading a
moral life.
The power of rituals, therefore, lies in the strong impression they make on the
minds of people. They evoke awe, commitment and a sense of accomplishment.
Rituals are enactments that without apparently accomplishing any instrumental end,
nevertheless, have been analysed as having multiple functions and serving several
ends. Let us first see how we can define ritual.

2.2.1 Ritual
A ritual is first of all a performance and to be socially meaningful, it must have a
public content. In other words, as Spiro (1966) points out, the private rituals of
the compulsive neurotic do not qualify to be studied by anthropologists, they are
the subject matter of psychologists. Thus, even if a person is performing a ritual
individually, he/she follows a pattern that is publicly recognised and followed, like
a Hindu woman blowing the conch shell and lighting a lamp under the tulsi (basil)
tree in the evening. Every culture prescribes a format for performance of rituals
that must be followed by everyone whether or not the ritual is actually performed
publicly. In other words, there is both public recognition and approval within any
culture for any ritual that is performed. Yet, rituals are rarely seen to have an
instrumental function. As Gilbert Lewis puts, the rituals are a “category of
standardized behaviour in which the relationship between the means and the end
is not ‘intrinsic’, i.e. is either irrational or non-rational” (Lewis 1980:13).
Edmund Leach has defined rituals as culturally defined behaviour that can be
regarded as a form of social communication, such a view of ritual as a cognitive
category has been taken up by other scholars such as Rappaport (1999). Mircea
Eliade (1987) and Rudolph Otto (1958) who have emphasised the sacred dimension
of rituals, in that rituals express an encounter with the supernatural and, therefore,
have a numinous character that sets them apart from the ordinary actions of the
world. Eliade (1987) has emphasised upon the bodily aspect of ritual, in that the
bodily movements and the ritual status given to it recreate the cosmological
conceptions and give meaning to them. Thus, rituals often recreate the archetypical
conceptualisations by which people give meaning to the world and rituals recreate
the cognitive dimensions like in Totemic rituals. The primordial relationship with
23
Religion the totemic ancestor is recreated and gives meaning to the existing relationships,
such as clans and ecological relations.
Eliade divides rituals into two types, the confirmatory, that is those that recreate
existing world views, and transformatory, that is those that bridge gaps and serve
to renew the world order when it is threatened by internal or external conflicts.
We shall take up these aspects in the later part of the unit.
Rituals also must have a structure, in that they follow a given script and adhere
to some very stringent rules and regulations. They also follow a time frame and
are usually repetitive or occur at specific designated points in a life cycle or natural
processes, like a birth or an eclipse. The structure also includes a designated
space and time, spatial organisation, personnel, their ritual status and a material
infrastructure. Most of these have no apparent rational content and, if any explanation
exists, it is always mythical, like the myths associated with rituals, such as pilgrimage
to Mecca or Sabarimalai or the myths associated with Totemic or annual rituals
like Dussehera. The verbal dimensions of rituals likewise have no specific meaning
and, especially as Bloch points out, are not comprehended by the lay public, and
because of their mystical and authoritative rendering serves to establish the power
of the ritual specialists. However, to many analysts the rituals have symbolic
significance in that they convey both condensed and elaborated meanings, either
encapsulating dense meanings like in the Christian mass or elaborating social scripts
in a manner in which the entire social normative structure is presented as a social
drama as in the Ramayana or similar story enactments. Here, it is highly relevant
to take a look at what Sherry Ortner has defined as Key Symbols.

2.2.2 Key Symbols

According to Ortner (1973), a key symbol is that which plays a central role in any
culture. From the point of view of the anthropologist, a key symbol can be
identified if it is prominently and publicly displayed in many places, if it frequently
occurs in conversation, or is referred to in public discourses, events and occasions,
and, if it plays a central role in language, in the form of metaphors and tropes. The
Key symbols can be of two types: the Summarizing Symbol and the Elaborating
Symbol.
Summarizing symbols are those in which a wide range of meaning is condensed
and which evokes a range of emotions when encountered. The summarizing symbols
are both multidimensional and multi-vocal, like the Christian cross, the Nazi
swastika, the Hindu swastika (with its opposed meaning to the Nazi symbol), the
Japanese chrysanthemum and the various national flags. The elaborating symbols
are those that expand and clarify symbolic meanings to the audience; they are
again of two types: key scenarios and root metaphors.
The former refer to enactments, or narratives that simplify and chalk out lines of
action or values that are contained in the key symbols that in turn are interconnected
to the world view and values contained in the culture. Let us take, for example,
the enactment of the Ramayana, where through a narrative all possible values
contained in Hindu society are worked out clearly. For instance, the story of king
Dasarath inadvertently killing Sravan Kumar indicates the inevitability of the karma
cycle, as you sow so shall you reap, at the same time the same story upholds the
virtue of filial devotion. The life of Rama designated as the most perfect man
(purushottama), indicates the values and virtues of a son, a mother, a wife, a
brother, a servant, a friend and so on through the various episodes and sub-plots.
24
Root metaphor is a metaphor or central symbol that may be used in various Rituals and Symbolism
situations and various occasions serving as both metaphor and simile to indicate
the multidimensional aspects of any culture. A good example of a root metaphor
is the Bible for the Christians, where we find that biblical references are found in
every aspect of western culture, like considering the number thirteen as inauspicious
or keeping Sunday as a holiday. The cattle among the Nuer can be taken as
another example of a root metaphor. The daily routine of the cattle set the time
for the Nuer daily activity, the colour of the cattle set the metaphors for Nuer
aesthetics and relationship with cattle set the norms for Nuer emotions.
Thus, these symbols both manifest themselves in rituals and also make the enactment
of the rituals meaningful to the participants. The functions of rituals have been
understood by various scholars in various ways.

2.3 FUNCTIONAL STUDY OF RITUALS

Foremost among the functional interpretation of rituals is the work of Emile
Durkheim, whose work Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912) set the
stage for functional analysis from the earlier emphasis on evolution. Durkheim
showed how the totemic rituals establish within the participants a sense of oneness
with the sacred totemic ancestor, thereby creating a consciousness of the sacred
as within and not outside of the self. It is because of this that the people belonging
to a clan claiming descent from a common totem feel a sense of solidarity with
each other and also a sense of commitment to the norms governing the totem,
thereby establishing a stable society that has internal coherence and a sense of
morality that upholds the very sentiments out of which the society is forged,
namely the system of clans. Thus, Durkheim was led to comment that God is
nothing but society writ large. He also showed how the totemic rituals led to a
harmonious relationship between humans and nature where humans were committed
to preserving some parts of nature that was important to them. Every time the
totemic rituals were performed all the values became reemphasised and reaffirmed,
thus the repetitive nature of rituals was to recreate the collective sentiments of the
people, a process necessary for the survival of society.
Durkheim also gave a name to certain kind of rituals that are universal and which
perform a very significant function, namely the rituals associated with death, that
he calls Piacular rituals. In every human society, death rituals are very important
and among the most elaborate of all life cycle rituals. The reason given by Durkheim
is that piacular rituals enable human beings to overcome any sense of guilt that
they may have with respect to the dead person and also to overcome grief. By
the time a mourner has exhausted himself or herself by performing all the elaborate
rituals, he/she feels that they have not only done as much as they could for the
dead person but also undergo catharsis to come to a sense of closure and overcome
grief to carry on with day to day living. Thus piacular rituals perform a social
function of returning the mourner to normalcy and rehabilitate him or her as a
functioning member of society.
Reflection and Action

Critically assess piacular rituals. Do you agree with Durkheim’s view?

A.R. Radcliffe-Brown followed Durkheim to give a structural-functional analysis

of collective rituals that uphold the social structure by reinforcing sentiments and
also by the emphasis given to socially important aspects like food, relationships
and events that reintegrate these within the social fabric so that society remains 25
Religion harmonious. Radcilffe–Brown used the term social solidarity to denote this stage
of harmony. He introduced the terms ritual value and ritual status to describe the
symbolic significance of collective rituals.
He showed the significance of taboos or prescriptions and prohibitions in creating
a ritual status and thereby giving a ritual value to an object that could be anything,
including a person. This ritual value is nothing but a social value necessary for
maintaining necessary sentiments essential for social reproduction and solidarity.
Thus, the rituals and taboos surrounding a puberty ritual have many functions.
They emphasise the sense of responsibility that a child who is becoming an adult
must feel in order to fulfil his or her role in society. Thus contained within the
puberty rituals are many messages that initiates future roles and responsibilities,
like fertility, being a good husband or wife, etc. Also he showed that for the
Andaman Islanders, for example, the enhanced ritual value of some food created
through taboos is to show the value of conserving such rare and precious foods
in the environment; in other words, to have a respectful attitude towards them. The
value of rituals such as couvade, where the husband of a pregnant woman simulates
the symptoms of pregnancy and pretends to go into labour pain, instils the
importance of fatherhood in the man, who may not otherwise feel it, as he is not
physically pregnant like his wife. Such is also the function of various taboos
imposed on various kin of the unborn child, who through the practices of avoidance
and many constraints put on their actions begin to realise the importance of the
social relationships that they have with the coming child. In other words, Radcliffe-
Brown put forward the hypothesis that rituals by their restrictions on action create
anxiety that is just right to make a person realise the importance of a relationship.
While in this analysis importance is given to the function of rituals for social
structure, in the analysis of B. Malinowski rituals have been seen in the perspective
of their function for individuals.
In a sense Malinowski’s analysis is opposite to that of Radcliffe-Brown as it
explains rituals as relieving rather than creating anxiety. All human beings have
certain amount of rational knowledge about tasks that they are required to do, but
in spite of even the most extensive knowledge and skill, a certain degree of
uncertainty prevails for all the tasks that we undertake. The role of rituals is to
take care of this grey area of uncertainty that no amount of skill or knowledge can
cover, take for example the failure of space missions, such as the Challenger, in
spite of the best material and intellectual resources to back it up. Therefore, one
is not surprised when one hears of space scientists offering rituals at Tirupati or
otherwise invoking supernatural help for their missions. The more dangerous the
result of failure, the greater is the anxiety. For example, in his study of the
Trobrianders, a seafaring community of the pacific islands, Malinowski showed
that when they are fishing in back waters, or otherwise safe zones, the fishermen
perform little rituals, but they always perform elaborate rituals when they are
venturing out in the deep sea or on any long distance voyage where the risk factor
is high. The performance of rituals can be rationalised by the positive mind set or
confidence it builds up in the individual, who feels satisfied at having done all that
he or she could do, to take care of all the aspects, including those that are beyond
human control and which only the supernatural can take care of.
In his famous work, The Coral Gardens and their Magic, (1935) Malinowski
has also shown how the rituals performed by the magician help to regulate agricultural
work and imposes a rational time schedule that actually helps in the scientific
management of productive activities. Once activities are projected as sacred duty
26
there is greater compliance and less chances of people defaulting.
 Rituals and Symbolism
2.4 RITUALS OF LIMINALITY
The concept of liminality in rituals was introduced by Van Gennep (1909) and
elaborated by Victor Turner and Edmund Leach. A liminal period is ‘a betwixt and
between’ period where normal life and time stands still or is reversed. According
to Van Gennep, who analysed the role of lifecycle rituals for individuals and for
society, these rituals such as those of birth, puberty, marriage and death, mark
stages of transition in an individual’s life, where a person makes a transition from
one status to another. Beginning from birth where one enters society as an individual
and has pre-existing relationships like with one’s parents, aunts and cousins, etc.
The birth of a child also changes the status of many others too, from being
husband and wife a couple become parents, and some may become grandparents,
aunts and uncles, etc. In the same way, social statuses change with marriage and
even with death. Puberty rituals make an adult member out of a child. According
to Van Gennep, every such ritual has three stages, a stage of separation, a liminal
stage and a final stage of incorporation. Thus, in the first stage an individual is
removed from normal life, often giving up on normal daily activities, is surrounded
by taboos and often enters a ritual status of sacredness. For example, just before
getting married a person may take leave from work, a girl is not allowed to go
out of the house, and they are treated like special people. In India, girls and boys
may be given oil baths, confined to the house, surrounded by relatives and
restrictions placed on activities, dress and food. This is then the liminal period
when a person is kept away from society. Sometimes they may be physically
hidden away, almost a person is kept away from normal day to day activities.
Thus, they are in society but not a part of it, this is the bewixt and between
situations when one is suspended as it were in social space and time. After the
transition is made, say, for example, one gets married one gets back to ordinary
life and comes out of the liminal period. This is the ritual of incorporation, like, for
example, a new bride may be asked to cook a dish in her in-law’s house, thereby
incorporating her into the daily routine of everyday life.
Almost all life cycle rituals, rituals that mark life stage transitions, are marked by
these three stages. Edmund Leach has used the concept of liminality to describe
what he calls the marking of structural time, or intervals where important social
events mark the oscillations of time, from one period to another. For example,
harvest rituals mark the interval between one agricultural cycle and another. Thus,
time begins with one sowing and ends with the reaping of the crop, then going
back to a new season of sowing. This sowing-reaping-sowing cycle is marked at
each phase by a ritual. Leach calls this oscillating time as against the concepts of
lineal time and even cyclical time.
Since this kind of liminality is compared to the swinging of a pendulum, there is
a sense of reversal, where ordinary life is reversed or stopped, a typical example
being a carnival celebrated during harvest festivals and such annual cycles as the
coming of spring. For example, during the festival of Holi in India, we find that all
social norms are reversed, people perform revelry where normal social distances
are abandoned. The young people take over and the old look on indulgently. In
the festival of Gajan as described by Okos Astor, the strict observances of caste
norms of purity and pollution are abandoned. Such rituals have also been analysed
as having a cathartic effect, where hostilities and inequalities are abandoned and
the injustices suffered in every day life are acted out in reverse. For example, in
one kind of Holi celebrations in India, the women take brooms and beat men, who
are not supposed to protest. This is a reversal of usual role play where women 27
Religion may be subjected to abuse by men in a patriarchal set up. Thus, at least on one
day in a year the role reversal allows women to vent their pent up resentment.
Reflection and Action

Discuss liminality taking cues from the works of Van Gennep and Leach.

2.5 RITUALS AS PROTEST AND CHANGE

In situations of change and oppression, people may resort to some kinds of rituals
to register their protest and also to address the injustice they feel they are subjected
to. Jean Comaroff’s (1985) work in colonised South Africa among the Tshidi is
a classical example of the interpretation of the use of rituals to express both
contradictions and transformation. Thus, as Comaroff puts it, while in the 19 th
century the Tshidi expressed their universe, their collective values and predispositions
through the symbolic management of their bodies in ritual, by the twentieth century
under the impact of colonial rule and the influx of capitalism collective rituals
themselves became arenas of contestation of the ‘real’ and the ‘valued’ and was
an effort to transform the world. Thus, the church in Africa combined biblical
symbolism with African nationalism. The “Zionism” that was constituted, was in
opposition to Protestant orthodoxy and the rationalist dualism inherent in it that
had constituted the ‘scientific’ world view of the West. It was replaced in Africa
with the use of the Church to reconstruct a holistic community by which to resist
the imposition both of a colonial and a capitalist market dominated social order.
These Zionist organisations were composed mostly of illiterate congregation as
well as leaders who were viewed more as healers than priests. Rather than follow
the bureaucratic organisation of the Christian Church, the Africans followed a
more personalised relationship in tune with their own social organisation. The
rituals were marked by special dresses where the men wore gleaming white skirts
following the Tshidi colour code, where white represents active power (Zion) and
black represents normative control. Thus, the Zionist rituals emphasised the
regenerative and active exercise of power, therefore, representing resistance, rather
than the usual normative function, of the church.
As a result, while the people in the third world often accepted Christianity from
the colonisers, they used it in opposition to orthodox Christianity in a way that
their rituals were a protest and symbolic communication of opposition to the
imposition of the market and global industrial culture.
Hence, the rituals enable the performers to act upon an external source of power
to construct themselves as moulded but not in a determinate way. Therefore,
rituals can manipulate and present a difference that serves to give strength to a self
constructed and dissenting identity.

2.6 RITUALS AS COMMUNICATION

The cognitive dimension of ritual as communication was made explicit in the works
of many scholars, of which Roy Rappaport is one of the foremost. He identifies
both form and structure in ritual and is of the opinion that the ritual form is a
distinctive and unique mode of expression that cannot be conflated with any other
medium. Although, in essence, a ritual is, according to him, an invariant sequence
of formalised acts and utterances, the substance of which distinguishes a specific
ritual from a generalised form. Thus, the form is what distinguishes ritual as a
general category, while the substance of this form is the substantial instances, say
28 the initiation ritual of a particular tribe or the rain making ritual of a community.
Consequently, while the ritual contents can be infinite, the ritual form is a generalised Rituals and Symbolism
universal that defines the ritual. The ritual form is “frame” (Goffman: 1967) or meta
message. Also, while no single feature of ritual, such as invariant sequence,
formalisation, stylisation, etc., are unique to it, the combination is unique and is
found only in ritual. Another important feature of ritual is that the performers follow
more or less a given blueprint and innovations, if any, are on an existing pattern.
Completely new rituals are very rare.
The performative aspect of ritual emerges as the most important, as the meaning
communicated through performance cannot be conveyed by any other means. Yet
theatre is also a performance but what sets ritual apart from theatre is that those
who are present at a ritual are all participants, even if they appear as spectators;
but in a theatre (especially the conventional ones) the separation of performer and
audience is radical. Moreover, a ritual is not really efficacious, only assumed to be
so. For example, a rain making ritual does not actually produce rain. Yet, rituals
are often taken by the performers to be means of producing a result, of altering
the world, of making an impact upon the universe.
The power of ritual as communication lies in its uniqueness in conveying meanings
that are powerful, being clothed in the aura of the supernatural or the sacred. It
is the very formality and non-instrumental nature of ritual that contributes to its
power of communication. But this communication can only be received by the
community of believers, or for whom the message is meaningful. It does not have
a universal scope, and meaning conveyed is not encoded by the performers but
by the participants. Thus, tourists who form an audience for a performance of
ritual are not receivers of any message for they are not a part of the system of
meanings shared by the participants, both as performers and as audience.
Let us take, for example, the performance of Ramlila in Ram Nagar, as described
by Schechner (1987). The cosmological dimensions of space, the use of that
space by the local ruler and by the audience that belongs to that culture and
system of meanings is very different than if one were to enter that space as an
outside tourist. The audience participates as performers of story as it unfolds, they
are the subjects of the king Rama, they are the part of the army of Rama, and they
are the members of the king’s court and so on, as they move within the symbolic
space of the performance.
Lewis (1980) has also described rituals as vehicles of expression, where all three
parties to the communication, the emitter, the message and the recipient are involved
in a system of symbols, where the meaning conveyed may be both public and
private, and not self evident, thus, to him, rituals express more than what seems
apparent or represent something other than what is manifest. It is their very
ambiguity that invests rituals with deeper significance and meaning, that cannot
even be conveyed by linguistic usage, as much of it is in the emotional content,
what Geertz has distinguished as ‘perception’ and ‘disposition’.

2.7 THE NATURE OF RITUALS

While ritual is usually seen as action and dichotomized from thought, it is at the
same time, especially as a tool of cognition or communication, seen as integrating
thought and action. Thus, the ritual in its communicative or functional dimension
is often seen as communicating or transmitting some values, norms or principles.
It may also, as Schechner has shown for the Ram Lila, transmit values, such as
nationalism, or the power of the king, spatial integrity and social hierarchies. 29
Religion Victor Turner (1969) has shown how rituals may provide a creative space for the
creation of an anti-establishment or anti-structural space that communicates a
criticism of the established social norms and values. Thus, ritual may act either
way both to functionally establish values and to create a situation by which the
tensions of oppression are released. According to Clifford Geertz, ritual is also a
point of entry for the observer, for, while the participants perform, those observing
them think. Here, the role of the theorist also becomes clear for it is the scholar
who creates a meaning system that is his/her own construction, not necessarily that
of the performer. For example, the analysis of ancestor worship rituals of the
Tsembaga, have been analysed by Roy Rappaport as a negative feedback system
where the rituals act as a thermostat to regulate the human environment relationships.
Such is, of course, the way the performers look upon their rituals. Thus, the
communicative dimension of the rituals is different for the community of participation
and for the outside observer.
Bell (1992: 31) makes a three level classification of rituals, 1) ritual as a separation
of activity and thought, 2) ritual as a fusion of thought and activity, and 3) one
“where the dichotomy between a thinking theorist and an acting actor is
simultaneously affirmed and resolved”. However, critical thinking would see this as
an imposed hierarchy where the analyst is privileged over the actor. For example,
Levi-Strauss’s analysis of ritual is his own and not the actor’s view.
A more subjective point of view, like that of Marcus and Fischer, suggests that
rituals can be read like a text, as they are public performances. Through ritual the
ordinary acts become special and communicate the significance of the situation.
The knowledge of converting something to a ritual is a socially acquired knowledge
that is present in all of us. Thus, an ordinary tea party can become a birthday party
when someone brings in a cake and candles and every one sings “Happy Birthday”.
It is a shared system symbols, a socially acquired knowledge when put in practice
makes it a ritual.

2.8 SUMMARY
Rituals may appear to be meaningless in a rational framework yet on analysis as
presented in this unit, we find them not only to be full of symbolic meaning but also
linked to practice. Rituals may help to maintain existing structures of society or
they may challenge them. They may appear in many forms and sometimes be a
script for reading the deep seated values of society. They merit in all instances of
a study of any society, deep and focussed attention on both their symbolic and
performative dimensions.
References
Bell, Catherine. 1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Comaroff, Jean. 1985. Body of Power: Spirit of Resistance: The Culture and
History of a South African People. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Durkheim, Emile. 1912. Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Tr. From French
by Joseph Ward Swan, 1965, New York: The Free Press.
Eliade, Mircea. 1987. ‘Ritual’ in The Encyclopaedia of Religion (ed.) Mircea
Eliade, New York: Mac Millan Pub. Co. Vol.12. pp 405-422.

30
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: New York: Basic Books, Rituals and Symbolism
A Member of the Perseus Books Group.
Goffman, Irving. 1967: Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour.
New York: Anchor Books.
Leach, Edmund. 1968. ‘Ritual’ In The International Encyclopaedia of the Social
Sciences. Vol. 13. Ed. David L Sills; New York; Macmillan; p.526.
Lewis, Gilbert. 1980. Day of Shining Red: An Essay on Understanding Ritual.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malinowski, Broninslaw. 1935. Coral Gardens and Their Magic: A Study of
the Methods of tilling the Soil and Agricultural Rites in The Trobriand Islands.
London: Routledge.
Malinowski, Broninslaw. 1948. Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays.
Reprint 1992. Illinois: Waveland Press.
Marcus, George and Michael Fischer. 1986. Anthropology as Cultural Critique.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ortner, Sherry. 1973. ‘On Key Symbols’. In American Anthropologist. Vol 75,
No.5 pp 1338-1346.
Otto, Rudolph. 1958. The Idea of the Holy: An inquiry into the Non-Rational
Factor in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Radcliffe-Brown A.R. 1922. The Andaman Islanders. Illinois: The Free Press.
Rappaport, Roy. 1999. Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity.
Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology: Cambridge University Press.
Schechner, Richard. 1983. Performative Circumstances from the Avant Garde
to Ramlia. Calcutta: Sea Gull Books.
Schechner, Richard. 1987. ‘The Future of Ritual’. in Journal of Ritual Studies.
Vol.1, no.1.
Spiro, Melford. E. 1966. ‘Religion: Problems of Definition and Explanation’. In
Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion. ed Michael Banton,
Taylor and Francis. Reprint 2004. London: Routledge.
Tambiah, Stanley. 1979. ‘A Performative Approach to Ritual’. Proceedings of the
British Academy. Vol.65: 113-69.
Turner, Victor. 1969. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Chicago:
Aldine.
Van Gennep, Arnold. 1909. Les Rites de Passage Tr. The Rites of Passage in
1960 reprint 2004. London: Routledge.
Suggested Reading
Lewis, Gilbert. 1980. Day of Shining Red: An Essay on Understanding Ritual.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rappapo rt , Ro y. 1999. Ritual and Religion in the Making of
Humanity.Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology: Cambridge University Press.
Van Gennep, Arnold. 1909. Les Rites de Passage Tr. The Rites of Passage 1960
reprint 2004. London: Routledge.
31
Religion Sample Questions
1) Give a broad definition of rituals as described by various scholars.
2) Describe the role of rituals in maintaining social order.
3) What are taboos? How do they help maintain social relationships?
4) What is liminal phase in a ritual? What is its significance?
5) What do you understand by dynamism of rituals? Explain with examples.

32
UNIT 3 RELIGIOUS SPECIALISTS
Contents
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Categories of Specialists
3.3 Shaman
3.3.1 Siberian Shamanism
3.3.2 Tapirape Shamanism
3.3.3 Korean Shamanism
3.3.4 Neo-shamanism

3.4 Informal Specialists

3.4.1 Medium
3.4.2 Witch and Sorcerer
3.4.3 Prophet
3.4.4 Diviner

3.5 Formal Specialists

3.5.1 Priest
3.5.2 Clergy
3.5.3 Saint or Seer
3.5.4 Monk
3.5.5 Missionary

3.6 Modes of Religious Specialisations

3.7 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions
Learning Objectives

Once you have studied this unit, you will achieve familiarity with:
 various religious specialists;
 functional differences among specialists;
 relationship among the specialists; and
 specialisation in relation to the scale of the society.

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Religious knowledge is neither possessed uniformly nor equally shared among all
the members of a society. It cannot be the monopoly of one individual. Similarly,
no one can claim total expertise in the ways the religious performances or rituals
are ought to be organised. Some individuals are more knowledgeable than the
others, and similarly some have acquired special knowledge or special training to
carry out religious performances or impart religious knowledge to others. Not all
rituals require the presence of religious experts, but in some their presence is 33
Religion indispensable. Those who are trained or have acquired special knowledge are
qualified to perform certain religious activities. They may also have certain distinctive
personality traits that make them capable of performing such works. Such persons
have ritual authority, esoteric knowledge or spiritual gifts and are considered
competent to find religious solutions. They are authorized to interpret religious
codes, holy laws and ecclesiastical rules and even social norms. These religious
specialists or leaders may be one of these different types – shaman, medium,
witch, sorcerer, prophet, priest, clergy, saint, monk, missionary, etc. They are
given certain status in the society. In reality, some individuals may at times perform
the functions of more than one of these specialists and change roles depending on
the circumstances and need. These are religious intermediaries that mediate between
the super-humans and humans. Religious intermediaries may be part-time or full-
time specialists. This unit is devoted to examine the characteristics and
interrelationships among these religious specialists.

3.2 CATEGORIES OF SPECIALISTS

Shamanism is most common, and is duly recognised among localised religions but
it has not attained reputed status in the world religions which are more organised
and it is often relegated to the folk religion. In the modern industrial societies or
those developing where the organised world religion dominates, religious
specialisation takes place. There are two broad categories of specialists, formal
and informal: the specialist who has been conferred by religious authority, which,
in turn, has various ranks, are formal specialists which include priests, clergy, saint
or seer, monk and missionary. The specialists of informal category are client
oriented, such as faith healers, prophets, mediums, etc. Herein, first we will take
up shaman’s followed by informal and formal specialists.

3.3 SHAMAN
The term shaman seems to have been derived from the Tungus language of Central
Siberia, but some claim its origin to be Sanskrit. Whatever be its roots, the
concept covers many disparate things rather than a clear unified concept. There
are some who restrict the term to the northern-Arctic phenomenon, but others use
it broadly to cover any ecstatic behaviour. It has, however, been accepted in
anthropology as the term for a unique sort of spiritual-medical-political specialist.
These specialists are found among the Siberians, Greenlanders, North American
tribes, Chinese and other Asian societies. From around 1970s new shamanistic
movements have sprung in USA and Europe among the urbanised people with the
motifs of western culture drawing upon the indigenous “other” and ancient wisdom
which may be called neo-shamanism. Different shamanistic practices are discussed
below:

3.3.1 Siberian Shamanism

In the Arctic shamanism, the shaman is a master or mistress of spirits. She or he
uses hand-held drums, performs dance and uses elaborate costumes and engages
in rituals which are dramatic aided by the use of various theatrical techniques of
shaman. The ritual is meant to contact and establish a relationship with a
supernatural entity, and the success of a shaman lies not in memorisation of prayer
or performance of ritual but in the ability to successfully establish contact and
exercise control over the supernatural. Each shaman keeps in control a few spirits
34 who give powers or particular qualities to the shaman. The world is divided into
three realms: the upper realm is one of good spirits; the middle realm is the home Religious Specialists
of the people of the earth; the lower realm is one of darkness and evil spirits. In
the altered state of consciousness, the shaman journeys to one of the other realms
with the help of spirits. The main function of the shaman is healing; the disease is
believed to have been caused due to loss of soul that has been snatched away by
a spirit. The shaman deals with the disease causing spirit or retrieves the lost soul
with the help of his familiar or favoured spirits. The ritual is also conducted for
successful hunt; the shaman contacts the spirits of an animal species and makes
a deal with them; the animal spirits supply food to the humans by enriching hunting,
and the humans supply the spirits with human flesh and blood which is the cause
of sickness and death. Shamans are frequently chosen by the spirits to become
shaman (Stein and Stein 2008:124-126).

3.3.2 Tapirape Shamanism

The unseen world of the Tapirape Indians of Central Brazil consists of spirits
known by generic term ancunga that consist ghosts – iunwera, the disembodied
souls of the dead and malevolent beings of many classes and descriptions. The
former live in abandoned villages but they visit the inhabited villages in rainy
season, and the ghosts also die and become changed into animals. The other class
of spirits live deep in forests and these kill those who visit their habitations. The
shaman of Tapirape derives power by dreaming and he travels to the world of the
spirits; the soul, iunga, frees itself from the body in sleep and move freely in time
and space. The power of shaman depends upon the number of demonic familiars
and their strength; he also seeks support of the spirits from the attacks of the
spirits of other shamans. Treating sickness is the most common duty of the shaman.
The curing is most frequently done by extraction of a malignant object by sucking
which is aided by ‘eating the tobacco smoke’ and vomiting of the stomach. Another
important duty of the shaman is protecting the members from the ghosts, and some
shamans control and increase the bands of pigs by travelling to the ‘home of wild
pigs’ and by copulating with the female pigs. The wild pigs are believed to be pets
of the spirits and the shaman brings the pigs of the familiar spirit to the vicinity of
the habitation. Shamans often are destructive by sending familiar spirits against
another shaman or any member of the society out of jealousy or for revenge
(Wagley 1971).

3.3.3 Korean Shamanism

The Korean society believes in the spirits that possess individuals and trouble
them causing illnesses to the living. Even though the Koreans are converted to
Buddhism that has no place for pre-Buddhist beliefs, the traditional beliefs have
not been totally replaced by Buddhist beliefs. The shamanism here is known as
Muism or Sinism (religion of gods) and encompasses a variety of Korean indigenous
religious beliefs and practices, and the shaman is called mudang, usually a woman
who acts as intercessor between god(s) and people. The shaman is chosen by
spirits, and experienced shaman performs initiation ritual for transforming the novice
into a full-fledged shaman, who organises services independently. These are public
performances organised for clients for curing illnesses by exorcising lost spirits that
cling to people, or propitiate local or village gods. Such services are also held to
guide the spirit of a deceased person to reach heaven. For some shaman women
it is a good source of income and the practice gives certain degree of influence
over the community also.
35
Religion 3.3.4 Neo-shamanism
Urbanites of United States of America and Europe started showing interest in
shamanism since 1970s. Its popularity is drawn largely from Native American
traditions. The drug culture of 1960, interest in non-Western religions,
environmentalism, the New Age, self-help, self realisation movement, etc., have
contributed to this development. Anthropologists Carlos Castaneda and Michael
Harner who studied Yaqui of Arizona (USA) and Jivaro of Amazon have promoted
neo-shamanism by publishing relevant material and organising workshops in USA,
Europe and Latin America and also training interested people. The aim is to
achieve altered states of self consciousness using drugs or drums and have the
experience of meeting spirits and power animals. Here bits and pieces of different
cultures are put together by each practitioner for such an experience.
Shamans or similar religious specialists are also found in major religions of the
world such as Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism and Christianity. In India and many
south Asian countries, where Hinduism and Islam are commonly professed, there
is belief in Pir/holy man or Baba or Ma/Matha who acts as a mediator between
God/spirits and man. Both Hindus and Muslims revere the Pir whereas Baba and
Ma/Matha is well respected by Hindus. In the Philippians and in some American
Philippine communities, there are individuals who perform “spirit surgery.”
Evangelical Christian “faith healers” can be fitted into the definition of shaman also.
It depends on what they believe in the source of their “power.” They are shamans
if they personally have power to compel their God to cure people. They are
intermediaries having independent authority, and use altered state of consciousness
to directly contact the supernatural world for healing or solving problems of another
individual. They are not associated with any formalised religious institutions. They
may or may not engage themselves in or organise any ritual.
Finally, it may be concluded that a shaman is a kind of intermediary who has
independent authority, and is not part of an organised religion and is in direct
contact with the spirit world, usually through a trance state. One who has charisma
and ability to deal with the supernatural powers becomes shaman. There is a
special relationship between a shaman and the society. A successful shaman can
amass a significant degree of social authority. A shaman is essentially a religious
entrepreneur who acts for human clients. She or he intervenes on behalf of a
human client to influence supernatural beings to perform some acts such as curing
an illness or discovering the cause of an unexpected suffering. One acquires
Shamanic power individually, mostly in physical and/or mental solitude and isolation
from other humans.
Questions in shamanistic experience can be difficult to answer – such as, are there
really animal guardian spirits with which human beings can make contact? Is
psychic healing a reality, and, if so, what is the relationship between the capacities
of the human mind and external forces? Bowie (2000) agrees that this type of
question is not easy to assess empirically, but acknowledges that anthropologist
can study what people say and think about their beliefs and practices, and the role
that these beliefs and practices play in structuring, people’s lives. Shamans belonging
to different communities would use different means to achieve their ends. Certain
factors are, however, found in common. They are as follows: a) usually the office
is hereditary but occasionally a person’s personality can also make him the chosen
one to the office, (b) The shaman may possess a unusual mental state or even a
physical shortcoming so that he may be considered neurotic or epileptic, (c) The
36 above abnormal qualities make him the chosen one (d) One takes up apprenticeship
under an older shaman to learn and develop the skills, (e) the shaman may go into Religious Specialists
a trance or enter into an excited condition to make her/his predictions, or to cure
the illness or get rid of a spirit, and (f) hallucinogens, such as drugs or weeds or
smoke, are used to go into trance.
One becomes shaman in various ways. In case of Siberian or Korean shamanism
the spirit(s) choose the shaman; among the Tapirape one has to dream. Among the
Zulu of South Africa the spirit troubles the person chosen to be a shaman with
sickness and an experienced shaman finds it through divination and confirms the
selection as shaman by the spirit. Among the Zinacanteco Indians one gets a call
when one looks into the realms of gods and ancestors in dreams and visions.
Often shaman combines, in some cases, the functions of priest, prophet and
magician, all in one. Shaman also performs rituals of sacrifice and appeases the
gods or spirits once they have been forced to submit to the shaman’s needs.
Because of the power possessed, the shaman acquires a charismatic personality
and leadership similar to a prophet. In order to enhance the image of supernatural
powers, one wears unusual jewelry and clothing, sport long and matted hair, paint
the body with colour or ash and carry either musical instruments or bones etc. The
typical methods for inducing a trance or altered consciousness involve: fasting, the
use of narcotic drugs, tobacco, dancing, singing or drumming to a hypnotic rhythm,
etc.

3.4 INFORMAL SPECIALISTS

3.4.1 Medium
Close to shaman is medium. A medium is a human channel of either sex through
which god or ancestor or spirit communicates with the living members of the
society. The supernatural being possesses the human agency, the medium, that
goes into trance or enters an altered consciousness of ecstasy, and the spirit
publicly speaks to the living, and that whatever is spoken is attributed to the spirit
but not to the human agency. It is believed that the spirit suppresses the human
spirit and uses the body of the human agent to communicate directly with the
living, and listens with the ears of the human agent whatever spoken by the living.
The medium does not recount the revelation and does not even remember what
has been uttered after the dispossession of the spirit. The speech of the spirit
would be different from the agent with shrill or squeaking voice and delivered with
convulsions, rhythmic or frenzy body movements and so on. The message given
by the spirit is called oracle, which also means a device used in divination. Even
a medium is often called as an oracle.
Mediums existed among the Greeks and Romans of ancient times and they are
present in several contemporary societies as well. The temple of Apollo at Delphi
was an ancient place of mediums in Greece which dates back to 1400 BC. The
famous Oedipus myth mentions the oracle at Delphi about killing his father and
marrying the mother Jocasta. The oracle was delivered through a medium called
Pythia. In Brazil, the Candomblé and Umbanda religious forms are based on the
orisha deities of Yoruba religion of Nigeria that have mediums. These forms are
developed within the last fifty years, which have been heavily influenced by
Catholicism. The phenomenon is now called as Spiritism. The Brazilians visit these
medium to find out solutions to their problems, mostly related to their romance
(St. Clair 1971), healing, overcoming financial difficulties, etc.
The Western society has been witnessing new mediumship in the latter half of the
37
20th century. This is called channel and the channeler goes into a trance, or leaves
Religion the body or get possessed by a specific spirit, who then talks with the living
through the channeler. The spirit answers the questions of those present. A widely
known channeler is Jane Roberts who gets the spirit of Seth, Esther Hicks, Margaret
McElroy of Maitreya, Grandbois of Kris (Klimo 1987 referred by Van Rheenen
1996).
Reflection and Action

Shamanisms are of various kinds. Sometimes they overlap. Distinguish between the
shaman and medium.

3.4.2 Witch and Sorcerer

As pointed out by Evans-Pritchard, a Witch is different from a Sorcerer in Africa.
But it may not be the case everywhere. Witches have antisocial characters or
behaviour; may practice cannibalism or incest in order to enhance their powers.
They show deep sense of greed, jealousy and hatred. A witch is always a woman
in Nupe, whereas in Gwari, a neighbour with similar culture, a witch can be man
or woman. The witch’s power is internal and inherited whereas the sorcerer uses
external power to harm others. Both are believed to be causing untimely death.
The sorcerer is a magician, an evil figure; in many religions healers use black
magic, but a sorcerer is internally evil that works for illegal and antisocial ends.
Some ailments are attributed to sorcery, such as kuru in Fore of New Guinea.
Usually the sorcerer employs contagious magic with hair, nail, clothes, etc., of the
victim. The sorcerer learns the art and uses different techniques and rituals for
causing an effect of the power on others. Another sorcerer is engaged to undo the
sorcery or a witch may be allowed to do the same. The practices of witch differ
from society to society and even within the same society. In Cameroon, witchcraft
is known as ekong or kupe or famla and is practiced across ethnic lines. Even
rural France is no exception to the belief in witches. The occurrence of a series
of misfortunes to an individual or family is attributed to the works of a witch
(Bowie 2000). In Kipsigis of Kenya there are various kinds of sorcerers and
witches, and the most powerful one who could perform sorcery against the whole
tribe is called orgoiyat and the less powerful one is bonnindet. There is another
specialist called chepsogeiyot that determines who is the bonnindet in a particular
case. The acts of a witch are attributed when no explanation is readily available.
Even in modern times, as in case of Sub-Saharan Africa, HIV/AIDS is termed as
consequences of witchcraft. In Christian theology the witches and sorcerers are
the agents of the Devil or Satan.
Reflection and Action

Distinguish between witch and sorcerer; they are not the same. These specialists may
be found in every traditional society. Find out if there are such specialists in your own
society.

3.4.3 Prophet
In his book on religion, Weber has devoted a whole chapter to the understanding
of what a prophet is. He defines the prophet as an individual who is capable of
proclaiming a religious doctrine or a divine commandment because of his charismatic
qualities. The major difference between the priest and prophet is that the prophet
regards his mission as a “personal call” and derives his authority from personal
revelation and charisma or an exceptional quality. The core of the prophet’s mission
is to carry forward the commandment or doctrine he has received as revelation.
38 Often the prophet may use magic to establish his authority. The prophet is usually
successful and respected till his ability to convince and prove his uniqueness of Religious Specialists
purpose is intact. One may say a prophet is a person who receives divine revelation
concerning a restructuring of a religion and usually society as well. Prophets are
usually outside the priesthood and are seen by priest as irritating, disruptive trouble
makers. The prophet could be of either sex and as a charismatic innovator may
reject traditional rituals and improvise or advocate those right in her or his sight.
The rise of prophets is seen during the adverse times, cultural stress and anxiety.
The prophet speaks at the spiritual as well as this worldly level in correcting the
society, and, thus, becomes an agent of social change. Evans-Pritchard says in the
priest man speaks to God and in the prophet God speaks to man.
Among the African tribes there are prophets among the Nuer, as noted by Evans-
Pritchard, that are believed to have been chosen by God to predict future, cure
the sickness and ensure fertility of women. Among the Bantu, Zulu, the Zionists
of Ethiopia the impact of Protestant Christianity and colour discrimination in the
Church brought out the prophets who assumed leadership in the society to establish
separate churches. Similar situation is observed among the Housa of Nigeria with
the impact of Islam. Orunmila is prophet of Yoruba religion who has tremendous
role in organising religion that has been spread to Brazil and other South American
societies. Christian prophets established new churches in Yoruba having got
separated from the church of the Whites.
When Jews or Christians think of prophets, people like Moses, Noah, Isaiah,
Jeremaih, Eziekiel, and Daniel usually come to mind. However, the most striking
example of a biblical prophet was Jesus which is a debated reality as the Jews and
Muslims consider him to be a prophet while the Christians take him to be God.
If a prophet is successful in convincing enough people that he or she is right, a new
religion is usually established. The case in point is Joseph Smith’s divine relation
and subsequent prophetic teaching in the 1830’s and early 1840’s led to the
creation of the Church of the Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) in USA. To put
it simply, the prophet may be seen as an individual who is an instrument for
carrying forward the will of God and he/she is obeyed because of the ethical
nature of his mission. He/she may also be a person who individually sets an
example of attaining salvation, as did Buddha. This latter form of exemplary
prophetism has been found particularly in India.
In Islam it is believed that God sent several prophets at different times and places
to communicate his message, and they are human beings who are not God
incarnates. The Quran mentions a total of 1 lakh 24 thousand prophets (124000),
and of them the last is Prophet Muhammad. There are no prophets in Hinduism
the way the concept finds its place in Judaism, Islam and Christianity. There are
scriptural texts that contain prophetic message such as Vedas and Bhagavad Geeta
about kaliyug, the dooms day and seers who prophesied the future of the world
events as in case of Sri Potuluri Veerabramham of 18th Century who lived and is
much venerated in Andhra Pradesh. One of the modern day prophets in India can
be Sathya Sai Baba whose predictions are believed to have come true, and they
had advocated for social harmony and spiritual equality. However, these seers
have claimed themselves as Gods.

3.4.4 Diviner
One who engages in techniques that inform about the unknown causes or future
is known as diviner. The divination is magical and involves in rituals. It is based
on the belief that the world consists of things and events that are interconnected 39
Religion and as such the magic is to manipulate things and observe the connections. The
diviner often interprets the dreams and omens, contacts the spirits and ancestors
through trance. Sometimes the viscera of animals or birds are examined to find out
the cause of illness. In many ways the diviner gets to know the unknown causes
or future events that affect the individuals and community. The diviner could be an
ordinary member of the society or has a position of shaman or medium or prophet
or priest or healer.

3.5 FORMAL SPECIALISTS

3.5.1 Priest
A religious leader who is authorised to be part of an organised religion is considered
to be a priest or priestess. Different religions have different terms for these individuals.
They may be known as Rabbis, Ministers, Mullahs, Lamas, Imams, or something
else. These individuals are the keepers of the sacred law and tradition. They are
found mostly in large-scale societies. Priests are initiated and ceremonially inducted
members of an established religious organisation as a full-time specialist. Priests
are sometimes distinguished from people by the way they dress, etc. The training
of a priest can be rigorous and long, which includes not only fasting, prayer, and
physical labour but also learning the dogma and the rituals of his religion. Priests
are authorised to perform religious rituals designed to influence the supernatural
world and to guide the believers in their religious practices. They personally do not
have supernatural power of their own by the rituals but the rituals that they perform
are believed to be effective. In societies where there is a hierarchy of spirits and
gods and the chief gods, they must not be approached directly but through the
priest.
The community deals with deity or deities through the priest who acts as a
representative of the community. The latter performs various rituals on behalf of
the community, which include periodical or rituals of calendar usually related to
agricultural cycles and seasons, disasters, epidemic diseases and well being of the
community. Priests also perform the rites of passage associated with birth, puberty,
wedding and death. They are also to legitimize authority of the community through
rituals, as in case of coronation and they are usually taken as protectors of ethics
and morals of the community and set high standard for the entire community. By
virtue of this and their association with the sacred place which may be a shrine
or sacred space where deities or spirits dwell, they remain symbols of sacred.
Sometimes priests may have received divine unction (anointing of the sick) through
dreams, visions or trance. The priests usually enjoy highest status in the society
because of the above which are special to them. Usually the priests undergo
rigorous training, memorising texts, obtain religious knowledge, skills of performing
rituals and so on. Such training may have been institutionalised or informal, as the
case may be. While in some cultures both men and women can be priests but in
some, such as Islam or Hinduism, women cannot be priests. As in Catholic
Christianity and Buddhism the priests remain unmarried but in several other religions
priests are married.
Anthropologists have observed that societies with full-time religious specialists
(priests) are likely to be dependent on food production rather than food collecting.
They are also likely to have economic exchange involving the use of money, class
stratification, and high levels of political integration. These are all features indicative
of cultural complexity. Female religious specialists are likely to be found in those
40
societies where women are acknowledged to contribute in a major way to the Religious Specialists
economy and where gods and goddesses are both recognised. In Western Europe
and North America, for instance, where women are now wage earners, in almost
every profession they occupy leadership position in the work force and they have
an increasing presence in the leadership of many Judeo-Christian religious groups
(Lehman, 2002).
In Aztec society, the priesthood was very complex and the priests were arranged
in a hierarchical order. In Nahuatl language, the word priest, tlamacazqui means
“giver of things” to gods for their favour. They were engaged in human sacrifice,
especially to Sun, providing the sacred food. Most of the rituals involve in animal
or human sacrifices. It was believed that the humans who were sacrificed would
become deities. The priests enjoyed great respect in the society. The Zuni, the
Pueblos of America, are very ceremonious people. There are different types of
priests in Zuni society – Sun priest, Bow priests, Rain priests, etc. The Sun Priest
is considered to be the most respected holy man. Women are also included into
the category of priests. The rituals and ceremonies are held in kevas and plazas.
In Okinawa society of Ryukyu Islands women lead the religious matters and the
women specialists or priestesses are called kaminchu. They communicate with
and make offerings to the ancestors, local gods and more powerful deities. Their
primary duty is to officiate at community wide festivals and rituals which take
place in a sacred space, usually in a grove or ong, at a cave or by the sea, and
men are not allowed to enter these sacred spaces. Their duty includes the protection
and fuelling of the communal fire, which was used to establish new households.
They would also perform divination to determine the best days for sacred
ceremonies, for social functions, such as marriage or funeral, and for agricultural
pursuits.
Priesthood is not open for every one as in case of Hinduism where it is restricted
to Brahmin castes. The priest in traditional India may assist in the performance of
a ritual-at home, or in a temple. In Hinduism, he is born into a priestly caste, by
virtue of which he gains these functions. The Vedas say that the social group of
Brahmana is the priestly class, and the Rig Veda describes the priestly activities
of some of the families of the Vedic tribes. Priests are most often found in
hierarchical societies and generally hold a higher status in their societies than those
they preside over. A Hindu priest performs the pujas (rituals) such as Sri
Satyanarayana Katha, Rudrabhisekam, Chandi Patham, Navgrah, Vastu pooja,
Bhoomi pooja, Grih Pravesh, Mool and Grah shanty, Sundar Kand Path, Kaal
Sarpa Yog Shanti, Garbhadan, Punsavana (foetus protection), Simanta (satisfying
the wishes of pregnant mother), Jaat Karma (child birth), Naam Karma (naming
child), Nishkramana (taking child outdoor), Anna Prashana (Giving the child solid
food), Mundan or Choula (hair cutting), Karnavedh (ear piercing), Yagyopaveet
(sacred thread), Vidyarambha (Study of Vedas and Scriptures), Samaavartana
(completion of education), Vivaah (marriage), Sarvasanskaar (preparing for
renouncing), Sanyas (renouncing), Antyesti, Ayush homam, Sudarshan homam,
Maha Mrityunja homam, Navgrah homam, Ganpati homam, Maha Lakshmi homam,
Santan Gopal homam, Grih Shanti homam, etc. Priests hold power due to their
association with their respective religious institutions. The traditional Judaism also
restricts it to Levites.
Similarly, in the widespread practiced rituals of Catholicism, the role of priest is
to officiate or organise baptism (the first sacrament of Christian initiation), penance
(confession and reconciliation), confirmation (the second sacrament of Christian
41
Religion initiation), Eucharist (the third sacrament of Christian initiation), marriage, unction
(anointing of the sick) and sacrament, etc. Buddhist priests are to perform certain
roles required of their calling.

3.5.2 Clergy
Though the term clergy is closely associated with Christianity, the social scientists
have also been using the term to include full time religious functionaries in major
world religions. Clergy is a broader category that includes priest or priestess and
the priesthood is attached to the status conferred by the religious authority within
the religious institutional framework. But the priesthood is not same in Christianity
or Islam. In these cases clergy do not mediate between God and people. However,
in Judaism there are roles of priest and rabbi, and, in fact, the latter means a
teacher and they were divided into Sadducees and Pharisees. In Christianity the
clergy is divided into several ranks as bishop, pastor, deacon, etc. Islam does not
accept priesthood but there are specialists who are known as ‘men of God’ like
ulema, which mean who knows or who has knowledge of Quran and God,
learned and are proficient in sharia law. This category include imams, and in the
Shiite branch there is the category of ayatollah.
In Christianity, the pastor is one of clergy ordained functionary of the Christian
church. Though it was restricted to men, it has been extended to women also, and
the church in the West is now struggling to accommodate the clergy with same sex
orientation. The pastors do not mediate between a person/group and God as in
case of priests. Their main responsibility is to provide spiritual leadership and help
the congregation developing deep personal relationship with Jesus Christ. They go
beyond the spiritual realm to help in social life of the church members for the
spiritual and social dimension are dependent on each other and well being of the
members of the church are his concerns too. In Orthodox Judaism women are
forbidden to become a rabbi. Traditionally, in Islam women have not been the
imam or teacher, but gradually the change is taking place as in Morocco.

3.5.3 Saints or Seer

Saints are a specific group of individuals who maintain pious, ascetic or austere
and devote life found in all religions, but more significant part of Catholicism. They
are individuals who led devout Christian life who had done amazing things with
their lives and performed miracle during their life time and believed to have caused
miracles after death. They are recognised by the Church as Saints and the sainthood
is instituted by Pope. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, a Protest organisation, recognises
the Latter-day Saints who are no more, and contemporary saints as well.
In Hinduism the equivalent concepts are rishi or sage or seer, who has acquired
rightful vision accomplished actions. They see things through spiritual eye, perceives
the hidden truth and bear truth. They are model of religion and role models for
others to lead spiritual life. Besides the rishis of Vedic times, there are well known
seers and saints such as Kabir, Tulsi, Surdas, Tuka Ram, Srikrishna Chaitanya,
Eknath, Narsi Mehta, Tyagaraja, Dhyaneshwar, Tiruvalluvar, Namdev, Mirabai,
Dayanand, Guru Nanak, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa, Vivekananda, Swami
Ram, Shri Sai Baba of Shirdi, Ramana Maharishi, Sri Satya Sai Baba, and Sri
Aurobindo. Sufism of Islam and Sikhism honours saints and seers. In Islam too
saint worship is practised. Pir reverence is found widely practised all over the
Islamic world.
42
3.5.4 Monk Religious Specialists

The term “monk” has Greek origin meaning single or solitary. It is used to describe
a religious specialist who conditions the mind and body in favour of the spirit. This
conditioning often includes seclusion from those who do not follow the same
beliefs, abstinence, silence, and prayer. Monk symbolises asceticism and austere
life. The concept is ancient and can be found in many religions and philosophies.
It seems Monks were originally present solely in Christianity, but through a looser
definition created by modern westerners, the term has been applied to more
religions (for example bhikkhu in Buddhism, hermit in Hinduism). The term is also
often used interchangeably with the term “ascetic,” which describes a greater
focus on a life of abstinence, especially from sex, alcohol, and material wealth. In
Ancient Greece, “monk” referred to both men and women. Though in modern
English, the term “nun” is used to describe a female monk. The monks living
together under one roof and under the rule of a single person is known as monastery
and the way of life is called monasticism. Separate monasteries are maintained for
males and females. In Christianity, the monastery of females is called convent. The
Christian monasteries are spread throughout the world. There is a wide variety of
monasticism across various Roman Catholic Churches where monastery is the
common feature, which is absent among the Protestant Christianity.
Before becoming a monk in a monastery, nearly every monk must take some sort
of vow, the most famous being the Roman Catholic vow of “poverty, chastity, and
obedience.” It is also common to have a hierarchy within a monastery through
which a monk can rise over time with the growth of spiritual excellence. Monks
are often confused with friars. Although they are very similar, the main difference
between the two is that the friar is associated with community development and
aid to the poor.
Though the term monk is applied in Buddhism also, the situation of asceticism is
different. There is a trial period before one is ordained as monk. There are male
and female monks in Buddhism that live separately. In Thervada Buddhism the
monks live the life of mendicancy and collect alms. In Chinese Buddhism, the
monks are linked with the Chinese martial art, Kung fu. In Thailand and Myanmar
the young boys live for some time in monastery and may not return to the monastery
but remain as celibate and monks. The contemporary example of monk can be the
Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama is the head monk of Tibetan Buddhism and traditionally
he has been responsible for the governing of Tibet. The Dalai Lama belongs to the
Gelugpa tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, which is the largest and most influential
tradition in Tibet. The institution of the Dalai Lama is a relatively recent one. There
have been only 14 Dalai Lamas in the history of Buddhism, and the first and
second Dalai Lamas were given the title posthumously. According to Buddhist
belief, the current Dalai Lama is a reincarnation of a past lama who decided to
be reborn again to continue his important work. The Dalai Lama essentially chooses
to be reborn again instead of passing onward. A person who decides to be
continually reborn is known as tulku. Buddhists believe that the first tulku in this
reincarnation was Gedun Drub, who lived from 1391-1474, and the second was
Gendun Gyatso. However, the name Dalai Lama meaning Ocean of Wisdom was
not conferred until the third reincarnation in the form of Sonam Gyatso in 1578.
The current Dalai Lama is Tenzin Gyatso.
There are monks in Jainism also in both the traditions of Shvetambar and Digambar.
They are of different orders such as acharya, upadhyaya, muni, ailak, etc. Both
male and female monks renounce all relations and possessions, practice strict and 43
Religion complete non-violence, and follow strict vegetarianism avoiding root vegetables.
They travel from city to city crossing forest and desert bare foot.
In Hinduism Madhvaacharya, the dwaita philosopher that propagated the love of
Lord Krishna established eight mathas, monasteries. Each matha is headed by
a swamiji who may be called as monk. It is known popularly through Hare
Krishna movement and International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON),
monks outside India. The Ramkrishna mission has monastic organisation shaped
by Swamy Vivekananda, chief disciple of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, the founder
of the mission. Like the Christian monasteries, the Ramakrishna mission is concerned
not only with the Hindu religion and philosophy but also engaged in Educational
works, Healthcare, Cultural activities, rural upliftment, Tribal welfare, Youth
movement, etc.
Reflection and Action

Differentiate between saint/seer and monk. They appear to be the same but functionally
different.

3.5.5 Missionary
Though the term missionary is closely associated with Christianity, the function of
missionary has been found in all major world religions. Whoever has been engaged
with the spread of a particular faith across the national or cultural boundary can
be termed as missionary. Thus, there are Hindu, Buddhist and Islamic missionaries.
They are advocates of God or divine being and teach how one should come into
personal relationship with the divine being(s). The missionary is different from
prophet whose focus is the same society, but are involved in change. While the
former is concerned with the change of the foreign society, the latter is engaged
in the change of the same society. A missionary will have to necessarily know and
understand the beliefs, practices, cosmology and religious dogma of others before
she/he teaches one’s own faith to others. In case of the Christian missionaries they
learned the language of others in order to translate Bible or gospel of Jesus Christ
and also propagate the Christian faith. Their learning of other’s language and
interest in the religion led to production of ‘pagan’ religious beliefs which had
facilitated anthropologists in theorising religion. The missionary after planting church
could become or known as a pastor or one of the ranks of the clergy.

3.6 MODES OF RELIGIOUS SPECIALISATION

The above mentioned religious specialists are not found in all societies but some
are present everywhere. Victor Turner (1989) notes certain socio-cultural correlates
existing with these specialists and are also found related to the scale and complexity
of the society. He draws distinction among priest – prophet, priest – shaman, and
shaman – medium. The priest is mainly concerned with the conservation and
maintenance of beliefs and practices and mediates between the transhumans and
people. Her or his powers rest with the religious knowledge. The prophet is
charismatic and maintains personal relation with the transhumans and as a result
acquires personal power and is able to bring change in the religious practices, and
may even well stand outside the cultural system to propose new doctrines, ethics,
etc. Shaman is a sub-type of priest, flexible and mobile. She or he acquires power
for the ability of controlling the spirits and provides profound role in curing rites.
The shaman is not radical and does not bring change in the social or cultural
system. There is a thin margin between shaman and medium; the former exercises
44 control over the spirits, the later gets possessed by the spirits and becomes vessel
or oracle of the spirit and delivers oracles. Turner notes that sometimes the two Religious Specialists
functions of priest and shaman are found in the same individual and similarly
mediums, shamans and prophets also form a single subtype of religious functionary.
While the priest communicates with the transhuman entities through ritual along
with cultural objects and activities, the medium, shaman, and prophet communicate
in a person-to-person manner. Between the priest and the deity intervenes the
institution. As the priest presides over a rite, the shaman or medium conducts a
séance.
According to Turner, as the scale and complexity of society increases, the division
of labour develops and, accordingly, the degree of specialisation changes in the
religious domain. In simple societies all adult men and women have some religious
function, and particularly women tend towards more religious function with their
capacity to enter the state of altered consciousness. The knowledge of herbs gives
some special knowledge and such of them are known as medicine men. Therefore,
the specialists lead normal life as other men and women in the habitation. In this
type of society we find shamans and mediums.
In a complex society where there is advanced division of labour, religion no longer
pervades all social domains; it is rather limited to its own domain. There is
considerable specialisation in the religious activities. There exists impersonal social
relations, bureaucratization, rationality in decision making, etc. In this society there
is ranking of religious specialists and organised established religious institutional
system. Priests, clergy and other religious orders are found. It also supports the
missionary activities with the support of the state or individuals. Different religious
cults, sects, religious movement, etc., are found in these societies.
There are intermediaries between the small scale and complex societies which
exhibit religion with certain degree of bureaucratisation, specialised roles and
functions. These are found in Africa, Asia, Central and South America. In these
cases, religious dichotomy has been found where national and tribal gods are
worshipped in larger towns whereas in villages minor deities, demons and ancestral
shades are worshipped. The national level gods are being mediated by the priests
and official religious servants in the temples or shrines. The mediums and priests
coexist but the latter control the former.
In many small scale societies, religion and politics are inseparable. In centralised
political systems chiefs and kings also take up the role of the priests engaged in
rain making, sowing and harvest rites. The duties of priests are also bound up with
the office of the kinship with specialised ritual functions. Among the Bemba of
Zambia, priests of shrines undertake the burial rituals of the king. These priests
called the Bakabilo constitute a council that exerts check on the powers of the
king (Turner 1989:7). In stateless societies, certain ritual positions have functions
of maintaining order and resolution of conflicts as in case of Nuer’s “leopard-skin
chief” or “priest of the earth” (Evans- Pritchard 1956).

3.7 SUMMARY
Religious specialists are important personnel that hold authority in religious domain.
They are also charismatic, uphold the faith attending to various needs of the faithful
and keep the flock together by their leadership. Since studying religion is relatively
new in anthropology, various concepts developed in course are often overlapping
and strict distinction cannot be maintained. This is true particularly in case of
religious specialists. The difficulty gets compounded when the same person engages 45
Religion in more than one special activity. Religion is so interconnected with several aspects
of life and institutions that it gets influenced externally and influences various aspects
of life. Therefore, the anthropologists could identify certain socio-cultural correlates
with religion, and certain religious forms and institutions are found in certain levels
of social forms and societies. The world religions are more associated with the
state societies than the tribal societies.
References
Bowie, Fiona. 2000. Anthropology of Religion. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
Ltd.
Evans-Pritchard, E.E. 1956. Nuer Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Klimo, Jon. 1987. ‘The Psychology of Channeling.’ New Age Journal. (Dec.)
32-40, 62-67.
Lehman, E, C, Jr. 2002. Women’s path into the ministry. Durham, NC: Pulpit
and Pew.
St. Clair. 1971. Drum and Candle. New York: Bell Publishing Company.
Stein, R.L and Philip L. Stein. 2008. The Anthropology of Religion, Magic, and
Witchcraft. New York: Pearson Education Inc.
Van Rheenen, Gailyn. 1996. Communicating Christ in Animistic Contexts.
Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library
Wagley, Charles. 1971. ‘Tapirape Shamanism’. In Morton H. Fried (ed.) Readings
in Anthropology. New York: Crowell Company. Pp 618-635.
Turner, Victor. 1989. ‘Religious Specialists’. In Lehmann, Arthur C. and James E.
Myers (eds.). Magic, Witchcraft, and Religion. 2nd ed. California: Mayfield
Publishing Co.
Suggested Reading
Bowie, Fiona. 2000. Anthropology of Religion. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
Ltd.
Lambeck, Michaelin. (2002). A Reader in the Anthropology of Religion. Malden:
Blackwell Publishing.
Stein, R.L. and Philip L. Stein. 2008. The Anthropology of Religion, Magic and
Witchcraft. Ney York: Pearson Education Inc.
Turner, Victor. 1989. ‘Religion Specialists’. In Lehmann, Arthur C. and James E.
Myers (eds.). Magic, Witchcraft, and Religion. 2nd ed. California: Mayfield
Publishing Co.
Sample Questions
1) What are the general characteristics of a shaman?
2) Trace connections among shaman, medium and priest.
3) How would you conceptually differentiate medium, oracle and prophet?
4) How priest, clergy and monk are interrelated?
5) Discuss the relationships between the scale of society and the religious
specialisation.

46
 MAN-001
Social Anthropology
Indira Gandhi
National Open University
School of Social Sciences

Block

7
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL ORGANISATIONS
UNIT 1
Concepts and Definitions 5
UNIT 2
State and Stateless Societies: Political Institutions 21
UNIT 3
Production, Consumption and Exchange 33
UNIT 4
Political Power and Distribution of Resources 48
Expert Committee
Professor I J S Bansal Professor V.K.Srivastava Dr. S.M. Patnaik
Retired, Department of Human Principal, Hindu College Associate Professor
Biology University of Delhi Department of Anthropology
Punjabi University, Patiala Delhi University of Delhi
Professor K K Misra Professor Sudhakar Rao Delhi
Director Department of Anthropology Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh
Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav University of Hyderabad Assistant Professor
Sangrahalaya Hyderabad Department of Anthropology
Bhopal Professor. Subhadra M. Channa University of Delhi
Professor Ranjana Ray Department of Anthropology Delhi
Retired, Department of University of Delhi Faculty of Anthropology
Anthropology Delhi SOSS, IGNOU
Calcutta University, Kolkata Professor P Vijay Prakash
Dr. Rashmi Sinha
Professor P. Chengal Reddy Department of Anthropology
Reader
Retired, Department of Andhra University
Anthropology Visakhapatnam Dr. Mitoo Das
S V University, Tirupati Assistant Professor
Dr. Nita Mathur
Professor R. K. Pathak Associate Professor Dr. Rukshana Zaman
Department of Anthropology Faculty of Sociology Assistant Professor
Panjab University Chandigarh School of Social Sciences Dr. P. Venkatrama
Professor A K Kapoor Indira Gandhi National Open Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology University, New Delhi
Dr. K. Anil Kumar
University of Delhi, Delhi Assistant Professor
Programme Coordinator: Dr. Rashmi Sinha, IGNOU, New Delhi
Course Coordinator : Dr. Rukshana Zaman, IGNOU, New Delhi

Block Preparation Team

Unit Writers Content Editor
Unit 1 Professor V. Gangadharam
Unit 3 Department of Anthropology
Dr. Kennedy Singh Dr. Ujjal Kr. Sarma
Assistant Professor Sri. Venkateswara University
Assistant Professor Tirupati
Centre for Rural Studies Indian Institute of Forest
Lal Bahadur Shastri National Management, Bhopal Language Editor
Academy of Administration Dr. Parmod Kumar
Unit 4
Mussoorei Assistant Professor
Dr. Romesh Singh
Unit 2 Assistant Professor Discipline of English
Dr. Hari Charan Behera Department of Anthropology School of Humanities
Assistant Professor University of Hyderabad IG NOU, New Delhi
Centre for Rural Studies Hyderabad
Lal Bahadur Shastri National
Academy of Administration
Mussoorei
Authors are responsible for the academic content of this course as far as the copyright issues are concerned.

Print Production
Mr. Manjit Singh Cover Design
Section Officer (Publication) Dr. Mitoo Das
School of Social Sciences, IGNOU Assistant Professor, Anthropology, SOSS, IGNOU
August, 2011
© Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2011
ISBN:
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or any other
means, without permission in writing from the copyright holder.
Further information on the Indira Gandhi National Open University courses may be obtained from the
University’s office at Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110 068 or the official website of IGNOU at www.ignou.ac.in
Printed and published on behalf of Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi by Director, SOSS,
IGNOU.
Laser Typeset at Graphic Printers, 204, Pankaj Tower, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110091.
Printed at :
BLOCK 7 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL
ORGANISATIONS
Introduction
The present Block -Economic and Political Organisations aims to introduce the students
to the concepts, definitions, perspectives and various forms of two important aspects
of human society namely economic and political organisation. Our goal is to place the
study of economic and political aspects in the larger social and cultural contexts by
exploring the relations of power, kinship, religion and social transactions. Further, it is
intended to make the student to understand various forms of these two important aspects
in the cross-cultural context. Students, or for that matter any other person who does
not know about socio-cultural variation across different human communities, tend to
think that political and economic organisations are much the same everywhere just as
their own or with the ones with which they are familiar. In this block, we will come to
know about the various types of political and economic systems, several curious practices
concerning social control, conflict resolution, and different ways of non-monetised
exchange of goods and services and, practices of conspicuous consumption and
ceremonial exchange of goods. The students will also have an opportunity for an excellent
exposition to various traditional societies as examples across the world that have
specialised economic and political systems and organisations.
Political organisations are those institutions and /or mechanisms (formal and informal)
which perform various activities concerning decision making and conflict resolution in
order to create and maintain social order and coping with social disorder. Usually when
we hear the word politics or political life, we think of political parties, elections,
government, parliament, assembly or panchayat, police, judiciary, several specialised
political offices, executive, army, and external political dealings etc. However, in many
societies, political sphere is devoid of formal institutions and specialised functionaries.
In the two units on political organisation, we will learn more about the traditional form
of political institutions. The major argument in the study of political organisations is that
politics cannot be isolated from other subsystems of a society. Here we understand
how power and law are put to use in social and cultural environment. The important
components of political systems and organisations are law, political formations (stateless
political societies/formations and state societies/formations), conflict resolution, social
control mechanisms.
Economic organisations are universal aspect of culture; they are seen in all cultures of
the world. Economic organisation means a set of actions and behaviours surrounding
the processes of production, allocation and distribution and the use and consumption of
goods. In social anthropology, we emphasise the economic institutions of traditional
societies where the systems of production, distribution and consumption are socially
regulated, organised and reproduced. However in the recent times, modern economic
institutions are also studied applying the concepts of formal economics like marginal
utility, economising rationality, demand supply etc. Whatever economic institution we
may study, the emphasis is to understand economy as an integral part of the wider
social cultural environment. The student will understand various ways of organising
production, various ways by which goods and services are circulated, exchanged including
market exchange. It is useful to understand various economic institutions with the help
of examples.
UNIT 1 CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS
Contents
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Types of Political Organisation
1.2.1 Band Societies
1.2.2 Tribal Societies
1.2.3 Chiefdoms
1.2.4 State Societies
1.2.5 Youth Dormitories

1.3 Social Control and Resolution of Conflicts

1.4 Economic Organisation
1.5 Traditional Economic Organisation
1.5.1 Communal Ownership
1.5.2 Division of Labour
1.5.3 Major Economic Activities
1.5.3.1 Hunting-Gathering
1.5.3.2 Horticulturalists
1.5.3.3 Shifting Cultivation
1.5.3.4 Pastoralism
1.5.3.5 Settled Agriculture

1.6 Traditional Economic System

1.6.1 Barter System
1.6.2 Silent Trade
1.6.3 Jajmani System
1.6.4 Ceremonial Exchange
1.6.5 Reciprocity
1.6.6 Redistribution
1.6.7 Market or Commercial Exchange

1.7 The Distribution of Goods and Services: Two Case Studies

1.7.1 Kula
1.7.2 Potlatch

1.8 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions
Learning Objectives

Once you have studied this unit, you would be able to:
 understand the various types of traditional political and economic organisations
and economic systems studied in social anthropology; and
 describe different forms of “distribution of goods and services” among the
simple societies. 5
Economic and Political
Organisations 1.1 INTRODUCTION
Every society, be it a simple or traditional society or complex or modernised
society has certain rules and regulations to maintain social order. Human societies
have developed a set of customs and procedures for making and implementing
decisions in order to resolve disputes, and for regulating the behaviour of its
member in their day-to-day life. They have also developed collective decisions
about its relationship with other neighbouring societies. The first part of this unit
deals with the general features of political organisation, social control, conflict
resolution and the cultural arrangement by which societies continue and maintain
social order for the betterment of society. While, the second part of the unit will
deal with the economic organisations in social anthropology.

1.2 TYPES OF POLITICAL ORGANISATIONS

Let us now discuss the mechanisms in our society for making and enforcing
political decisions as well as the collective efforts about its relationship with the
neighbouring people for the well being of society. As we know, political organisation
is found in all societies. However the degree of specialisation and formal mechanisms
in functioning of political systems may vary considerably from one society to the
other. As mentioned by Ferraro, Gary P (1992) all societies differ in their political
organisations based on three important dimensions:
1) The extent to which political institutions are distinct from other aspects of the
social structure; that is, in some societies, political structures are
indistinguishable from economic, kinship, or religious structure.
2) The extent to which authority is concentrated into specific political roles.
3) The level of political integration (i.e. the size of the territorial group that
comes under the control of political structure). Ferraro, Gary P (1992, 220)
In order to understand how effectively the political organisations administer
themselves and maintain social order, the above three dimensions are useful. These
dimensions also form the basis for the classification of societies into four important
types of political structures like band societies, tribal societies, chiefdoms, and
state societies. Let us now discuss briefly about the conceptual meaning of these
four important types of political structure.

1.2.1 Band Societies

Band organisation is considered to be the least complex form of political
arrangement which is characterised by small group, also known as local groups,
usually among the nomadic population of hunter and gatherers. The size of a band
can range from 30-50 people or more. However, the size of a band may vary
from one band to the other depending upon the food gathering techniques and the
availability of the food in their natural environment. Band may have little or no
concept of individual property ownership and place a high value on sharing,
cooperation and reciprocity. They may also loosely associate with a specific
territory of their own in the sense that the members of one territory can seek
membership in a neighbouring territory. The members of each band have less role
specialisation and are highly egalitarian. Band organisation is predominantly found
among the hunting and gathering communities representing the oldest form of
political organisation. Common language and common cultural features bound
6
band members together. In band societies, no political allegiance occurs with any Concepts and Definition
one or more supreme authority or with other similar bands of their own ethnic
community. Their political decisions are frequently embedded in the wider social
structure of the local group. It is difficult to distinguish purely political decisions
from those related to the family, economic or religious decisions. In other words,
political life is simply one part of social life.
Leadership roles are iterative within the band; there be could several leaders and
each leader’s role may end with the accomplishment of a particular task. Leadership
tends to be informal having no authoritarian political roles or leaders with designated
authority. But the elderly are respected for their experience, wisdom, good judgment
and knowledge of hunting. So, adult men gave decision. The headman can persuade
and give advice but has no power to impose his will on the group.
Bands may have a headman, as in case of Eskimo bands and the Chenchu who
are recognised by the band members for their special skills in making implements,
hunting, ritual, judgment acumen, folklore, world view, magic, medicinal and
ecological knowledge etc. There were no strict rule of succession to the position
of headman; sometimes it is hereditary as in case of the Kung bushman and a fresh
person can be chosen as in case of the Chenchu.

1.2.2 Tribal Societies

The tribal political organisations are predominantly associated with food production
i.e. horticulture and pastoralism. Tribal societies are little bigger or larger in size
than the band societies. Egalitarian principle is the common feature of both tribe
and band organisations. Both of them are similar in several important aspects as
the political leaders have no marked differences in status, rank, power and wealth.
In addition to these, both of them have local leaders but do not have permanent,
centralised leadership.
However, tribal political forms can be distinguished from bands by the presence
of some impermanent and informal pan-tribal associations that can bring together,
whenever necessary, a number of local groups into one larger unit. Each of these
associations operate autonomously but integrate themselves into one or more
larger units when an external threat arises. The larger unit breaks back into
original local units once the threat is nullified.
The tribal associations emerge based on kinship and kin units like clan, and age
grades, or secret societies. In many tribal societies, the kinship unit called Clan,
a group of kin who consider themselves to be descended from a common ancestor,
serves a mechanism for political integration. Clan elder usually looks after the
affairs of their clan like settlement of dispute between the clan members, negotiating
with other clan groups, etc.
Segmentary lineage system is another form of tribal association where individuals
of different genealogical levels integrate to form a bigger unit in opposition to
another such unit. Genealogical connections bring groups with closer affiliation
together. Such political integration of closely affiliated groups within the tribal
societies is important in order to mobilise their military force in defending themselves
from outside forces or for expanding into the territories of weaker societies. As
mentioned by Evan-Pritchard (1940), the pastoral Nuer of southern Sudan serves
as a good example of a tribal form of political organisation.

7
Economic and Political 1.2.3 Chiefdoms
Organisations
Ferraro, Gary P (1992: 223) has mentioned that the band and the tribal societies
are economically and politically autonomous, authority is not centralised and they
tend to be egalitarian having no specialised role, small population in size depending
largely on subsistence economy. However, societies become more complex as the
population increases with higher technology for fulfilling their subsistence needs. In
Chiefdoms, a number of local communities are integrated into a more formal and
permanent political unit but the political authority rests with single individual, either
acting alone or in conjunction with an advisory council. Chiefdoms may also
comprise more than one political unit, each one is headed by a chief and/or
councils. Societies with chiefdoms are socially ranked and the chief and his family
enjoy higher status and prestige. The chief ship is mostly hereditary and the chief
along with his or her kinfolk comprises social and political elite within their society.
Subsequently, the chiefs have considerable power and authority in resolving or
pronouncing judgments over internal disputes, issues, etc. In addition to these, he
may distribute goods, supervise religious ceremonies and functions military activities
on behalf of the chiefdom. Hawaii and Tahiti are the examples of chiefdom societies.

1.2.4 State Societies

Of all the above mentioned societies, state societies have more complex and
advance form of political organisation. According to Sahlins (1963: 297), state
is defined as “an autonomous political unit, encompassing many communities within
its territory and having a centralised government with the power to collect taxes,
draft men for work or war, and decree and enforce laws”. It is also mentioned
by Robert L Carneiro (1970: 733) that the state societies have complex, centralised
political structure, which include a wide range of permanent institutions having
legislative, executive, and judicial functions, and a large bureaucracy.
The state societies have class stratification with unequal access to economic
resources. These societies are generally supported by intensive agriculture. The
high productivity of the agriculture presumably allows for the emergence of cities,
a high degree of economic and other kinds of specialisation, market or commercial
exchange, and extensive foreign trade. The people pay taxes. (Carol R. Ember,
Melvin Ember, 1995: 375)
The rulers may use force but the threats of force alone do not ensure the legitimacy
of the rulers. Legitimacy of rulers is said to accrue owing to different factors like
divine origin of the rulers, socialisation of children to accept all forms of authority,
the perceived advantage of state by the people in ensuring protection, employment,
security to property etc. If state fails in its duty, the rulers lose their credibility and
ability to control, eventually leading to the fall of state. Nupe kingdom in West
Africa and also the Roman Empire are examples of state societies.

1.2.5 Youth Dormitories

Youth Dormitories are important institutions among the tribal society. These
institutions are quite common among the tribes of North East India, central India.
They are known by different names in different tribes like Morung of Naga tribes,
Gothul of Muria and Gond tribe, Dhoomkuriya of Oraon tribe, etc. The youth
dormitories are centered in big building of straw and thatch having separate houses
for boys and girls. All the members of the dormitories pass their night in the
dormitories. If there is no dormitory for girls, they usually sleep in the house of
8
some old woman. They learn their way of life through their elders. They follow the Concepts and Definition
rules and regulations of the dormitories. They carry out different activities together
like construction of house on the occasion of marriage or village festivals, helping
the villagers in crisis, construction of roads, etc. The boys and girls stay in their
dormitories till they marry. A widow can re-enter the dormitory as its member.
Strictly speaking, youth dormitories are not political bodies. However, youth
dormitories serve to train the youth in various socio-cultural, economic, religious
and political activities. For example among the Dimasa Kachari of Assam, Hangsao
- the bachelor’s dormitory is an important institution of the village. The unmarried
youths of the village spend night in this house. Unlike Nagas, the Dimasas do not
have separate dormitory for maidens. Dormitory youths organise into labour force
to carry out several public works in the village (e.g. construction of the village
path, water hole, etc.) as well as to help the needy villagers in agricultural works
like weeding, harvesting, etc. They also serve as the village defenders. They get
trained to become leaders and organisers to undertake public works and community
works. In this sense youth dormitories can be regarded as quasi political units.

1.3 SOCIAL CONTROL AND RESOLUTION OF

CONFLICTS
Social control and conflict resolution mechanism are those practices such as
customary law for reward and punishment, physical coercion, and various sanctions
(ostracism, avoidance, denial of favours) which a community of people adopt to
safeguard social order and to sustain the behavioural conformity to the accepted
norms. Like any other societies, the simple societies also have rudimentary system
of providing justice. They have their own social control and resolution of conflict
mechanism. Mostly the chief or the elders of the group or kinship take the
responsibilities for identifying and punishing the criminals in their society. When
they face complex problems, they take advice from the council of elders about
the type and nature of punishment to be given to the offenders. They follow the
Oath and Ordeals. The offenders have to take an oath, after which they are asked
if he or she had committed the offence or not. It is generally believed among the
simple society that if the offender tells a lie before their elders, he or she will be
a prey to the supernatural anger for taking a false oath. Sometimes, the accused
person is asked to dip or put his hand in boiling water or oil to justify his innocence
as they believe that the supernatural powers help an innocent person.

1.4 ECONOMIC ORGANISATION

The simple societies of different places in the world passed through various stages
of socio-economic development in due courses of time. It can be mentioned that
hunting-gathering, horticulture, cattle herding, shifting cultivation, settled agriculture,
etc. are different stages of socio-economic development among different tribes in
India.
Food gathering and hunting is said to be the oldest type of economic activity.
During 2 to 5 million years of human existence on this planet Earth, 99 percent
of the time was spent in food gathering, hunting and fishing. Agriculture is said to
have originated some 10,000 years ago. Industrial economy is said to have been
in existence for the past 400 years only.
Human communities of the world practice various types of economic activities.
9
Economic and Political When we say economic activity, it includes subsistence technologies, division of
Organisations
labour, organisation of labour, various customary ways of distribution of goods
and services and consumption and utility and decision-making at various stages in
the processes of production, distribution and consumption. Basing on the subsistence
technologies, the economic activities can be broadly categorised into food collection
and food production. Under food collection, hunting gathering, intensive foraging
and fishing are the major activities. Under food production, we can include
horticulture or incipient cultivation, pastoralism and intensive cultivation or plough
cultivation.
Many communities studied by anthropologists practice more than one of the above
economic activities. Most of the tribes dwelling in the forest and hills like Kadar
of Kerala, Birhor and Kharia of Bihar, Nagas of Nagalands, Kukis of Manipur,
etc. depend on food gathering, hunting small games, fishing, shifting cultivation
activities for their sustenance. These activities form their main source of subsistence
economy. In the same way, the Konda Reddy and the Savara of Andhra Pradesh
depend on horticulture, shifting cultivation and hunting and gathering. The Todas
known for buffalo herding also practice cultivation of crops. The Santals, the
Oraon, and the Gonds practice settled agriculture along with hunting gathering.
Each type of economic activity is organised more or less systematically so that
goods and services are produced, distributed or exchanged and consumed or
utilised in order to satisfy a variety of wants.

1.5 TRADITIONAL ECONOMIC ORGANISATION

According to Hoebel and Weaver (1979: 453), “Economic organisation involves
the behaviours that center upon the production, the allocation and distribution, and
the use and consumption of goods”. The above authors emphasise culturally
defined behavioural networks that operate in various economic activities. Achieving
some rhythm and order in the provision of material goods and services for the
satisfaction of wants is essential for the survival and continuity of society. In
almost all societies, economic organisation exists in one form or the other.
Simple societies have simple mode of production which include simple technology
and most of the labour constitute family members or relatives. It varies from
society to society. The mode of economic organisation is very simple mostly
embedded in direct face to face relationship. Each type of economic organisation
ensures some role to all members of the community by means of creating some
space in the pursuits related to economic activities. Every member has a purpose
to participate in such organised activities.
The major types of distribution of goods and services are reciprocity, redistribution,
and market. Reciprocity is further divided into 3 types: generalised reciprocity,
balanced reciprocity and negative reciprocity. Let’s examine some of the other
components of economic organisation which are very important in understanding
the basic concept of economic organisation in anthropology.

1.5.1 Communal Ownership

In every society, simple or complex, property has important functions. Property
signifies social or economic status of a person or a group. Property can be either
individually owned (private property) or communally owned (communal property).
The concept of property keeps changing with the changes of time. Among simple
10 society, communal ownership is more prevalent over land resources, forest
resources, etc. It can be mentioned that these simple society enjoys the available Concepts and Definition
resources from the forest, river, etc. Hunting and gathering societies do not have
personal properties of their own except some objects like hunting tools, etc. but
the cattle rearing societies consider their cattle as their property.
In some societies, both communal ownership as well as individual ownership of
land is present. The Podu or Jhuming land or shifting cultivation land are community
owned where as the wet land and horticulture lands are individually owned. The
people are issued with pattas (a legal document assigning ownership) with regard
to the individual lands.
Reflection

Property: A Social Creation

Property in its full sense is a web of social relations with respect to the utilisation of some
object (material or non-material) in which a person or group is tacitly or explicitly
recognised to hold quasi exclusive and limiting rights of use and disposition

E. Adamson Hoebel and Thomas Weaver. 1979. Anthropology and The Human Experience.
McGraw-Hill : 262

1.5.2 Division of Labour

Most economic activities, and for that matter any physical activity of some purpose
(be it cooking, child rearing ritual etc.), are accomplished by sharing work between
a group of workers or participants. Division of labour is a form of “customary
assignment of different kinds of work to different kinds of people” (Ember and
Ember 1990: 272). Universally men and women, adults and children do not engage
in same kinds of work. In our society, it is usual for the man to plough and woman
to engage in cooking. Adults perform arduous works whereas children do light
works. Division of labour based on age and sex is universal though there is
variation across cultures. Further, it must be remembered that as the societies
modernise, role reversals and complex specialisations emerge.
In simple society, the division of labour is based on certain factors like sex, age,
etc. Men and women carry out different types of jobs. In certain activities, men
and women perform the same activities without any division of labour. Though
women folk observe certain taboos during times such as menstruation and child
birth, etc., they do not take part in the day to day chores, as during such times
they are considered impure.
For better understanding of division of labour, let us take an example of the
Savara tribe of Andhra Pradesh during their shifting cultivation. In the Savara
community both sex wise and age wise division of labour is observed. All the
family members work collectively as a unit of production under the guidance of the
head of the family. The family functions as an economic and social unit except the
small children and aged old members. The pattern of division of labour can be
classified on the basis of their age and sex. In their daily activities, children from
their early age start helping their parents. From the age of 9-10 years, the parents
ask their children to watch the field, fetch water, fetch tools etc. As they enter
adulthood they start playing a major role in subsistence by taking up labour
intensified works. The men and women have different and corresponding roles to
be played in various activities according to their age. The following statement gives
sex wise and age wise division of labour among the Savara tribe of Andhra
Pradesh:
11
Economic and Political Sex wise and age wise division of labour
Organisations
Name of the Activities in the Associated member in labour
podu field division
1. Selection of podu field Adult male
2. Cutting of large trees Adult male
3. Cutting of small trees and
Adult female and children
bushes
4. Burning of the podu field Adult male
5. Broadcasting of seeds Adult male and adult female
6. Weeding operation Adult male and adult female
7. Watching of crops Adult male and male children
8. Harvesting of crops Adult male, female and children

1.5.3 Major Economic Activities

As pointed out earlier, the tribal societies practice various types of economic
activities, it must be remembered that each tribe may pursue a major economic
activity supplemented by other types of economic activities. The following account
gives a brief description of each of the major economic activity.
1.5.3.1 Hunting-Gathering
A hunter-gatherer society is a society whose primary subsistence method of
livelihood is based on the direct procurement of edible plant, animals, birds, etc.
from their surrounding forest and water bodies. They depend on the nature for
their subsistence. The tribes in the dense forests uses bows and arrows, spears,
net for catching the animals. They also have customs of hunting in group as a
collective activity. They hunt wild birds, fowl, rabbits, deer, rats, etc. During the
rainy season, they carry out fishing from the streams and other water bodies. They
share the hunt equally among themselves. Some important features of hunting
gathering society are; lowest population density; small community size; nomadic or
semi-nomadic; infrequent food shortage; minimal trade; no full-time craft specialists;
least or no individual differences in wealth; informal political leadership; no
domesticated animals except dog; day to day consumption and little storage of
food; minimal planning for the future (the last three are not true with some
communities who are in contact with pastorals or agriculturists). Surplus foraging
is very much limited though some minor forest produce is collected for exchange
or sale in the local /weekly markets or government run agencies.
1.5.3.2 Horticulturalists
Horticulture in anthropology means growing of all types of crops with relatively
simple tools like hoe and methods like sprinkling of seeds on un-ploughed fields.
These fields are cultivated for a few years and then abandoned for new fields.
Thus permanently cultivated fields are absent in horticulture. Horticultural
communities are said to lie in the transition stage of human communities from
nomadic community i.e. hunting-gathering to horticultural communities by
domesticating different varieties of crops like tubers, yams, maise, wheat, rice,
pulses, vegetables, etc. around their dwelling or in a particular plot for their
12 domestic consumption. They select different useful trees, vegetable crops, etc and
plants for their uses. As discussed under political organisation in such societies Concepts and Definition
land is usually communal property and for horticulture the land is redistributed
among the group members. In such a society, women are equally engaged in
horticultural activities. In some case, women are more specialised in growing
crops. Some important feature of horticultural communities are: low – moderate
population density; small - moderate community size; more sedentary but may
move after several years; infrequent food shortage; minimal trade; none or few
craft specialists; minimal wealth differences; part-time political functionaries and
exhibit incipient social differentiation.
Horticulture includes shifting cultivation and growing tree crops like plantain,
coconut, breadfruit tree etc. The latter type of horticulture can be seen among the
Samoans.
Reflection

Samoan horticulture involves mostly three tree crops requiring little work except in
harvesting. Once planted, and requiring hardly more than a few years of waiting, the
breadfruit tree continues to produce about two crops a year for upto half a century.
Coconut trees may continue to produce for hundred years. And banana trees make new
stalks of fruit, each weighing more than fifty pounds, for many years (Ember & Ember,
1990:249)

Sometimes, horticulture is separated from shifting cultivation as the latter has

attracted special attention. In the following section, we will focus on shifting
cultivation.
1.5.3.3 Shifting Cultivation
Shifting cultivation is an age old socio-economic practice among many tribal
communities inhabiting the world. It is a distinct type of agricultural practice generally
practiced on the hill slopes. Since the days of early civilisation several groups of
tribal communities in India are practicing this method of cultivation as their primary
source of subsistence. The beginning of shifting cultivation goes back to the Neolithic
times i.e.8, 000-10,000 years ago (Hasnain, 1994: 193). This process resulted in
a new socio-economic situation for the Neolithic people when they shifted from
nomadic way of living to settled way of life. These groups tried to emerge as food
producers from food gathering stage.
Shifting cultivation is considered as the natural way of eking out livelihood by
some tribal groups. In fact, it is considered as a traditional technique of farming
adopted by different tribal communities in many parts of the Indian Sub-Continent.
Shifting cultivation is prevalent in other parts of the world, especially Sumatra,
North Burma, Borneo, New Guinea, and in many parts of the African continent.
Shifting cultivation is also referred to as slash-and-burn or swidden cultivation.
In India, shifting cultivation is known by different names in tribal regions. In North
East India, it is denoted as jhum, in Orissa as podu, dabi, koman or bringa, in
Bastar as deppa, in Western Ghats as kumari, in South East Rajasthan - the
Matra and Maria tribal groups call it penda, in Madhya Pradesh as bewar or
dahia, (Bhowmick P .K., 1990: I02).
Shifting cultivation is an impermanent cultivation practiced on hill slopes, often
steep, rugged and elevated places. After cutting and burning the vegetation known
as slash and burning method, seeds are sown by using the simple digging stick.
They raise crops for few years and then abandon the field as the soil loses its
fertility due to burning of the vegetation. The people then move on to another 13
Economic and Political place to begin a new cycle. After some years, they return to the same patch of
Organisations
land for shifting cultivation which they had left fallow for the natural vegetation to
grow and also for the soil to regain its fertility. The duration of fallow period
depends upon the availability of land with forest vegetation and the size of the
group practicing shifting cultivation. At present, on an average, the fallow period
by the tribal groups practicing shifting cultivation has come down from few decades
to few years.
1.5.3.4 Pastoralism
Pastoralism is a type of subsistence technology in which procuring food is based
directly or indirectly on maintenance of domesticated animals. Hoebel and Weaver
writes, “ Historically this (pastoralism) occurred in the Neolithic Age, at the same
time that incipient agriculture was developing in regions more suitable to the raising
of crops” (1979: 224). Pastoralist is concerned with the raising of livestock like
tending and use of animals such as goats, sheep, yak, buffalo, etc. They are
usually found in many variations in different parts of the world with different
composition of herds, social organisation and management practices. They move
the herds from one place to another in search of fresh pasture and water for their
animals. They also tend to adapt to the changing environment due to their frequent
movement from one place to another. So, the territory of pastoral nomads far
exceed than that of most horticulturalist societies. Pastoralism is quite popular in
Africa and Asia.
Some important features of pastoral communities are: low population density;
small community size; generally nomadic or transhumant; frequent food shortages;
trade is popular; presence of some full-time craft specialists; moderate individual
differences in wealth; presence of part-time and full-time political leaders.
1.5.3.5 Settled Agriculture
Settled agriculture involves use of a variety of techniques like ploughing, bundling,
use of draught animals, fertilisation, irrigation, weeding, land parceling, crop rotation
etc. that enable cultivation of fields permanently and also to augment productivity.
Many communities practice settled agriculture as one of the major economic
activities. The production is mostly for their own consumption and whatever surplus
production is exchanged for other goods and services. Basically, the unit of
production and consumption in their society is the family. Most of the family
members are engaged in the process of cultivation especially during the period of
weeding and harvesting.
General features of settled agriculture are presence of high degree of craft
specialisation, well developed technology, complex political organisation, marked
social differentiation in terms of wealth, power, status etc. Societies practicing
settled agriculture are prone to food shortage. This is paradoxical because
compared to other subsistence technologies, settled agriculture is more productive.
Then why do frequent food shortages occur in communities professing settled
agriculture? Two possible answers are : (1) in settled agriculture, growing a single
crop as staple crop and /or as commercial crop is a common practice though
other minor crops may be essentially used as supplement to the main staple crop.
If such crops fail due to pests, drought, failure of seasonal rains, food shortage
results; (2) in settled agriculture, it is quite likely to grow commercial crops. If
market demand is very feeble or inadequate, losses are incurred leading to food
shortage. Earlier, the paddy cultivation in settled field was less productive due to
14
the dependence of rain fed irrigation. The situation has improved considerable with Concepts and Definition
irrigation system, use of pesticides and high yield varieties of paddy.

1.6 TRADITIONAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM

Traditional economic system is usually associated with the simple societies like the
tribal societies, rural societies, etc. It is chiefly characterised by subsistence mode
of production with little surplus production. This economy is usually supplemented
by other minor occupations like collection of forest produce etc. However the
most important features of the traditional economic system is that of various modes
of exchange.
Let us now discuss different mode of exchanges prevailing among different societies.

1.6.1 Barter System

Barter system is the direct exchange of goods and services i.e an exchange may
be goods for goods, goods for services, service for service etc. It is considered
to be the earliest form of exchange in Human society. Barter usually replaced
money as the method of exchange during crisis like war, natural calamity, etc.

1.6.2 Silent Trade

Silent trade (also known as silent barter or trade and dumb barter) is a peculiar
form of exchange where the exchanging parties do not come into face to face
interaction during the process of exchange. The exchanging partners could be
enemies or antagonised. One group of people leaves certain quantity of products
at a customary place to be taken by another group, who in turn leaves back some
other products. The pygmy Semang and Sakai of Malaya and the Vedda and
Sinhalese of Sri Lanka practice silent trade.

1.6.3 Jajmani System

William H Wiser (1988) has introduced the term Jajmani system in his book, The
Hindu Jajmani System: A Socio-Economic System Interrelating Members Of
A Hindu Village Community In Services, where he described in detail how
different caste group interact with each other in the agriculture based system of
production, distribution and exchange of goods and services. In different parts of
India different terms are used to describe this economic interaction among the
castes, for example in Maharashtra the term Balutadar or bara batute and mera
or mirasi in rural Rayalaseema of Andhra Pradesh, jajmani in North India,
mirasi in Tamil Nadu and adade in Karnataka.
Jajmani system, (Hindi: deriving from the Sanskrit yajamana, “sacrificial patron
who employs priests for a ritual”) is reciprocal (usually asymmetrical and some
scholars term it non-reciprocal) social and economic arrangements between families
of different castes within a village community in India for the exchange of goods
and services. Here, one family exclusively performs certain services for the other,
such as ministering to the rituals or providing agricultural labour, or some goods
such as agricultural implements, pots, baskets etc in return for payment, protection,
and employment security. These relations are supposed to continue from one
generation to the next, and payment is normally made traditionally, in the form of
a fixed share in the harvest rather than in cash.
Speaking about the composition of villages Williams 1988 stated that each village
15
Economic and Political is composed of a number of jatis/castes each having its occupational specialty.
Organisations
Through jajmani relations these occupational jatis get linked with the land owning
dominant caste. The jajmani system operates around the families belonging to the
land owning dominant caste the members of which are called jajmans and the
occupational/artisanal and service castes called Kameens in North India and panollu
in Andhra Pradesh. The term Kameen or panollu means one who works for
somebody or serves him.
Williams further delineated the characteristics of the jasmani system as stated
below:
 Unbroken relationship: Under the jajmani system the kameen remains obliged
to render the services throughout his life to a particular jajman and the jajman
in turn has the responsibility of hiring services of a kameen.
 Hereditary relationship: Jajmani rights are enjoyed hereditarily. After the death
of a man his son is entitled to work as kameen for the same jajman family
or families. The son of a jajman also accepts the son of the kameen as his
kameen.
 Multidimensional relationship: Due to the permanency of relationship both the
jajman and kameen families become mutually dependent on each other. They
often take part in the personal and family affairs, family rituals and ceremonies.
 Barter exchange: Under jajmani system the payments are made mainly in
terms of goods and commodities. The kameen gets his necessities from the
jajman in return for his services. [William H Wiser (1988)]
The system has been regard as essentially exploitative, characterised by a latent
conflict of interest which could not crystallise due to the prevalent social setup.
The jajmani system has gradually decayed in modern society due to many reasons.
Modern economic systems measure everything in terms of its monetary value. The
decline of belief in caste system and hereditary occupation has given a strong blow
to the system. Growth of better employment opportunities outside the village and
introduction of new transport options have also led to the downfall of jajmani
system.

1.6.4 Ceremonial Exchange

It is a kind of social system in which goods and services are given to relatives,
friends and neighbours on various social occasions like birth ritual, marriage, death
rituals, etc. The basic initiative of this exchange is to establish good relations
between the various social groups in the society.

1.6.5 Reciprocity
Reciprocity consists of giving and taking goods and services in a social medium
without the use of money, which ranges from pure gift giving to equal exchange
to cheating or deceitful. Under reciprocity, there are again three forms: general
reciprocity (the gift giving without any immediate or planned returned), balanced
reciprocity (the exchange with the expectation of return that involves a
straightforward immediate or limited-time span) and negative reciprocity (an attempt
to take advantage of another or something for nothing).

16
1.6.6 Redistribution Concepts and Definition

It involves the accumulation of wealth or labour or goods by a particular individual

for the purpose of subsequent distribution. This type of accumulation for redistribution
is seen in societies having political hierarchies with specialised or privileged political
positions or political agencies. Centralised accumulation and redistribution require
a suitable political organisation. Such a system was reported among the Creek
Indians, the Buniyaro of Western Uganda, the Buin of Melanesia. Here, certain
amount of agricultural produce is deposited in the community granary by each
family. Such accumulated grains can be redistributed to those who lack food or
during lean seasons or famines or on special occasions. The chief or the king is
responsible to oversee redistribution though in some cases the chief may get
benefitted. Besides grains, labour services and crafts are also redistributed.

1.6.7 Market or Commercial Exchange

A market is any one of a variety of systems, institutions, procedures, social relations,
and infrastructure whereby parties engage in exchange. While in some cases goods
and services are exchanged by barter, most commonly these exchanges take place
through the medium of money. It may also involve the transaction of labour, land,
rental and credit and also other services. A transaction becomes a market or
commercial exchange, if the factors of supply and demand determine the price or
nature of exchange. Market exchanges develop when trade increases and barter
becomes increasingly inefficient; when the level of economic development becomes
higher; surplus production is specifically meant for exchange; external trade
develops; kin based reciprocal relations become weak and difficult to operate in
situations of dense population size and complex societal arrangements etc.
Modern trade exchange provides a trading platform system for its members or
clients. The member companies within the network participate in buying and selling
of their products and services to each other using an internal currency. For an
effective method of increasing sales, conserving cash, moving inventory, and making
use of excess production capacity for businesses around the world, markets have
evolved as an arrangement to become a common platform for them. They deposited
into their account as they have the purchasing power of goods and services from
other members utilising their trade credit, etc. Such an exchange plays an important
role by providing the record-keeping, brokering expertise, and so on.

1.7 THE DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS AND

SERVICES: TWO CASE STUDIES
As we learnt in the above account, there are different practices of the distribution
of goods and services. Two important cases are discussed below:

1.7.1 Kula
According to Malinowski (1922), Kula is a ceremonial exchange among Trobriand
Islanders of New Guinea. Kula is also known as kula exchange or kula ring. It
is a complex system of visits and exchange of two kinds of ornaments as well as
trading of food and other commodities with the people of other (nearby or far-
off) islands. Because the islands are differentially endowed with different natural
resources, each island could produce only a few specialised products or commodities
and have to depend upon other islands for other essential things and objects.
Because trading involves visiting distant and strange islands which may be risky, 17
Economic and Political the Trobrianders have worked out kula for a safe and secure trade by establishing
Organisations
trade partnership by means of exchanging kula ornaments and also gift giving.
The essence of such trade relations is not the trade in itself but it is subdued or
embedded in a ceremonial exchange of valued shell ornaments.
The Kula ornaments are of two types. One consists of shell-disc necklaces (veigun
or Soulava) that are traded to the north (circling the ring in clockwise direction)
and the other are shell armbands (Mwali) that are traded in the southern direction
(circling counter-clockwise). Mwali was given with the right hand, the Soulava
given with the left hand, first between villages then from island to island. If the
opening gift was an armband, then the closing gift must be a necklace and vice
versa. These are exchanged in a ceremonial ambience purely for purposes of
enhancing mutual trust relationships, securing trade, and enhancing one’s social
status and prestige. The Kula ornaments are not in themselves remarkably valuable.
However, these ornaments are loaded with folklore, myths, ritual, history etc
which generate a lot of enthusiasm and bind together the trading partners. Exchange
of these ornaments facilitates trading of goods with ease in the island visited as the
trading partner in the host island helps the visitor(s). However, people participating
in the Kula ring never indulge in any bargaining on the objects given and taken.
Individual members trade goods while circulating the Soulava and Mwali in a
cordial atmosphere. (Malinowski, 1922 Sixth Impression: 1964)

1.7.2 Potlatch
Potlatch is an elabourate feast among the American Indian groups of Northwest
Coast at which huge quantities of food and valuable goods (such as blankets,
copper pieces, canoes, etc.) are pompously and competitively distributed to the
guests in order to humiliate them as well as to gain prestige for the host. Burning
huge quantities of goods is also common. Potlatches are organised by individuals
like village chiefs or a group of individuals or villages. The chief of a village invites
a neighbouring village to attend the potlatch which the latter invariably has to
accept. The guests in turn invite the hosts to attend the potlatch to be given by
them. Though such distribution of gifts take place in a competitive way, it also
serves as a leveling mechanism where food and gifts get equally distributed among
various villages in a wide area in the long run.
Similar feasts are organised among the Melanesian societies (New Guinea) wherein
large number of (in hundreds) pigs are slaughtered. Several villages attend these
feasts. It appears that such large scale feasts are a waste. But these feats serve
the mechanism of ‘storing’ surplus food produced during good seasons, not by
storing in bins, but by feeding the pigs. Thus pigs become food-storing repositories
which can be used as food during lean seasons. If successive years are also good,
there will be over production of food that goes to pigs. As a result, the size of
drove grows into an unmanageable proportion, pigs destroy crops. In order to
reduce the drove size, a large number of pigs are slaughtered and a huge feasts
is organised by inviting guests from other villages. As a result, the pig population
gets drastically reduced and their menace on the fields also gets reduced. Such
feasts take place between villages reciprocally and the excess food (pigs) gets
redistributed. These feasts are not necessarily competitive but in a few cases, in
order to keep up one’s status, some ‘Big men’ of Melanesian societies organise
such huge feasts.

18
 Concepts and Definition
1.8 SUMMARY
In summing up this unit, we can say that every society (be it a simple or complex
society) has a political organisation that provides the ways of living as a social
being by maintaining social order and resolve conflicts. The level of the organisation
and its structure differs from society to society. In addition to political organisation,
every society has economic organisation that involves different customary or
traditional ways of transferring economic exchange of goods and services, and
also the customs for distributing them.
References
Bhowmick, P.K. 1990. Applied Action-Development-Anthropology. Calcutta:
Sri Indranath Majumdar.
Carol R. Ember and Melvin Ember. 1990. Anthropology. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall. P.249.
__________________ 1995. Anthropology. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India
Private Limited. (Page No-375).
Carneiro, Robert L. 1970. ‘A Theory of the Origin of the State’. in Science. pp.
733-38.
Ferraro, Gary P. 1992. Cultural Anthropology. New York, Los Angeles, San
Francisco: West Publishing Company.
Hasnain, Nadeem. 1994. Tribal India. Delhi: Pal aka Prakashan.
Hoebel, A. E. and Weaver. T. 1979. Anthropology and The Human Experience.
New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.
Mauss, Marcel. 1925. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic
Societies. Originally published as Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange
dans les sociétés archaïques.
Polanyi, Karl. 1957. ‘The Economy as Instituted Process’, in Karl Polanyi, Conrad
Arensberg, and Harry W. Pearson, eds., Trade and Market in the Early Empires.
New York: Free Press. Page no. 243-70.
Sahlins, Marshall. 1963. ‘Poor Man, Rich Man, Big-Man, Chief: Political Types
in Melanesia and Polynesia.’ In Comparative Studies in Society and History.
Pp. 285-303.
__________________ 1972. Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine Transaction.

Wiser, William. H. 1988. The Hindu Jajmani System: A Socio-Economic System

Interrelating Members Of A Hindu Village Community In Services. Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt Ltd.
Suggested Reading
Harris, Marvin. 1975. Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture.
New York: Random House.
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1954. Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Book.

19
Economic and Political Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1922. The Andaman Islander: A Study in Social
Organisations
Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sample Questions
1) What are the similarities and differences between tribal society and band
societies?
2) Compare and contrast the Chiefdoms and State societies?
3) What are the different form of distribution of goods and services among the
simple society? Describe their components briefly.

20
UNIT 2 STATE AND STATELESS SOCIETIES:
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS
Contents
2.1 Introduction
2.2 State and Stateless Societies and Contribution of Anthropology
Case-1
Case-2

2.3 Political Unit

2.4 Kinship and Power
2.4.1 Segmentary Lineage System

2.5 Political System among the Indian Tribes

2.5.1 Juang
2.5.2 Hill Kharias
2.5.3 Kondhs
2.5.4 Political Organisation in Other Tribal Inhabited Region
2.6 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions

Learning Objectives

After reading this unit, you would be able to understand:
 the meaning of state and stateless societies and the anthropological contributions
to the study of the same;
 relationship between kinship and power; and
 political organisations in some of the Indian tribes.

2.1 INTRODUCTION
In anthropology we have studied about social system and its subsystems such as
political organisations, economic organisations, religious organisations, etc. In this
unit, we will focus on political systems. We must understand that political institutions
are not isolated components but they are part and parcel of social system and are
interconnected with other subsystems in a society. Thus in any social system, the
economic system, the political system or the kinship system and the ritual life are
all interconnected. While the study of political system seems more concerned to
political science, anthropologists too have studied political system of both state
and stateless societies. Anthropologists are interested in studying political institutions
and the underlying principles on which these institutions act upon. In anthropology,
inductive and comparative approaches are used in studying political institutions
and explaining the uniformities found among them and to interpret their
interdependencies with other features of social organisation (Fortes and Evans-
Pritchard, 1940 : 5). Since long anthropologists like Fortes, Evans-Pritchard and 21
Economic and Political Mary Shepardon have emphasised that both state and stateless political systems
Organisations
are part of social structure through which political action takes place. Southall
(1974: 154) has noted that social anthropologists are gradually more interested in
studying the political aspects of contemporary times and intensive analysis of local
political behaviour and processes. Thus, the interest in studying political pattern,
behaviour and processes is gradually expanded with wider attention in both simple
and complex societies. However, in this unit we are going to emphasise the political
system in simple societies, be it state or stateless societies.

2.2 STATE AND STATELESS SOCIETIES AND

CONTRIBUTION OF ANTHROPOLOGY
Anthropology has noteworthy contribution to the study of traditional societies, the
tribes or peasant communities. The ethnographic contributions of anthropologists
have helped us understand different aspects of social and cultural life and political
system of these communities. Studies of tribes in India, Africa or in Australia have
recorded the fact that every society has definite norms, values and recognised
rules of conduct. Individuals violating such norms or values or breaching rules of
conduct are punished or subjected to various sanctions. Within a locally defined
community, an individual who commit some act which goes against the norms of
the community invites punishment by recognised coercive authority. Political
community, whether or not it is organised in the form of state has its own territory
(Mair, 1962). Protection of defined territory and its individuals, organising social
activities like rituals and religious activities, and organising economic activities
entail organised authority. The authority decides over the level of punishment for
each defied activity which goes against the societal norms or values. Every society
has certain authority, whether centralised, decentralised or lack of centralised
authority. Lucy Mair makes the useful remark that ‘there is no society where rules
are automatically obeyed’. Anthropologists like Gluckman and others have tried to
show that in all primitive societies-ranging from small bands of hunters or fishermen
to kingdoms-there exists some basic mechanism of social control which regulates
the affairs of the tribe and resolves conflicts arising among its component groups
(Eisenstadt, 1959: 201).
The general assumption is that most of these social control mechanisms are in one
way or another common to all types of traditional or preliterate societies-whether
segmentary, centralised or some other (ibid.). According to Fortes and Evans-
Pritchard (1940) the societies which have centralised authority, administrative
machinery, and judicial institutions were labeled as ‘primitive states’. Some groups
like the Zulu, the Ngwato, the Bemba, the Banyankole and the Kede are regarded
as “primitive states”. They observed sharp differences in the distribution of wealth,
status and privileges, corresponding to the distribution of power and authority in
all ‘primitive’ states.
Stateless societies on the other hand, had no great distinctions between the rank,
status, or wealth of their members (Haskell Fain, 1972). But they may not be
egalitarian societies. Fortes and Evans-Pritchard (1940: 5) have defined that the
societies which lack centralised authority, administrative machinery, and constituted
judicial institutions-in short which lack government-and in which there are no
sharp divisions of rank, status, or wealth are called stateless societies. They are
the Logoli, the Tallensi and the Nuer in Africa. Examples of such tribes in India
are some Andaman Islander tribes namely, Jarwa, Sentinelese, etc. Some other
hunters and gatherer groups where there is no centralised political system can be
22
included in the stateless societies. Historically speaking, many other tribes in India
were stateless societies. But the evolution of political system from stateless to state State and Stateless
Societies: Political
has taken place subsequently. Institutions
Like state, in the stateless societies, the political activities are supported by group
behaviour. In stateless societies, the community members select the leader who
possesses dominant characters with strong personalities, well-built physical feature,
and may be with possession of wealth. In the study of the Nuer, Evans-Pritchard
has reported the behaviour of the ‘leopard skin chief’ who is a dominant character
selected from outside the clan group. However, this clan is not necessarily a
dominant clan. He stands outside the lineage and tribal system. The leopard skin
chief possesses bounty wealth in the form of cattle. He is offered cattle by
community members or by the members of the guilty. Murder/killing of a fellow
community member is often regarded as a serious offense to the community as a
whole. Therefore, the leader takes appropriate action to compensate the kin of the
deceased and the community he belongs to. Lucy Mair (1962) pointed out that
in the absence of centralised political system if a man was wronged, his lineage
supported him in seeking redress by force. When they got tired of fighting they
invite an influential man to mediate between the two sides. However, collective
action takes place in war or in maintenance of peace. The community members
support the leaders in war and feud. This could be for protection of territory or
could be for taking on revenge in case of murder of fellow members. While in
more complex state societies, the guilty is punished by appropriate court of law
or well developed judiciary system. In stateless societies there are no obvious
political institutions like that in state. A leader is an institution in these societies. He
also possesses ritual power. Appropriate quantum of punishment is decided by the
leader. He maintains peace in the community. A leader resolves the disputes between
community members both within and outside. In addition, the protection of territory
or resolving territorial disputes is significant part of the decision making authority.
Allocation and distribution of resources takes place with appropriate leadership.
Both state and stateless societies protect social norms and values. Factors like
religion, wealth and other socio-economic factors are closely interconnected with
and determine political behaviour in stateless societies. In stateless societies, both
kinship and politics are often diffused.
Case-1
The Polynesians of the Hawaiian Islands had an exceedingly complex political system
based on hereditary rank and classes, and theocracy and divine right.
Among Polynesians, there are three hereditary social classes-commoners, nobles, and
inferiors. Agriculturists, fishermen and artisans are the commoners, work under the
shadow of nobles. The nobles are warriors, priests and political officials. The hereditary
ranking of nobles was based on descent from the gods, genealogically traced. Rank of
individuals and segments was traced in terms of birth order. The highest rank traced
through first born child. The islands were divided into chiefdoms ruled by a paramount
chief. The paramount chief’s rule was administered and maintained through a cluster of
high ranking nobles who served as priests, counselors and military leaders. The districts
of chiefdom were in turn ruled by local chiefs of high rank. The nobles were supported
almost entirely by tribute extracted from commoners in local areas which in turn were
administered by chosen chiefs and overseers of lower rank. Being of the highest rank
and sacredness himself, the chief approached the status of the god who conveyed on
him these divine rights. This system was stable and immutable. The paramount chief is
however not permanent and is often unstable and flexible. The political fortunes of
paramount chiefs coaxed and waned by with their success in holding their chiefdoms
together in the face of insurrection and intrigue.
Source: Roger M. Keesing, Cultural Anthropology A Contemporary Perspective (2nd
Edition), 1981, CBS College Publishing, New York.
23
Economic and Political
Organisations
Case-2

A Nuer tribe is the largest group whose members are duty bound to combine in raiding
and defense. There is no overarching government. The Nuer maintains a measure of unity
and orderly political relations between the territorial divisions. Evans-Pritchard calls tribe
to each territorial sub-division. A tribe is sub divided into segments. The relationship
between segments is conceived in terms of hierarchies of patrilineal descent. There is
fight between territorial divisions but when two neighbouring groups fight with third
party both the neighbouring groups fight together against the third party. Disputes begin
over many grievances such as damage to property, adultery, rights over resources, to
name a few. The Nuers are prone to fighting and many disputes lead to bloodshed.
Confrontation between members of different groups or villages can lead to use of spears
and bloody war between men of each village. A leopard-skin chief is the mediator who
resolves the disputes. Such a chief has ritual powers and a role as mediator and negotiator
but he has no secular authority and no special privileges. His performance in peacemaking
is possible because he stands outside the lineage and tribal system. The leopard skin
chief was also a wealthy leader partly because of the cattle he received for his services
as mediator who could mobilise the support of a substantial coalition of followers.

Source: Roger M. Keesing, Cultural Anthropology A Contemporary Perspective (2nd

Edition), 1981, CBS College Publishing, New York, pp. 282-285

Contribution of Anthropologists
In this section, we will briefly outline the contributions of anthropologists to the
study of state and stateless societies. The contribution of anthropology to political
thought has emerged from its apprehension with stateless societies. The growing
interest in political anthropology has been observed in the early writings on
primitive state and stateless societies by M. Fortes and Evans-Pritchard (1940),
J. Middleton and David Tait (1958), David Easton (1959), L. Mair (1962) M.L.
Perlman (1969), Balandier (1967) and recent studies by J. Vincent (1990) and E.
Wolf (2001) amongst others. The series of works by Hegel and Kalr Marx and
their argument on “state” have also contributed substantially to the study in political
anthropology.
Meyer Fortes and E. E. Evans-Pritchard are perhaps the first anthropologists who
have classified the political systems of African communities as state and stateless
societies. The study on ‘African Political System’ by Meyer Fortes and E.E.
Evans-Pritchard (1940) is a monumental piece to theoretical contribution in political
anthropology. In the beginning of the essay the authors have propounded that in
any social system you will find the political institutions, the kinship organisation, the
economic institutions and the ritual life which are interlinked and interdependent.
One institution influences another. Both Fortes and Evans-Pritchard (1940) have
emphasised that the definition of ‘political’ in anthropology has to be marked off
clearly. The political institutions with its true meanings should be established to
make it distinct from other features of social system. Thus the foundation to
theoretical contribution in political anthropology was observed in their writing
which was gradually facilitated the emergence of a separate discipline of Political
Anthropology. Shepardson (1963) pointed out that in African Political Systems,
Fortes and Pritchard have clearly defined the type of social structure through
which political action takes place and revealed the distinctions of political behaviour
whether state or stateless society (kin based, segmentary and state societies).
However, some anthropologists like David Easton and Balandier have raised the
concern with uncertainties of political anthropology, which they believed had not
marked off differently from other areas in anthropology or uncertainties found with
definitions of state. For example, Balandier (1967, 1970) in his book Political
24
Anthropology has pointed out that definitions of state or political institution are State and Stateless
Societies: Political
usually too wide and consequently non specific. Institutions

Paige (1974) supported the argument of anthropologists about understanding

relationship between systems of kinship and forms of political organisation. He
further emphasised that the organisation of kinship and the organisation of the
polity are closely integrated in stateless societies. Kinship roles frequently determine
patterns of group interests and solidarity and lines of political cleavage and conflict.
He derived the Gluckman’s (1965) argument that the maintenance of political
order in stateless societies depends on a network of cross cutting kinship ties. He
has particularly cited Murphy (1957), Van Velzen and Vanwetering (1960) and
Otterbein (1968) to argue that matrilocal and patrilocal residence rules produce
different patterns of group ties and consequently, different pattern of political
conflict. It has been assumed that both matrilineal and patrilineal descent rules
should have similar effects on inter-group conflict. Swanson’s original findings that
patrilineal descent correlates with factional polities and matrilineal descent are
consequence of the forms of political organisation has been contrasted by other
anthropologists. Paige has, however, concluded that association between rules of
descent and the organisation of the polity was a special case of a more general
principle underlying patterns of group conflict and cleavage in all political systems.
Hegel and Karl Marx are pioneers in contributing to the study of state and political
systems. Their thoughts still found to be very relevant and contemporary to the
studies in political anthropology. Hegel starts from describing the state and makes
man the subjective aspect of the state. He believed, democracy starts from man
and makes the state into objectified man. People make the constitution. Democracy
has relation with other forms of state. Democracy is the essence of all constitutions
of the state and is considered to be Old Testament in relation to other political
forms. Socialised man is the particular constitution of the state. All that exists, law,
constitution, democracy and other political forms are for the benefits of man. But
it is not that man is there for benefit of law or other political forms. Law has a
human existence and in other political forms man has only a legal existence. That
is the fundamental character of democracy (McLellan, 1971:215).
For Karl Marx state in many ways is a most characteristic institution of man’s
alienated condition. State is a negation of man, similar to religion, law and morality,
and equally based on a particular mode of production. Meanwhile, he also talked
about positive elements of state. The early work of Feuerbach’s critique of Hegel’s
philosophy and his own experience as editor of the Rhheinische Zeitung could
help him in to elabourate his ideas on the state. He narrated his ideas in a manuscript
as a critique of Hegel’s political philosophy. Marx provides an idealistic form of
government where the state and civil society are not separate, but directly
correspond to the ‘essence of socialised man’. He called this ‘true democracy’.
In a democracy the constitution, the law and the state itself are only a self
determination of the people and a particular content of them in so far as it is a
political constitution (KMSW: 29). He viewed state like religion, as a statement
of man’s ideal aims and also a compensation for their lack of realisation (McLellan,
1971). He differentiated between state and polity. He pointed out that the more
political the state is and the more it constitutes separate sphere, the more incapable
it is to solve the society’s problems.
While in early writings, Marx emphasised on gap between the state and society
in later part he focused on analysis of the function of the state in society. He later
25
Economic and Political considered state as a part of society. He discussed about origin of the state and
Organisations
other social institutions. The state is a manifestation of interest of certain dominant
class by which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common interests.
Sometimes Marx says that the state need not be representative of the whole of
a class but only a section of that class. State acts as intermediary among fully
developed classes for benefit of one and other classes and sometimes it acts
independently where the classes are not fully developed. The state acts as an
intermediary in the formation of all communal institutions and gives them a political
form. The state in turn modeled other social institutions.
Marx considered America as a modern state. He considered bureaucracy to be
the most essential part of this modern state apparatus. His manuscript, Critique of
Hegel’s Philosophy of the State in 1843 with special focus on Prussia described
how the bureaucracy had eventually become a caste which claimed to possess,
through higher education, the monopoly of the interpretation of the state’s interests.
The real aim of the state thus appears to bureaucracy as an aim against the state.

2.3 POLITICAL UNIT

Now let us discuss about what should be the unit of study for political system.
While most of the studies have highlighted the tribe as a social unit or as a political
unit, we should remember that the political unit is not only confined to one unit,
the tribe; it could be a horde or clan as well. In seeking to define the political
system, as suggested by Radcliffe-Brown, we have to look for a territorial
community which is united by the rule of law. Thus, it could be a tribe, a local
horde or clan. Middleton and Tait (1958: 8) have noted that “the basic unit of the
political system is also a joint or extended family based on a three or four generation
lineage. Its component families are generally the productive and consuming units,
but the joint family is the largest purely domestic unit and is under the domestic
authority of a single head who may also represent it as a corporate unit in political
and ritual situations”. The units are distinct in case of defined political system such
as state. However, in stateless societies there is no spatially defined distinct political
unit. It is noteworthy that the political unit in the societies with a state organisation
is numerically larger than in those without a state organisation. The largest political
groups among the Tallensi, Logoli, and Nuer cannot compete in numbers with the
quarter to half million of the Zulu state (in about 1870), the 101,000 of the
Ngwato state, and the 140,000 of the Bemba state. But it is suggested that a
stateless political unit need not be very small. But it is probably true that there is
a limit to the size of a population that can hold together without some kind of
centralised government. Similarly, a political unit with state organisation should not
be very large (Fortes and Evans-Pritchard, 1940: 7).
While a political unit could be a tribe, local hoard or clan, the political system
expands beyond one tribe, a local hoard or a clan. One important point discussed
by Fortes and Evans-Pritchard (1940) is that societies which have a high degree
of general cultural resemblance need not have the same type of political system.
Within a single linguistic or cultural area we often find political systems which
differ from each other in important features. Conversely, similar political structures
are found in societies of different cultures.

26
 State and Stateless
2.4 KINSHIP AND POWER Societies: Political
Institutions
There is a close relationship between kinship and power. Political anthropologists
have revealed the complex ties between these two systems. They have analysed
and developed the theory of kinship and power relation. There is little differentiation
between political functions and kinship institution. In stateless societies, the kinship
ties often determine the political behaviour. Balandier (1967, 1970) has cited Van
Velsen’s case of Tonga of Malawi that the political relations were expressed in
terms of kinship and the manipulations of kinship are one of the means employed
in political strategy. The relationship between state and kinship often seem to be
complimentary as well as antagonistic as discussed by Durkheim. The most important
characteristics in centralised chiefdoms such as Zulu, Ngoni, Swazi, etc. are that
the political sphere is distinct from that of lineage and kinship relations, and political
positions acquire a certain degree of autonomy. In the above said chiefdoms, the
relative importance of corporate descent groups, lineages, clans and the like for
the definition of the territorial units of society and for the general political life of
the tribe is insignificant than among the various segmentary tribes (Eisenstadt:
210-211).

2.4.1 Segmentary Lineage System

Smith (1956) pointed out that ‘the lineages are corporate groups of a segmentary
character defined in terms of unilineal descent’. An important feature that
separates political character of lineage system from kinship association is that the
political character of lineage organisation is linked with the corporate character of
lineage groups. This feature normally lacks in kinship associations. Lineages are
local groups which discharge political functions within their areas. This condition
provides a subdivision of the population into territorial segments and the correlation
of these territorial segments with the genealogical segments of the lineage units in
stateless societies. Segmentary lineage system is common feature of every society.
In stateless societies the political authority is often passed through lineage system
or internally organised on a lineage basis. Lineage principles provide substitute for
governmental organisation. The usages of lineage systems vary across societies
with different degree and freedom. This may be used to express and validate
forms of common action, such as reciprocal help and protection, joint responsibility
in bride wealth and blood compensation, help in feud and war, regulation of inter
marriage and observance of responsibility to the dead (Middleton and Tait, 1967:
6). In stateless societies the lineage system possesses key features of political
relations and other social relations. The political power and authority are exercised
between groups and statuses. External political relations of local groups are often
conceived in lineage terms when there is no centralised political authority. The
internal political authority could also be attached to lineages while this could be
attached to other structures such as age-sets and age classes, ritual congregations,
village councils and associations, ritual congregations, secret societies and other
associations (ibid.).
Stateless societies do possess lineages or other type of segments. These grow or
change through fission, accretion, and fusion of various units (Fortes, 1945, Smith,
1956, Easton, 1959). Depending upon the kind of kinship structure, stateless
societies break down into two subclasses. One subclass is characterised by
corporate lineage segments. Order is maintained in such societies by means of
equilibrium of competing lineage segments. The other subclass is distinguished by
a pure kinship structure in which no segmentation takes place. In centralised 27
Economic and Political primitive states, the segmentation may not be corporate lineages but localised
Organisations
groups, age-regiment, or associations. In complex modern ones there is segmentation
and the units of division are quite different and take the form of political parties,
interest groups, political leaders with specific followings, etc. (Easton, 1959: 222).
Middleton and Tait (1959) have identified several ways in which descent groups
may be linked into a single system. First group, a single all inclusive lineage
genealogy, which is sufficient to explain significant political identification of lineage
with territorial segmentation, and the political institution is built upon a framework
of agnatic lineages which are units into a single pyramidal system. This pyramidal
system covers the whole jural community. It need not cover the entire society.
Examples: the Tiv. The societies of this type, like the Lugbara and the Nuer, there
is continual migration and spatial movement of groups. They are relatively
economically and socially autonomous. These societies have little specialised
political authority. The functionaries who are politically important are also primary
holders of domestic or ritual roles. Second group, the political units of these
societies consist of small descent groups, usually of shallow genealogical depth,
which are relatively interdependent. They are grouped into overlapping clusters by
ritual links of various kinds (often by forming the congregations of earth cults and
other cults not based on descent) and by quasi- kinship ties. The internal hierarchical
administrative organisation of any single major political units is based upon a single
lineage genealogy. At the political level units are not linked by a single genealogy
but rather by the recognition of mutual obligations. Exogamy is an essential aspect
of ties of clanship where these provide a framework of political importance. They
may be explained by the people as resulting from common agnatic ancestry, but
they are explained in terms of clanship. Exact genealogical relationship is not
reckoned. Examples of these societies are the Konkomba, the Amba, and the
Tallensi. In these societies lineages are arranged in a segmentary organisation, but
are concerned with inheritance, exogamy and family matters rather than with political
relations proper. Third group, it composed of lineages from different clans, a
compound structure of lineages which cannot be placed into a single pyramidal
system. Relationships between all its territorial segments cannot usually be explained
by reference to a single agnatic genealogy. These systems are characterised by the
lack of an all inclusive lineage genealogy at any level of organisation except that
of the nuclear group itself. They also have chief with certain specialised functions.
Example of such type is the Dinka.

2.5 POLITICAL SYSTEM AMONG THE INDIAN

TRIBES
Many primitive communities in India have transformed their political system from
stateless society to state. The process of formation of state has been discussed by
Southall (1974) and Sinha (1987) amongst others. The change in management of
law and order from family and kinship ties to more centralised authority of the
tribal chief is discussed in many studies. Village councils are the intermediary
political institutions commonly found among the tribes in the country. However,
these village councils have close connection with non-tribals too. F. G. Bailey has
discussed about several political institutions in his study in highland village in
Kandhamal district of Orissa. Village council and caste council are some of the
well defined political institutions by Bailey in his study about political system. He
observed that a village council is engaged in formulating new set of rules, allocating
responsibility, organising labour, decision making in ritual process and festivals,
28
judicial process, etc. He found that formal management of the village lies in the State and Stateless
Societies: Political
hands of the village council (panchayat). The council has judicial, legislative, and Institutions
executive functions (Bailey, 1957: 192). Mutha political institution has significant
role in the Kondh tribal villages. A mutha consists of several villages. The political
units like mutha and village councils have also significant role in determining
economic bahaviour. A creation of state, both mutha and village councils are
engaged in collection of land revenues.
The study of political system in India has also been extensively discussed by
Surajit Sinha and Harmann Kulke. They have discussed about formation of state.
Surajit Sinha’s study discusses about political system in eastern India as well as
in the North eastern region of the country. The edited book on ‘Tribal Polities
and State Systems in Pre-Colonial Eastern and North-Eastern India’ is a
collection of essays by contributors who have discussed different aspects of political
systems. Sinha (1987) has primarily focused on the evolution of political system
from pre-state to sovereign states in this book. The levels and types of politics
described in his book are: Small chiefdoms-Miso chieftaincies, evolved chiefdoms
on the hills (mainly following pre-settled agricultural technology): Khasi Siyems,
principalities in the forest regions of eastern India: Orissa Princely States,
Chhotnagpur Raj and Mallabhum, and Archaic sovereign states in North-east
India: Ahom, Jaintia, Manipur and Dimsa State of Sikkim. He stressed that in all
the above cases the higher levels of polities were evolved by coagulation of
lineage or clan based units of one or more ethnic groups and/or by conquest of
segmentary tribes by larger principalities or states. Chiefdoms provide a centralised
direction to a higher tribal society. They do not have true government. The chiefdom
is a development of the segmentary tribal system to a higher level of integration.
A chiefdom is however not a class society (Elman, 1963). Sinha has further
mentioned that in the pre state level structures like the Miso Chiefdoms in North-
East India are entirely dependent on stratification of clan and lineage segments.
But in more complex political formations in Eastern India like Chotnagpur Raj,
Mallabhum, Panchkot, Barahabhum and feudatory states of Orissa, it is observed
that the controlled terrain of the Raja is surrounded by segmentary clan-lineage
based political formations.

2.5.1 Juang
Juang is one of the primitive tribes inhabited in Keonjhar District in Orissa.N.
Pattanaik (1989) has reported that a Pirh is the village council among the Juang.
Each Pirh is headed by a Sardar who maintains law and order, collect land
revenue, etc. Each Pirh is divided into six sub Pirhs and each Sub- Pirh is
headed by a Sardar. Pradhans are the village headmen of the village councils
which are governed under Sub-Pirhs.A Pradhan takes decision on judicial matters
and maintain law and order.A Pradhan also calls meeting which is attended by all
village council members. Sacerdotal chief is called Nigam who takes decision on
ritual and religious matters. The Dangua acts as messenger to the Nigam and the
Pradhan. The village council consists of the formal leader and the Barabhai or
elderly man of the village.

2.5.2 Hill Kharias

Hill Kharias are very primitive. The council of the traditional government consists
of a headman called Pradhan which is mostly hereditary and a sacerdotal head.
Pradhans are actively held and supported by the family heads. Since the family
heads have consanguine or affine relationship with each other, the people under 29
Economic and Political the Pradhan may be considered members of a large family. Decision on disputes
Organisations
at individual level, family level, village level, quarrels, conflicts, contribution for
religious and social affairs, marriage, social crimes and so on are taken up by the
Pradhan. As a rule, the council meetings are arranged in the courtyard or verandah
of the offender. It may also be held at times under a shady tree or in the house
of the Pradhan. Bhandari is the village crier (Vidyarthi and Upadhyay, 1987).

2.5.3 Kondhs
N. Pattnaik (1988) mentions that Mutha Organisation is closely akin to centralised
authority with marginal administrative and judicial institutions. Among Dongria
Kondhs, a Mutha head is called Mandal. Among Dongria Kondhs, a village chief
is called Jani who is also the spokesman of the village. Bismajhi and Barika
work under the Jani. A sacerdotal leader is called Dishari. Among Kutia Kondhs
village chief is called Majhi. Gonda is the village messenger. In the past the
Mutha was an important socio-political organisation. The functions of Mutha
organisation are to arbitrate cases like village boundary disputes, land disputes
and disputes over bride capture.

2.5.4 Political Organisation in Other Tribal Inhabited Region

The traditional political organisation in Inumanda village in Paderu Block in
Vishakhapatnam district of Andhra Pradesh studied by P. V. Rao (1987) has the
similar structure like other tribes. The political organisation is in the hands of the
village headman who works with a group of elders in the village who are collectively
called Peddala Panchayat. Rich influential persons were recognised by the
zamindars and local rulers as their representatives in the village for looking after
collection of revenue and law and order maintenance. Such representatives are
variously called as Naidu or Pettamdar. Naidu or Pettamdar is usually assisted
by a Barika. Chellani acts as attendant to Naidu. Kula Panchayat is the body
consists of all important members of the particular tribe. Village level issues and
issues concerning persons from different tribes fall under the purview of multi tribal
village elder council. Kula Panchayat is absent due to lack of sufficient strength
of the tribe.

2.6 SUMMARY
The political system is a part and parcel of social system. Both state and stateless
societies are part of political system. State is a dominant political feature with
centralised authority, administrative machinery and judicial institutions. The
centralised societies maintain some specificity and shares almost similar basic
political and administrative structure. The stateless societies on the other hand lack
centralised authority and lack well developed administrative machinery or judicial
institutions. There are sharp differences in the distribution of wealth, status and
privileges, corresponding to the distribution of power and authority, in all primitive
states. Kinship is an important constituent of social structure and plays significant
role in determining political behaviour in stateless societies. Lineage group is
primarily segmentary and an important characteristic of stateless societies. However,
lineage connection is also found in non-centralised societies, which is different
from stateless societies and centralised ones. In stateless societies it is often difficult
to differentiate between kinship and polity. Kinship is also an important political
institution in stateless societies. Irrespective of position in both state and stateless
societies, the central purpose in both these societies is maintenance of peace, and
30
stability of the society, protection of territory, values and norms, etc. The state is State and Stateless
Societies: Political
powerful force under the political system where more organised behaviour is Institutions
controlled by political institutions.
References
Bailey, F.G. 1957. Caste and Economic Frontier: A Village in Highland Orissa.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Balandier. 1967/1970. Political Anthropology. London: Penguin Books.
Critique of Hegel ’s Philosophy of Right (1843); KMSW, p.28. in David McLellan
(1971) 1980 The thought of Karl Marx, P.215.
Easton, David. 1959. “Political Anthropology”. Biennial Review of Anthropology.
Vol.1. Stanford University Press. pp. 210-262.
Eisenstadt, S.N. 1959. “Primitive Political Systems: A Preliminary Comparative
Analysis”, in American Anthropologist. New Series. Vol. 61. No.2. pp. 200-
220
Fain, Haskell. 1972. The Idea of the State. Nous. Vol.No.1, Blackwell Publishing.
pp. 15-26
Fortes, M. 1945. Dynamics of Clanship among the Tallensi. London: Oxford
University Press.
Fortes, M. and E.E. Evans-Pritchard. 1940. African Political Systems. London:
Oxford University Press.
Gluckman, M. 1965. Politics, Law and Ritual in Tribal Society. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Mair, Lucy. 1962. Primitive Government. Indiana: Penguin Publishers.
McLellan, David. 1971/1982. The Thought of Karl Marx an Introduction.
McMillan
Melvin L. Perlman. 1969. “Methodological Problems in Political Anthropology”.
Canadian Journal of African Studies, Vol.3. published by Canadian Association
of African Studies.
Middleton, John and David Tait. 1958. Tribes without Rulers. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Murphy, R.F. 1957. “Inter-group Hostility and Social Cohesion” in American
Anthropologist. pp. 1018-35
Otterbein, K.F. 1968. “Internal War: A Cross-cultural Study”. in American
Anthropologist. 70: 277-89
Paige, J.M. 1974. “Kinship and Polity in Stateless Societies” in The American
Journal of Sociology. Vol.8. No. 2. The University of Chicago Press, pp.
301-320
Pattnaik, N. 1988. The Kondh. Bhubaneswar: THRTI.
———————— 1988. The Juang. Bhubaneswar: THRTI.

31
Economic and Political Rao, P.V. 1987. Institutional Framework for Tribal Development. New Delhi:
Organisations
Inter India Publication.
Shepardson, Mary. 1963. “Navajo Ways in Government: A Study of Political
Processes” (Menasha, Wisc., 1963), 44 quoted in Melvin L. Perlman (1969)
Methodological Problems in Political Anthropology, Canadian Journal of African
Studies, Vol. 3, published by Canadian Association of African Studies.
Sinha, Surajit. 1987. Tribal Polities and State Systems in Pre-colonial Eastern
and North-eastern India. Calcutta: K.P. Bagchi & Company.
Smith, M.G. 1956. “On Segmentary Lineage Systems” in The Journal of the
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. Vol. 86, no.2, pp
39-80
Southall, Aidan. 1974. “State Formation in Africa”. Annual Review of
Anthropology. Vol. 3, pp. 153-165
Van Velzen, H.U.E. Thoden, and W. Van Wetering. 1960. “Residence, Power
Groups and Intra Societal Aggression”. In International Achieves of
Ethnography. 49 (2): 169-200
Vidyarthi, L.P. & V.S. Upadhyay. 1980. The Kharia: Then and Now. New
Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.
Wolf, Eric. 2001. Pathways of Power. California: University of California Press.
Suggested Reading
Fortes, M. and E.E. Evans-Pritchard. 1940. African Political Systems. London:
Oxford University Press.
Gluckman, M. 1965. Politics, Law and Ritual in Tribal Society. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Mair, Lucy. 1962. Primitive Government. Indiana: Penguin Publishers.
Middleton, John and David Tait. 1958. Tribes without Rulers. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Sample Questions
1) Mention important characteristics of both state and stateless societies.
2) Discuss how lineage segmentation is an important political feature of stateless
society.
3) Identify important political institutions in stateless societies.
4) What are the common features of political organisation discussed among the
Indian Tribes?

32
UNIT 3 PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION
AND EXCHANGE
Contents
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Main Theories in Economic Anthropology: A Brief Overview
3.3 Key Components of an Economic System
3.3.1 Production
3.3.1.1 Food Collection
3.3.1.2 Food Production
3.3.2 Distribution and Exchange
3.3.3 Utilisation or Consumption

3.4 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions

Learning Objectives

Once you have studied this unit, you should able to:
 understand the two main schools in economic anthropology and the fundamental
differences in their approach to the study of economic systems in simple
societies;
 describe the main socio-cultural characteristics of hunters-gatherers, pastoralists
and intensive agriculturists; and
 define reciprocity, redistribution, market/market exchange, utilisation.

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Broadly, an economic system may be defined as the one by which goods are
produced, distributed, exchanged and utilised or consumed. However, interpreting
the same for other cultures is not that simple. There is always a natural inclination
towards interpreting the cultures of others through our ethnocentric assertion which
is guided by our own values, beliefs and rationality. Therefore, it is important to
view economy not in isolation but as part of a larger whole, that is, an integral
component of the culture of the people, adopting an emic (insider’s) perspective.
To cite an example, participation of a large number of community members in
jhum (shifting or swidden cultivation) in Meghalaya (India) and its associated
rituals and community feasting could be viewed as unsustainable, unnecessary,
unproductive and a sheer waste of time by someone living in metropolitan cities
like Mumbai or Delhi, where neighbours hardly interact or get to interact with each
other. But the same practices, developed over generations and influenced by the
particular ecological locale and the adaptive challenges faced by the particular
community hold great relevance in their economic life.
33
Economic and Political In this unit, we will learn about some fundamental concepts of economic
Organisations
anthropology. Economic anthropology may be regarded as a subfield of cultural
anthropology pertaining to the study of human economic systems, across different
cultures. When we talk about economic systems, we generally deal with four
important aspects: production, making goods or money; distribution or the
allocation of the goods or money between different people, exchange, which refers
to the transfer of goods or money between people or institutions; and utilisation
or consumption, which involves the using up of goods or money.

3.2 MAIN THEORIES IN ECONOMIC

ANTHROPOLOGY: A BRIEF OVERVIEW
Before going straight into the concepts of production, distribution, exchange and
utilisation, it will be beneficial to have a broad overview of the main theories and
schools of thought in economic anthropology, in order to have a better understanding
of these concepts.
Till the 1920s, anthropologists did not pay much attention to the study of what
later became ‘economic anthropology’ or the anthropological study of the working
of economic systems in human society. The term ‘economic anthropology’ was
coined by N.S.B.Gras (1927:10), an economic historian, who defined it as a
‘synthesis of anthropological and economic studies’ dealing with ‘the study of the
ways in which primitive people obtained a living.’ Gras made a distinction between
economic anthropology and ‘anthropological economics’. According to him, the
latter, in contrast to the former, deals with the ‘study of the ideas that primitive
people held about economic matters’. He strongly advocated greater research
collabourations between anthropologists and economists, as in his view,
‘anthropologists could provide those in the economic field with facts in return for
ideas and the fundamental issues involved in getting a living’ (1927:22). Despite
his pioneering work, Gras did not have much impact upon later anthropologists
working on economic systems.
Malinowski’s Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922) is regarded as one of the
pioneering works in this sub-field. The crux of Malinowski’s argument was that
societies like that of the Trobriand Islanders did not fit the classic economists’
model. In such societies, the motive of economic activities was not confined to the
satisfaction of material wants but embraced much more such as gains in terms of
enhanced social prestige. Further the boundaries between economic activities and
other aspects like religion were interlinked and overlapped . Malinowski’s ‘anti-
economics’ (Honnigman, 1973) approach continued to profoundly influence
anthropologists working in this sub-field till about the late 1930s and then made
a reappearance as a basic tenet of the substantivist position of the 1950s.
A different perspective to the issue came about with the publication of some
seminal works by Goodfellow (1939), Herskovits (1940) and Firth (1965a). This
perspective is basically premised around the belief that anthropologists could stand
to gain by studying certain attributes of conventional economics and putting them
to application to the economies of simple societies. This evolved into what is
known as the ‘formalist’ stance, which centres on the argument that the neo-
classical model of economics based on the study of utility maximisation under
conditions of scarcity, can be applied to any society, with appropriate modifications.
The neo-classical model of economics views material behaviour as an organised
34 way of using means to arrive at certain valued goals or ends. The assumptions are
that man is a self-interested and rational being and that land, labour and capital Production, Consumption
and Exchange
are scarce and productive components in the economy. According to Burling
(1962), all human cultures are, therefore, a collection of ‘choice making individuals
whose every action involves conscious or unconscious selections among alternatives
means to alternative ends’, whereby the ends are culturally defined goals. Goals
refer not only to economic value or financial gain but to anything that is valued by
the individual, be it leisure, solidarity or prestige.
The 1960s witnessed a big controversy in economic anthropology owing to the
conflict between the formalists and the substantivists. In the ‘substantivist revolution’
(Le Clair and Schneider, eds., 1968) of the 1950s, we see the reappearance of
a new version of Malinowski’s ‘anti-economics’ position, with substantivism
advocating the non-applicability of conventional economic theory to the study of
non-western, nonindustrial economies. The so-called substantivist revolution was
heralded by the political economist Karl Polanyi in his famous work The Great
Transformation (1944). According to Polanyi, there are two meanings of economy
– the substantive, which refers to a category of observable behaviour, e.g.,
production, consumption, distribution; and the formal, which refers to the logic of
rational choice. In his view, the logic of rational choice occurs only in modern
market societies and not pre-market societies. In Polanyi’s words (1944: 43), ‘the
outstanding discovery of recent historical and anthropological research is that
man’s economy, as a rule, is submerged in his social relationships. He does not
act so as to safeguard his individual interest in the possession of material goods;
he acts so as to safeguard his social standing, his social claims, and his social
assets. He values material goods only in so far as they serve this end. Neither the
process of production nor that of distribution is linked to specific economic interests
attached to the possession of goods; but every single step in that process is
geared to a number of social interests which eventually ensure that the required
step be taken. These interests will be very different in a small hunting or fishing
community from those in a vast despotic society, but in either case the economic
system will be run on non-economic motives’. The works of Polanyi’s successors
like Sahlins (1965) and Dalton (1968) reinforced the substantive position that the
economy is merely the process of provisioning society or the sociocultural system
and that no social relation, institution, or set of institutions is economic but that it
can only serve economic purposes.
Thus, it would not be wrong to state that till the early 1970s, the growth and
evolution of economic anthropology has basically revolved around these two schools
of thought- formalism and substantivism. On the one hand, there have been the
formalists who seek to study social relations as concomitant to the process of
resource utilisation. On the other hand, the substantivists have consistently argued
that rational choice is only ‘instituted’ in the socio-cultural and political systems
of capitalist societies, and that in other societies, economic behaviour is guided by
non-economic principles.
The 1970s witnessed the influence of Marxian thought on economic anthropology.
Scholars like Wolf (1982) highlighted the fact that European capitalist expansion
had brought about remarkable transformation among traditional economies, which
could no longer be studied in isolation, but in relation to the capitalist world
systems. This perhaps holds even greater relevance in the present time of
globalisation and a world order where market forces reign supreme.
There has also been the growth of other theories in economic anthropology such
as culturalism propounded by Gudeman (1986). He argues that the central processes 35
Economic and Political of making a livelihood are culturally constructed. Therefore, models of livelihoods
Organisations
and related economic concepts such as exchange, money or profit must be analysed
through the locals’ ways of understanding them.
With this brief introduction to the basic theories of economic anthropology, we will
now discuss in detail the concepts of production, distribution, exchange, utilisation
and consumption, with examples from across the world.

3.3 KEY COMPONENTS OF AN ECONOMIC

SYSTEM
Production refers to the process by which human beings transform, through their
work, matter or natural resources into some goods, which is consumable or capable
of being used to satisfy their need or want. Distribution is the process of allocation
of goods between different individuals or groups while exchange helps an individual
or group acquire particular products into which he/she wishes to convert the
quantity allocated to him through distribution. Consumption, as the word indicates,
refers to the use of the goods or services. As far as the inter-relationship between
these components of an economic system goes, Marx (1904a: 274-75) provides
a very apt description which is as follows: ‘Production yields goods adapted to
our needs; distribution distributes them according to social laws; exchange distributes
further what has already been distributed, according to individual wants; finally, in
consumption the product drops out of the social movement becoming the direct
object of the individual want which it serves and satisfies in use. Production, thus,
appears as the starting point; consumption as the final end; and distribution and
exchange as the middle; the later has a double aspect, distribution being defined
as a process carried on by society, while exchange, as one proceeding from the
individual’.

3.3.1 Production
Economic anthropologists, particularly the substantivist scholars, have generally
displayed a tendency towards over-emphasising on the study of exchange processes
and relations, with the result that study of production modes has not been accorded
much priority. To cite Honnigman (1973), ‘they do not analyse or theorise about
the forces and relations of production or about the creation of commodities, but
invariably restrict themselves to the circulation and destination of commodities
already produced’. He further opines that Polanyi’s tripartite scheme of reciprocity,
redistribution, and market exchange presupposes production modes but does not
link up with them; the social concomitants of transactional modes, not of production
modes are of dominant concern to him and his followers.
In economic anthropology, production has been given its due importance by the
Marxian anthropologists, with Marx emphasising on the centrality of production to
the economy. According to Dalton (1961:6), Marx perceives the economy as a
process of interaction between men and their environment, a process through
which men as producers ‘integrate the use of natural resources and techniques and
assure continuous cooperation in the provision of material goods’. Also, according
to Marx (1904a:11), the economic base or mode of production in every society
is made up of two components: (i) the force of production, the physical and
technological arrangement of economic activity, and (ii) the social relations of
production, the interpersonal and intergroup relationships that men must establish
with one another as a consequence of their roles in the production process.
36
To state in simple terms, production involves human-nature interaction, with human Production, Consumption
and Exchange
beings interacting with nature through the means of their culture to wrest their
material means of existence. It is perhaps for this reason that Godelier (1967a:
259) argues that production embraces all kinds of production operations regardless
of the specific societal context in which they are performed and that economies
ranging from the very simple (hunting, gathering and fishing) to more advanced
agricultural and industrial economies can be studied within the same analytical
framework.
We would now be looking into the various modes of production ranging from the
‘simple’-hunting, gathering and fishing, where human beings occupy and wrest
from nature their sustenance without transforming it, to the more complex such as
animal husbandry and followed by cultivation, which involves the transformation of
nature. In the evolutionary scheme of society, cultivation and animal husbandry
invariably appear after hunting, gathering and fishing (Lowie 1938:282). Production,
for the purpose of simple societies, may be basically studied under the two heads:
food collection and food production.
3.3.1.1 Food Collection
Food collection, encompassing the production strategies of hunting, fishing and
gathering, refers to all forms of subsistence technology in which food is secured
from naturally occurring resources such as wild plants and animals, without significant
domestication of either. Food collection is the oldest survival strategy known to
man. But in the present day, there are very few communities left in the world who
are entirely dependant on hunting and gathering for livelihood such as the Australian
aborigines, the Inuits living in the arctic regions of Canada, the Andamanese tribes
like the Onge and Jarawa etc. However, a number of communities continue to
practice hunting-gathering and fishing to supplement their nutrition from agriculture.
For instance, in the state of Assam, many of the tribes such as the Karbis, Tiwas,
Mishings, Rabhas etc. are experts in the art of fishing and hunting, which they
practice in conjunction with agriculture.
While the study of exclusively hunter-gatherer communities may help us arrive at
some understanding of man’s life in the past, Ember and Ember (1994) cautions
against the excessive use of contemporary observations to draw inferences about
the past for a number of reasons. In their view, we must understand that the earlier
hunter-gatherers lived in almost all types of environments, including some very
bountiful ones and not like the contemporary ones who live mostly in marginal
areas and, therefore, are not comparable. Moreover, the contemporary hunter-
gatherers are not relics of the past and like us have evolved continuously. Nor in
the past did hunter-gathering communities have the opportunity to interact with
agriculturists, pastoralists, industrial/capitalist societies.
Contemporary hunters-gatherers live in a variety of geographical locations and
climates but mostly in marginalised areas where agriculture is not feasible.
Nevertheless, such groups seem to share a number of cultural attributes like the
fact that most live in small groups in sparely populated areas and adhere to a
nomadic lifestyle. For them, the camp is the main center of daily activity and the
place where food sharing actually occurs. According to Honigmann (1973), the
hunter-gatherer society is egalitarian, does not recognise individual land rights and
do not accumulate surplus foodstuffs, often an important source of status in
agricultural societies. Such communities usually do not have a class system or
specialised or full-time political officials. Division of labour is largely on the basis 37
Economic and Political of age and sex. Ethnographic and archaeological evidence indicate that with few
Organisations
exceptions, such societies generally have a sexual division of labour, where men
hunt and usually do the fishing while women gather wild plant foods. Sahlins
(1968) calls them the ‘original affluent society’ despite the fact that hunter-gatherers
consume less energy per capita per year than any other group of human beings.
According to Sahlins, ethnographic data indicates that hunter-gatherers worked
far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure than typical members of industrial society,
and they still ate well. Their ‘affluence’ came from the idea that they are satisfied
with very little in the material sense.
3.3.1.2 Food Production
The origins of food production began about 10,000 years ago in the Neolithic
period when man took the first steps from merely utilising to transforming nature
through the cultivation and domestication of plants and animals. Archaeological
data indicate that various forms of domestication of plants and animals arose
independently in six separate locales worldwide during the period from 8000 to
5000 BC, with the earliest known evidence found throughout the tropical and
subtropical areas of southwestern and southern Asia, northern and central Africa
and Central America (Gupta, 2010). According to anthropologists, on its own, the
physical environment has more of a limiting rather than a determining impact on
the kinds of subsistence choices made. For instance, according to Binford (1990),
further away from the equator, food collectors depends much less on plants for
food and much more on animals and fish.
Food production systems may be generally divided into three main kinds: horticulture,
pastoralism and intensive agriculture.
i) Horticulture
The term ‘horticulture’, denotes a simple food production strategy involving the
growing of crops using simple hand tools such as the digging stick and hoe, in the
absence of permanently cultivated fields. Horticulture generally does not involve
any efforts at fertilisation, irrigation, or other means to restore the fertility of the
soil once the growing season is over. As far as the cultural attributes of horticulturist
societies are concerned, land is generally owned by the community or kin groups.
Horticultural practices are generally of two kinds. The most common one is extensive
or shifting cultivation also known as swidden or slash-and-burn (jhum in the
Indian context). This method of horticulture involves the cultivation of a particular
plot of land for a short time, followed by a long fallow period, when the land is
left alone to regain its fertility. The process of preparation of a piece of land for
shifting cultivation involves clearing the undergrowth and felling of trees which are
then left to dry. Just before the seasonal rains are to begin, they are set afire. The
ash is also supposed to rejuvenate the soil and immediately after the first shower
of the season, a mix of crop seeds such as maise, gourd etc. are sown with the
help of the digging stick. Generally, all adults are involved in food production, with
a division of labour based on sex. This particular form of cultivation has been
derided by many as a main reason for deforestation and decimation of forests, and
a number of environmental problems stemming from it. In India, shifting cultivation
continues to be widely practiced in many states of the North-East like Assam,
Meghalaya etc. and there have been many policy initiatives to wean away
communities from this practice.
38
The other form of horticulture pertains to the planting of long-growing tree crops Production, Consumption
and Exchange
such as coconut and banana, which after a few years, continues to yield crops for
a number of years.
Most horticultural societies, according to Ember and Ember (1994), do not rely
on crops alone for food but rely on a combination of subsistence strategies which
includes hunting, fishing, the raising of domestic animals like pigs, chickens, goats
etc.
ii) Pastoralism
Pastoralism is characterised by a heavy though rarely exclusive reliance on the
herding of domesticated animals for a living. It is usually practised in areas not
particularly amenable to agriculture such as grasslands and other semiarid habitats.
A classic attribute of a pastoral society is mobility of all or part of the society as
a normal and natural part of life. This mobility might be permanent (nomadism) or
seasonal, which is referred to as transhumance. The reason behind the mobile
nature of their lives lies in that fact that their territory, by necessity, has to be
spread over a large area. Once their herds have grazed in an area to the maximum,
it has to be left alone for the grass to renew and they have to move on in search
of newer pastures. Pastoral communities are generally small in size. In India, for
instance, the Bakarwals are a pastoral nomadic community inhabiting the high-
altitude meadows of the Himalayas and the Pir-Panjal ranges. Every year, they
take their sheep high into the mountains, above the tree-line to the meadows,
which are reachable only after a long arduous journey.
Among pastoral nomads, grazing lands are generally held communally and a chief
may be the designated owner of the land. According to Sneath (2000), pastoralist
systems are commonly organised into patrilineal clans and lineages that function as
corporate livestock owning units, with men being typically the owners of livestock
wealth. There is sexual division of labour, with men being in charge of the herding,
while women process the herd’s products such as milk. Such communities,
according to Ember and Ember (1994), often make agreements with settled
agriculturalists about rights to graze unused fields or even to clear a harvested field
of leftover.
While pastoralism has been an effective and sustainable economic strategy in
resource-poor environments, it could lead to overexploitation of the environment
when outside forces constrict the available space.
iii) Intensive Agriculture
Intensive agriculture enables human beings to cultivate fields permanently by
adopting a variety of techniques. It involves the use of fertilizers, both organic such
as cow dung and inorganic chemical fertilisers, the use of technologies ranging
from the humble plough to the tractor and could also incorporate complex systems
of irrigation and water control. Societies practicing intensive agriculture generally
have individual ownership of land. Such societies are also likely to be characterised
by a higher degree of economic specialisation, more complex political organisation,
and disparities in the distribution of wealth and power among different sections of
the society. The basic unit of production is the family and division of labour takes
place according to gender and age. Women in such a society have a number of
duties associated with the food processing stage but they also spend a lot of time
in the fields. In fact, apart from ploughing which is a taboo in many communities
of rural and tribal India, women have an important role in intensive agriculture, 39
Economic and Political particularly wet paddy cultivation, including planting of seedlings in nurseries,
Organisations
transplanting them to flooded fields, weeding, harvesting etc.
While most intensive agriculturists particularly in countries like India live at
subsistence level, with the produce barely enough to cater to their own needs,
others have increasingly grown crops as surplus for the market. In fact, following
the Green Revolution of the 1960s, farmers in the state of Punjab in India grew
increasingly more to cater to the market. Contemporary Indian agriculture is also
characterised by the increased trend of farmers, motivated by the market, to grow
more cash than food crops. Such a trend coupled with the fact that intensive
agriculturists may rely more often on single crops, subject to the vagaries of the
weather, could result in food shortage.

3.3.2 Distribution and Exchange

Distribution and exchange has consistently remained the central focus of
anthropologists interested in the study of economic systems and their working in
society. While being closely related concepts, the main point of distinction between
the two is that while distribution determines the proportion of total output that the
individual will receive, exchange determines the specific products into which the
individual wants to convert the share allocated to him by distribution (Honigmann
1973). He further opines that distribution implies a reward system in which produce
is channeled out among individuals or groups by reason of their control over the
factors of production or for the labour they expended in the productive process.
Exchange, on the other hand, refers to the various processes by which goods (and
services) move or are being transferred between individuals or groups, as, for
example, between producer and consumer, buyer and seller, donor and recipient.
Firth’s (1965a) work among the Tikopia is a seminal study on distribution. In his
view, every society has explicit or implicit norms on how the total pool of products
is to be shared among its members and that these norms are geared to address
the issue of division of a joint product and the compensation of the factors of
production, especially labour. His observation of the principles of distribution in
the Tikopia economy, which hold equal relevance for many pre-industrial economies,
led him to certain conclusions. According to him (1965a:313), there is a ‘definite
concept that all participants in a productive activity should receive a share of the
product, but that social considerations do not make it necessary for this share to
be exactly proportionate to the contribution in time, labour, or skill that each
individual has made’. Such inequalities in terms of allocation are particularly evident
in tribal and peasant societies, where social and/or political achievement entitles
some individuals to more than an equal share of material reward. Sahlins’ (1968)
study indicates that despite these ‘inequalities’ in distribution, the relationship between
a chief and the followers in most tribal societies is not exploitative in nature but
based on the principle of generalised reciprocity (we will come to it later in our
discussion).
Now, we shall discuss the ‘action, or act, of reciprocal giving and receiving’
(Gregory, 1998) or exchange. According to Commons (1954), the concept of
exchange, from the anthropological viewpoint, embraces two distinct kinds of
transfer events: physical transfers and jural transactions. While the former involves
locational movement and physical control; the second involves the transfer of
culturally defined ownership and use rights. It is the latter aspect which has aroused
the interests of anthropologists from the very beginning.
40
Significant understanding on exchange and the motives for it came from Malinowski’s Production, Consumption
and Exchange
(1922) work on trade and gift giving among the Trobriand Islanders and Mauss’s
classic essay The Gift published in 1922. Malinowski studied the ceremonial
exchange system- the Kula ring spread over eighteen island communities of the
Massim archipelago, including the Trobriand Islands and involved thousands of
individuals. Members of the Kula ring travelled long distances by canoe to exchange
Kula items - red shell-disc necklaces (veigun or soulava) traded to the north in
clockwise direction and white shell armbands (mwali) traded in the southern or
counter clockwise direction. If the opening gift was an armshell, then the closing
gift must be a necklace and vice versa. Malinowski (1922: 177) came to the
conclusion that exchange among Trobrianders was better seen as a social act than
a transmission of useable objects. Exchange, in his view, did not result in economic
gain; quite the contrary, it represented a superiority of the giver over the receiver
and placed a burden upon the receiver. Similarly, the basic argument of Mauss’s
essay is that gifts are never free and that they always give rise to reciprocal
exchange. According to Gregory (1998), an important notion in Mauss’
conceptualisation of gift exchange is ‘inalienability’ or the fact that the object is
never completely alineated from giver; hence, the act of giving creates a social
bond with an obligation to reciprocate on part of the recipient. To not reciprocate
means not only loss of honour and status, but may also have spiritual connotations
in some societies.
Later on, Polanyi and a group of scholars (eds., 1957) tried to distinguish between
two kinds of processes involved in exchange among simple communities- goods-
handling and goods- receiving, and raised a number of pertinent questions: ‘Who
passed on goods to whom, in what order, how often, and with what response
among those listed under whom?’ Based on the answers arrived at after analysing
a number of ethnographic cases, they identified three kinds of exchange: (1)
reciprocative sequence among fixed partners; (2) redistributive sequence between
a central actor and many peripheral actors; (3) random market sequence (1957:
vii-ix). In a later work, Sahlins (1965b) reduced these three kinds of exchange
into two broad types: (1) ‘reciprocity’ or ‘vice-versa’ movements between two
parties and (2) ‘pooling’ or ‘redistribution’ involving collection from members of
a group, and redivision within this group. We will now try to understand the
concepts of reciprocity and redistribution with a few ethnographic examples. We
will also spend some time understanding market exchange, as in today’s monetised
economy, almost all societies of the world are coming within its ambit.
i) Reciprocity
Reciprocity constitutes the main basis of exchange in most non-market economies.
According to Sahlins (1965b:145-49), reciprocity may be defined into three types
based on the criterion of the stipulation of material returns, which are as follows:
a) Generalised reciprocity, involving unstipulated reciprocation, is gift giving
without consideration of any immediate or planned return. In such a case, the
value of the gift is not calculated and the time of repayment not specified.
Such type of reciprocity generally occurs only among close kin or people
sharing close emotional bonds such as between parents and children, between
siblings, close friends etc.
b) Balanced or Symmetrical reciprocity occurs when someone gives to
someone else, expecting a fair and tangible return - at a specified amount,
time, and place (Bonvillian, 2010). Here, the exchange occurs owing to the 41
Economic and Political desire or need for certain objects. Giving, receiving and sharing constitute a
Organisations
form of social security and according to Honigmann (1973), it promotes an
egalitarian distribution of wealth over the long run. While generally practiced
among equals who are not closely related, balanced reciprocity principles
may also be evident in gift giving among kin. To cite a particular example,
among relatives in many parts of India, it is common practice for kin to give
valuable items and even monetary contribution when a relative’s daughter is
being married off. The implicit expectation being that when their own daughter
is married off, similar contributions could be expected from the receivers.
Sometimes there is a fine line between generalised and balanced reciprocity
particularly gift giving in urban society, where though it might appear to be
generalised reciprocity, there may be strong expectations of balance. For
instance, two families residing in the same neighbourhood in Delhi may try to
exchange gifts of fairly equal value, say based on calculations of what last
year’s Diwali gift’s cost.
While balanced reciprocity generally operates on egalitarian principles, it
could also take on a competitive form. Normally, it might be a means for
villagers to ‘bank’ surplus food by storing up ‘social credit’ with fellow
villagers by giving feasts, with the expectation that the credit will be returned.
But affluent villagers might use this mechanism to enhance their social status
by throwing lavish feasts and giving costly gifts. This seems to be the primary
objective of chiefs among many Native American groups of the Northwest
coast in holding a potlatch (ceremonial festival), where he would give away
gifts, food and even destroy items of value in a spirit of competition with rival
chiefs .
c) Negative reciprocity is the exchange of goods and services where each
party intends to profit from the exchange, often at the expense of the other
(Bonvillian, 2010). Practiced against strangers and enemies, it could range
from barter, deceitful bargaining to theft, and finds social sanction among
many societies. For instance, among the Navajo, to deceive when trading
with foreign tribes is considered morally acceptable (Kluckhohn, 1972). Barter
is believed to fall within the realm of negative reciprocity, as it is a means by
which scarce items from one group are exchanged for desirable goods from
another group. According to Honigmann (1973), relative value is calculated
and despite an outward show of indifference, sharp trading is more the rule.
While talking about the kinds of reciprocity, Sahlins (1965b: 149-74) points out
that reciprocity leans toward generalised extreme on the basis of close kinship and
that it moves towards the negative extreme in proportion to a diminution in kinship
propinquity, and that it varies with other factors such as social rank, relative wealth
and need, and type of goods.
ii) Redistribution
Redistribution refers to a kind of economic exchange characterised by the
accumulation of goods (or labour), with the objective of subsequent distribution
within a social group according to culturally-specific principles. While, redistribution
exists in all societies within the family where labour or products or income are
pooled for the common good, it emerges as an important mechanism in societies
with political hierarchies. In the latter, it requires a centralised political mechanism
to coordinate the collection and distribution of goods. While it serves as a mechanism
42
for dispensing goods within a society, it could also be a means for a chief to
consolidate his political power and gain in prestige. This seems to be an objective Production, Consumption
and Exchange
of the potlatch where chiefs compete with each other to give away and destroy
goods of value.
In less centralised societies that do not have formal chiefs, the economic
entrepreneur or the ‘big man’ may carry out such acts. In modern market economies,
redistribution takes place through taxation by the state, whereby resources are
allocated back to individuals or groups within society, either through the provision
of public services or directly through welfare benefits.
iii) Market/Market Exchange
In very broad terms, a market/ market exchange involves the buying and selling
of goods, labour, land, rentals, credit etc. by persons, using an intermediary token
of common exchange value. According to Honigmann (1973), such a two party
market transaction could very well become a form of negative reciprocity, unless
some sort of arrangement has been made to ensure at least an approach to
balance. Although market exchange need not necessarily involve money, most
commercial transactions, particularly nowadays do involve money (Ember & Ember,
1994). Again, while most of such transactions take place in a specifically designated
market place, a market may exist without a designated physical place. This is
more so in the contemporary world, where significant market transactions take
place on the internet. On the other hand, in simple societies, a market place may
signify much more than a place where economic transactions are performed. In
rural and tribal India, even today, weekly haats or markets provide an opportunity
for people to renew friendships, exchange local gossip, arrange marriages, while
some may also have deep cultural significance. Reliance on the market and the use
of general purpose money is increasing universally, with traditional subsistence
giving way to commercialisation due to factors like demand, increased interaction
with other societies etc. According to Plattner (1985), the substantivist stance in
economic anthropology is rendered redundant in the context of markets in the
present day. In his words, ‘the pretense that theories of markets and marketing
were irrelevant became less viable’ in a world that increasingly resembles a market
system. At the same time, according to Dilley (1992), over-simplistic notions of
economic man as individual maximiser of economic value, as enunciated by the
formalist position, have now receded in the face of theoretical criticism that such
assumptions provide few convincing explanations of socio-economic status.

3.3.3 Utilisation or Consumption

The third component of the economic system following from production, distribution
and exchange is utilisation or consumption. If we go by what Herskovits (1952:
298-309) says, then, utilisation has to be considered to be broader in scope than
consumption. According to him, the process of utilisation involves two aspects:
those leading to further production by employing the resources obtained as ‘capital’;
and those involving direct, immediate consumption to satisfy current wants.
While scholars like Dalton (1969) and Sahlins (1969) have been critical of extending
the capital concept to pre-industrial societies, scholars like Firth (1965a) have
argued that many simple societies do use capital in the economic process either
as a productive asset or as a means of facilitating control over purchasing power;
or as a fund for investment. However, the comparatively high liquidity or ease of
convertibility of many goods in primitive and peasant economies from one use to
another, creates problems in this. Firth (1965a: 237-38), for instances observes
43
Economic and Political that pandanus mats, on which the Tikopians slept, and bark cloth used for blankets
Organisations
and clothing, were also utilised in the manufacture of objects like canoes, troughs
and sinnet cord, thereby serving both production and consumption purposes.
Coming to the issue of consumption in simple societies, a key concept is that of
the consumption unit which is a kin-based income-pooling or household unit that
typically incorporates males and females of varying ages and is found in all
preindustrial societies (Lee 1969). According to Firth (1965a:33-35) and Epstein
(1967:160-61), variation occurs in consumption within the unit, on the basis of
status and occupational differences. For instance, in many poor rural households
of India, men’s consumption needs may get priority over that of women; on the
other hand, an expectant mother might be given better nutrition than the other
women etc. The patterned way in which a consumer in a simple or peasant
economy makes his consumption decisions over time ultimately represents his
standard of living.

3.4 SUMMARY
From the above unit, we have thus learned that an economic system in simple
societies cannot be studied in isolation but must be understood as part of the
larger culture. Production, distribution, exchange, utilisation and consumption are
not dependant only on pure economic gain, but on a host of social factors. The
formalist school in economic anthropology led by scholars like Raymond Firth
believes that anthropological studies of economic systems could benefit from the
application of the neo-classical model of economics based on the study of utility
maximisation under conditions of scarcity, with appropriate modifications. However,
substantivists led by Karl Polanyi firmly maintain that conventional economic theory
cannot be applied to the study of non-western, non-industrial economies. While
this remains one of the enduring debates on the study of economic systems, it
needs to be borne in mind that the modern world is a global village and simple
societies are increasingly experiencing the impact of globalisation and the market
economy. Modern day anthropologists going to study such societies are bound to
encounter situations where many of their notions gleaned from books and theories
might be challenged. But it is for them to rise to the occasion, document and
maybe, propound new theories on the changes occurring in simple economies
under the impact of modernisation and the market.
References
Binford, Lewis R. 1990. ‘Mobility, Housing, and Environment: A Comparative
Study’. Journal of Anthropological Research. 46, pp. 119-52.
Bonvillain, N. 2010. Cultural Anthropology. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Burling, R. 1962. ‘Maximisation Theories and the Study of Economic
Anthropology’. American Anthropologist. 64, pp. 802–21.
Commons, John R. 1954. ‘Institutional Economics’. In Newman et al., eds.,
Source Readings in Economic Thought. New York: Norton
Dalton, George. 1969. ‘Theoretical Issues in Economic Anthropology’. Current
Anthropology. 10:63-102

44
Dalton, George. ed. 1968. Introduction to Primitive, Archaic, and Modern Production, Consumption
and Exchange
Economies: Essays of Karl Polanyi. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor.
Dalton, George. 1961. ‘Economic Theory and Primitive Society’. American
Anthropologist. 65: 1-25.
Dilley, R. 1992. Contesting Markets: Analysis of Ideology, Discourse and
Practice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Ember, Carol R. and Melvin Ember. 1994. Anthropology. New Delhi: Prentice-
Hall of India Private Limited.
Epstein, T.S. 1967. ‘The Data of Economics in Anthropological Analysis’. In A.L.
Epstein, ed. The Craft of Social Anthropology. London: Tavistock.
Godelier, Maurice. 1967a. Racionalidad e irracionalidad en la economia. Mexico
City: Siglo Veintiuno Editores. Originally published in 1966.
Goodfellow, D.M 1939. Principles of Economic Sociology. Philadelphia:
Blakiston.
Gras, N.S.B. 1927. ‘Anthropology and Economics’. In Ogburn, W.F. and A. A.
Goldenweiser. eds. The Social Science and Their Inter-relations. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Gregory, C.A. 1998. ‘Exchange and Reciprocity’. In T. Ingold (ed.), Companion
Encyclopedia of Anthropology. London: Routledge.
Gudeman, S. 1986. Economics as Culture: Models and Metaphors of
Livelihood. London: Routledge.
Gupta, A. 2010. ‘Origin of Agriculture and Domestication of Plants and Animals
Linked to Early Holocene Climate Amelioration’. Current Science. Vol. 87, No.
1, 54-59.
Firth, Raymond. 1965a. Primitive Polynesian Economy. 2nd ed., London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul. Originally published in 1946.
Herskovits, Melville J. 1952. Economic Anthropology. New York: Knopf.
_________________ 1940. The Economic Life of Primitive People. New
York: Knopf.
Honigmann, John J. ed. 1973. Handbook of Social and Cultural Anthropology.
Chicago: Rand McNally and Company.
Kluckhohn, Clyde. 1972. Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine.
Le Clair, Edward E. Jr. and Harold K. Schneider. eds., 1968. Economic
Anthropology: Readings in Theory and Analysis. Holt, New York: Rinehart &
Winston.
Lee, Richard. 1969. ‘Kung Bushman Subsistence: An Input-Output Analysis’. In
D.Damas, ed. Contributions to Anthropology: Ecological Essays. Ottawa:
National Museum of Canada bulletin no. 230. Anthropology Series no. 86.
Lowie, Robert H. 1938. ‘Subsistence’. In F. Boas, ed. General Anthropology.
Boston: D.C.Heath.
45
Economic and Political Malinowski, B. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: George
Organisations
Routledge & Sons Ltd.
Marx, Karl. 1904a. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.
Chicago: Kerr.
Mauss, M. 1922. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic
Societies. Reprint in 1990. London: Routledge.
Plattner, Stuart. ed. 1985. Markets and Marketing. Monographs in Economic
Anthropology. No. 4, New York: University Press of America.
Polanyi, K. 1944. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic
Origins of Our Times. USA: Beacon Press.
Sahlins, Marshall D. 1969. ‘Economic Anthropology and Anthropological
Economics’. Social Science Information. 8:13-33.
___________________ 1968. ‘Notes on the Original Affluent Society’. In R.B.
Lee and I. DeVore (eds.). Man the Hunter. New York: Aldine Publishing Company,
pp. 85-89.
___________________ 1965a. ‘Exchange Value and the Diplomacy of Primitive
Trade’. In J.Helm. ed., Proceedings of the 1965 Annual Spring Meeting of the
American Ethnological Society. pp. 95-129, Seattle: University of Washington
Press.
___________________ 1965b. ‘On the Sociology of Primitive Exchange’. In M.
Banton ed. The Relevance of Models for Social Anthropology. pp. 139-227.
London: Tavistock.
Sneath, D. 2000. Changing Inner Mongolia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wolf, E. 1982. Europe and the People without History. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Suggested Reading
Ember, Carol R., and Melvin Ember. 1994. Anthropology (7th ed.). New Delhi:
Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited.
Haviland, William A. 1989. Anthropology (5th ed.).Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc.
Honigmann, John J. ed. 1973. Handbook of Social and Cultural Anthropology.
Chicago: Rand McNally and Company.
Firth, Raymond. 1965a. Primitive Polynesian Economy. 2nd ed., London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, Originally published in 1946.
Polanyi, K. 1944. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic
Origins of Our Times. USA: Beacon Press.
Malinowski, B.1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: George
Routledge & Sons Ltd.

46
Sample Questions Production, Consumption
and Exchange
1) What are the two main schools in economic anthropology? What are the
fundamental differences in their approach to the study of economic systems
in simple societies?
2) What are the main socio-cultural attributes of hunters-gatherers, pastoralists
and intensive agriculturists?
3) What is the primary motive, according to anthropologists, for exchange in
simple societies? Elabourate with examples.
4) Is consumption different from utilisation? Do simple societies have the concept
of ‘capital’?

47
 UNIT 4 POLITICAL POWER AND
DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES
Contents
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Political Power: Some Definitions
4.2.1 Band
4.2.2 Tribe
4.2.3 Big-man and Big-woman System
4.2.4 Chiefdoms
4.2.5 States

4.3 Social Control in Small-scale Societies

4.4 Social Control in States
4.4.1 Specialisation
4.4.2 Trials and Courts
4.4.3 Prison and Death Penalty

4.5 Resolution of Conflicts

4.5.1 Peaceful Resolution of Conflict
4.5.2 Avoidance
4.5.3 Community Action
4.5.4 Negotiation and Mediation
4.5.5 Ritual Reconciliation-Apology
4.5.6 Oaths and Ordeals
4.5.7 Violent Resolutions of Conflict
4.5.8 Individual Violence
4.5.9 Feuding
4.5.10 Raiding
4.5.11 Large-scale Confrontations

4.6 Distribution of Resources

4.6.1 The Allocation of Resources
4.6.2 The Conversion of Resources
4.6.3 Types of Economic Production
4.7 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions

Learning Objectives

The main objective of this unit is to make the students understand the:
 different types of political organisations existing in human society and their
basic features;
 distribution of power and social control mechanisms in simple society;
48  different types of conflict resolution systems;
 allocation and utilisation of natural resources in human society; Political Power and
Distribution of Resources
 distribution of goods and services; and
 marketing exchanges.

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Political organisations refers to groups that exist for the purpose of public decision
making and leadership, maintaining social cohesion and order, protecting group
rights, and ensuring safety from external threats. Political organisations have several
features:
 Recruitment principles: Criteria for determining admission to the unit.
 Perpetuity: Assumption that the group will continue to exist indefinitely.
 Identity markers: Particular characteristics that distinguish it from others, such
as costume, membership card, or title.
 Internal organisation: An orderly arrangement of members in relation to each
other.
 Procedures: Prescribed rules and practices for behaviour of group members.
 Autonomy: Ability to regulate its own affairs. (Tiffany, 1979:71-72)
Social anthropologists cluster the many forms of political organisations that occur
cross-culturally into four major types. The four types of political organisations
(given below) correspond, generally, to the major economic forms. Societies in the
ethnographic record vary in level of political integration- that is, the largest territorial
group on whose behalf political activities are organised- and in the degree to
which political authority is centralised or concentrated in the integrated group.
When we describe the political authority of particular societies, we focus on their
traditional political systems. In many societies known to anthropology, the small
community (band or village) was traditionally the largest territorial group on whose
behalf political activities were organised. The authority structure in such societies
did not involve any centralisation; there was no political authority whose jurisdiction
included more than one community. In other societies political activities were
traditionally organised sometimes on behalf of multilocal groups, but there was no
permanent authority at the top. And in still other societies political activities were
often traditionally organised on behalf of multilocal territorial groups, and these
have been incorporated into some larger, centralised political system (Ember,
2007: 420). Elman Service (1962) suggested that most societies can be classified
into four principal types of political organisations: bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and
states. Although Service’s classification does not fit for all societies, it is a useful
way to show how societies vary in trying to create and maintain social order. We
often use the present tense in our discussion, because that is the convention in
ethnographic writing, but the reader should remember that most societies that used
to be organised at the band, tribe, or chiefdom level are now incorporated into
larger political entities. With a handful of exceptions, there are no politically
autonomous bands or tribes or chiefdoms in the world any more.

49
Economic and Political
Organisations 4.2 POLITICAL POWER: SOME DEFINITIONS
4.2.1 Band
Band is the form of political organisation found among foragers and hunters
comprising anywhere between twenty people and a few hundred people, who are
related through kinship. Because foraging has been the most long-standing form of
political organisation, these units come together at certain times of the year,
depending upon their foraging patterns and ritual schedule (Barbara D. Miller,
2002).
Band membership is flexible. If a person has serious disagreement with another
person, one option is to leave that band and join another. Leadership is informal,
and no one person is named as a permanent leader. Depending on events, such
as organising the group to relocate or to send people out to hunt, a particular
person may come to the fore as a leader for that time. This is usually someone
whose advice and knowledge about the task are especially respected. (ibid)
There is no social stratification between leaders and followers. A band leader is
the “first among equals”. Band leaders have limited authority or influence, but no
power. They cannot enforce their opinions. Social leveling mechanisms prevent
anyone from accumulating much authority or influence. Political activity in bands
involves mainly decision making about migration, food distribution, and resolution
of interpersonal conflicts. External conflicts between groups are rare because the
territories of different bands are widely separated and the population density is
low (ibid).
The band level organisation barely qualifies as a form of political organisation
because groups are flexible, leadership is ephemeral, and there are no signs or
emblems of political affiliation. Some anthropologists argue that “real” politics did
not exist in undisturbed band societies. The Guayaki (Amazon basin), the Semang
(Malaya peninsula), Iglulik Eskimo, the Kung (Africa), the Cholanaikans (Kerala),
Andaman tribes are some examples of Band organisation (ibid).

4.2.2 Tribe
A tribe is a political group comprising several bands or lineage groups, each with
similar language and lifestyle and occupying a distinct territory. Kinship is the
primary basis of tribal membership. Tribal groups contain from a hundred to
several thousand people. They are usually associated with horticulture and
pastoralism. Tribal groups may be connected to each other through a clan structure
in which members claim descent from a common ancestor. Tribal political
organisation is more formal than band-level organisation. A tribal headman or
headwoman (most are males) is formally recognised as a leader. Key qualifications
for this position are being hard working and generous and possessing good personal
skills. A headman is a political leader on a part-time basis only, yet this role is
more demanding than that of a band leader. Depending on the mode of production,
a headman will be in charge of determining the times for moving herds, planting
and harvesting, and setting the time for seasonal feasts and celebrations. Internal
and external conflict resolution is also his responsibility. A headman relies mainly
on authority and persuasion rather than on power (Barbara D. Miller, 2002).
Pastoralist tribal formations are sometimes linked in a confederacy, with local
segments maintaining substantial autonomy. The local segments meet usually at an
50 annual festival. In case of an external threat, the confederacy gathers together.
Once the threat is removed, local units resume their autonomy. The equality and Political Power and
Distribution of Resources
autonomy of units, along with their ability to unite and then split, are referred to
as a segmentary model of political organisation. This form of tribal organisation is
found among pastoralists worldwide. The Tiv (Nigeria), the Nuer (Sudan), the
Oran, the Santal, the Bhil, the Gond are examples of Tribal political organisations
(ibid).

4.2.3 Big-man and Big-woman Systems

In between tribe and chiefdom is the big-man system or big-woman system.
Certain individuals develop political leadership following through a system of
redistribution based on personal ties, generosity and grand feasts. Research in
Melanesia, and Papua New Guinea established the existence of the big-man type
of politics, and most references to it are from this region. Personalistic, favour-
based political groupings are found in other regions too.
Unlike a tribal headman, a big-man or big-woman has a wider following across
several villages. A big-man tends to have greater wealth than his followers. Core
supporters of a big-man have heavy responsibilities in regulating internal affairs-
cultivation-and external affairs-intergroup feasts, exchange of goods, and war. In
some instances, a big-man is assisted by a group of respected men hailing from
big-man’s different constituencies.

4.2.4 Chiefdoms
Chiefdom is a form of political organisation with a central leader encompassing
several smaller political units. Chiefdoms have larger populations, often numbering
in thousands, and are more centralised and socially complex. Hereditary systems
of social ranking and economic stratification are found in many chiefdoms, with
social divisions existing between the chiefly lineage or lineages and non-chiefly
groups. Chiefs and their descendents are considered superior to commoners, and
intermarriage between two strata is forbidden. Chiefs are expected to be generous,
but they may have a more luxurious lifestyle than the rest of the people. The chief
ship as “office” must be filled at all times. When a chief dies or retires, he or
she must be replaced. This is not the case with a band leader or big-man or
big-woman. A chief regulates production and redistribution, solves internal conflicts,
and plans and leads raids and warring expeditions. Criteria for becoming a chief
are: ascribed criteria (birth in a chiefly lineage, or being the first son or daughter
of the chief), personal leadership skills, charisma, and accumulated wealth.
Chiefdoms have existed in most parts of the world.
Anthropologists are interested in how and why chiefdom systems evolved as an
intermediary units between tribes and states and what are its political implications.
Several political strategies support the expansion of power in chiefdoms: controlling
more internal and external wealth and giving feasts and gift exchanges that create
debt ties; improving local production systems; applying force internally; forging
stronger and wider external ties; and controlling ideological legitimacy. Depending
on local conditions, different strategies are employed. For example, internal control
of irrigation systems was the most important factor in the emergence of chiefdoms
in prehistoric southeastern Spain; whereas control of external trade was more
important in the prehistoric Aegean region (Gilman 1991).
An expanded version of the chiefdom occurs when several chiefdoms are joined
in a confederacy headed by chief of chiefs, “big chief”, or paramount chief. Many
51
Economic and Political prominent confederacies have existed- for example, in Hawaii in the late 1700s
Organisations
and, in North America, the Iroquois league of five nations that stretched across
New York State, the Cherokee of Tennessee, and the Algonquins who dominated
the Chesaeapeake region in present-day Virginia and Maryland. In Algonquin
confederacy, each village had a chief, and the regional council was composed of
local chiefs and headed by the paramount chief. Confederacies were supported
financially by contributions of grain from each local unit. Kept in a central storage
area where the paramount chief lived, the grain was used to feed warriors during
external warfare that maintained and expanded the confederacy’s borders. A council
building existed in the central location, where local chiefs came together to meet
with the paramount chief to deliberate on questions of internal and external policy.

4.2.5 States
State is a form of political organisation with a bureaucracy and diversified
governmental institutions with varying degrees of centralised control. The state is
now the form of political organisation in which all people live. Band organisations,
tribes, and chiefdoms exist, but they are incorporated within state structures.
Powers of the state: socio cultural anthropologists ask how states operate and
relate to their citizens. In this inquiry, they focus on the enhanced power that states
have over their domain compared to other forms of political organisation. (Barbara
D. Miller, 2002)
 States define citizenship and its rights and responsibilities. In complex
societies, since early times, not all residents were granted equal rights of
citizens.
 States maintain standing armies and police (as opposed to part-time forces).
 States keep track of the number, age, gender, location, and wealth of
their citizens through census system that are regularly updated. A census
allows the state to maintain formal taxation systems, military recruitment, and
policy planning, including population settlement, immigration quotas, and social
benefits such as old-age pensions.
 States have the power to extract resources from citizens through taxation.
All political organisations are supported by contributions of the members, but
variations occur in the rate of contributions expected, the form in which they
are paid, and the return that members get in terms of services. In bands,
people voluntarily give time or labour for “public projects” such as a group
hunt or a planned move. Public finance in states is based on formal taxation
that takes many forms. In-kind taxation is a system of mandatory, non-cash
contributions to the state. For example, the Inca state used a labour tax, to
finance public works such as roads and monuments and to provide agricultural
labour on state lands. Another form of in-kind taxation in early states required
that farmers pay a percentage of their crop yield. Cash taxes, such as the
income tax that takes a percentage of wages, emerged only in the past few
hundred years.
 States manipulate information. Control of information to protect the state
and its leaders can be done directly (through censorship, restricting access to
certain information by the public, and promotion of favourable images via
propaganda) and indirectly (through pressure on journalists and television
52 networks to present information in certain ways).
Symbols of State Power: Religious beliefs and symbols are often closely tied to Political Power and
Distribution of Resources
the power of state leadership: the ruler may be considered a deity or part deity,
or a high priest of the state religion, or closely linked with the high priest, who
serves as advisor. Architecture and urban planning remind the populace of the
power of the state. In pre- Hispanic Mexico, the central plaza of city- states, such
as Tenochtitlan was symbolically equivalent to the center of the cosmos and was
thus the locale of greatest significance. The most important temples and the residence
of the head of state were located around the plaza. Other houses and structures,
in decreasing order of status, were located on avenues in decreasing proximity to
the center. The grandness and individual character of the leader’s residence indicate
power, as do monuments-especially tombs to past leaders and heroes or heroines
(Barbara D. Miller, 2002).

4.3 SOCIAL CONTROL IN SMALL-SCALE

SOCIETIES
Anthropologists distinguish between small-scale societies and large scale societies
in terms of prevalent forms of conflict resolution, social order, and punishment of
offenses. Because bands are small, close-knit groups, disputes tend to be handled
at the interpersonal level through discussion or one-on-one fights.
Group members may act together to punish an offender through shaming and
ridicule. Emphasis is on maintaining social order and restoring social equilibrium,
not hurtfully punishing an offender. Ostracising an offending member (forcing the
person to leave the group) is a common means of formal punishment. Capital
punishment is rare but not nonexistent. For example, in some Australian Aboriginal
societies, a law restrict access to religious rituals and paraphernalia to men who
had gone through a ritual initiation. If an initiated man shared secrets with an
uninitiated man, the elders would delegate one of their groups to kill the offender.
In such instances, the elders act like a court.
In non-state societies, punishment is often legitimised through belief in supernatural
forces and their ability to affect people. Among highland horticulturalists of the
Indonesian island of Sumba, one of the greatest offenses is to fail to keep a
promise which lead to supernatural assault from the ancestors. The punishment
may come in the form of damage to crops, illness or death of a relative, destruction
of the offender’s house, or having clothing catch on fire. When such a disaster
occurs, the only recourse is to sponsor a ritual that will appease the ancestors.
Village fission (breaking up) and ostracism are mechanisms for dealing with
irresolvable conflict. The overall goal in dealing with conflict in small-scale societies
is to return the group to harmony. Data on conflict resolution from nonhuman
primate groups also demonstrate the importance of re-establishing peaceful
interactions between former opponents as a way of promoting small-group harmony.

4.4 SOCIAL CONTROL IN STATES

In densely populated societies with more social stratification and more wealth
increased stress occurs in relation to the distribution of surplus, inheritance, and
rights to land. In addition, not everyone else, and face- to-face accountability
exists mainly in localised groups. Three important factors of state system of social
control are the increased specialisation of roles involved in social control, the
formalised use of trials and courts, and the use of power-enforced forms of
53
Economic and Political punishment, such as prisons and the death penalty. Yet informal mechanism also
Organisations
exists.

4.4.1 Specialisation
The specialisation of tasks related to law and order-police, judges, lawyers-
increases with the emergence of state organisation. Full-time professionals, , such
as judges and lawyers, often come from powerful or elite social groups, a fact
that perpetuates elite bias in the justice process itself. Police carry out the duty
of surveillance, maintain social order, book cases against the culprits and implement
the judgments pronounced in the courts.

4.4.2 Trials and Courts

In societies where misdoing and punishment are defined by spirits and ancestors,
a person’s guilt is proved simply by the fact that misfortune has befallen him or
her. If a person’s crops were damaged by lightning, then that person must have
done something wrong. In other instances, the guilt may be determined through
trial by ordeal, a form of trial in which the accused person is put through some
kind of test that is often painful. For example, in certain cases, the guilty person
will be required to place a hand in boiling oil, or to have a part of the body
touched by red-hot knife. Being burned is a sign of guilt, whereas not being
burned means the suspect is innocent.
The court system, with lawyers, judge, and jury, is used in many contemporary
societies, although there is variation in how cases are presented and juries
constituted. The goal of contemporary court trials is to ensure both justice and
fairness. Analysis of actual courtroom dynamics and patterns of decision making
in the United States and elsewhere, however, reveals serious problems in achieving
these goals.

4.4.3 Prisons and Death Penalty

Administering punishment involves imposing something unpleasant on someone
who has committed an offence. Socio-cultural anthropologists have examined forms
of punishment cross-culturally, as well as the relationship between types of societies
and forms of punishment. In small-scale societies, punishment is socially rather
than judicially managed. The most extreme form of punishment is usually ostracism
and is rarely death. Another common form of punishment, in the case of theft or
murder, especially in the Middle East, is the requirement that the guilty party pay
compensation to members of the victim’s family.
The prison, as a place where people are forcibly detained as a form of punishment,
has a long history, but it probably did not predate the state. In Europe, long-term
detention of prisoners did not become common until the seventeenth century.

4.5 RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT

Apart from formulation of policies, their administration, and their enforcement,
political life also involves the resolution of conflict, which may be accomplished
peacefully by avoidance, community action, mediation or the negotiation of
compromises, apology, appeal to supernatural forces, or adjudication by a third
party. The procedures used usually vary with degree of social complexity; decisions
by third parties are more likely to exist in hierarchical societies. But peaceful
solutions are not always possible, and disputes may erupt into violent conflicts.
54 When violence occurs within a political unit in which disputes are usually settled
peacefully, we call such violence crime, particularly when committed by an Political Power and
Distribution of Resources
individual. When violence occurs between groups of people from separate political
units- groups between which there is no procedure for settling disputes- we usually
call such violence warfare. When violence occurs between subunits of a population
that had been politically unified, we call it civil war.

4.5.1 Peaceful Resolution of Conflict

Most modern industrialised states have formal institutions and offices, such as
police, district attorneys, courts, and penal systems, to deal with various types of
disputes and conflicts. All these institutions generally operate according to codified
laws- that are, a set of explicit, usually written, rules stipulating what is permissible
and what is not. Transgression of the law by individuals gives the state right to take
action against them. The state has monopoly on the legitimate use of force in the
society, for it alone has the right to coerce subjects into agreement with regulations,
customs, political edicts and procedures.
Many societies lack such specialised offices and institutions for dealing with conflict.
Yet, because all societies have peaceful, regularised ways of handling at least
certain disputes, some anthropologists speak of the universality of law. E.
Adamson Hoebel (1968), for example, stated the principle as follows:
Each people have its system of social control. And all but a few of the poorest
of them have as a part of the control system a complex of behaviour patterns and
institutional mechanisms that we may properly treat as law. For, “anthropologically
considered, law is merely one aspect of culture- the aspect which employs the
force organised society to regulate individual and group conduct and to prevent
redress or punish deviations from prescribed social norms.” (Hoebel, 2006: 4)
Law, then, whether informal as in simpler societies, provides a means of dealing
peacefully with whatever conflicts develop. That does not mean that conflicts are
always resolved peacefully. But that also does not mean that people cannot learn
to resolve their conflicts peacefully. The fact that there are societies with little or
no violent conflict means that it may be possible to learn from them; it may be
possible to discover how to avoid violent outcomes of conflicts.

4.5.2 Avoidance
Violence can often be avoided if the parties to a dispute voluntarily avoid each
other or are separated until emotions cool down. Anthropologists have frequently
remarked that foragers are particularly likely to make use of this technique. People
may move to other bands or move their dwellings to opposite ends of camp.
Shifting horticulturalists may also split up when conflicts get too intense. Avoidance
is obviously easier in societies, such as band societies, that are nomadic or semi
nomadic and in which people have temporary dwellings. And avoidance is more
feasible when people live independently and self sufficiently (for example, in cities
and suburbs). But even if conditions in such societies may make avoidance easier,
we still need to know why some societies use avoidance more than confrontation
as a way of resolving conflict (Ember et. al, 2007).

4.5.3 Community Action

Societies resort to various methods, to resolve disputes in an amicable way. One
such way involves community action in simpler societies that lack powerful
authoritarian leaders. Among the Inuit, disputes are frequently resolved through
community action. The Inuit believe that spirits, particularly if displeased, can 55
Economic and Political determine much of a person’s fate. Consequently, people carry out their daily
Organisations
tasks within a complex system of taboos. This system is so extensive that the Inuit,
at least in the past, may have had no need for formal set of laws.
Nevertheless, conflicts do arise and needs to be resolved. Accordingly, principles
act as guides to the community in settling trouble cases. An individual’s failure to
heed a taboo or to follow the suggestions of a shaman leads to expulsion from the
group, because the community cannot accept a risk to its livelihood. A person who
fails to share goods voluntarily will find them confiscated and distributed to the
community, and he or she may be executed in the process. A single case of
murder, as an act of vengeance (usually because of the abduction of a wife or as
part of a blood feud), does not concern the community, but repeated murders do
(Ember et. al. 2007: 432). The killing of an individual is the most extreme action
a community can take- we call it capital punishment. The community as a whole
or a political official or a court may decide to impose such punishment, but capital
punishment seems to exist nearly in all societies, from the simple to the most
complex. It is often assumed that capital punishment deters crime. If it did, we
would expect the abolition of capital punishment to be followed by an increase in
homicide rates. But that does not seem to happen. A cross-national study indicated
that the abolition of capital punishment tends to be followed by a decrease in
homicide rates.

4.5.4 Negotiation and Mediation

In many conflicts, the parties to a dispute may come to a settlement themselves
by negotiation. There aren’t necessarily any rules for how they will do so, but
any solution is “good” if it restores peace. Sometimes an outsider or third party
is used to help bring about a settlement between the disputants. We call it
mediation when the outside party tries to help bring about a settlement, but that
third party does not have the formal authority to force a settlement. Both negotiation
and mediation are likely when the society is relatively egalitarian and it is important
for people to get along.

4.5.5 Ritual Reconciliation-Apology

The desire to restore a harmonious relationship may also explain ceremonial
apologies. An apology is based on deference- the guilty party shows obeisance
and asks for forgiveness. Such ceremonies tend to occur in chiefdoms. Among the
Fijians of the South Pacific, there is a strong ethic of harmony and mutual assistance,
particularly within a village. When a person offends some one of higher status, the
offended person and other villagers begin to avoid, and gossip about, the offender.
If the offender is sensitive to village opinion, he or she will perform a ceremony
of apology called soro. One of the meanings of soro is “surrender”. In the ceremony
the offender keeps her or his head bowed and remains silent while intermediary
speaks, presents a token gift, and asks the offended person for forgiveness (Ember,
1993:241).

4.5.6 Oaths and Ordeals

Still another way of peacefully resolving disputes is through oaths and ordeals,
both of which involve appeals to supernatural power. An oath is the act of calling
upon a deity to bear witness to the truth of what one says. An ordeal is a means
used to determine guilt or innocence by submitting the accused to dangerous or
painful tests believed to be supernatural control (Ember, 1993:241).
56
4.5.7 Violent Resolutions of Conflict Political Power and
Distribution of Resources
People are likely to resort to violence when regular, effective alternative means of
resolving a conflict are not available. Some societies consider violence between
individuals to be appropriate under certain circumstances; which we generally do
not consider, and call it crime. When violence occurs between political entities
such as communities, districts, or nations, we call it warfare. The type of warfare,
of course, varies in scope and complexity from society to society. Sometimes a
distinction is made among feuding, raiding, and large-scale confrontations (Ember
et. al. 2007:435).

4.5.8 Individual Violence

Although at first it may seem paradoxical, violent behaviour itself is often used to
control behaviour. In some societies it is considered necessary for parents to beat
children who misbehave. They consider this punishment and not criminal behaviour
or child abuse. Violence between adults can be similarly viewed. If a person
trespasses on one’s property or hurts someone, some societies consider it
appropriate or justified to kill or maim the trespasser. Is this social control, or is
it just lack of control? Most societies have norms about when such “punishment”
is or is not appropriate, so the behaviour of anyone who contemplates doing
something wrong, as well as the behaviour of the person wronged, is likely to be
influenced by the “laws” of their society (Ember et. al. 2007: 436)

4.5.9 Feuding
Feuding is an example of how individual self-help may not lead to a peaceful
resolution of conflict. Feuding is a state of recurring hostilities between families
or groups of kin, usually motivated by a desire to avenge an offense- whether
insult, injury, deprivation, or death- against a member of the group. The most
common characteristic of the feud is that responsibility to avenge is carried by all
members of the kin group. The killing of any member of the offender’s group is
considered an appropriate revenge, because the kin group as a whole is regarded
as responsible. Nicholas Gubser told of a feud within a Nunamiut Inuit community,
caused by a husband’s killing of his wife’s lover that lasted for decades. Feuds are
by no means limited to small-scale societies; they occur as frequently in societies
with high levels of political organisation (Ember et. al 2007: 436).

4.5.10 Raiding
Raiding is a short-term use of force, planned and organised, to realise a limited
objective. This objective is usually the acquisition of goods, animals, or other
forms of wealth belonging to another, often neighboring community. Raiding is
prevalent in pastoral societies, in which, cattle, horses, camels, or other animals
are prised and an individual’s own herd can be augmented by theft. Raids are
often organised by temporary leaders or coordinators whose authority may not
last beyond planning and execution of the venture. Raiding may also be organised
for the purpose of capturing persons either to marry or to keep as concubines
or as slaves. Slavery has been practiced in about 33 percent of the world’s
known societies, and war has been one way of obtaining slaves either to keep or
to trade for other goods (ibid).

4.5.11 Large-scale Confrontations

Both feuding and raiding usually involve relatively small numbers of the persons 57
Economic and Political and almost always an element of surprise. Because they are generally attacked
Organisations
without warning, the victims are often unable to muster an immediate defense.
Large-scale confrontations, in contrast, involve a large number of persons and
planning by both sides of strategies of attack and defense. Large-scale warfare is
usually practiced among societies with intensive agriculture or industrialisation.
Only these societies possess a technology sufficiently advanced to support
specialised armies, military leaders, strategies, and so on (Ember, 1993: 494).

4.6 DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES

As Ember (1993, 2007) states when one thinks of economies, we think of things
and activities involving money. We think of the costs of goods and services, such
as food, rent, haircuts, and movie tickets. We may also think of factories, farms,
and other enterprises that produce the goods and services we need, or think we
need. All societies have customs specifying how people gain accesses to natural
resources; customary ways of transforming or converting those resources, through
labour, into necessities and other desired goods and services; and customs for
distributing and perhaps exchanging goods and services.

4.6.1 The Allocation of Resources

Herein, we would not go into much depth as this part has been discussed in length
in the earlier unit. Thus, a quick recapitulation will be done through an activity. If
help is required please refer to the earlier unit.
Activity

Enumerate with examples how the allocation of resources varies between the
a) food collectors, b) horticulturalists and c) pastoralists.

4.6.2 The Conversion of Resources

In all societies, resources have to be transformed or converted through labour into
food, tools and other goods. These activities constitute what economists call
production. In this section, after briefly reviewing different types of production, we
examine what motivates people to work, how societies divide up the work to be
done, and how they organise work. As we shall see, some aspects of the conversion
of natural resources are culturally universal, but there is also an enormous amount
of cultural variation (Ember et. al 2007: 307).

4.6.3 Types of Economic Production

Most societies that anthropologists study had domestic – family or kinship based
– mode of production. People laboured to get food and to produce shelter and
implements for themselves and their kin. Usually families had the right to exploit
productive resources and control the products of their labour. Even part-time
specialists, such as potters, could still support themselves without that craft if they
needed to. At the other extreme are industrial societies, where much of the work
is based on mechanised production, as in factories and mechanised agriculture.
Because machines and materials are costly, only some individuals (capitalists),
corporations, or governments can afford the expenses of production. Therefore,
most people in industrial societies work for others as wage earners. Although
wages can buy food, people out of work lose their ability to support themselves,
unless they are protected by welfare payments or unemployment insurance. Then
there is the tributary type of production system, found in non-industrial societies
58
in which most people still produce their own food but an elite or aristocracy Political Power and
Distribution of Resources
controls a portion of production (including the products of specialised crafts). The
feudal societies of medieval Western Europe were examples of tributary production,
as was czarist Russia under serfdom (Ember et. al, 2007:307).

4.7 SUMMARY
The main functions of political organisation in simple societies are maintaining
social order, promote resolutions for conflicts, to fulfill these functions it has to be
organised and should have hierarchical society to give head position to one, whom
the rest of the dwellers of that particular society will obey. However, the modern
political system has become a threat for the sustenance of the traditional political
system. Being dominant the modern political system is attracting the attention of
many people in the simple societies. But traditional political system has not become
extinct, though there is a possibility that they too might become extinct. When we
talk about traditional economic system of simple societies we observe the exchange
of goods and services not the money that is being transacted as in modern economic
system and in market. These exchanges in simple societies are not merely the
exchanges of goods and services but it is to maintain the human relations by the
exchanges especially to strengthen the kin relations and inter tribe relations. But
again modern market which has more monetary interest rather than maintaining
human relations has become a threat to traditional economic system.
References
Barbara D. Mille. 2002. Cultural Anthropology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ember, Carol. R. 1993. Cultural Anthropology. Prentice Hall.
Ember, Carol. Melvin Ember & Peter N Pererine. 2007. Anthropology. (12th
edition). Dorling Kindersley (India Pvt. Ltd) New Delhi: India Binding House.
__________________ 2003. Anthropology. Patparganj. Delhi: Pearson Education
pte. Ltd.
Gilman, Antonio. 1974. ‘The Development of Social Stratification in Orange Age
Europe’. Current Anthropology. Vol 22:1–23.
Hoebel, E. Adamson. 1968. The Law of Primitive Man: A Study in Comparative
Legal Dynamics. Reprint 2006 (First Harvard University Paperback edition).
New York: Atheneum.
James, Peoples & Garrick Bailey. 1995. Humanity: An Introduction to Cultural
Anthropology. St. Paul New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco: West Publishing
Company.
Service, Elman R. 1962. Primitive Social Organisation: An Evolutionary
Perspective. New York: Random House.
__________________ 1975. Origins of the State and Civilisation: The Process
of Cultural Evolution. New York: Norton.
__________________ 1979. The Hunters. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

59
Economic and Political Tiffany, Water.W. 1979. ‘New Directions in Political Anthropology: The Use of
Organisations
Corporate Models for the Analysis of Political Organisations’. Political
Anthropology: State of The Art. S.Lee Seaton and Henri J.M. Claessen (ed.) –
Pp.63-75. Newyork: Houton.
Suggested Reading
Barbara D. Mille. 2002. Cultural Anthropology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ember, Carol. Melvin Ember & Peter N Pererine. 2007. Anthropology. (12th
edition). Dorling Kindersley (India Pvt. Ltd) New Delhi: India Binding House.
Service, Elman R. 1962. Primitive Social Organisation: An Evolutionary
Perspective. New York: Random House.
Sample Questions
1) Briefly discuss the different types of political organisations and its main features
in human society?
2) Examine the various forms of punishment and conflict resolution mechanism
practiced in human society?
3) Write an essay on distribution of goods and services in simple society?

60