BANC-102

Introduction to Social
and
Cultural Anthropology

School of Social Sciences

Indira Gandhi National Open University
EXPERT COMMITTEE
Professor Vinay Kumar Srivastava Professor R. Siva Prasad
Former Professor and Head, Department Former Professor and Head, Department of Prof. Rashmi Sinha
of Anthropology, University of Delhi. Anthropology, University of Hyderabad Faculty of Anthropology, SOSS,
Currently Director, Anthropological IGNOU, New Delhi
Survey of India. Professor Soumendra M. Patnaik Dr. Rukshana Zaman
Vice Chancellor Utkal University, Faculty of Anthropology, SOSS,
Professor Subhadra Mitra Channa Bhubaneswar, Odisha IGNOU, New Delhi
Former Professor, Department of
Anthropology, University of Delhi. Delhi Professor Mini Bhattacharya Dr. Palla Venkatramana
Department of Anthropology Faculty of Anthropology, SOSS,
Professor K.K. Misra Gauhati University, Guwahati IGNOU, New Delhi
Former Professor and Head, Department of Dr. K. Anil Kumar
Anthropology, University of Hyderabad Professor Nita Mathur
Faculty of Sociology, SOSS, Faculty of Anthropology, SOSS,
Former Vice Chancellor, Utkal University IGNOU, New Delhi
of Culture, Odisha IGNOU, New Delhi

COURSE PREPARATAION TEAM

Block 1 Nature And Scope
UNIT 1 Social and Cultural Anthropology: Prof. Subhadra Mitra Channa, Former Professor, Department of Anthropology
Meaning, Scope and Relevance University of Delhi
UNIT 2 History and Development of Prof. Subhadra Mitra Channa, Former Professor, Department of Anthropology,
Social and Cultural Anthropology University of Delhi
UNIT 3 Relationship of Social and Dr. Keya Pandey, Department of Anthropology, University of Lucknow, Lucknow
Cultural Anthropology: Other Unit 3 Edited by:
Branches of Anthropology Professor Vinay Kumar Srivastava, Former Professor and Head, Department of
and other Disciplines Anthropology, University of Delhi. Currently Director, Anthropological
Survey of India.

Block 2 Basic Concepts

UNIT 4 Society Prof. Vinay Kumar Srivastava, Former Head and Professor. Department of Anthropology,
Delhi, Currently Director, Anthropological Survey of India.
UNIT 5 Culture Dr. Rukshana Zaman, Faculty of Anthropology, SOSS, IGNOU
UNIT 6 Institutions I: Kinship, Family, Dr. Rukshana Zaman, Faculty of Anthropology, SOSS, IGNOU
Marriage
Unit 5 and 6 Edited by:
UNIT 7 Institutions II: Economic, Prof. Subhadra Mitra Channa, Former Professor, Department of Anthropology,
Political Religious University of Delhi.
Block 3 Theor etic al Per spec tiv es
UNIT 8 Classical Theories Prof. Subhadra Mitra Channa, Former Professor, Department of Anthropology
University of Delhi
UNIT 9 Theories of Structure Prof. Vinay Kumar Srivastava, Former Head and Professor, Department of Anthropology,
and Function University of Delhi, Currently Director, Anthropological Survey of India.
UNIT 10 Contemporary Theories Prof. Subhadra Mitra Channa, Former Professor, Department of Anthropology,
University of Delhi.

Block 4 Fie ld wo r k
UNIT 11 Fieldwork Traditions Prof. Vinay Kumar Srivastava, Former Professor and Head, Department of Anthropology,
in Anthropology University of Delhi, Currently Director, Anthropological Survey of India.
UNIT 12 Doing Fieldwork Dr. Rukshana Zaman, Faculty of Anthropology, SOSS, IGNOU
UNIT 13 Methods and Techniques Prof. Vinay Kumar Srivastava and Dr. Rukshana Zaman
Unit 12 and 13 Edited by:
Prof. Subhadra Mitra Channa, Former Professor, Department of Anthropology,
University of Delhi.
PRACTICAL MANUAL Dr. Rukshana Zaman, Faculty of Anthropology, SOSS, IGNOU
Practical Manual Edited by:
Prof. Subhadra Mitra Channa, Former Professor, Department of Anthropology,
University of Delhi.

Course Coordinator : Dr. Rukshana Zaman, Discipline of Anthropology, IGNOU

General Editors : Dr. Rukshana Zaman and Dr. Mitoo Das, Discipline of Anthropology, IGNOU
Academic Consultants Cover Design
Dr. Pankaj Upadhayay Dr. Avitoli Zhimo
Dr. Monika Saini Photo Credit, Hardik, Gaurav, Davangi, Visual Anthropology Lab,
Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi, Delhi

PRINT PRODUCTION Secretarial Assistant

Mr. Manjit Singh Mr. Rampal Singh
Section Officer (Pub.), SOSS, IGNOU, New Delhi Mr. Naresh Kumar
October, 2019
© Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2019
ISBN-
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or any other means, without permission in writing from the
Indira Gandhi National Open University.
Further information about the School of Social Sciences and the Indira Gandhi National Open University courses may be obtained from the University’s
office at Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110 068, India or from the official website of IGNOU : www.ignou.ac.in
Printed and published on behalf of the Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi, by Material Production Division P.
Lasertypeset by Rajshree Computers, V-166A, Bhagwati Vihar, Near Sec. 2, Dwarka, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
Printed at :
 Course Contents

Block 1 NATUREAND SCOPE Pages

UNIT 1 Social and Cultural Anthropology: Meaning, Scope and Relevance 9
UNIT 2 History and Development of Social and Cultural Anthropology 21
UNIT 3 Relationship of Social and Cultural Anthropology: Other Branches of
Anthropology and Other Disciplines 36

Block 2 BASIC CONCEPTS

UNIT 4 Society 49
UNIT 5 Culture 64
UNIT 6 Institutions I: Kinship, Family and Marriage 77
UNIT 7 Institutions II: Economic, Political and Religious 92
Block 3 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
UNIT 8 Classical Theories 107
UNIT 9 Theories of Structure and Function 121
UNIT 10 Contemporary Theories 133
Block 4 FIELDWORK
UNIT 11 Fieldwork Traditions in Anthropology 147
UNIT 12 Doing Fieldwork 157
UNIT 13 Methods and Techniques 168

PRACTICAL MANUAL 179

Suggested Reading 196
Nature and Scope

4
BANC 102 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL AND
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Course Introduction
Social and cultural anthropology under its rubric encompasses the study of society and culture.
The foremost contribution of the subject has been in the understanding of the various societies
and cultures across the globe both objectively and subjectively, doing away with biases and
prejudices, while presenting their relative importance. The main objective of the course is for the
learners to understand in a holistic manner the social institutions and the cultural attributes that
constructs human societies.
Learning Outcomes
After reading the course the learner would be able to:
i) explain the origin, historical background and foundation of social and cultural anthropology;
ii) identify the various institutions in a society and relate to the cultural aspects present in societies;
iii) discuss the theories and approaches to the social and cultural anthropology; and
iv) describe how fieldwork is to be conducted in the field of social and cultural anthropology.
Course Presentation
The course has been divided into four blocks and a practical manual. Each block has been
thematically arranged units. In total there are thirteen units. Now let us see what we have discussed
in each block.
Block 1: The first block will acquaint the learners with the basic understanding of the foundation
of social and cultural anthropology along with its emergence as a scientific discipline. This block
deals with the early developments that lead to the beginning of the discipline of social and cultural
anthropology. Herein, the development of the subject in Britain and America has been dealt that
presents the question of why the British anthropologists laid emphasis on society and the American
anthropologists on culture. The growth and development of social and cultural anthropology in
India is also reflected upon. The learners would also gain insight as to how the subject is different
yet have similarities with some of the other disciplines like sociology, psychology, history, political
science etc.
Block 2: The second block deals with the study of the forms and processes in the conceptulisation
of society and culture. This block takes into account the social institutions that are the pillars of
the society. Social groups; concepts of kinship, marriage and family; religious ideas and ritual
practices; the production, consumption and exchange of necessities. The learners while reading
this block would be able to comprehend how culture is entwined with the institutions forming
an integral part of society. Institutions are universal in societies however, it is cultural variations
that bring forth diversity.
Block 3: The third block presents the theories and approaches, some defunct some still in practice,
that make up the study of human society and culture. From this block the learners would gain
insight as to how the theories have changed with the perspectives that the anthropologists looked
at societies. In the initail stages of the subject the focus was on how evolution had taken place,
to diffusion, then the trend was to understand the functions and the structures within a society.
In the twenty first century how the focus has shifted to modern and post modern phases and
the inclusion of the female voice in anthropological writings.

5
Nature and Scope
Block 4: In the last block, the learner would be introduced to field traditions and fieldwork, the
hallmark of anthropology. The nuances of how to conduct a fieldwork, the tools and techniques that
are to be used during data collection in the field, compilation and analysing the data after returning
from the field to writing and presentation of the dissertation, thesis or project report has been discussed
in depth. This block would prepare the learner to take up anthropological fieldwork.

Practical Manual: The practical manual would assist the learners to prepare a synopsis. It is a
guide for the learners to acquaint themselves with the process of preparing a synopsis. The manual
would guide the learners to prepare a synopsis step by step right from the stage of conceptualising
a topic to the style citing references.

All the best, happy reading and wish you success. Hope the course material act as a guide for
you to achieve your goals.

6
 BLOCK 3
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
Theoretical Perspectives

UNIT 8
Classical Theories
UNIT 9
Theories of Structure and Function
UNIT 10
Contemporary Theories

106
UNIT 8 CLASSICAL THEORIES
Contents
8.0 Introduction
8.1 The Beginning: Comparative Method and the Science of Society
8.2 Classical Evolutionary Theory
8.3 Classical Diffusion Theory
8.4 Historical Particularism
8.5 Neo-Diffusionism
8.6 Neo-Evolutionism
8.7 Summary
8.8 References
8.9 Answers to Check Your Progress

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
In this unit, you will learn about the following perspectives:

 the beginning: comparative method and the science of society;

 evolutionary theory;

 diffusion theory;

 historical particularism;

 neo-evolution: multilinear evolutionand cultural ecology; and

 neo-diffusion: culture area theory.

8.0 INTRODUCTION
Anthropology starts as the Science of Man (quite literally as almost all the early
scholars were white men). By the sixteenth century, the understanding that humans
as a species are part of nature and controlled by its laws like any other species,
animals or plants; had taken its roots. Since humans and society were subject to the
laws of nature, they could be studied by principles of natural science. In other words
an objective, scientific study of society was possible. Although the human body was
already an object of medical science, the position of human beings as a species in
the schema of natural evolution, were matters that needed academic attention.

The most significant paradigm shift was from a religious perspective to a scientific or
secular perspective. The scholarly approach was based upon ‘rationality’ and
‘evidence’; following an empirical methodology, where the physical evidence was
complimented with deductive reasoning.
Contributor: Professor Subhadra Mitra Channa, Former Professor, Department of
107
Anthropology, University of Delhi
Theoretical Perspectives
8.1 THE BEGINNING: COMPARATIVE METHOD
AND THE SCIENCE OF SOCIETY
Scientific method is based upon observation, experimentationand comparison. While
inanimate objects can be easily subjected to, such as a process, humans in their
society can only be observed to a limited extent and cannot be experimented upon.
Thus, observation and comparison of already existing social phenomenon are the
only methods that can possibly be applied to what was deemed to be a scientific
study ofsociety. The earlyscientific method was cast within Positivism implying that
there is a truth that can be reached, if proper scientific investigation is carried out.
Comparing society to a natural system also made possible the formulation of laws
pertaining to society, in the same way as laws exist for the natural and physical
world.
The comparative method was used by arm chair anthropologists to compare data
collected from a wide range of societies and from a wide varietyof sources. Although
the sources from which the data was gathered, was not collected by the use of rigid
scientific techniques, the scholars who analysed them, had used the power of their
deductive reasoning to construct fairly rational schema and theories. Let us take the
example of James Frazer, who wrote the magnum opus The Golden Bough that
continues to be a classic. Frazer brought together data from a wide variety of
societies of antiquity as well as those considered as tribal (or primitive) to give an
extensive account ofrituals and customsof people across theworld. More importantly
he complied all the data to give his Laws of Magic based upon the Principle of
Sympathy (here meaning association or likeness). According to this theory, most
‘primitive’ peoples believe that things that are alike or things that have a close
association with each other also have an influence on each other. Thus the Law of
Sympathetic Magic has two parts, the Law of Contagion and Law of Similarity. In
many cultures, including India, people used to believe that a photograph or likeness
can be dangerous because people can practice witchcraft using these likenesses.
Similarly people offer food to the gods that become sacred (prasad) by becoming
imbued with the sacredness that emanates from the deity. Thus, although Fazer
formulated these laws to characterise what in those days was known as ‘primitive’
society, if we look around we find that these operate even today in most urban and
modern societies in some form or the other. Like the belief people have in wearing
gem stones for luck.
Frazer had also given his evolutionaryschema of Magic, Religionand Science, saying
that each of them dominate on epoch of human social evolution. However as is
evident to all of us, such has not happened and elements of magic and religion
prevail even as humankind is moving towards higher and higher scientific
achievements. Frazer followed the schema given earlier byAugust Comte, of the
Age of Religion, Age of Metaphysics andAge of Reason. For most white men of
those times, the European Civilisation was the peak of achievement of mankind and
it was possible because of the superior qualities of mind of the white men. Women
were considered as equivalent to ‘primitives’ and children, with no mature faculties
of reason. In this way the European conquest of the world also spread patriarchy
around the world along with the concepts of ‘primitive’ and the idea that all things
western were superior; and that modernity was equivalent to westernisation.As we
know that even when academicallythe theories of evolution are no longer considered
valid, these ideas linger and persist in the collective consciousness.
108
 Classical Theories
Reflection

The ethnological or comparative method was used to develop theories

where a large amount of data was compared. This data was collected
from travelogues, missionaries, accounts given by traders and tourists, people
who travelled across the world for various pursuits other than academics.
Scholars of the caliber of Edward B. Tylor and Frazer, did try to separate
the wheat from the chaff, yet most of it was only hearsay and could not be
verified in any other way than by comparison and the frequent recurrence
of the same or similar accounts.

Check Your Progress 1

1. Which aspects of human life did James Frazer deal with in his work The Golden
Bough?
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
2. Whose schema did James Frazer follow in his work?
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
3. James Frazer was anarm chair anthropologist. Suggest if thestatement is whether
true or false.
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................

8.2 CLASSICALEVOLUTIONARYTHEORY
By the early twentieth century, two schools of thought began to predominate; these
were the schools of Evolution and of Diffusion. Both of these schools of thought
were coeval with each other and although they appear to be diametrically opposed,
theydid share thoughts and theevolutionists like Tylor hadacknowledged that diffusion
of traits does take place and the diffusionists too had a time sequence that was
almost similar to the stage bystage evolution theory.
Let us first discuss the basic premises of the evolutionary school.
1. The evolutionists believed that societies move from lower to higher stage.
Meaning therebythat evolution is progressive, going towards improvement.
2. They believed that there is only one Culture, with a capital C as described by
Ingold (1986). The difference that we see in societies across the world is not
because they have different cultures, but because they are at different stages of
the same Culture.
109
Theoretical Perspectives
3. Thus classicalevolutionarytheoryis also a unilineal theory, a theorythat believes
that there is only one line for cultural progress.
4. The implications for this is that once the sequence of progress has been
established, it will be but one more step to determine the next stage to which
the society will progress. In other words if the sequences are worked out well,
this should be a predictive theory as well.
5. The evolutionary theory is a meta theory, a theory that is generalised and all
encompassing. In this sense it was a theory that in science would be one that
established the order of things.
However, if you just reflect a little you will realise that there can be several criticisms
of this theory. The evolutionists believed that evolution was progressive, but what
was progress? How was it to be defined? What were the criteria by which a society
could be put higher or lower in the scale of evolution? For the white, male scholars
of the nineteenth century, the solution was simple. Any society that was closer to the
western civilisation was higher or more civilised and those that appeared, both in
appearance and technology to be at the farthest distance was the most ‘primitive’.
The coining of the term ‘primitive’ was simply an index by which the distance from
western civilisation could be measured. Thus the Australian Aborigines were
considered as one of the most ‘primitive’societies because theyAustralianAborigines
had a physical appearance very far from that of the Europeans, and they also had a
Stone Age technology. Emile Durkheim went to study them in order to write his
Elementary Forms of Religious Life as he thought they represented the earliest
and most elementarystage of humansociety. Sigmund Freud also took their example
in his book Totem and Taboo.
The upper caste Indians on the other hand were considered very close to the
Europeans and as pointed out byTrautmann, there was an initial phase of Indophiles
who looked uponIndia as a great civilisation, quite close to Europe. But the situations
changed withchanging political relations.
Since patriarchy was the norm in western societies, the European colonisers
considered matriliny and matriarchy to be representatives of a lower scale of
civilisation. Thus the famous scholar of this school, Bachofen, considered matriarchy
or Mother Right to be a lower form of social order than patriarchy. Nineteenth
century Renaissance led by scholars such as Francis Bacon had relegated women
to a lower order incapable of rational thought. Thus according to Bachofen, the
Mother right complex had all things of lower and negative value, like moon, night,
wet, lower etc., it also had fertility and death associated with it. Since men alone
had the ability to reason, anysociety led by women had to be inferior. Thus western
patriarchy brought about civilisation and the conquest of the East by the West was a
turning point of history when the world became truly civilised.
The Unilineal theory was also unable to explain exactly why certain societies were
more progressive and some were less.Although there was agreement to some extent
among scholar about what came first and what came next; there never was a full
agreement as these sequences were constructed speculatively. There was no real
evidence or possibility of knowing from societies long extinct, as to what really
happened. Thus Maine clashed with McLennan on the issue of whether matriliny
came first or patriliny. Maine, a lawyer and proficient in languages and cultures of
the East, was of the opinion that patriliny came first and matriliny came later quite
110 opposite to McLennan and Bachofen who had the opposite sequence in mind.
Edward B.Tylor gave us a sequence ofthe evolution of religion.According to Tylor’s Classical Theories
definition, culture was something that everyone had, but only in different degrees of
development. He also defined the earliest form of religion asAnimism; a belief in the
soul or the belief in a dual body of spirit and material body. He explained that since
all humans have the same capacity for reflective thinking, the earliest humans must
also have thought the way he (Tylor) was thinking. Thus Tylor speculated that the
most primitive people must have pondered over the phenomenon of death and of
dreams and invented a belief in soul to explain them. They must have thought that in
dream, the soul leaves the body temporarily and wanders around, while in death it
leaves it permanently. But since the soul appears to be the real source of life or
anima, it is the most important part of any living being. All life is animated by the
existence of a soul or spirit.
According to Tylor, fromAnimism, evolve other systems of beliefs like in the other
world, in ancestors, in sacrifice and other rituals. Animism was followed byNaturism,
Totemism, Polytheism till finally the ultimate stage of religion, namely Monotheism
and the belief in a supreme God comes about. Thus Christianity, the religion of the
Europeans of that time is seen as the highest form of religious belief.
In America, the evolutionary school is represented by the work of Lewis Henry
Morgan, who is also regarded as the father of Kinship studies.According to Morgan
societies move from being based on kinship to territory. Modern societies are based
on the concept of territory based citizenship (Civitas) while earlier societies were
based onmembership through kin groups(Societas). He coined the terms ‘descriptive’
and ‘specific’ kinship systems, where according to him descriptive systems evolved
into specific kinship systems. In contemporarytimes this has changed to ‘descriptive’
and ‘specific’ kin terms, rather than systems. The concept of a kinship system based
on how kin are classified and named in any society was the contribution of Morgan.
Unlike other arm chair anthropologists ofhis time, Morgan had also done fieldwork
among the Native American tribes (Iroquois) who lived in his backyard and was
directly involved with them. He gave his famous sequence ofEthnical Periods, where
instead of focusing on just one aspect of society, like the other evolutionists of his
time; he gave the sequence for most social institutions, subsistence, family, political
institutions and law. Each ethnical period, saw a particular stage of development of
each of these institutions.
In spiteofbeing Eurocentric, and speculative, the evolutionist brought about a definite
change in conceptualising a universal humanity bound by a common possession,
Culture. They thus, transcended the racism oftheir times to saythat all human beings
are one and all are capable of attaining the same level of culture. Their contributions
in terms of defining specific institutions, giving names to customs and discovering the
way society works is a part of the rich heritage of academic thought.
Check Your Progress 2
4. Give one of the premises of the evolutionary school.
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
111
Theoretical Perspectives 5. Which school of thought believed that there is only one culture with a capital
C?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
6. Who considered matriarchy or Mother right as a lower form of social order in
his work?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
7. Which anthropologist is accredited with the sequence for evolution of religion
and structured definition of culture.
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
8. Lewis Henry Morgan represents which evolutionary school and among which
Native American tribe he did his fieldwork?
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................

8.3 CLASSICALDIFFUSION THEORY

According to the theoryof Diffusion, there is not one but several cultures originating
in different regions, which have then spread like the ripples on water. These cultures
may meet at the edges and produce hybrid cultures. The diffusion school differs
from the evolution school in two significant ways. Firstly theybelieve that cultures
originate at the point of most creativityand favourable conditions and as they spread,
they become diluted and inferior. Secondly there is not one but several Cultures in
this world and each can be regarded as a specific regional complex of traits. Thus
even though as already mentioned the two schools did not deny that both diffusion
and evolution as a process happens, they differed in basic parameters. While one
believed in progress the other believed more in deterioration of cultural traits and
while one believed in a unilineal culture the other believed that there are multiple
complexes.
One school of diffusion, the Egyptologists, did believe that all culture originates in
Egypt, but they did not have much lasting influence, as their speculations were too
far- fetched. Thus Perryand Elliott-Smith did not last for long but the German school
of Graebner and father Schmidt, had a longer lasting influence as theyput forward a
theory of multiple origins and the radiation of cultures outwards from these centers.
They also conceived culture as a configuration of traits, culture circles (kulturkreis)
that diffused together. This foreshadowed the notion of cultural configuration and
112
trait –complexes, as developed in theAmerican School. Graebner also put forward Classical Theories
the idea that diffusion was not a mechanical process of adding on cultural traits but
that the pattern of the receiving culture would also determine which cultural traits
would be accepted and which ones rejected or modified. This again is reflected in
the theories ofAcculturation developed later inAmerica.
The constructionof these culture circles were however largely speculative and based
on ill-informed data from various sources. The classical school ofDiffusion thus had
less influence than the classical evolutionaryschool. In fact the comments that Tylor
made about diffusion of traits were more acceptable. The amazing similarity in
prehistoric tools all over the world was attributed byTylor to the process of diffusion
rather than to independent origin. Tylor (1879) however warned ofderiving diffusion
from superficialresemblances. If there are similar conditions existing in two different
cultures from which similar developments are possible then the similaritymaybe due
to independent origins rather than diffusion.
Check Your Progress 3
9. Name the three schools that propounded the theory of Diffusion.
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
10. Who attributed the similarity of prehistoric tools all over the world to diffusion
rather than independent origin?
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................

8.4 HISTORICAL PARTICULARISM

The American School of Historical Particularism was founded by Franz Boas, who
being of German origin derived his theoretical insights from the German school of
diffusion as well as from the Gestalt Psychology. He understood the importance of
history in other words of the process of contextual social transformation rather than
the generalised process of evolution. The American experience of colonisation was
different from that of the British inAfrica and India. The NativeAmericans were a
dispersed and depopulated lot and the impact of history was evident as the
anthropologists were often faced with the prospect of having to interview the last
remaining representative of a tribe; and often had to make do with remnants of
material culture, stories passed down and myths and folklore, when most members
of the tribe were dispersed or dead. Boas spent most of his academic life in collecting
and classifying these materials under the apprehension that they were going to be
lost forever. Since history refers to the particular and not the general, according to
Boas, there is not one Culture, but many cultures, each historically derived and
specifically located and the product of minds of people in different locations. Thus
both regional environments and the minds of the people who make up that culture,
were factors influencing how a culture shaped up. Culture was also rooted in its
material existence and not a sequence of ideas building upon ideas, as postulated by
Tylor. In other words, Boas, had a more materialistic perspective on culture, and a 113
Theoretical Perspectives situational one, unlike Tylor’s ideational view of culture as a purely mental
phenomenon.

Reflection

Gestalt psychology is a philosophy of the German school of thought.

That believes in the human mind and behaviour as a whole. The central
principle of Gestalt psychology is that the mind forms a global whole with
self-organising tendencies. Gestalt psychology proposes a unique
perspective on human perception. As the Gestalt psychologists say; we
don’t just see the world, we actively interpret what we see, depending on
what we are expecting to see.

Fromthis historicaland contextualised perspective onculture, AmericanAnthropology

was able to branch out in many directions, it developed into branches of historical
anthropology, ecological, medical and psychological anthropology as well. Thus
Boas gave importance to the role of individuals in shaping of cultures. Culture was
not something that evolved on its own, but a cultivated process that individuals
created and also changed, in the context of history that played out in a specific
environment. Individuals were not the same across the world but each people had
their mindset that was the product of their history and environment. Thus Boas
wrote his famous work on The Mind of the Primitive Man and also wrote books
on primitive art, etc., that clearlyestablished the unique nature of different cultures.
Foreshadowing the culture-personality school, Boas advocated that the structure
and organisation of the human mind is similar but its manifestation varies according
to human experience that is different in different cultures. Thus Boas put forward a
theorythat was ideographic and not nomothetic like that ofthe classical evolutionists;
in other words his was a theory of the particular and not the general. History does
not have laws, it has incidents, many of which are unique and therefore the name
Historical Particularism for the theory put forward by Boas.
Yet Boas also followed the German school of Diffusion and culture circles, in that
theAmerican School, and the students of Boas, likeA.L. Kroeber and Clark Wissler
etc., believed in cultural diffusion and culture areas. Such theories did talk about
some generalisations that were middle level and not sweeping generalisations as we
come across among the evolutionists. TheAmerican school was also more focused
on collection of field data and documentation of the same. Another student of Boas,
Ruth Benedict, put forward the theory of Cultural Configuration that visualised a
culture to be more than the sum of its parts. Thus Benedict talked about the character
of a cultural whole, a configuration, like the personality of a person.Aconfiguration
was supposed to be an overall ethos, a concept derived from Gestalt psychology,
where a personality has an overall essence that cannot be described in terms of
discrete entities but can only be felt as an overall quality. Like if one looks at a
painting, one gets an overall impression, that is conveys joy or sorrow or celebration
or depression. Similarly individuals are more than the sum of their characters and
people come across as overall personalities where one cannot pin point to any one
or even a collection of characters. Benedict theorised that cultures too are more
than the sum of their parts, and have an essence or ethos, like an individual. Her
theory developed into the notion of National Character studies that were popular
for a while and even today people refer to the ‘American’ character or the ‘Indian’
114 character.
Check Your Progress 4 Classical Theories

11. Who founded theAmerican School of Historical Particularism?

...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
12. Name the different fields of study that were taken up by the American School
of Historical Particularism.
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................

8.5 NEO-DIFFUSIONISM
It was Kroeber to whom we can look for further developments on the concept of
Diffusion. Like Benedict, Kroeber had also talked about the ethos and eidos of
culture, the overall character (ethos) and the components (eidos). He had also
discussed about the relationship between culture and environment; saying that under
certain favourable conditions a culture can develop into a climaxculture, which then
radiates outwards. The radiation is always a process of dilution and as cultures
come into contact with other cultures at the edges of their radiation, they tend to
form hybrid cultures. The Culture Area theory developed by Kroeber, led later to
the establishment of regional school of studies; the underlying hypotheses being that
cultures have an association with space and different regions of the world do have
their own cultural specificities. Ruth Benedict too had given her theory of National
Culture, that had found a lot of popularitybut the theoreticalpremises were different;
they were based on the premise of cultural configuration. The culture area theory
was derived from historical particularism and also the concept of ethos, as given by
Kroeber.
Otis T Mason and Clark Wissler also had an ambitious plan to trace the cultural
areas across the world, beginning from NorthAmerica, but because of the practical
difficulties of trying to locate the center and the time and rate of diffusion, they could
not carry this project forward.
Diffusion or the spread of cultural traits from one region to another is an undeniable
process. Many critical aspects of culture, such as methods of food production,
technology and evenitems of food and clothing have spread across the world through
travel, trade and migration of populations. Whenever a culture is politicallydominant
over another culture, whether by the process of conquest or by any other means,
traits from the superior culture is voluntarilyaccepted by the people of the marginal
culture, as by the Indian people who accepted the culture of the British after
colonisation. Even today because of economic domination, the culture ofthe USA is
spreading rapidly across the world. Diffusion is distinguished from a similar process
called acculturation which takes place when two cultures come directlyinto contact.
Some like Herskovits have used time as a distinguishing character. While the process
is taking place it is acculturation and when it has been accomplished, that is when the 115
Theoretical Perspectives traits have become established in the new culture, it can be said that diffusion has
taken place. In other words the process is acculturation and the end product is
diffusion.
Earlier Mason and Wissler had tried to access the antiquityof a diffused trait by the
time it had taken to diffuse, but in contemporary times, the enhanced technology of
internet and satellite communication has made almost instant diffusion possible and
the final result of rapid and large scale diffusion is what we call globalisation. Today
the entire world is like one huge mass culture, yet the very threat of loss of identity in
this globalised world has made many cultures go into regression or into a process of
revitalisation of tradition.

8.6 NEO-EVOLUTION
The classical evolutionaryschool had faced rejection because of their Eurocentrism
and flawed methods; but bythe fifties, and after theWorld Wars, the idea of evolution
again began to reappear in the minds of the scholars.
The major theories were given byMarshall Sahlins and ElmanService, Leslie White
and Julian Steward.All of them tried to combine the processes ofhistoryand evolution
to saythat while there are particular processes of historicaltransformation, there are
also larger more generalised meta- processes of evolution. All these scholars
attempted to make the identification ofthe process ofevolutionmore methodologically
rigid as the earlier evolutionists were accused of speculation and bias.
Sahlins said that we can identify two kinds of evolution, General and Specific. The
General evolution can be compared to the trunk of a large tree that shows overall
growth, and for cultures it canbe seen in the increased level of complexityof cultures,
over the centuries of development of human civilisation. However Sahlins was clear
that this increased complexity, if onlyin organisational attributes and is no indicator
of superiorityof a culture. The process of specific evolution refers to the adaptations
of cultures to their environments, that show a large range of variabilityand gives rise
to the variations in cultures depending upon their different habitats and historical
conditions. Sahlins compares specific evolution to the branches of a tree.
The difference between a so-called higher civilisation and a more simple one lies in
the difference between what Sahlins has called adaptability as compared to
adaptation. Adaptability is the ability to adapt to a higher range of situations, and
enables a culture to undergoAdaptive Radiation. In the process of general evolution,
some cultures acquire the technology for adaptive radiation that enables them to
establish domination over other cultures; like the colonisation of the world by the
Europeans that was made possible bytheir acquisition of gun powder and superior
technologies of navigation. Adaptive Radiation is not necessarily something good
for humanityas it often involves war and conquest enabling some culture to dominate
over others and spread itself around the world.
Specific radiations can be very effective and functional but often get ousted or
destroyed bymore adaptive cultures, as their very functional adaptation to specific
environments prevents them from spreading. For example the Inuit ofAlaska and
parts of Greenland are very adapted to their surroundings but would find it difficult
to adapt to other environments. But an invention like electricity will enable a culture
to adapt to a variety of habitats and thus enable them to spread over a wider region.
Leslie White was deeplyinfluenced bythe unilineal evolutionary theoryof Tylor, and
116 like him, also believed in progressive evolution. While accepting most of the basic
premises of Tylor, White pointed out that Tylor failed in identifying the real cause of Classical Theories
change in societies. Following the principle of cultural relativism put forward by the
American School, White agreed that no culture as a culture was superior or inferior.
But the transformation of technology and the amount of energy that a culture could
harness, was anindication of its evolutionor attainment of asuperior stage.According
to White the amount of energy that a culture could use indicated its standard of
living, and all humans aspired for higher standards of living. His theory became
famous as Energy and the Evolution of culture. White gave some mathematical
formulas to exactlymeasure the amount ofenergythat a culture could use. But when
it came to the empirical application ofhis theory, it was found to be methodologically
impossible.
Human cultures are too complex to be dealt with in such a simplistic fashion. Yet
White was effectively able to point to the difference between history and evolution
and to show that the classical evolutionists had confused between the two.
The most effective ofallthe neo-evolutionist theories was that givenbyJulian Steward.
He modified the concept of culture, as uniform or all cultural traits being evenly
placed to a layered concept, with a core and a periphery. His theory is also known
as the theoryof Cultural Ecology. He combined the functional modelwith the cultural
historical one to produce a model of culture, where the core was in a functional
interdependent relationship with certain elements of the habitat. This core was thus
defined in terms of the techno-economic aspects of a culture. In terms of the core
aspects of a culture, one could create a typology as there are not many different
types of adaptations of societies in the world. Since each culture is also unique, this
specific nature of a culture is a result of its history, bywhich the peripheral aspects of
the culture assume a specific character for each culture. These two aspects of culture
change in different ways.
The core has a dialectical relationship with the environment. As the technology of
the core acts upon the environment, the latter changes, thus creating a need for
changes in techno-economic aspects. Further changes in technology create more
transformation in the habitat, and pushes the system forward. Since there are only
some known types of habitats in the world, Steward put forward the theory of
Multilinear Evolution. He postulated that one could empiricallyestablish the exact
line of evolution of cultures in specified regions, but each stage needs to be verified
through the collection of empirical evidence, even from the past.
Steward called his theory of Culture Change, both a theory and a methodology and
he insisted that every aspect of every relationship should be established empirically
and there should be no scope for speculation. His was an inductive theory and it
helped to prepare classifications of modes of subsistence that we are still using. We
can now classify societies based on their culture core that is the basic units of their
techno-economic adaptation, without referring to the peripheral cultural elements
that make each culture unique. For example all hunters and food gatherers have
some core features in common but each is also a unique culture contextualised in its
own setting. ThePaliyans of South India and the !Kung San ofKalaharihave common
characters in terms of technology and basic features of social organisation that are
integral to their foraging economy but are otherwise quite distinct in their cultures as
far as other features not directly related to their economyis concerned.
Thus neo-Evolutionists tried to improve upon classical evolutionists mainly in terms
of method. They tried to replace the speculative nature of classical evolution by
empirical and verifiable methods. 117
Theoretical Perspectives Check Your Progress 4
13. Name the anthropologists who postulated major theories on Neo-Evolutionism.
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
14. Whose theory on neo-evolutionism is also known as Cultural Ecology?
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
15. Who was inspired by E.B. Tylor’s theory of unilinear evolution?
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................

8.7 SUMMARY
The classical theories have their own place in the study of social and cultural
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 how the studyof society and culture from the Victorian era
had changed over the passage of time, the anthropologists have moved forward
from the speculation on cultural evolution and the spread of culture diffusion to the
more relative aspects in the present era. We have seen that the history of
anthropological theories has involved a transition from a diachronic perspective to
synchronic perspective which further moved on to interactive perspective. Moving
from these classical theories we will discuss functionalism, structural-functionalism
neo-functionalism and conflict theories in detail in the next unit.

8.8 REFERENCES
Benedict, Ruth. (1934). Patterns of Culture (reprint 1961) Boston: Houghton Mills.
Boas, Franz. (1938). The Mind of the Primitive Man. New York: Mac Millan.
Bohannan, Paul and Marc Glazer. (1973). High Points in Anthropology. New
York: AlfredAKnopf.
Driver, Harold. E. (1973). “Cultural Diffusion” in Raoul Naroll and Frada Naroll
(ed) Main Currents in Cultural Anthropology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
pp 157-183.
Evans-Pritchard, E.E. (1981). A History of Anthropological Thought. London:
Faber.
Fried, Morton. (1967). The Evolution of Political Society. New York: Random
118 House.
Honigman, John. (1976). The Development of Anthropological Ideas. Florence, Classical Theories
Ky. USA: The Dorsey Press.
Ingold, Tim. (1982). Evolution and Social Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kroeber, A.L. (ed.). (1953). Anthropology Today. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Leaf, Murray. J. (1979). Man, Mind and Science. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Naroll, Raoul and Frada Naroll. (1973). Main Currents in Cultural Anthropology.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Sahlins, Marshall. D. and Elman. E. Service. (ed.) (1960). (reprint 1973) Evolution
and Culture. Michigan: Universityof Michigan Press.
Steward, Julian. (1955). Theory of Culture Change. Illinois: University of Illinois
Press.
Trautmann, Thomas. (1997). Aryans and the British in India. California: University
of California Press.
White, Leslie. A. (1943).‘‘Energy and the Evolution of Culture”. American
Anthropologist. 45( 3): 333-336.

8.9 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

1. James Frazer in his work The Golden Bough gave an extensive account of the
rituals and customs of people across the world.
2. August Comte.
3. True.
4. Please see section 8.2 where five premises of the evolutionaryschool are given.
You can write any one of them.
5. The evolutionaryschool of thought believed that there is onlyone culture with
a capital C.
6. Johann J. Bachofen.
7. Edward B. Tylor.
8. Lewis Henry Morgan followed theAmerican evolutionaryschool, his fieldwork
was among the Iroquois, a NativeAmerican tribe.
9. The three schools that propounded the theoryof Diffusion are:
a. The Egyptian School,
b. The German or Kulturkries and;
c. TheAmerican School of Diffusion
10. Edward B. Tylor.
11. Franz Boas.
119
Theoretical Perspectives 12. The different fields of study that were taken up by the American School of
Historical Particularism were historical, medical, ecological and psychological
anthropology.
13. Marshall Sahlins, Elman Service, Leslie White and Julian Steward.
14. Julian Steward’s theoryon neo-evolutionism is also knownas Cultural Ecology
15. Leslie White was influenced by E. B. Tylor’s theory of unilinear evolution.

120
UNIT 9 THEORIES OF STRUCTURE AND
FUNCTION
Contents
9.0 Introduction
9.1 Functionalism and Structural-FunctionalApproach
9.2 Structuralism
9.3 Conflict Theories
9.4 Summary
9.5 References
9.6 Answers to Check Your Progress

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
The learners in this unit shall be acquainted with the approaches that have been used
by anthropologists in the study of society and culture:
 functionalism and structural-functionalism;
 structuralism; and
 conflict theories.

9.0 INTRODUCTION
In the earlier unit we had discussed the classical theories, some defunct and some
being revived for the study of society and culture. The classical theories like
evolutionism and diffusion gave way to the understanding of the society from the
context of here and now. Taking this argument forward in this unit, the focus would
be on the theories of function and structure.

9.1 FUNCTIONALISMAND STRUCTURAL-

FUNCTIONAL APPROACH
Functionalism is the name of an approach, a method, to undertake the study of a
society. It subscribes to the idea that a society is a whole (or a system) of
interconnected parts, where each part contributes to the maintenance of the whole.
The job assigned to the investigator is to discover the contribution of each part of
society to the whole and how societyworks together as an ‘ordered arrangement of
parts’. The parts of society are roles, groups, institutions, associations, and
organisations; and each one of them carries out a set of duties assigned to it. Because
of the contribution each part makes to the whole, which the society is, that it is able
to exist.
Functionalism believes that for the survivaland continuation of anysociety, a minimal
level of order is essential. The order comes when different parts of a society carry
out the work they are supposed to do. In this way, they contribute to the emergence

Contributor: Professor Vinay Kumar Srivastava, Former Professor and Head, Department
of Anthropology, University of Delhi. Currently Director, Anthropological Survey of India. 121
Theoretical Perspectives of order. When the needs of a society and the individual that comprise it are fulfilled,
which happens because of the coordinated working of its parts, order is bound to
result.
As a distinct approach, as a way of looking at and analysing society, functionalism
emerged first in social anthropologyinearlytwentieth century, and later in sociology,
beginning in the 1930s. However, its roots are as ancient as the concept of organic
analogy, used in the philosophyofAntiquitybyPlato (B.C. 428/7-345/7) andAristotle
(B.C. 384-322). Organic analogy is a way of conceptualising and understanding
society as an organism – as an organism has parts, so does society, and as these
parts are interconnected, so are the parts of society.
The term ‘functionalism’ is generally associated with the work of the Poland-born,
British anthropologist, Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942). In course of time,Alfred
Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955), another British anthropologist, argued in favour of
the term‘structural-functional approach’. TheAmerican sociologist, Talcott Parsons
(1902-1979) called the approach ‘structural-functionalism’. In its long history of
more than two hundred years, starting from the French thinkers of early nineteenth-
century to the newer developments in functional approach under the name of neo-
functionalism, functionalism has witnessed the emergence of a number of subsidiary
approaches, but all of them share certain ideas in common. Theyare all concerned
with the ‘problem of order’ – how does order come in society and how society is
able to endure over time.
Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), the French sociologist, is not a ‘functionalist’ in the
sense in whichthis termis used for the approach that the British social anthropologists,
Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski have espoused. Durkheim does not use the term
‘functionalism’, althoughhe defines the concept of social function. One comes across
in Durkheim’s works a fine coexistence of the diachronic (genetic, evolutionary, and
historical) and the synchronic (society ‘here and now’) approaches to the study of
society, but it is quite clear that the study of the contemporary society occupies a
preferred place in his writings. For instance, in his celebrated study of religion, he
begins with a consideration ofAustralian 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 onlater scholars.
The beginning of the twentieth centurysaw the continuation of the old evolutionary
approach and also, its gradual decline. It also witnessed the rise of functionalism.
Adam Kuper (1941- ) 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 byRadcliffe-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.
Although there were scholars – such as Kingsley Davis (1908-1997) – who saw
nothing new in functional approachbecause theythought that sociologists had always
been doing what functionalists wanted them to do, there were others (such as Talcott
Parsons) who were clearlyimpressed with the writings of functional anthropologists.
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, functionalism has come to comprise a number of variants
122
and foci. However, pointed differences exist between different functionalists.
 Theories of Structure and
Reflection Function
Notwithstanding their differences, it seems that all functionalists share the
following five propositions:
1. Society (or culture) is a system like any other system, such as solar
system, mechanical system, atomic system, chemical system, or organic
system.
2. As a system, society (or culture) consists of parts (like, institutions,
groups, roles, associations, organisations), which are interconnected,
interrelated, and interdependent.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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’.

The first approach in social anthropologyfor the analysis ofsocietywas evolutionary.

During the second half of the nineteenth century, almost every anthropologist was
concerned with two issues. First, how was the institution (or, cultural practice, trait)
established in the first place? What has been its origin? Second, what are the various
stages through whichit has passed to reach its contemporarystate?Both the questions
were important and relevant, but in the absence of authentic data, the early (or,
‘classical’) evolutionists extravagantly indulged in speculations and conjectures,
imagining the causes (or, the factors) that gave rise to institutions and the stages of
their evolution. Most of the evolutionists – barring a few possible exceptions, such
as Lewis H. Morgan (1818-1881) and Edward B. Tylor (1832-1917) – had not
themselves collected anydata on which theybased their generalisations. They almost
completely relied upon the information that travelers, missionaries, colonial officers,
and soldiers, who were in touch with the non-Western societies, provided, knowing
full well that much of these data might be biased, exaggerated, incomplete, and
incorrect. Because they themselves did not carry out any fieldwork, they earned the
notorious title of ‘arm-chair anthropologists’.
Both the founders of the British functional approach (Radcliffe-Brown and
Malinowski) were vehemently critical of the nineteenth-century evolutionism.
Radcliffe-Brown said that it was based on ‘conjectural history’, a term we used
earlier, and not ‘authentic history’. It was ‘pseudo-historical’, thus devoid of a
scientific value. For Malinowski, classical evolutionism was a ‘limbo of conjectural
reconstructions’. With the works of these scholars came a shift from:
1. arm-chair anthropologyto fieldwork-based studies;
2. the study of the origin and stages of evolution of society and its institutions
(diachronic studies) to society ‘here and now’ (synchronic studies);
3. the study of the entire societies and cultures (macro approach) to the study of
particular societies, especially the small-scale societies (micro approach); and 123
Theoretical Perspectives 4. an understanding of society confined to a theoretical level to putting the
knowledge of society ‘here and now’ to practical use, to bring about desired
changes insociety. Rather than remaining just an ‘academic studyof the oddities
of society’ – different and bizarre customs and practices – the knowledge we
have acquired should be used for improving upon the conditions of people, for
improving uponthe relations of localpeople with the outside world. Incidentally,
Malinowski called this concern of anthropology ‘practical anthropology’.
The scholars who later came to be known as ‘functionalists’ sought to shift the focus
of their study from ‘what societywas’ to ‘what societyis’, and this studyshould be
carried out not by speculative methods, but by living with people in their natural
habitats and learning from them, from the field.
It was not against the processes of evolution and diffusion that the functionalists
leveled their criticism, for they knew that they were important processes of change.
In fact, both Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski thought that after theywere through
most of their important fieldwork-based studies, theywould take up the study of the
processes of evolution and diffusion. What theywere against was a studyof the past
through ‘imaginative history’ rather than one based on facts. If authentic documents
were available about societies, they must readily be used for some insights into
change. But the functionalists noted that these documents were not available about
‘primitive and pre-literate’ societies, therefore we would not have anyknowledge of
the development of social institutions among them. Instead of speculating how they
have evolved, we should study ‘what they are’, using the scientific methods of
observation, comparison, and arriving at generalisations.
Check Your Progress 1
1. Which century saw the emergence of Functionalism as a distinct approach in
anthropology?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
2. What is organic analogy?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
3. Name the anthropologist with whom the term ‘functionalism’ is associated with.
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................
124
4. Who defined the concept of ‘social function’ and ‘collective consciousness’? Theories of Structure and
Function
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................

9.2 STRUCTURALISM
The term ‘structuralism’ refers to an approach in anthropology concerned with the
study of the structures underlying the social and cultural facts that are collected
during the course of a fieldwork study or from the alreadyavailable information in
archives, museums, and libraries. In other words, if the functional approach regards
fieldwork, the first hand study of a society, as the main method of data collection,
structuralism submits that the data for analysis can come from other sources. The
approach can be used on what is properly called the ‘secondary data’.
Structuralism had its origin in the study of languages, particularly in the work of a
French linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). One of the observations the
linguists (those who studythe language, its structure and function) have made is that
people are able to speak a language correctly, according to its norms, even when
they do not know its grammar. It was an exemplary work of the colonial scholars
and missionaries who unraveled the grammar of these unwritten languages. They
also prepared their dictionaries, and also helped in developing their scripts, although
they were invariablyfrom the scripts in which the colonial scholars wrote. Thus, for
example, the script in which the Naga dialects were written up was Roman, as the
scholars who worked on them were English-speaking.
In other words, the people had created their respective languages, having a hidden
grammar, of which they did not have any knowledge. It was left to the scholars
working on these languages to discover their grammars.As a language has a grammar,
of which the people are unaware, in a similar way, the institutions of society have
their underlying aspects, which we may call ‘structures’. Those who bear these
institutions, customs and beliefs, and live through them, do not know what these
underlying structures are. It is left to the anthropologists to discover them. So, those
anthropologists who devoted their skill to discovering the underlying structures (or
‘unconscious structure’, because people are not aware of them) called themselves
‘structuralists’, having been influenced by the French linguistic structuralism. If for
functionalism, the analogytaken for understanding and explanationwas of organism
(thus, ‘organic analogy’), for structuralism, it was of language. If functionalism was
influenced by biological science, structuralism was by linguistics.
To summarise, the approach to discover the underlying structure ofa language came
to be called the ‘structural linguistics’in the discipline of linguistics. In anthropology,
the approach to discover the underlying structure of society, of which people are
unaware, was called structuralism, the chief exponent of which was Claude Lévi-
Strauss (1908-2009). His name was almost used interchangeablywith structuralism,
for he was the sole, the giant, advocate of this approach. The point we wish to put
forth is that for Britishfunctionalism, wehave two names, of Malinowskiand Radcliffe-
Brown; for American functionalism, we have the names of Parsons and Robert K.
Merton (1910-2003); but for structuralism, we have just one name: Lévi-Strauss.
All thosescholars who followed himwere his admirer-critics, who made some changes
to his approach, here and there. They were not the independent proponents of 125
Theoretical Perspectives structuralism. These scholars who modified structuralismcame to be known as ‘neo-
structuralists’. The names prominent in this list are of Edmund R. Leach (1910-
1989), Mary Douglas (1921-2007), T.O. Beidelman (1931- ), and even, Louis
Dumont (1911-1998) (who worked on Indian caste system).
Structuralism did not conflict with the earlier approaches that were popular in
anthropology. It believed that there were other, equally important, ways of
understanding society. Societies have undoubtedlyevolved over time. It is mandatory
on our part to know their origin and the stages through which they have passed. So
is the fact that each societyhas to work for the survival of its members. The question
that functionalisminvestigated about the actual working of societyand how its parts
hang together is equally important. In a similar way is the fact that human beings in
their long history of survival on this planet have migrated from one geographical
space to another, carrying with them their culture, depositing it at another place, and
also, learning from their hosts. The approach called diffusionism is as significant for
understanding human life as are the other.
Thus, there are different ways of studying human societyand culture. One such way
is to take up an institution for study, find out its components, examine the way in
which theymake up the whole, and the design or pattern that thus results. By doing
this, we have moved to an understanding of its structure. Thus, socialstructure is not
given; it is not an empirical entity as said by Radcliffe-Brown. Social structure is an
abstraction from the observable reality, but it cannot be reduced to that. It is a
model that the anthropologists create fromtheir field study, primarilyfor the purpose
of study. Social structure thus is a methodological devise.
To take an example: each kinship system has its own rules of regulating blood ties,
sex and marriage. Besides the basic kin terms – for the mother or the father – that
mayhave across-cultural similarity– eachsocietyhas its own host ofterms. Sometimes
different relatives are called by the same terms, and sometimes, by different terms.
Rules of marriage differ from one society to another; so do the types. The point is
that as the societies are enormouslydiverse, so are their institutions. But structuralism
would submit that regardless of their diversitytheywould all have the same structure,
built on certain universal principles. In his first major work, on kinship, titled The
Elementary Structures of Kinship, Lévi-Strauss showed that it is the principle of
the ‘exchange of women’ which is universal, irrespective of the descent system that
is followed, which results in two models.
The first is when women are exchanged between two groups, over generations. It is
the practice of ‘sister exchange’, where those who give their women to the other
group are the same who receive women from the group to which they give. Thus, in
Lévi-Strauss’s terms, the wife-givers and wife-takers are the same people. Thus, a
symmetry is established. The other model is based on the principle of asymmetry.
Here, a group (say, A) receives women as spouses from group B, but transfers its
women (sisters) to group C. In this case, wife-givers to a group are different from
the wife-takers. Lévi-Strauss called the first, the system of sister-exchange, ‘balanced
reciprocity’, which is an exchange between two groups (Ato B, B toA).The second
is where endless groups are annexed to the system of exchange (A to B, B to C, C
to D, D to n…, from n to A) and the system closes when the women from the final
group return to the first group (from n to A). This model is called the ‘generalised
exchange.’ If the British anthropology stressed the descent relations (from father to
son, from mother to daughter) for understanding kinship, Lévi-Strauss became a
proponent of the idea that marriage established relationship between groups. In
126
French, the word ‘alliance’ means ‘marriage’, so Lévi-Strauss came to be known Theories of Structure and
Function
as an ‘alliance theorist’.
The structuralist tries to discover the structure of the entire society. That is why, the
critics saythat Lévi-Strauss was interested in the ‘global structure’. Such an ambition
bypasses (or ignores) the diversity ofhuman living. Moreover, societies change over
a length of time. The change may be slow, gradual, and imperceptible. With an
accumulation ofthese small changes, a new stage comes into being. The structuralist
did not incorporate the historical progression of societies in their analyses. That was
the reason, why structuralism came to be called ‘a-historical’. Although the
structuralists claimed that their method could be used for the analysis of everyaspect
of society, Lévi-Strauss confined his work to the study of kinship, totemism, and
myths. In fact, he devoted a major portion of his life to the study of myths; he
founded what has come be called the ‘science of mythology’. In the context of the
application ofstructuralism to the studyof different institutions ofhuman society, one
of the issues was how to use this method for the study of economic and political
relations, the impact of globalisation on the lives of people, the relations of oppression
and subjugation.
With the coming of the interpretive approach in anthropology, structuralism became
less popular. However, it succeeded in making an inroad in literature and art history,
especially in the studies of aesthetics and cultural products. As said in the beginning,
structuralism impressed some British anthropologists, but they were doubtful of its
‘cosmic ambitions’. They thought that the best application of structuralism would be
on a limited area, at a more regional level. This was a humbler approach for which
the term ‘neo-structuralism’ is used.
Check Your Progress 2
5. What does a structuralist do?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
6. ‘Structuralism had its origin in the study of languages.’ State whether this
statement is true or false.
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
7. Who was the chief exponent of structuralism?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

127
Theoretical Perspectives 8. Name the anthropologists a. British and b. American associated with
Functionalism.
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................
9. Name some of the scholars who worked on ‘neo-structuralism’.
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................
10. Who gave the concepts of ‘balanced reciprocity’ and ‘generalised reciprocity’?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................

9.3 CONFLICT THEORIES

Conflict theory is an ‘umbrella term’, which includes the writings of a number of
theorists who focused on the study of the ‘relations of conflict’, not only from the
disciplines from social anthropology and sociology, but also from the other social
sciences and humanities. Some of them trace their academic genealogy from Karl
Marx (1818-1883), the German social thinker, well known for his approach called
‘dialectical and historical materialism’ and the ‘theoryof revolution’. Others go back
to the political thinkers such as Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Hobbes (1588-1679).
Others think that the theory of conflict can be built up independent of Marx’s
contribution. However, most writers think that Marx’s writings on conflict have been
truly insightful and must be given a closer look irrespective of the fact whether the
society under study has a class stratification or not.
All conflict theorists agree that conflict is a general social form that should not be
limited to just episodes of violence. It is because in a common parlance, conflict is
usually concerned as synonymous with war. For social scientists, every society,
including the simple ones, has conflict inone form or the other. It maybe in the form
of dissents and disagreements, verbal duels and abusive behaviour, mentalor physical
violence, protests and uprisings, rebel movements and revolutions. It should not be
thought that each of these types is a closed one, because one form of conflict may
over time progress into another. For instance, an instance of dissent may aggravate
into bloodshed. The universality of conflict is well expressed in a statement from the
work of Ralf Dahrendorf (1929-2009): ‘The absence of conflict is an abnormality.’
Georg Simmel (1858-1918) similarly situated conflict at the centre of social life.
The term ‘conflict’ may have come into vogue in the second half of the twentieth
century, but the idea of conflict goes back in time. It was mentioned previously that
Marx, a nineteenth centurythinker, assigned a prominent place to conflict in changing
society. The popular statement that ‘conflict is the engine of progress’, follows from
the work of Marx. Going earlier in time, it was in the writings of Henri de Saint-
128 Simon (1760-1825), a French scholar, that one finds two ideas: first, the conflict
between the interests of the ‘industrialists’ and ‘workers’; and second, each stage Theories of Structure and
Function
carries in it the ‘germs of its own destruction’, because of which change occurs in
society. Experts say that these ideas of Saint-Simon, along with that of the others,
particularly G.W.F. Hegel(1770-1831), greatlyinfluenced Marx inshaping his theory.
No disagreement exists with respect to the idea that every society tries to maintain
order and cohesiveness (the idea of ‘social stability’) and also change over time
(‘social dynamics’). One of the initiators of change is conflict. Conflict exposes the
problems which surface in running the society smoothly. These problems must be
resolved, otherwise the working of society will be affected, thus obstructing the
fulfillment of its members’ needs. The resolution of these conflicts brings about a
change in society, leading to the emergence of order. However, the order thus
established is short-lived. With the passage of time, new crises surface, posing another
round ofconflicting situations, whichdemand resolution. Thought in this way, conflict
is, in the words of Lewis Coser (1913-2003), a ‘normal and functional part of
human life’. Further, he said: ‘Conflict is instinctual for us. We find it everywhere in
human society.’
The value of conflict as an important process of change got an impetus in Charles
Darwin’s (1809-1882) 1859 book titled On the Origin of Species, where it was
argued that the competition between members of the same species is so intense that
only those who are fit are able to survive and those unfit are eliminated. For Darwin,
‘struggle for existence’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ are the ways in which conflict is
expressed in the biological world. Some scholars, while not adopting Darwin’s views,
have developed the idea of conflict between ethnic groups. For example, a nineteenth-
century scholar, Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838-1909) spoke of the ‘struggle of the
races’.
By mid-nineteenth century, both the concepts of order and conflict received almost
an equal importance from the social scientists. However, some of them from France
thought that during the Revolution (1798-1799) so much of social disorganisation
has taken place that in case we lend further support to the idea of revolution, which
is an intensification of conflict, the situation which is so delicate would become a
matter of grave concern. Thus, they – which included the founder of sociology,
Auguste Comte (1798-1857) –opposed the idea of revolution, and later, the thesis
Marx put forth was that revolution is the prime mover of change. Durkheim held the
same view as did Comte, and so he opposed the socialist thoughts. The result was
that the theory of conflict was graduallyeclipsed. This led to a strengthening of the
theory of order – ‘how does consensus come in society’ rather than ‘how does it
change’.
The functionaltheorystarted making its appearance, as we saw earlier, inthe beginning
of the twentieth century. Durkheim’s two books – Division of Labour in Society
(1893) and The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1915) – explained
persuasively how division of labour and totemism (an example of the ‘elementary
religion’, as we saw earlier) contributed to social solidarity. And, when it was weak
or absent, what resulted was an increase in suicide rate. For these situations of
sudden change or where norms broke down and new norms had not made their
appearance, Durkheim used the word ‘anomie’. It was a state of ‘social illness’,
causing volcanoes of disruption.
Anthropological fieldworkers initiallyconcentrated onstudies ofsmallsocieties, which
were largely cut off from the wider world. Hence, the pace of change among them
was remarkably less than what it was in well-connected societies, where cultural 129
Theoretical Perspectives diffusion played an important role inspeeding up change. Because the small societies
had a strong system of norms and values, and people abided bythem, the probability
of violation of rules was far less. Thus, order seemed to prevail. These societies
appeared changeless. Such a situation misguided the anthropologists to think that
these societies were conflict-free. When Tylor, the British anthropologist, expressed
surprise on seeing no policeman in Mexican villages he had visited, the instant
interpretation was that theywere free from contra-normative actions. The argument
put forth was that there were societies in the world which did not require the
mechanisms of law and order because there was no infringement ofrules. The logical
conclusion was that conflict was not a worthy field of study. We should direct our
attention to the study of order. It was the triumph of the functional theory.
Whilst conflict found a respectable place in sociology much earlier, since its concern
was with modern societies where conflict abounded and was open, the entry of
conflict studies was delayed in anthropology, because one functional study after
another was tilting in favour of social harmony and equilibrium. Even when there
were indications that conflict was precipitating in small communities because of
asymmetrical culturalcontacts, attention was scarcelypaid to its study. For instance,
Malinowski in his Trobriand study noted that with the advent of missionaries in their
land, their youth dormitories were gradually disappearing, because the missionaries
were critical of such institutions. But Malinowski did not study the kind of conflict
that was brewing in the societybecause of colonisation.
In anthropological studies of conflict, Gluckman’s (1911-1978) work occupies an
important place. He noted that besides the conflicting situations as being introduced
from outside, the tribal societies have their contexts of disagreements and conflicts.
For example, when a ruler becomes a tyrant, and the people are unable to tolerate
the oppressive rule, they start protesting, demanding his replacement. These
movements are not for a change in the system, but only of the incumbent of the
office, in thiscase, the ruler. These social movements are knownas ‘rebel movements’;
and are different from revolutions, which demands a total change in the system. An
important lesson we learn from these studies is that tribal communities were far from
being placid and free from conflict. This once again supports the universality of
conflict in human society.
At this juncture, the functional theory stages a comeback by asking: If conflict is
universal as has been found through a number of field studies, then it must be
performing some functions. Here, we may refer to Coser’s ideas. He says that
conflict ensures the maintenance of a group and its cohesion withinits boundaries. It
also prevents its members from leaving. For substantiating these ideas, empirical
studies of the situations of conflict need to be carried out.

Check Your Progress 3

11. Name the scholars whose works influenced Marx.

............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................
130
12. Give the two ideas propounded by Henri de Saint-Simon. Theories of Structure and
Function
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
13. State how according to Darwin, conflict is expressed in the biological world.
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
14. Name the scholar who worked on the ‘struggle of races’.
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
15. What is ‘rebel movement’ according to Gluckman?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

9.4 SUMMARY
This unit provides an overview of the three main approaches in anthropology. The
functional approach, which has several sub-types, tries to explain how order comes
in society. It submits that unless there is order, society will not be able to survive.
The functionalapproach had its beginning in the nineteenth-century, especiallyin the
discipline of sociology, but in anthropology, it became a powerfulmethod to explain
the working of society and culture in early twentieth-century. Structuralism is an
approach which came to anthropology in mid-twentieth century from the field of
linguistics. The main proponent ofthis approach was Claude Lévi-Strauss, the French
anthropologist. Structuralism is concerned with discovering the underlying structure
of society. It believes that regardless of the diversity of human living, there is a
common structure that all societies share. Conflict theory submits that society is
always in a state of dynamism, and one of the processes that contributes to this is
conflict. Like the functional theory, it also has an early beginning. One of its early
proponents was Henri de Saint-Simon. However, Marx developed the idea, with
the result that most of the variants of conflict theory have been influenced by his
writings.

9.5 REFERENCES
Anderson, S. K. (2007). Conflict Theory. In Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Barnard, Alan. (2000). History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Harris, Marvin. (1968). Rise of Anthropological Theory. New York: Crowell. 131
Theoretical Perspectives
9.6 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
1. Twentieth century
2. see section 9.1. for detailed explanation.
3. Bronislaw Malinowski
4. Émile Durkheim
5. See section 9.2 for detailed explanation.
6. True
7. Claude Lévi-Strauss
8. British anthropologists were Bronislaw Malinowski andA.R. Radcliffe-Brown.
American anthropologists were Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton.
9. Edmund R. Leach, Mary Douglas, T.O. Beidelman and Louis Dumont.
10. Claude Lévi-Strauss
11. Henri de Saint and G.W.F. Hegel.
12. see section 9.3 for details.
13. a. struggle for survival and b. survival of the fittest.
14. Ludwig Gumplowicz
15. see section 9.3 for details.

132
UNIT 10 CONTEMPORARY THEORIES
Contents
10.0 Introduction
10.1 Symbolism
10.2 Interpretative Theory
10.3 Post-Colonial and Post-Modern Critique
10.4 The Feminist Critique
10.5 Summary
10.6 References
10.7 Answers To Check Your Progress

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After reading thisunit, the learner wouldbe able to discuss the following contemporary
theories in anthropological discourse:
 symbolism;
 interpretative theory;
 post-colonial and critical period; and
 feminism and feminist thoughts in anthropology.

10.0 INTRODUCTION
There was a paradigm shift in anthropologyfrom the seventies onwards.As you had
read in the earlier units the focus had shifted from evolution to functional aspects.
Earlier attempts at creating a science of society on the lines of the natural sciences
were replaced by the realisation that humans had some unique capacities, foremost
among them being the capacity for creativityand the capacity to symbolise. Thus it
was not possible to create mechanistic models of human behaviour as humans could
if they so wished completely change the course of their lives.
Another major transformation had begun to take place when the male and white-
centric academic community became diversified. The former ‘objects’ of research
became scholars in their own right and began to question the labels, assumptions
and paradigms of the earlier positivist approach. It became increasinglyevident that
the ‘truth’ that was being propagated was only the ‘truth’ from one perspective and
not from that of the ‘others’; the native anthropologists, the womenand the ‘marginal’
from within societies.Although termed as a ‘post-colonial’critique, it became evident
that there were more than one form of colonisation there were many categories of
people who did not have a voice in the dissemination of knowledge. The women’s
voices had not been heard, but there were mainstream women, and marginal women,
the Afro-American women, the Muslim women and the Dalit women, to mention
only a few categories. Similarly, the internal colonisation of the erstwhile colonies

Contributor: Professor Subhadra Mitra Channa, Former Professor, Department of

Anthropology, University of Delhi.
133
Theoretical Perspectives kept the dominated and marginal people such as tribals and the Dalits of India, out
of the intellectual discourse.
In this unit, we shall discuss some of these concerns, the emergence of new
perspectives in the wake of power shifts in the world.

10.1 SYMBOLISM
By the sixties, the understanding of culture as a system of symbols was taking its
roots (Ortner 1984). A symbol is a representation of something to which it has no
inherent or physical relationship. Thus language is the prime example of symbolic
behaviour, something that only the human brain is capable of. Since the relationship
of an object to the sound that represents it is purely arbitrary, there are numerous
languages and dialects in the world, for there are just so many ways in which anything
can be attachedto a verbalexpression. The same or similar sound maymeansomething
quite different in different languages. The symbolic approach looks at culture itself
as a system of symbols and symbolically constructed action patterns. Everything in
culture has a meaning. Thus we have culturally prescribed dress codes, we have
culturallyunderstood scripts for action, and we are able to understand signs, gestures,
words and actions because the process of symbolic behaviour is also a public and
shared one. So to say, all belonging to the same community of shared meaning can
communicate easilywith each other, while outside of one’s shared meaning system
people become illiterate, they become clueless as to what is happening.
It was realised that different aspects of culture convey meanings that can only be
understood when contextualised within a larger system of meaning. Meanings also
exist at two levels, at the levelof the actors and at a higher level, where their functions
pertain to the general level of society. Higher level meanings can be only assessed by
deductive reasoning. Let us take the action of unfurling of the national flag on
Independence Day. At the level of the participants, it symbolises the freedom of the
nation. But against the theoretical perception of the nation as a construct, with no
real form or existence; it is one way to give symbolic meaning to an amorphous
entity that needs constant reinforcement to exist. In other words, if people were not
periodically reminded and that too in a theatrical manner, that the nation exists, they
would forget.
In the earlier phase of symbolic analysis, it was the analyst who had the prerogative
of deciding what meaning the actsor objects had inthe scheme of things. The symbolic
analysis done byscholars such asVictor Turner (1967, 1969), Edmund Leach (1961),
and Sherry Ortner (1973) were done in the backdrop of ethnography but the final
say was that of the scholar, who put himself/herself, in the position of privilege.
Turner is well knownfor his analysis ofrituals and the functionof rituals in maintaining
social harmony. In his book The Ritual Process, he has done a semantic analysis of
the ritual of Isoma, a woman’s ritual that involves fertility rituals and is part of a
larger category of rituals that involve the shades (spirits) of the ancestors. Turner
(1969:10) describes his method of doing such an analysis byfirst understanding the
meanings that the Ndembu (the people who have been studied) give to their own
symbols. From the collection of this specific data, Turner then goes onto a more
generalised and analytical level. The Ndembu derive the meaning of their symbols
mostly from the name they give to it. Thus in their language the word for ritual is
chidika, which means an obligation. Thus the performance of rituals, for the most
part is an obligation for them. The ritual of Isoma is performed as an obligation to
134 the ancestors, who have become angry and sent affliction as they had not been
 Contemporary Theories
remembered well enough. Thus among the matrilineal Ndembu, “social placement is
through women but authority lies in the hands of the men” (ibid:14). The women get
involved with their husbands and forget their female ancestresses who then afflict
them with barrenness or frequent miscarriage or loss of live of their children. In all
cases they cannot become successful mothers, which is the prime goal of women
among the Ndembu.
Now according to Turner, every item that is part of a ritual has a symbolic meaning,
“by convention stands for something other than itself” (ibid:15). Everyritual element
acts as a trail blazer and as a connection between known and unknown territory,
here between the known world of the living and the unknown world of the shades
(spirits). The name Isoma is also symbolic, as it literally means to slip out of place or
come unfastened; and when applied to the woman suffering it means that her children
are slipping away or going awayfrom where they are supposed to be. It also implies
that the matrilineal kin are being forgotten (slipping away from memory). The entire
ritual process also brings out (to the analyst) the process of binary opposition that
Lévi-Strauss (1967) had attributed to the human mind. But to Turner, the symbolism
of the Ndembu rituals do not simply relate to the mind and are not only, as Lévi-
Strauss suggests cognitive categories for making sense of the universe, but they are
also outlets for channeling of violent emotions, such as grief, anger and affection.
They are also goal oriented and they set out to achieve something. In case of the
Isoma, theysucceed in bringing the husband-wife together and appease the matrilineal
kin, thus absolving the inherent contradiction of Ndembu society between matriliny
and patrilocal residence.
Edmund Leach’s famous essay on the symbolism of annual rituals shows how time
was reckoned by the process of reversal, like a pendulum. So that during the festival
of Holi for example, a lot of role reversals take place, women beat men (popularly
known as lath mar Holi), younger people throw colours on elders, barriers go
down; in other words there is break down of society as a normal routine. This
reversal marks out a break so that the year begins again. Similar reversals are found
in the annual rituals of other cultures as well.
Another well- known symbolic analysis of rituals is that of life cycle rituals by van
Gennep (1902), who identified three stages in anyritual that marks a transition from
one social status to another. There is a stage of separation, a liminal stage and a
stage of incorporation. Let us take the case of marriage, where in the first stage, the
woman and the man are given a different designation, namely bride and groom and
separated from their normal life. Then the marriage rituals ensure that theygo into a
liminal stage, remain suspended from their routine work in society. People take time
off from routine work and go into a different mode to prepare for a future life. This
stage continues till the actual marriage ceremony and then the married couple get
back to routine. This ritual ofincorporationis also marked like whenthe new daughter-
in-law makes her first meal in the new house or when the colleagues at office throw
a party to greet a newly married man or woman. Then life enters a new routine
where one’s status has changed forever. Thus the different rituals were integrated
within a complete symbolic cycle by van Gennep, whose theory was incorporated
within symbolic anthropology by scholars like Edmund Leach, who made use of the
concept of liminality.
Ortner (1973) has given the theoryof KeySymbols. According to her, every culture
uses a key symbol as a fulcrum around which it builds up its identity. More complex
cultures may have more than one keysymbol for different aspects of its society, like 135
Theoretical Perspectives the national flag is the symbol of the political identity for any person belonging to a
nation-state. Every religion may have its own key symbol, like the Cross for
Christians, the Swastika for Hindus and so on. She divided Key Symbols into two
basic types; Summarising Symbols and Elaborating Symbols, the second one is
again divided into Key Scenarios and Root Metaphors. The summarising symbols
are those that pack a lot of meaning into a single item, like the national flag. These
symbols have multiple meanings operating at different levels and evoke a wide range
of emotions. Elaborating symbols are those that break down the components of any
social event to make it comprehensible to the members of society. They are of two
types, Key Scenarios, scripts that make things easy to understand and Root
metaphors that are key aspects of culture that make the various meanings of life
clear. For example, in the context of India, we can say the performance of the
Ramlila is a Key Scenario, where each aspect of the drama brings out one facet of
life and indicates the ideal behaviour associated with it; the ideal son, ideal daughter-
in-law, ideal mother, ideal wife, ideal brother and so on. So that it is a script for how
to live one’s life according to the highest ideals of the given culture. Root metaphors
are social icons or the central aspect of any one’s life. They differ according to the
subsistence patterns, the geographical location andso on. For examplefor the pastoral
people, it is their animals.Their entire life is woven around these animals. Referring
to Evans-Pritchard’s ethnographyof the Nuer we can easilysaythat the cattle provide
the Root Metaphor for their lives. The Nuer reckon the time of the day, the time of
the year, the annual cycle of weather, the climate, colours, aesthetics and every
aspect of their lives with reference to their cattle.
Thus symbolic analysis tells us that all cultural traits, customs and behaviour have
underlying meanings. Since the relationship between a symbol and what it stands for
is purelyarbitrary, it takes qualitative ethnographic methods to get to the true meaning
of things. These meanings are both latent and under the surface. They are often
multifaceted and different categories of persons may also have their own system of
meanings.
Check Your Progress 1
1. Give a prime example of symbolic behaviour.
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
2. Who wrote the book The Ritual Process?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
3. The theory of Key Symbol was given by which anthropologist?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
136
4. Can you identifysome of theanthropologists who have contributedto the concept Contemporary Theories
of symbolism in anthropological theories after reading this section?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

10.2 INTERPRETATIVE THEORY

According to this theory, given by Clifford Geertz, entire cultures are nothing but
systems of meaning, that hang together because the meanings of one part are only
explainable by the meanings of another and all are contextualised to the entire system
of meanings. Thus human beings are suspended in webs of signification that they
have created and they reproduce, but no longer control. We are born into a system
of meanings that we imbibe through the process of enculturation. In our everyday
life practices, we continuously reproduce these systems of meaning. For example, in
the Hindu cultural system, there are many sacred beings and places, and there are
culturally prescribed ways of behaviour associated with these beings and places,
that further tend to reproduce the sacredness of these fragments of the environment.
The manner in which the sacredness is expressed is again a part of the larger system
of meanings, like some colours are auspicious in a culture and some colours are not;
some prescribed acts are respectful and others are not. Why this is so is again linked
to other systems of meanings and explanations. Thus every part of the cosmology is
linked to the other, and everyact makes sense onlyin reference to the larger context.
Geertz (1973) said that cultural anthropology was not a science in search of laws
but an interpretative one in search of meanings. In this way he had directly criticised
the earlier positivist stand point.
According to Geertz, interpretative theory is only possible if we engage in what he
has designated as ‘thick description’ that is trying to get to the deeper layers of
meanings of any act. These implynot just the meaning that the analyst is attributing to
it, but also the meaning that the actor is acting out. Whenever we are faced with
interpretation of anycultural act, the question is not of objectivityor subjectivity but
of the implication of the act, what was the act meant to be, why was it enacted, how
can it be placed in the larger scheme of meanings that exist in that culture?
Culture is composed of public meanings, because cultural meanings would be
meaningless if they were not understood by the community or the collective, where
they occur. Culture is thus a context. It is not a constellation of physical acts but the
meanings of these acts that makes themintelligible to members of a society. The task
of the anthropologists is to be able to converse with members of a culture in a way
that one is able to make oneself understood. Thus one needs to go into what Geertz
has called “theinformal logic ofeverydaylife”; to understand exactlywhat is happening
and why it is happening, in other words, how is it meaningful to those who are
performing. Again a cultural description need not always be neat and bound, it can
be fuzzy, as culture in real life often is.
Ethnographers write but they should not move away from the people or events
about which or whom they are writing; in other words writing should not be too
abstracted, as was done bythe structural-functional scholars, in the interest of getting
tight and neat analysis. It should retain the living aspects, even if that means that
137
Theoretical Perspectives description is long drawn and fuzzy. This is what Clifford Geertz meant by thick
description; examples of this are found in his description of the Balinese cockfight
and of markets in Java.
Check Your Progress 2
5. Who postulated the Interpretative theory?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
6. What is meant by ‘thick description’?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

10.3 POST- COLONIALAND POST-MODERN

CRITIQUE
The modernist period for anthropology that began with the Age of Reason and to
some extent continues at least for some people was marked by Positivism, a belief
that there was a ‘truth’ that was an objective reality outside of the subjective self;
and that it was possible to get to it. Once established it was immutable and fixed.
The post-modern period began in the post-world war era, also marked by rapid
decolonisation of the erstwhile colonies and a renegotiation of power across the
globe. While the Euro-American supremacy continued for a long period and took
the form of neo-liberalisation, and to some extent neo-colonialism, the erstwhile
marginal people slowlybegan to take their place in the sun. Philosophers like Derrida,
Foucault, Wittgenstein, Homi Bhabha and Spivak, questioned the notion of fixed
truths, leading to an era of deconstruction, a shifting of the center and a disbelief in
‘truth’ as the product of one class and kind of people.
The Post-colonial era saw the rise of non-western intellectuals and also those not
male. Thus, the white, male, western European scholar or eminence, whose voice
was law; was replaced by a multitude of voices raising themselves from many
locations. Post-modernism applies to all disciplines, all forms of aesthetics and
philosophyin general. For anthropology, postmodernism had its unique significance,
like anthropology, bydefinition was the studyof the Other byWhite, male, colonial
anthropologists. The critique of the production of knowledge about the ‘other’the
biases involved in such studies were foregrounded by non-European scholars such
as Edward Said, TalalAsad, Gayatri Spivak, Lila Abu-Lughod and many others,
from the erstwhile colonies. From within the white fraternity, manyvoices came out
like that of Eric Wolf, James Clifford, StephenTyler etc.; critiquing earlier established,
‘truths’.
A major criticism such as that posed was regarding the claim to truth, “is there not a
liberation, too, in recognising that no one can write about others any longer, as if
theywere discrete objects or texts” (Clifford 1990: 25). The methodologyof assuming
that the self of the anthropologist was neutralised in his/her pursuit of truth was
exposed as a fallacy.As more and more anthropologists came forwardto do restudies,
138 it was found that each person had his or her versions of what they put forward as the
truth. It was realised beyond doubt that the self is never far away from the other, and Contemporary Theories
a separation of the two is not possible. The publication of the Diary of Malinowski
showed that the anthropologist is human and has an emotional relationship to the
field. There is no possibilityof absolute objectivityand neutralitywhenwe are dealing
with other human beings. In the diary, Malinowski sheds the mask of the impersonal
observer to write about his emotional outbreaks, his subjective response to the
people with whom he was forced to share a few years of his life.
The restudybyAnnette Weiner of Malinowski’s field area, revealed another source
of bias, what is now recognised in anthropological methodology as the gender bias.
Weiner found that Malinowski’s otherwise detailed and excellent ethnography had
completely ignored the important ritual and economic significance of women’s work.
The women of the Trobriand Islands playan important role in society, even though
they do not participate in the famous Kula exchange. Malinowski was a nineteenth-
centuryEuropeanmale. He was accustomed to a societywherewomenwere confined
to the domestic sphere only. Even when he observed the women weaving grass
skirts, hewould have dismissed it as ‘domestic’activity, not worthyofanthropological
attention. Weiner, a woman scholar born several decades after Malinowski, took
the women’s work seriously. She was able to understand that there is a world of
women apart from that of men. Manyanthropologists have dwelt on the self of the
anthropologist in interaction with the field since then. The anthropologist’s bodyand
mind are both gendered and also subjectively constituted. Each one of us have our
preconceived notions and our way of constructing the world, that is unconscious
and buried so deep that we tend to take some things for granted, what Bourdieu has
called doxa.

Reflection
Doxa are those aspects of life that we accept without question, that we
take as givens but the reality is that every such aspect is ‘constructed’.
These include ideas about what is considered ‘normal’in everysociety. It
is nearly impossible for anyone to rise above all such subjectivities and in
the post-modern times, there are anynumber of critiques of concepts and
findings of the modernist or colonial period.

The colonial period was also marked by the power hierarchybetween the observer
and the observed. The coining ofterms such as ‘tribe’, ‘wild’, ‘modern’, ‘traditional’
were all done with the goal ofadministration, extraction and extending the agenda of
the dominance of the First World ideologies. Wolf has made critical remarks on
how the concept of development and modernityare being used with a bias towards
the USA. So whenever modernisation theory is put into practice, “It used the term
modern but that term meant the United States” or as he puts it, an idealised version
of what USA stands for rather than what it really is. Similarly there is a tendency to
simplify categories. Terms like modern, traditionalwereessentialised into dichotomous
categories; without taking into account the internal differences. There is not one kind
of non-western society, nor is the USAa uniform society. Likewise, there is not one
kind of community that can be called as ‘tribe’.
Contemporary times are seeing a lot of critical gaze being turned onto these earlier
created categories, seeing their top-down bias, the role of power hierarchies in
creating them and the interests theyserved of particular categories of people.
A large amount of this criticism is being done by those scholars who earlier belonged
to the margins of society. In India, work by Dalit and tribal scholars are important 139
Theoretical Perspectives indicators that the earlier scholarship was both created by, and meant for those in
the mainstream. This scholarship was also more reflexive and oriented towards
narrating experiential realitythat in building formal structures (Channa and Mencher
2013). Rather than reify the experiential and lived data, such scholars focused on
narrating their life experiences so that the genre of poetry and poetics was often
used by them as a way of expression. Thus post-modernism moved beyond the
formal and the structures towards the experiential and reflexive modes of writing.
However there was a critique of post-modernism in that it sometimes became too
hazyand the subject matter itself became endangered. The critics were of the opinion
that there was enough solid data and factual empirical concerns that needed to be
addressed and one could not always dwell in the realm of the abstract. Thus even
from the margins, there were bottom-up approaches where the actual facts and
figures too played important role. Dalit studies focused on real-life conditions,
oppressions, poverty, lack of access to resources such as education and access to
political power. Tribal studies are focusing on actual data of land and resources lost
to the tribes, factual figures about atrocities along with more reflexive accounts of
identity and self-reflection. Thus while scholars are critiquing the rigidity of earlier
modes of analysis, this is not to replace all empiricism and reference to factual data.
The role of history both documented and oral, also plays a significant role in
anthropological ethnographies. There is also a focus on identities both ofthe self and
as codified by society (Channa 2016).
Check Your Progress 3
7. Suggest some of the markers for the post-modern period.
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
8. Why was the post-colonial era important inAnthropology?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

10.4 THE FEMINIST CRITIQUE

The Feminist critique is one form of the deconstruction of the white, male-centric
discipline that anthropology was in the colonial period.As described byAbu-Lughod
(2006:467; org.1991) “Feminism has been a movement devoted to helping women
become selves and subjects rather than objects and men’s others”. The feminist
approach brought certain methodological issues to anthropology. Firstly it was a
critical approach, rooted in the power differentiation between men and women and
assuming at least some form of universal subordination. In this sense some early
feminist scholars were critical of the cultural relativism of anthropologists, even ones
like Margaret Mead. Mead had inspired generations ofAmerican women, by letting
them know that ‘biology was not destiny’. Her work, Sex and Temperament in
Three Primitive Societies, was a seminal work that showed what is masculine and
what is feminine, may vary from society to society. In other words, nature had not
140 made men and women different from each other, but the culture had. This went
against the universal subordination of women, proposed by the early feminists, Contemporary Theories
especially the radical feminists, who identified universal subordination with biology
and sexuality.
However feminists of the first generation, namely who had an essentialised view
about men and women, as universal dichotomous categories, with similar problems
located ina universal construction ofmasculinityand femininity, were heavilycriticised
on many counts. The criticism was directed against what was regarded as ‘white,
middle class, elite’ feminists by non-white, non-western women, also non-
heterosexuals, lesbians, transsexuals and others who did not fit into neat compartments
of being men and women. In India, we have had Dalit women’s perspectives as
opposed to that of the upper caste and class women. In each case the argument has
been that there are different issues and problems that different categories of people
have. Every one cannot be reduced to the same essentialised concept. For example
African-American womencriticised the white, middle-class women’s efforts towards
sexual liberation. They put forward their alternate perspectives about wanting to
have their men around, as a majority ofAfricanAmerican young men are in jails.
What they were looking for was a life of dignitywhere they should not be perceived
only as sex objects. Inother words they wanted just the opposite of sexual liberation.
Similarly Dalit women had criticised the upper caste women’s liberation movement
in India, by saying that the concerns of the upper caste women; pertaining to child
and widow marriage, emancipation of women, etc., did not address their issues.
For them it was poverty, lack of resources, sexual exploitation and the grind of hard
work that were important issues. Thus Black feminist scholar Angela Davis had put
forward the question, as to whether feminist work was being developed “with an
adequate historical sense of differences among women” (c.f. Bhavnani 1994 :27).
But what feminism did contribute was to show the possibilities of alternative worlds,
alternative ways of knowing and it deconstructed some taken for granted ‘truth’ like
‘science’. It was the critical analysis of scholars like Donna Haraway (1988) and
Susan Harding (1991) that deconstructed the privileged position held by science
and they relabeled it as Western and male-centric body of knowledge, that far from
being eternal and a purely objective body of knowledge was biased and male-
centric. Theyshowed with examples frombiologicaland natural sciences that scientists
often set up their experiments, or engagein analysis, that is informed bypre-conceived
notions and analysis is often onlythe establishment of proof of what is alreadyin the
mind of the scientist. For example, with reference to studies on primate behaviour
done by men, it can be shown that men always ended up demonstrating the ‘facts’
of male dominance and female dependency but working with the same species,
women scholars often came up with startlingly different results.
There is in fact today a great deal of criticism of the concept of ‘science’ as an
infallible statement of the truth. Feminismcoined the concept of‘situated knowledge’
(Haraway 1988); with science being now recognised as ‘western science’ and ‘male-
centered knowledge’. Bydeconstructing the fulcrum of knowledge, they opened up
the possibility ofrecognition of alternative forms ofknowledge, especiallyknowledge
from the margins. Thus, “Feminist objectivity is about limited location and situated
knowledge, not about transcendence and splitting of subject and object. It allows us
to be answerable for what we see” (ibid: 583). In other words what Haraway is
pleading for is not grand and abstract theoryconstruction, in the name of science but
small, essential and applicable knowledge’s that are created and can be used
situationally. Thus the Feminist approach is criticalof the ethics and values of science
more than of its methodology. They are against an elitist science that may be used 141
Theoretical Perspectives for mass destruction but may not come to the rescue of a marginal few on the
ground.
The feminists, including those who are pleading for environmental conservation;
recognise that more than men and women as essentialised categories, what one is
looking for is masculine and feminine principles, that may manifest anywhere and in
anybody. The masculine are the dominating principles of today’s world, looking
towards more and more exploitation, of humans as well as of nature; eulogising
violence and aggressionin both the political and economic domain. Thus for long the
colonising western world has worshipped patriarchy and masculinity both as an
ideology and in practice. It is this aggression that has destroyed cultures, peoples
and the environment and continues to do so.
The feminine principles are of nurture, compassion, solidarity and building
relationships. These are indeed the classical feminine characters that were used by
men to denigrate women. But the contemporary feminists assert these very qualities
as life giving and globe sustaining. Thus the new generation of feminists do not deny
femininity as a form of weakness. Theyassert feminism as desired qualities both in
terms of methodologyand in practice.
In terms of methodology the feminist approach, humanises the object of knowledge
to perceive it “as an actor and agent, not as a screen or a ground or a resource,
never finally as slave to the master that closes off the dialectic in his unique agency
and his authorship of ‘objective’ knowledge”. In other words, while collecting data
as well in the analysis the entities that one is studying should be made part of the
interactive process of both data generation and the analysis. Thus the kind of analysis
that was done by, say the positivist symbolic analyst is not approved of by the
feminist scholars. Afeminist analysis does not simply go beyond creating a dialogue
but to include the subject as an actor, as an active participant in the process. This
also automaticallymeans that all analysis is contextualised within a specific context
and there is not too much possibilityof sweeping generalisations.
Thus, feminist analysis is not about womenor about gender, as is often falsely implied.
It is about incorporating and celebrating the feminine principles, values and ethics,
into research. This means a nurturing, caring and sharing attitude. When applied to
nature, it negates the earlier dominating and exploitative relationships which the
dominant masculine principles had established. Men can be feminists and women
can be masculine in their approach. It is the values that matter not the gender of the
person.

10.5 SUMMARY
In this unit we have reflected upon the paradigm shift in anthropology from the
seventies onwards. How the focus had shifted from evolution to functional aspects
to realisation and acknowledgement of unique human capacities, foremost among
them being the capacity for creativity and the capacity to symbolise. Thus it was not
possible to create mechanistic models of human behaviour as humans could if they
so wished completely change the course of their lives.
Another major transformation that came to the forefront was the anthropologists
themselves. The earlier anthropologists male and white-centric in the academic
community shifted to the former ‘objects’ of research who became scholars in their
own right and began to question the labels, assumptions and paradigms of the earlier
142 positivist approach. It became increasingly evident that the ‘truth’ that was being
propagated was onlythe ‘truth’ from one perspective and not from that ofthe ‘others’; Contemporary Theories
the native anthropologists, the women and the ‘marginal’ from within societies.
Although termed as a ‘post-colonial’ critique, it became evident that there were
more than one form of colonisation and there were many categories of people who
did not have a voice in the dissemination of knowledge. The women’s voices had
not been heard which came into prominence during this era.

10.6 REFERENCES
Abu-Lughod, Lila (1991). “WritingAgainst Culture” In Richard D Fox, Recapturing
Anthropology: Working in the Present. Santa Fe: School ofAmerican Research
Press.
Asad, Talal (1973). Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. London: Ithaca
Press.
Bhavnani, K.K. (1994). ‘Tracing the contours: Feminist research and feminist
objectivity’. In Halef Afsar and Mary Maynard (eds.) The Dynamics of ‘Race’
and Culuture. London: Tylor and Francis pp. 26-40.
Bordieu, Pierre (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice (Trans. Richard Nice)
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Channa, S., (2016). ‘Selves And Codified Bodies’. The Routledge Companion
to Contemporary Anthropology.
Channa, S.M. and Mencher, J.P. eds., (2013). Life as a Dalit: Views from the
Bottom on Caste in India. SAGE Publications India.
Clifford, James and George E Marcus. (eds) (1986). Writing Culture: The Poetics
and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Coleman, S., Hyatt, S.B. and Kingsolver, A. (eds.) (2016). The Routledge
Companion to Contemporary Anthropology. Taylor & Francis..
Davis, Angela Y. (1981). Women, Race and Class. New York: Random House.
Geertz, Clifford (1973). The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books.
Gennep, Arnold van. (1909). The Rites of Passage (trans by Monika B Vizedom
and Gabriella L Caffee.) London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
Haleh,Afsar and Mary Maynard. (eds.) (1994). The Dynamics of ‘Race’and Culture,
London: Taylor and Francis
Haraway, Donna. (1988). ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in feminism
and the Privilege of Partial Perspectives’. Feminist Studies. Vol14, no.3, pp 575-
600
Haraway, Donna J. (1991). Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of
Nature. New York: Routledge
Harding, Sandra. (1991). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Keesing, Roger. M (1987). ‘Anthropology as Interpretive Quest’ In Current
Anthropology. 28(2): 161-168
Leach, Edmund. (1961). Rethinking Anthropology. London School of Economics
143
Monograph on SocialAnthropology no.22. London: TheAthlone Press.
Theoretical Perspectives Lévi-Strauss, Claude. (1967). The Savage Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Malinowski, B. (1967). A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term. London: The
Athelone Press.
Marcus, G. E. (1999). Critical anthropology now: Unexpected contexts, shifting
constituencies, changing agendas. Sar Press.
Marcus, George. E. and Michael M J Fischer. (1986). Anthropology as Cultural
Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago Illinois:
University of Chicago Press
Mead, M. (1963). Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. (Vol:
370). New York: Morrow.
Ortner, Sherry. (1973). ‘On Key Symbols’. In American Anthropologist. 75 (5),
pp. 1338-1346.
Ortner, Sherry. (1984). “TheoryinAnthropology since the Sixties” In Comparative
Studies in Society and History 26: 126-166.
Said, Edward. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon.
Sperber, Daniel. (1975). Rethinking Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Turner, Victor. (1967). The Forest of Symbols. Ithaca: Cornell University of Press.
Turner, Victor. (1969). The Ritual Process. New Brunswick: Aldine Transactions.
Tylor, Stephen. A. (ed.) (1969). Cognitive Anthropology. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Weiner, Annette. (1967). Women of Value Men of Renown. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Winch, Peter. (1958). The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Wolf, Eric. (1982). Europe and the People without History. Berkeley: University
of California Press.

10.7 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

1. Language.
2. Victor Turner.
3. Sherry Ortner.
4. Victor Turner, van Gennep, Sherry Ortner etc.
5. Clifford Geertz.
6. See section 10.2.
7. See section 10.3.
8. See section 10.3.

144
SUGGESTED READING
Barnard, Alan. (2007). Social Anthropology: Investigating Human Social Life.
New Delhi: Viva Books Private Limited.
Clifford, James and George. E. Marcus. (eds) (1990). Writing Culture: The Poetics
and Politics of Ethnography. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Eriksen, Thomas Hylland. (2015). Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction
to Social and Cultural Anthropology (Fourth Edition). Pluto Press.
Engelke, M. (2018). How to Think Like an Anthropologist. Princeton, Oxford:
Princeton University Press.
Evans-Pritchard, E.E. (1940). The Nuer. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

(1981). A History of Anthropological Thought. London: Basic books.

Fortes, Meyer. (1969). Kinship and the Social Order. Chicago: Aldine Publishers.

Geertz, Clifford (1973). The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books.
Gennep, Arnold van (1909). The Rites of Passage (trans by Monika B Vizedom
and Gabriella L Caffee.) London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

Hall, Edward. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Garden City, N.Y.: AnchorPress/

Doubleday.

Haviland, W.A. (2003). Anthropology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Ingold, Tim. (1986). Evolution and Social Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

(2018). Anthropology: Why it Matters. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Kaplan, David and Robert AManners. (1972). Culture Theory. Illinois: Waveland
Press.
Lewis, I.M. (1976). Social Anthropology in Perspective: The Relevance of Social
Anthropology. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Monaghan, John and Peter Just. (2000). Social and Cultural Anthropology: A
Very Short Introduction.ISBN: 9780192853462

Moore, Henrietta, and Todd Sanders. (eds) (2006). Anthropology in Theory:

Issues in Epistemology. USA: Blackwell Publishing.

Stocking, G. (1974). The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883-1911: A

Franz Boas Reader. New York: Basic Books.

199