The Sociality of Animals

Author(s): A. P. Cheater and Tim Ingold

Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Jun., 1986), pp. 346-348
Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2803165
Accessed: 29-08-2016 20:42 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley, Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Man

This content downloaded from 201.179.161.88 on Mon, 29 Aug 2016 20:42:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
This content downloaded from 201.179.161.88 on Mon, 29 Aug 2016 20:42:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 CORRESPONDENCE 347

can appear to imply the behavioural refraction of Brown, 'is somewhat older and less novel than
these relations, seemingly as opposed to the real he allows'. When Ingold (i983: IS) argues that
structure of the invisible relations themselves, '[s]ocial relations, constituting consciousness,
which Radcliffe-Brown still emphasises cannot invest action with purpose, and in that sense
be apprehended directly by the researcher. But give it meaning', so that 'consciousness is a
structure remains a set of relationships, not the precondition for production; the conscious
units which are related. I find the atomic anal- model is not', his argument differs little from
ogy useful to explain this apparent contradic- that of Kropotkin (I9I4/Ig02) and does not, in
tion, for in it the set of relations gives an element
my understanding, contradict Radcliffe-
its specific identity, and change in any of these Brown. But Ingold's line-like that of Kropot-
relationships (of protons, neutrons and elec- kin but unlike those based on facile Marxism or
trons) generates a different identity (so that the computer simulation (e.g. Axelrod i984)-
fusion of two identical hydrogen nuclei creates does have the redeeming existential feature of
helium by its rearrangement of the relations being based on conscious, socially-based selec-
linking the two protons). It seems to me that tion. A view not uncommon in the nineteenth
such a model underlies Radcliffe-Brown's con- century, as he himself (i983: I2) acknowledges!
cept of structure, even though he does not expli- A. P. Cheater
cate it in such terms. Instead, we are faced with University of Zimbabwe
the implication of a 'two-tier structure' on the Axelrod, R. i984. The evolution of co-operation.
basis of which, perhaps correctly, L6vi-Strauss New York: Basic Books.
perceived similarities in their notions of struc- Cheater, A. P. i985. The sociality of animals.
ture, so emphatically rejected by Radcliffe- Man (N.S.) 20, 743-4.
Brown (Kuper I977: 42). Ingold, T. i983. The architect and the bee:
I find little published evidence for Ingold's reflections on the work of animals and
assumption that Radcliffe-Brown took over men. Man (N. S.) i8, I-20.
intact Durkheim's notion of the social person, i985. The sociality of animals. Man
which assumption creates a wider gulf than (N. S.) 20, 744-6.
exists in Radcliffe-Brown's own writing be- Kropotkin, P. I9I4/I902. Mutual aid. Boston:
tween the postulation of structural form as 'a Extending Horizons Books.
putatively persistent arrangement of parts or Kuper, A. (ed.) I977. The social anthropology of
positions' (Ingold i985: 745) and structure as a Radclffe-Brown. London: Routledge &
set of relations. When Ingold (i985: 745) states Kegan Paul.
that with Radcliffe's alleged switch 'from the Needham, R. I975. Radcliffe-Brown and Daisy
Spencerian to the Durkheimian mode ... Bates. Man (N.S.) 10, 3II-I3.
structure promptly ceases to be an interactional Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. I952. Structure andfunc-
network and reappears as a higher-level tion in primitive society. London: Cohen &
arrangement of normative institutions, unique West.
to mankind, imposing a determination of its Salter, E. I975. Radcliffe-Brown and Daisy
own on human relations', he is, in my opinion, Dates. Man (N.S.) 10, 473-4.
wrong. Radcliffe-Brownian structure is better Scheffler, H. W. I975. Radcliffe-Brown and
conceived as being simultaneously an interac- Daisy Bates. Man (N. S.) 10, 3 I0-I I .
tional framework and the normative regulation
of this interaction.
Furthermore, it is unlikely in such 'an at- The answer to Cheater's first two criticisms
tempted synthesis of extraordinarily diverse lies in an important paper on the concept of
elements' (Ingold i985: 745) that Radcliffe- social evolution that Radcliffe-Brown pub-
Brown simply took over intact Durkheim's lished in I947, in which he cites extensively
conceptualisation. In his related concept of 'so- from Spencer's Principles of sociology and from
cial personality', Radcliffe-Brown contradicts his Social statics. The hive of bees appears here
Ingold's understanding of what he means by too: their social life, Radcliffe-Brown remarks
'social person', for the social personality is the in a footnote, 'is an example of Spencer's super-
aggregate of all social roles in a specific humanorganic'. The remark was aimed at Bidney,
being at a particular point in time, for which an
whom he criticises for having failed to observe
overall 'governor' is difficult to identify in the distinction between this Spencerian usage,
Radcliffe-Brown's writings. Not only does the which equates the super-organic with the social,
human being have a unique social personality, and that which equates it with the cultural.
this personality also changes over time (Radclif-'Would Dr Bidney', he asks, 'hold that the
fe-Brown I952: I93-4). Spencerian concept of the super-organic implies
For all the above reasons, then, I stand by that
my my bees have a "culture"?' (I947: 79fn. i).
original allegation that Ingold's (I983) own On Cheater's third criticism: I do not misrep-
argument, based on a particular (and in my resent Kropotkin, who in developing his ideas
opinion erroneous) reading of Radcliffe- on mutual aid explicitly acknowledges Dar-

This content downloaded from 201.179.161.88 on Mon, 29 Aug 2016 20:42:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 348 CORRESPONDENCE

win's contribution on the same subject in The I cannot comment in detail on Cheater's ex-
descent of man (I874: I67, see Kropotkin I902: position of the Radcliffe-Brownian concept of
2-3, I I0-I I). Likewise contemporary structure. I do not understand how a structure
sociobiologists, in their treatment of what they can be both an interactional network and a
call altruism, take their cue from Darwin, and regulative, institutional order at one and the
not at all from Durkheim, who meant some- same time, and in consequence I find much of
thing quite different by the term. Their view of her argument incomprehensible. Clearly,
altruism, just like Kropotkin's of mutual aid, is a however, there is a worthwhile project awaiting
thoroughly 'hardnosed' one. a future intellectual biographer of Radcliffe-
On the fourth point, Kropotkin is admittedlyBrown, who might have more than his meagre
generous in his ascription of consciousness to published writings to go by.
non-human animals. So generous, in fact, that Tim Ingold
one is inclined to scepticism-even ants are University of Manchester
credited with reason and free will, and are sup- Darwin, C. I 874. The descent of man and selection
posed to take individual initiative (I902: I4). in relation to sex (2nd edn). London: John
Nevertheless, Kropotkin cannot regard con- Murray.
scious self-awareness as a precondition for Kropotkin, P. I902. Mutual aid: afactor of evolu-
mutual aid and sociality, since he fully antici- tion. London: Heinemann.
pates that examples will be discovered 'of un- Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. I947. Evolution, social
conscious mutual support, even from the life of or cultural? Am. Anthrop. 49, 78-83.
micro-organisms' (I902: IO).

This content downloaded from 201.179.161.88 on Mon, 29 Aug 2016 20:42:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms