Unit-Two Evolutionism

Meaning
The term 'evolution' has been derived from the Latin word 'evolver' in Latin combines 'E'
means 'out' and 'valve' which means 'unfold' or 'devolve'. Hence 'evolution' means bring
something out. Evolution can be put into a formulas that is

Evolution = continuous changes + definite direction + differences in quality + differences

in action.
Evolutionism is based on assumption that societies gradually change from simple beginning
to complex forms later on Every society of the world begins with a simple and homogenous
society to a more complex and continuously and they pass through certain stages
developments.

Definitions:

Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of English

Evolution is a continued and progressive process out or developing from earlier simpler forms
to more complicated and sophisticated forms.
Ogburn and Nimkoff
Evolution is merely change in a direction.
Maclver and Page
When there is not only the continuity of change, but direction of change, we mean evolution.
Karl Popper
Evolution is nothing itself, but the evolution of life on earth or human society is a unique
process.
Herbert Spencer
Evolution is a process applicable in organic and inorganic field. It is the integration of matter
and concomitant dissipation of motion during which matter passes from indefinite coherent
homogeneity to a definite coherent heterogeneity.
Context of Evolutionism
A social theory cannot evolve suddenly at a moment. It is developed under certain
circumstances, ideological background and context. The following are the contexts which led
to the emergence and development of evolutionism.

(1.) Traditional Thought about social and Biological Evolution

Traditional thought that the human society was previously similar to the modern society or
even better was prevalent before the emergence of evolutionary theory. People used to think
and believe that the God had created human society which was better, more civilized and
more blissful but the people were not able to endure that society. Mankind fell due to their sin.
Some of the social thinkers denied accepting this traditional theory which led to the invention
or emergence of modern theory.

(2.) Emergence of Biological Evolutionism

In 1809, Lamarck published his Theory of Acquired Characters which remarked that the
development of the species of animals was due to the gradual change of the structure and
organism of their body which was according to their environmental surroundings and
adaptation. Similarly Charles Darwin published his famous book Origin of Species in 1859. In
his book it was said that the origin and development of animals is due the gradual process of
evolution. Darwin played a major role for the origin of evolutionary theory.

(3.) Comparative Study between Organism and Society

Those who were fascinated and influenced by Darwin's theory of organic evolution applied it
to the human society. Herbert Spencer, a British sociologist, carried an analogy of organism
with society. He argued that societies must have evolved from the too simple and primitive to
that of too complex and advanced form. He argued that society itself is like an organism.
Edward Tylor and Lewis Henry Morgan also followed this analogy of society with organism.

(4.) Compote's Laws of Three Stages

Law of three stages propounded by Auguste Compte also played a role in the
emergence of evolutionary theory. He argued that each branch of our knowledge passes
successively through three different stages: the theological or fictitious stage, the
metaphysical or abstract stage, and lastly the scientific of positive stage. This he wrote in his
book Course of positive philosophy. He also argued about social dynamics. His thought also
led to the emergence of evolutionary theory.

(5.) Role of Travelers, Christian Missionaries and Businessmen

Marco polo, Vasco de Gama, Huen Tsan etc. traveled all over the world and collected a
lot of information about the societies and cultures of the different parts of the world. Similarly
Christian missionaries and businessmen also traveled different parts of the world. Gathering
of information of the various societies and cultures of the world led the social scientists to
study and search about the relative history of different cultures .This led to the emergence of
evolutionary theory.

(6.) Influence of Science

Social sciences such a political science, history etc. and natural sciences such as physics,
chemistry biology etc. made a great development during the course of social progress. After
the development of science, every action of the world is analyzed scientifically with cause and
effect relationships. When the sciences analyzed the differential structure and characteristics
of human physiology, the new thought about the development of human body which
challenged the traditional thought about it. This led to the emergence of evolutionary theory.

(7.) Intellectual Enlightenment

Nineteenth century may be regarded as the age of intellectual enlightenment. In this age, men
are too much influenced by the social and scientific analysis, study, discourse and awareness.
Intellectuals refused old traditional and religious theories and replaced them with new theories
which were bided on scientific research and analysis. Proofs, verifications and logical
explanations were sought in every incidents, concepts and theories. This ultimately led to the
refusal of the world as a gift from God. Evolutionary theory was propounded to explain the
historical development of the world.
The above mentioned points proves that the emergence and development of evolutionary
theory is not a sudden invention but based on various intellectual backgrounds.

Key Assumptions of Evolutionism

(1.) Evolution is the Universal Process

2
 The process of evolution applies to all the societies of the world. Since the process of
gradual and continuous change from a simple, homogenous society to a complex,
heterogeneous society applies to all the societies of the world, the evolutionary theory is not
confined to any specific or particular society in the world. Evolutionist Herbert Spencer
argued that the law of evolution is not only seen in societies but also in geography and
climates.

(2.) Culture and Society Develops from Simple to Complex

The main assumption of evolutionism is that societies change from simple and
homogeneous societies to complex and heterogeneous societies. Any organism is a unicellular
in the beginning. But it gains its different organs in its body later on and it develops into
complex animals and human beings. Human society which is analogous to an organism also
passes through the different stages of development.

(3.) Every Society and Culture Passes through Certain Stages of Development
According to classical evolutionists, each societies of the world necessary pass from certain
gradual development from the primitive uncivilized stage to the civilized one. Each society in
the beginning was hunter and gatherer society. Later it became pastoral, agricultural and even
later it became a machine and factory user's society. They argue that a society never returns to
its precious stage. Edward Tylor argued that a society passes through savagery, barbarism
and civilization stage necessarily and independently.

(4.) Evolution is a Differentiation Process

A seed of a plant is very simple and homogeneous in the beginning. On the later stages of
development and growth, it is divided clearly into roots, branches, stem, leaves, flowers and
fruits. In the same way the simple and homogeneous society and culture in the beginning also
is differentiated into complex and heterogeneous society. Thus evolution can be said to the
process of dedderentiation from simple to complex.

(5.) Emphasis on Psychic Unity of Mankind, Parallel Invention and Cultural Parallel
Another assumption of evolutionism is that the mental capacity of all the people of the world
is almost equal. That is why all the people discover various tools in the same way. The
cultures at various places of the world are also similarly developed due to this concept. In
similar environment and surrounding circumstances, all the people of the world can invent
parallel way. Their cultural growth is also similar and equal.

(6.) Each Institutions Evolves Independently on the Setting of Local Culture

Social institutions such a marriage, festivals, kinship, religion, belief etc, of each society
are different and they are based on their local cultures. Needs and problems of each societies
are also different which makes their methods of solving such problems are also different.
Each society has its own characteristics, ways of life, procedures, aims and problems and they
are based on their local cultural settings.

(7.) Evolution is the Causes of Internal Growth

A change in any matter which is due to external elements is not said evolution. For
evolution it should be grown or developed spontaneously and internally without any external
intervention. Darwin, Spencer, Maclver and page have also accepted this notion of evolution.

(8.) Evolution is the Causes of Internal Growth

3
 Another assumption of evolutionism is the process of evolution takes place continuously and
gradually. It does not occur all of a sudden.

(9.) Evolution Necessarily Involves progress

Another important assumption of evolutionism is that evolution necessarily involves
progress. Each society and culture always develops or grows towards better, civilized,
complex from and it never goes back to its preliminary stages. Each later stage is more
advanced, more developed and more standardized than before. Evolutionists have termed this
kind of growth as unilinear growth.

Variants of Evolutionism

Evolutionary theory was evolved in the nineteenth century. Since its emergence,
various anthropologists have given different views and explanations about it. For the
systematic discussion of such explanations, it would be easier divide then as follows.
1.) Unilinear Evolutionary theory
August Compete
James Frazer
Lewis Henry Morgan
Johann Bachofen
Karl Marx
2.) Universal Evolutionary Theory
Herbert Spencer
Leslie White
Emile Durkheim
3.) Multiliniar Evolutionary Theory
Gordon Childe
Julian Steward
Leslie White

Unilinear Evolutionary Theory

Unilinear evolutionists are those who argue that the human society develops through the
same linear stages. The following are some of such evolutionists.

Auguste Compte (1798-1857)

Anguste Compte, a French citizen, is famous as the father of sociology. He was first man to
study social phenomena in scientific manner. He began to study social actions by
investigation, experiment and verification. He thought it is necessary to have a separate
science and named it social physiology at first, social physics after then and finally the term
sociology. He also divided sociology into social static and social dynamics. He confirmed the
historical progress of different sciences in chronological order as follows: mathematics,
astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and sociology. According to Compte, mathematics is
the oldest science and sociology is the newest of all sciences.
Compte argued that the main basis of social change is the development of idea or
thought. According to him, any society, knowledge or thought passes through the following
three stages of development:
1.) Fictitious or Theological Stage
2.) Metaphysical or Abstract Stage
3.) Positive or Scientific Stage
4
1.) Fictitious or Theological Stage
This Stage is the primitive stage of development. At this stage human brain was developed
little. This stage is dominated by priests and military. Hence it is also called military stage. In
this stage, it is thought that all things are caused by supernatural beings. The mind invokes
Gods and Goddesses and seeks to explain phenomena by ascribing them to beings
comparable to man him. In this stage, all theoretical conceptions, whether general or special,
bear a supernatural impress. Scientific investigations and researches were never done in this
stage. Polytheism was believed. This stage remained up to 1300.

2.) Metaphysical or Abstract Stage

The metaphysical thinking is almost an extension of theological thinking. Rationalism
started instead of imagination. In this stage monotheism was believed and the God was
thought to be abstract. Principles and theories gained ascendancy over feelings and
speculations. This stage continued from 1300 to 1800. In this stage, reasoning helped man to
find out some order in natural world. This stage was the mixture of philosophy and fantasy. In
this stage, plutocracy was practiced in spite of autocracy.

3.) Positive or Scientific Stage

This stage is the most developed and final stage of development. This stage is also called
the stage of science and factories. In this stage observation predominates over imagination.
All theoretical concepts have become positive. This stage represents the scientific way of
thinking. People believed less on religion and secularism was developed. Humanity and
democracy were also developed. This stage is dominated by industrial administrators and
scientists. According to Compete, this stage has begum from 1800 onwards.

James Frazer (1854-1941)

Sir James Frazer was born in Scotland. His literary talent first introduced social
anthropology to the general reading. He made social anthropology popular to all. He
published his famous book Golden Bough in 1890 in 12 volumes. This book was praised all
over the world. He postulated three stages of development through which all societies pass:
1.) Magic
2.) Religion
3.) Science

1.) Magic
Early man knew nothing of science. They possessed completely wrong idea of
natural causes. They were too much influenced by magic. The earlier man lived primarily by
erroneous principles on which all his magic was based: "law of similarity" and "law of
contact". The first principle believed that nature can be controlled by imitating it. If rain was
needed, water was poured if they wanted to harm any enemy, a doll similar to him was made
and needles run through its head and heart. According to their second law, they believed that
connections remain in force even after separation. They used to burn their enemy's hair, nail
clippings or clothing so that they thought it would harm the owner of such things. In this way
there was an absence of science and scientific thought in the first stage of human
development.

2.) Religion

5
 Belief in magic was reduced gradually. This was gradually displaced by supernatural
power. It was believed that non-human powers ruled the universe. With this insight religion
was born. Magicians were changed into religious specialists and priests. They claimed that
they were able to contact supernatural spirits and they could persuade those spirits to act on
their behalf. They began to rule claiming themselves to be the representatives of Gods.
Gradually they became divine kings.

3.) Science
At the final stage of human development, beliefs over magic and religion were
gradually lessened. People thought that the religious beliefs were imaginary, unscientific and
superstitious. They began experiment, investigation and verification to explain any social or
natural events.

Lewis Henry Morgan (1818-1881)

Lewis Henry Morgan was an American anthropologist. He studied about Iroquois
Indians in detail. Kart Marx and Frederick Eagles were also influenced by Morgan’s Ancient
Society.
Morgan’s View on Evolution of Society
In his famous book Ancient Society, published in 1877, Morgan has put forward the
following three stages of the development of human society:
1.) Savagery Stage
2.) Barbarian Stage
3.) Civilization Stage
1.) Savagery Stage
In the first stage of human development, men lived in the forests. This stage
ranges from the beginning of human life to the invention of art of pottery. Morgan
has subdivided this stage into the following three sub-stages:
a.) Lower (Older) Savagery
b.) Middle Savagery
c.) Upper (Later) Savagery
a.) Lower (Older) Savagery stage
In this stage, men lived on fruits, roots and wild animals. Men used to live
in den and under the trees. There were on social institutions. Sex was
totally free. In this stage, men learned to make sounds and speech.
b.) Middle Savagery Stage
Men invented fire and started eating burnt fleshes. They also learnt to
fish. They were gathered in small groups to live commonly. With such
collective subsistence they were able to kill large animals and were safe
against their enemies. Morgan claimed that the Australian and Polynesian
tribes represented this stage of human development. In this stage, men
learned to make sounds and speech.
c.) Upper (Later) Savagery Stage
In this stage, men invented bow and arrow and they also made
pottery of simple types. Their nomadic life became a little stable. They
also learnt to make family, although sex was still free. They fought with
other groups collectively and not individually.

2.) Barbarian Stage

6
 According to Morgan, this is the second stage of the development
of human society. Pottery, taming of wild animals, stable life, agriculture
and improved metal tools are the main characteristics of this stage.
Morgan further dub-divided this stage into the following three stages:
a.) Lower (Older) Barbarism
b.) Middle Barbarism
c.) Upper (Later) Barbarism
a.) Lower (Older) Barbarism
The art of pottery was developed in this stage. Men started to
keep individual property and this led to the social stratification among
them. Men began agriculture and hence stable life was also appeared.
Family life began, but sex was still free and marriage system was not
existent.
b.) Middle Barbarism
The main feature of this stage is irrigation of plants and making of
bricks and tiles. Nomadic life ended and stable life clearly appeared.
Maize was cultivated. Men learnt to exchange goods with each other.
Sexual relationships were systematized.
c. Upper (Later) Barbarism
This stage is also known as metal age. This is because men
learnt the smelting process of iron ore and hence was able to make metal
pots, and trolley with metal wheels. Small republics were formed. Division
of labor differentiated between men and women. Women were thought as
asset of men. Men invented the art of making oil, spinning wheel, timber
boat, making houses, small towns and forts for fighting etc.
3.) Civilization Stage
Invention of phonetic alphabet is the main feature of the civilization
stage. Haphazard sexual activities were controlled and it was limited of
married couples only. State was formed and laws were made for social
control. By virtue of the development of science, industrialization and
urbanization fostered. Materialistic thought influenced the society.
Capitalism and democratic system evolved.

Period Conditions
Older Savagery Subsistence of fruits and roots, invention of speech etc.
Middle Savagery Fishing and use of fire
Later Savagery Bow and arrow developed
Older Barbarism Art of pottery developed
Middle Barbarism Domestication of animals, irrigation of plants, cultivation of
maize , making of brick and tile etc.
Later Barbarism Invention of the process of smelting iron ore, use of iron tools
etc.
Civilization Invention of phonetic alphabet and writing
Source : An Introduction to Anthropological Thought by Makhan Jha

Johann Jacob Bachofen (1815-1877)

7
 Johann Jacob Bachofen was a lawyer by profession. He believed that there were
matrilineal families before patrilineal families. He studied Greek literature. Collecting
sufficient materials from literature he found that in early societies children were named after
their mothers. He wrote a book das multlerrecht in German in 1861. He postulated the three
stages or types of societies :
1.) Hetarism (Sexual Promiscuity)
2.) Amazonian Assortiveness
3.) Patriarchal Families
1.) Hetaerism
In the earliest period of hetaerism, women were only sex objects. The condition of
women in society was miserable. Sexual relationship had on any rule. There was possible to
know the real father of a child.
2.) Amazonian Assortiveness
Later on women revolted against the hetaerism and they were able to get their
upper hand in social affairs. Right of mothers prevailed. There was dominance of women in
this stage.
3.) Patriarchal Society
Women tired of the whole activities and wanted husband to care for them. This
finally led to the evolution of father rights. Thus patriarchal form of society was finally
formed.

Karl Marx (1818-1883)

Karl Marx was born in a Jewish family in Germany. He is also called a unilinear
evolutionist because he argued that every societies of the world pass through different stages
of development. His stages are determined by economic relations and class struggle. He
argued that one system of society is changed into another due to class struggle. He said that
the development of a society is determined by its economic structure, which is called
economic determinism. He analyzed the history of the world materially which in known as
historical materialism.
Marx argued that the cause of transformation of a previous society into external but
its internal contradictions within itself. He divided the history of human society into the
following stages:
1.) Primitive Communism
2.) Slavery Stage
3.) Feudal Stage
4.) Capitalism Stage
5.) Socialism Stage
6.) Communism Stage

1.) Primitive Communism Stage

This is the first stage of human society, according to Marx. In this stage men collected
fruits and roots and hunted animals from the forest and used it collectively. No one had any
private property. There were neither' haves', not 'haves', not 'have notes'. This means classes
were non existent.

2.) Slavery Stage

In the slavery stage, men began using metal tools in place of stone tools.
Agriculture and domestication of animals were also started. Men used to keep their private
8
properties. This led to the social stratification. One who owned a lot of land and animals was
the owner of the slaves whereas those who did not have any land and animals were slaves. In
this way the society was divided into two classes of people- slaves and masters. The masters
sold the slaves like materials. They exploited the slaves too much which ultimately led to their
revolt. The revolt overthrew the slavery system and established feudal system of society.
3.) Feudal Stage
In the feudal stage, land was owned by a few landlords whereas most of the people
were agricultural workers. Though the workers were free unlike slaves, they got a little wage
to subsist from the landlords. The landlords persuaded the workers to hard work in a little
wages. The workers became dissatisfied with such a little wage and reviled against the
landlords. Feudal society was overthrown and capitalism was born.

4.) Capitalism Stage

The capitalistic society was formed by virtue of industrialization and urbanization. In
this stage, the society was divided into two classes-bourgeoisies, who owned the factory, and
proletariats, who worked in the factory for their livelihood. The proletariats had no any
property. According to Marx, the proletarians have nothing to lose, but the chains. The
bourgeois exploited the proletariats too much by giving a little wages and getting more profit.
This led to the class struggle between these classes. Marx predicted that this kind of class
struggle throws all the capitalistic system throughout the world to establish the dictatorship of
proletariat.

5.) Socialism Stage

After the demise of capitalism, the workers will take the power themselves. They own
the factories collectively. All the means of production are owned by the proletarians. The
basic needs of all people like food, shelter and clothing will be fulfilled. In spite of this, class
contradiction will be remained a little.

6.) Communism Stage

According to Marx, communism is the last stage of human society. In this stage,
classes are eliminated totally. States will wither away. Society will be developed and civilized
in its extreme form. There will not be any class struggle.

Universal Evolutionary Theory

Universal evolutionary theory also believes that the society changes from a simple
form to a complex one, but unlike unilinear theory it does not argue that each society of the
world must pass through certain stage of development. The development process differs from
society to society. A savagery society may jump into an industrial society at once. Local
environment affects the social change process. The following are some of the universal
evolutionists:

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)

Emile Durkheim thinks that the basis of social and cultural changes is division
of labor. Based on division of labor, he identified two forms of society:
1.) Mechanical Solidarity
2.) Organic Solidarity
9
 1.) Mechanical Solidarity
In this stage, people are homogenous, mentally and morally. Communities are
uniform. A society having a mechanical solidarity is characterized by strong collective
conscience. As society became more voluminous and denser, more people come into contact
with one another, they compete for scarce resources and there is rivalry everywhere.

2.) Organic Spencer Organic solidarity develops out of differences rather than likeness
between individuals in modern societies. In this stage, individuals are no longer similar but
different. Their mental and moral similarities have disappeared. A society having organic
solidarity is characterized by specialization, division of labor and individualism.

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)

Herbert Spencer was born in England. He was a philosopher who led the
nineteenth century's intellectual revolution. He published an article in 1852 and rejected
Creationism. He supported Lamarck. He was influenced by jean Baptist Lamarck. After the
publication of Darwin's book in 1859, he was also influenced by Darwin. That is why Spencer
is also known as social Darwinist. He was of opinion that evolution was a cosmic process,
operating in the socio-cultural sphere as well as in organic and inorganic realms. He made an
analogy of an organism with human society.
Spencer wrote many books on biology, psychology, ethics, political science and
sociology. According to Spencer, Society changes from simple to complex, homogeneity to
heterogeneity and indefinite to definite.
Spencer put forward the following stages of social evolution:
1.) Hunting and Food-Gathering Stage
2.) Pastoral Stage
3.) Agricultural Stage
4.) Industrial Stage

1.) Hunting and Food Gathering Stage

In the primitive stage of human development, men collected fruits and roots and hunted
wild animals. Men lived unstable and nomadic life. Spencer has termed this society as
military society.

2.) Pastoral Stage

In the second stage, men began to domesticate animals. In earlier times, they killed the
animals immediately as they found it, but later on they learnt to tame the animals, grow their
offspring and use the animals as reserve food at the time of scarcity. Social life was also
changed from nomadic to a little stable. However, since they had to travel here and there in
search of pasture land for feeding grass to animals, they were not able to reside in a place
permanently. They also learnt to get wool and milk from the animals apart from meat.

3.) Agricultural Stage

In the stage, man learnt to grow crops from seeds. They began agriculture. Since they
need certain farm land to plant and harvest crops, their social life became stable.

4.) Industrial and Technological Stage

10
 This stage began after the development of machine and factories. Production and
distribution of goods expanded all over the world. The life of the people changed rapidly and
the people began to settle down in towns and cities. This led to urbanization and
industrialization.
Multilinear Evolutionary Theory
Multiliniar evolutionary theory believes that the change in society and culture is based
on the environmental and ecological changes in nature. A society changes its culture to adapt
the new environment and by this adaptation its culture develops and grows further.
This theory was originated in 1950s. Julian Steward was its main originator. He
analyzed the societies as cultures of China, Egypt and America comparatively and disproved
the notion that each society of the world should pass the same stage of development.

Neo-Evolutionists
Evolutionary theory was originated and developed in the nineteenth century.
The evolutionists of twentieth century modified and innovated the classical evolutionary
theory of the nineteenth century which is called neo-evolutionism. Among the neo-
evolutionists, the well known are Gordon Childe, Julian Steward and Leslie White.

Gordon Childe (1902-1972)

Gordon Childe explained the evolution process as three main events viz.food
production, urbanization and industrialization. Based on archeological findings, he proposed
the following stage of cultural development.

S.N. Archeological period Cultural development

1. Paleolithic Savagery
2. Neolithic Barbarism
3. Copper age Higher Barbarism
4. Early Bronze age Civilization
Julian Steward (1902-1972)
Julian Steward used the term 'cultures' in spite of the word 'culture' as used by the classical
evolutionists. He argued we can not unite all the cultures of the world as a single culture but
they should be dealt with separately. He argued we can not define a single Lau and a set of
similar stages to cover all the cultures of the world.
Julian steward for the first time divided the evolutionist into the following three types
1. Unilinear Evolutionists
2. Universal Evolutionists
3. Multilinear Evolutionists
Leslie white (1900-1975)
Leslie white is said to be the founder of neo-evolutionism. He was the most
controversial American anthropologist. Although he was the disciple of Franz Boas, he was
too much influenced by Tylor and Morgan. He thought the Energy is the main basis of the
development of culture. According to him, the development of culture is for the sake of
fulfilling men's needs and it is the means for survival. He proposed an equation which defines
culture as
C=T*E
OR, culture= Technology*Energy
By the development of technology, man can use more energy which leads to the growth of
culture.

11
 Review of Contributions by Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-1917)

Edward Burnet Tylor was a classical unilinear evolutionist. He is a British

anthropologist. He traveled Mexico in 1856 and investigated period cave in Mexico very
carefully. He worked as a caretaker of museum in Oxford University. Later he obtained
readership and professorship there. Tylor is famous for his satisfactory definition of culture
since it is the central subject matter of anthropology. He wrote many books, most of which are
popular. We can summarize the contributions of Tylor as follows:
1) First Scientific Concept of Culture
2) Evolutionary Idea
3) Concept of Continuity of History
4) Study of primitive Religion
5) Matriarchal Form of Society and Couvades

1) First Scientific of Culture

Culture is the focal subject matter of anthropology and Tylor is the first person to define it
in a scientific manner. His definition of culture is even popular and satisfactory till nowadays.
In the first page of his famous book primitive Culture he wrote: "Culture or civilization is
that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, and habits acquired
by man as a member of society."
In his definition he puts emphasis on the term 'acquired'. This means that
culture is acquired or learnt by man after his birth. Culture is something that is acquired by
man as a member of society. This can not be a private property of a person. Culture is a
common heritage of society. A single person cannot have culture. It must be owned by a
society. Culture is not something that a person achieves in his birth. Culture is transmitted
from a person to another, one generation to another and one society to another. Culture is not
transmitted genetically but it is learnt from society. According to Tylor culture is a historical
process and hence its study should be done in historical point of view. His definition of
culture is popular even today. Since he defined culture in a scientific manner, he is also
sometimes called as cult urologist.
2) Evolutionary Idea of Tylor
Tylor argued that the culture gradually develops from simplicity to complexity. He put
forward the following three stages of human development:
a) Savagery stage
b) Barbarism
c) Civilization
a) Savagery Stage
Savagery stage was the primitive stage of human development. In this stage men
nomadic and they resided collectively. Their main means of livelihood was hunting wild
animals and collecting roots of plants. They also learnt fishing and use of fire in this stage.
Men used symbolic language to communicate each other. Men were totally dependent on
nature and hence their intellectual thought was very little.
b) Barbarism
In this stage, men learnt to protect their group from other groups and to attack other
groups. Stable settlement was started. Men learnt pottery, animal husbandry, agriculture and
the use of iron tools.
c) Civilization
12
 This is the highest, civilized and developed stage of human development. In this
stage, men invented language, script, and art of writing. They set up political institutions and
the government to organize there. They started the investigation, study and logical system of
analyzing things and actions.
3) Concept of Continuity of History
Tylor believed that culture is a historical process. He was influenced by positivism of
August Compte and also by the laws of natural history of mankind. Tylor believed in the
continuity of cultural history. He argued that mankind must have passed from a primitive
prehistoric stage, a middle stage, and finally to the more advanced civilized stage. In this
book' Anthropology' published in 1881, he tied to describe these three stages briefly. He
thought that these three stages are empirical generalizations of history.
4) Study of primitive Religion
Tylor studied primitive religion and tried to explain its types and process of
development. He attempted to verify evolution in religious perspective. He thought that
religion is the universal form of culture. One should learn religion to understand the culture.
We can divide the following three forms of religion put forward by Tylor.
a) Animism
b) Polytheism
c) Monotheism

a) Animism
Animism was the primitive stage of religion. In savage stage, men thought that every
matter in the world contains a living soul in it. They believed the existence of the God in the
form of living soul. That is why they worshiped stone, soul, plants, water, nature and their
ancestor's ad God. They worshiped soul to protect themselves from the calamities of nature.
b) Polytheism
In the second stage of development, men thought that there are many Gods and
Goddesses and they should worship them all to satisfy them. This stage was more logical and
thoughtful than animism. Polytheism was prevalent in ancient Roman, Greek, Persian and
Hindu religion.
c) Monotheism
In the last stage of the development of religion, men believed that there is only one
God instead of several Gods and Goddesses. They tried to satisfy the single God.
Criticism of Edward Tylor
1) Armchair Anthropologist
Tylor has been criticized as an armchair anthropologist as he made his theories just
sitting in a room and not going to the field. It is alleged that he made conclusion by referring
to the books and studies made primarily by others.
2) Ignorance of the Social Aspects of Religion
Religion is the belief in Supernatural beings. It is based on such beliefs which are
invisible, imagined and fictitious and which cannot be verified by science. But the belief in
such beings plays a great role in social control and social organization. Tylor studied about
the evolution and development of religion but he did not mention about the social aspects of
religion.

3) No Distinction between Evolution and Progress of Culture

13
 Tylor made no distinction between evolution of culture and its progress, but they are
quite different from each other.
Critique of Evolutionism
1) The evolutionists are armchair anthropologists. They never went to the field to study but
made theories based on the studies already made by others. Field work is the main basis of
anthropological studies.
2) Evolutionists argue that each societies of the world must pass through certain stages of
historical development. This is wrong. A society in hunting gathering stage can directly go to
the industrial stage without passing through agricultural stage.
3) It is not compulsory that each society should pass through lower stage to higher stage and
uncivilized stage to a civilized one. A civilized culture may be degraded in course of time.
4) Evolutionists did not mention any role of culture diffusion. A culture may be transmitted
from a society to another through migration, communication, trade, travel or marital relations.
5) Evolution is just a historical description of society and culture, but it is not a theory. This is
only a point of view towards culture and not any logical generalization.
6) There cannot be a single law or rule to describe the development of culture in different
societies. There may be political, social, natural, economic, religious and other aspects of
cultural development. This makes the cultures of different societies different from each other.
7) Evolutionists do not mention about the conflicts occurring in a society. The conflict also
plays a major role in the change and development of culture.
Implications of Evolutionism
Though evolutionism has been criticized severely in the twentieth century, one can not
underestimate its role and importance in studying culture. Its implications may be summarized
as follows:
1.) Helpful in Reconstruction of History of Human Culture and Society
Evolutionism deals with the origin and development of culture from its beginning to
the modern civilization. This helps in understanding the culture in scientific manner and
reconstructing the concept of culture in different societies.
2.) Effect on other Theories about Culture Growth
Further study and research were carried out based on his theory. Anthropologists tried
to remove the shortcomings of evolutionism and redefine it. This led to the development of
new theories such as diffusions, functionalism etc. Evolution has a great role in evolving the
later theories.
3.) Role in Reducing the Racial Concept
Evolution made comparative and historical study of the different cultures of the world
which helped to reduce the racial concept to some extent.
4.) Helpful to know the Real Meaning of Culture
Culture cannot be understood well in the present content only. Historical and
evolutionary study will help to understand and define culture in proper way. Evolutionism
tries to peer into the past to know the culture.

CHAPTER TWO (B)

Diffusionism

Introduction
Diffusion theory was evolved in the beginning years of the 20th century. This theory
was emerged as the conscious revolt against the unilinear evolutionism. Diffusion is a process
of spreading and transmitting the social values, traditions, norms, lifestyles and culture from
14
one place to another. That is why diffusion refers to the process of spreading the cultural traits
from a group, community, state or city to other group, community etc.
Diffusionism is an anthropological theory which believes that culture evolves in a
definite time by a definite human group and which spreads to other places or other continents
by means of migration, travel, transactions, contact, trade, communication, language,
marriage etc. and due to which the growth of culture occurs. This theory gives emphasis on
diffusion in human society and cultural growth. The growth and change in human society and
culture continuously takes place. Emergence and spreading of culture is the main basis of this
theory.
It is the diffusion due to which the culture developed in Nile River arrived up to Indian
sub-continent. The culture of Tibet or China came to the northern parts of Nepal and similarly
the culture from India has come to the southern parts on Nepal. Similarly Buddhism which
was originated in Nepal has been spread out to China, Japan, Thailand, and Srilanka by means
of diffusion process. These are some examples of cultural diffusion.

Context of Diffusionism
 Failure of Evolutionism
Evolutionism was not able to satisfy the inquiries why there are the variants and
similarities among different cultures of the world. Later researches disproved some of
the assumptions made by evolutionism. In this way evolutionism was severely
criticized which led to the development of Diffusionism.
 Role of Christian Missionaries, Traders and Travelers
The Christian missionaries, traders and travelers traveled different parts of the world
during their work of own interest. In this process they collected experiences and
information about different cultures of the world. These information and knowledge
encouraged the intellectuals to compare the different cultural growths. This led them
to propound the Diffusionism theory.
 Contemporary Situation
Industrial revolution, intellectual enlightenment and freedom of expression provided
such an environment in Europe and America that it encouraged them to search and
find out new theories and explanations which led to the emergence of Diffusionism.

Key Assumptions of Diffusionism

 Culture is not invented parallel in all parts of the world. In fact it grows in a particular
place and spreads all around.
 The mental capacity of all the people is not equal but different and limited.
 Whatever cultures have been developed and existed in the world, the basic element for
their growth and development is diffusion, not evolution.
 Men do not like to invent new things but they rather like to imitate others. This
tendency is basic element of diffusion process.
 The means or agents of diffusion are communication, travel, migration, mutual
contact, exchange, trade, marriage etc.
 The cultural traits of a group are accepted by the other only if it is acceptable to the
later.
 Generally the diffusion takes place from a civilized, developed and higher society to
the uncivilized, undeveloped and lower one.
 Because of diffusion of culture the social and cultural change takes place in the
receiving group.
15
  Lack of communication and transportation, existence of ocean, hills, mountains etc.
ate the hindrances to the diffusion of culture.

Variants of Diffusionism
Since there are various ways of explaining the process of diffusion, there are different
schools of Diffusionism which are as follows:
 British Diffusionism School
a. Grafton Elliot Smith
b. William James Perry
c. William Hales Rivers
 German Diffusionism School
a. Frederich Ratzel
b. Fritz Graebner
c. Leo Frobenius
d. Father Wilhelm Schmidt
 American Diffusionist School
a. Franz Boas
b. Clarck Wissler
c. Alfred Louis Kroeber

British Diffusionist School

British Diffusionist believed that Egypt was the central part of origin of the world
cultures. According to them, culture was spread out all over the world beginning from Egypt.
Since their studies and conclusions are focused on Egypt, British Diffusionist are also called
as Egyptologists. The British school is also known as Pan-Egyptian School of Diffusionism.
They talked about ancient Egypt as the cultural cradle of the world. The most well known
among them, are Grafton Elliot Smith, William James Perry and William Hales Rivers.

Grafton Elliot Smith (1871 – 1973)

Grafton Elliot Smith was an Australian surgeon and he worked in Cambridge
University for a long time. He got an opportunity to visit Egypt. He was too much influenced
and lured by the ancient pyramid, temples, artifacts and civilizations of that place. Later when
he returned to England, he compared these Egyptian artifacts with the monuments of England.
With this comparison, he was in a conclusion that the monuments of England were the
imitations of ancient Egyptian civilizations. Not only this he became confident that the
cultures of the whole world are transmitted and spread from the ancient Egypt. We can
summarize the different thought of Smith as the following points:
1. Invention takes place in a favorable condition and that condition was existed in
ancient Egypt only.
2. Man's attitude is generally more in imitation of others than to invent by own.
3. Civilization while spreading outside the centre becomes diluted gradually.

Smith divided the human society into two types:

1. Civilized Society.
2. Natural or Wild Society.

16
 According to Smith, ancient Egypt was a civilized society and other societies who
imitated or followed Egyptian civilization also became civilized societies. Smith named the
societies which did not follow Egyptian culture as Natural or Wild Societies. He named those
cultures as negative cultures.

William James Perry (1887 – 1947)

William James Perry observed the archeological excavations in Egypt. He also carried
a field work in Malayan area. He supported the Diffusionist theories of Smith blindly. He was
so influenced by the Sun Temple at Cairo in Egypt that he wrote a book about it and
published in London. This book became popular and he had to reprint it several times. He
pointed out that ancient Egypt was the only cultural cradle in the world. In his book, he gave
emphasis on the following two things:
1. Transmission of culture is always accompanied by degradation.
2. No art or craft is really enduring.
Perry argued that ancient Egypt had a favorable environment for the growth of wild barley
and other seeds. The cultural traits like dance, drama, music, arts and crafts, sun-worship etc.
diffused from Egypt to the various parts of the world in course of time. Although Perry almost
supported Smith and he did not put forward any separate schemes of diffusion, he played a
major role in strengthening the theory of Smith so that the theory was established as a British
school of diffusionism.

William Hales Rivers (1864 – 1922)

William Hales Rivers was a medical doctor by profession. He studied about the
polyandry in Toda tribes in Nilgiri Hills of India. He argued that migration is the most
important means of diffusion. He liked himself to be called as a scholar of migration. He
studied about the migration in Australia. Hales coming from outside in Australia married a
local woman. Offspring from them forgot al the cultural traits of their fathers but preserved
funeral rites. They are completely assimilated with the host culture. Although Rivers wrote
less than other anthropologists, he is better known as a British diffusionist and he is
considered as a twinkling star in British diffusionism.

Criticism of British Diffusionism

1. British diffusionists did not mention about the complex forms of diffusion.
2. They did not mention about the different kinds of diffusion like done by German and
American diffusionists.
3. They entirely depended on the archeological findings and they ignored other aspects
of diffusion.
4. It is true that some aspects of culture and civilization were originated from Egypt.
However, it is wrong to claim that Egypt is the cultural center of the world.
5. Lowie has said that they were the last to come and first to disappear.
6. It is wrong to say those who follow Egyptian culture as civilized culture and who do
not follow that as uncivilized culture.
7. Grafton Elliot Smith, main profounder of this school was too much influenced by
Egyptian civilization when he had gone there. If he had gone anywhere else, he would
have influenced by that another civilization and he would have said that that place was
the cultural cradle of the world instead of Egypt.

17
German Diffusionist School
This School is also known as cultural historical school. Unlike British Diffusionist,
they do not think that there is a single centre of cultural growth in the world. They established
a multiple from of development of culture. Their culture historical movement is also known as
the Kultukreis or circle. They explained about the migration in a more logical and balanced
way than British diffusionist school. Among the German diffusionist school, the most popular
are Frederick Ratzel, Fritz Graebner and Leo Frobenius.

Frederick Ratzel (1844 – 1904)

Frederick Ratzel was a zoologist in the beginning, but later he took interest in
geography. He became the Chief of the Department of Geography in University of Leipzig in
Germany. Again he turned towards anthropology. He wrote many volumes in 'Anthropo-
geography' which established him as a founder of German diffusionism. In this book, he
discussed the relationship of anthropology with social geography. At one place of this book he
wrote "I traveled, I observed and I described." This statement reveals that he was too much
interested in fieldwork. This difference between territorial geography and social geography
was clearly marked by Ratzel. He was in opinion that people were more influenced by one
another than the factors of climate and terrain. Like other Diffusionist, Ratzel also believed
that man likes more imitation than creativity. He used his principle of "criterion of form" to
study the history of some cultural traits of Mongolia and Africa. He said that in Mongolia the
people have used lotus as a symbol of Buddhism. However, lotus is actually an Indian flower
and it has been borrowed by the Mongolians. Although lotus flower is not the indigenous trait
of Mongolia, it has become indispensable part of Mongolian culture after a gap of several
centuries.

Fritz Graebner (1877 – 1938)

Fritz Graebner was a curator of a museum in the beginning but later he became the
Chief leader of the school of Kulturkreis. According to him, the primitive men invented the
cultural bases like language, tool etc. The primitive men were divided into various groups and
they spread all around. They reached in various continents where they developed their own
specific cultures. Their population increased and they covered various continents. Grabner
studied the ancient people of Oceania and divided them into these six stages of cultural
development:
1. Tasmanian Culture.
2. Old Australian Culture.
3. Totemic.
4. Moiety complex.
5. Melanesian bow culture.
6. Polynesian culture.

According to Graebner, among these six cultures, Tsamanian culture sis the oldest and
Polynesian culture is the newest. Their origin and emergence was separate in different places.
During their independent emergence and development, there was no communication and
transportation. Later due to the development of communication and transportation, their
mutual contact and diffusion took place. He also talked about the two types of diffusion:
Primary diffusion and Secondary diffusion. According to him, Tasmanian culture is the center
of primary diffusion.

18
Leo Frobenius (1873 – 1938)
Leo Frobenius was a disciple of Ratzel. He opined that the main reason for the
similarity of cultural traits in two different places is migration rather than diffusion. He
mentioned about the similarities in the cultural characteristics of Indonesia and West Africa.
There was similarity in forms of bow and arrow, house patterns, shields, masks, drums etc. in
Indonesia West Africa. Frobenius concluded that the migration had taken place there. In
addition to his techer Ratzel's "Criterion of Form", he added a new concept of "geographical
statistics". He argued that after migration some traits would be changed while some traits,
which were useless in the new environment, would disappear. He also talked about ecological
adaptation of cultural traits. According to him similarities and differences can be analyzed by
ecological adaptation.

Father Wilhem Schmidt (1868 – 1954)

Father Wilhelm Schmidt was born in Austria. He gave an important contribution in the
study of Kulturekries or culture circle. He was influenced by the writings of Ratzel and he
was a contemporary of Graebner. With his colleague Father Koppers, he established a new
sub-school of diffusion which is widely known as Vienna School of Diffusion. He mentioned
about the four stages of culture circle:
1. Primitive Stage
2. Primary Stage
3. Secondary Stage
4. Tertiary Stage
Schmidt considered Pigmy tribe of Africa is the origin of all the cultures of the world.
They migrated all over the world and diffusion of culture took place.

Criticism of German Diffusionism

1. The German school of diffusionism does not explain why diffusion takes place.
2. They were not able to study about the various aspects of culture other than material
culture.
3. They did not try to understand the dynamics of cultural change.
4. They talked about the "multiple development of culture", but did not elaborate each
one in detail.
5. They adopted "museum methodology" to explain kulturekreis which is used to classify
the culture rather than to explain diffusion of culture.
6. It is wrong to say that culture is spread from a certain culture centre in a culture area.

American Diffusionist School

American diffusionist were influenced and motivated from German diffusionists.
American diffusionism is also known as Culture Area Theory. This theory was influenced by
German Museum Methodology. Franz Boas, who was considered as the father of American
diffusionism, was born and educated in Germany. From Germany he went to America and
worked in Clark University. American diffusionism believes that culture is not originated in a
particular place but it may be evolved anywhere in the world. This theory is also called
Historical Particularism. American diffusionists emphasized to use the terms like Culture
Area, Food Area, Age Area, Culture Centre, Culture Climax etc. Among the American
diffusionists, the most important are Franz Boas, Clark Wissler and Alfred Kroeber.

19
Franz Boas (1885 – 1942)
Franz Boas was born in Germany and hence he received education in Germany. At the
age of 30, he went to America. He became the father of American anthropology. He worked
as a professor of anthropology in Columbia University. He divided North America into
various culture areas and studied about food, language, religion, social organisation, building
construction, art etc. of those areas and also studied how diffusion takes place from one
culture area to another. He emphasized on the importance of fieldwork. He studied
extensively about American tribes like Kawakuiti Indian and Central Eskimos. He put
forward Cultural Relativism against the concept of ethnocentrism which was developed in the
19th century. According to Boas, every culture has its specific meaning, value and importance.
It is wrong to divide them as higher and lower culture. He suggested using historical method
to study various cultures on place of comparative method. Boas is also a well-known
folklorist. He published many folk songs and fables of American tribes. He studied about the
relationship between mind and physical development of men. He took physical measurement
of 19 thousands American boys and girls of ages between 13 and 19. According to Boas,
diffusion and internal development both takes place in a culture. The people of one place do
not imitate and accept all the cultural traits of another place. How much they accept depends
on their relative advantages, disadvantages, adaptation and favorability.

Clark Wissler (1870 – 1947)

Clark Wissler was a student of Franz Boas. He studied in detail about American
Indians. He divided northern America into 10, southern America into 4 and Carribbean area
into 1 cultural area. He thought that food is the most important factor which affects culture.
He was the first American diffusionist to talk about culture and food areas. He was influenced
by Boas’ concept of cultural history. According to Wissler, every culture area consists of a
culture center from where all social, economic political and religious activities are guided and
performed. He divided diffusion into two types:
1. Natural Diffusion
2. Organized Diffusion

Alfred Louis Kroeber (1876 – 1960)

Like Wissler, Alfred Louis Kroeber was also a student of Boas, but Kroeber was the
first student to get Ph.D. degree. In the beginning Kroeber studied English literature. He
completed B.A and M.A. in English and taught English. When he came in contact with Boas,
he was attracted towards anthropology. In this way, it is said that we may find reflection of
literature in his anthropological writings. He expressed Wissler’s “Culture Center” concept
and instead he put forward “Cultural Climax” concept. He revised the cultural areas of
Wissler. According to him, we should consider geographical and ecological factors in
studying cultural area. He wrote as many as 500 articles in various scientific journals of the
world and published many books.

Criticism of American Diffusionism

1. The concept of Culture area put forward by American diffusionists is static and does
not meet the depth of historical process.
2. American diffusionists have explained the cultural similarities and differences
according to their material cultures only and neglected other aspects of it.
3. According to German difusionists, culture areas concept was too narrow in scope and
it neglected to take into account worldwide similarities.
20
 4. Culture area method was considered as method of classification and not actual theory
of diffusion.
5. American diffusionists divided the cultures on territorial basis only and they neglected
the changes occurred in course of time.

Critique of Diffusionism
1. Diffusionism is focused mainly on the historical study of culture. It is not interested in
what kind of structure is existing in society and culture at present and how it is being
operated.
2. This theory is focused on the material aspect of culture and it is not able to include the
immaterial aspect in its study.
3. Diffusionism is not able to answer satisfactorily why diffusion takes place in culture.
4. It is too much wrong and ethnocentric view of the British diffusionists that one
particular place in the world is the centre of the emergence of the cultures of the whole
world and that those cultures that follow them are civilized and those that don not
follow them are uncivilized.

Implications of Diffusionism
1. This theory has explained about the emergence and growth of culture more
satisfactorily than evolutionism and has explained about it something more to meet the
shortcomings of evolutionism.
2. The theory has encouraged and guided further researches and studies about when,
where and how various cultures of the world appeared and developed.
3. Support and criticism of this has indirectly contributed to discover other theories about
society and culture.
4. This theory has helped to understand and analyze the similarities and differences
between different cultures. This kind of comparison is helpful to understand the
culture and environment.
5. This study of similarities and differences among various culture helps to reduce
ethnocentric views.
6. This theory has clarified what kind of relationship exists between culture and
environment.

Chapter Three

Functionalism

Introduction

The word 'function' has been used differently in various situations. Any public program or
ceremony is called function. In mathematics, the word is used to denote the relationship
between variable. However, the term, function has different specific meaning in sociology and
anthropology.

21
A watch has its various parts and performs its specific work. During their work, they are
related to one another. This work done by a part to run the watch properly in relation to each
other may be called its function. In order to understand the working process of a watch,
studying about the history of the development of watch is not sufficient, so we need to
understand the structure of a watch, function of each of its parts and their functional
relationship.
In the same way studying of study of history, growth development and diffusion of culture
and society is not sufficient to understand it well. In needs to study the structure of social
system are working how the functional relationship of different parts of a social system are
working to make the society and culture run well. This kind of thinking or theory is known as
functionalism.

Function is the role played by the different parts of a social system to make the social system
to make the social system continuously maintained. In the words of A. R. Radcliffe Brown,
"Function of a particular social usage is the contribution it makes to the social life as the
functioning of a social system". All the parts of factor of a society and culture are functionally
interrelated and interdependent with one another. Function is the set of activities done by a
unit of a social system with relation to another unit for enduring the whole system in order
and without any conflict. If any defect or change takes place in single unit of a social system,
that will affect the whole system.

A society has its different component such as values norms tradition religion political
institution economic institution, family, kinship marriage etc. which are all contributing from
their own part to make the society alive in order. There is organization, unity and
interdependence among there component. In this way, if any change or defect occurs in
component of society. It will affect the whole system. Theory based on this assumption is
known as functionalism.

Context of functionalism

No theory of the world emerges from void. It needs some backgrounds to emerge and
develop. The following are backgrounds from which the theory of functionalism developed.

1. The theory of functionalism states that society and culture cannot be understood just by
studies based on the reconstruction of history, but it needs to study how it being operated at
present. In this why, functionalism stood against evolutionism and diffusionism. The
existence of functionalism is based on the criticism of evolutionism and dffusionism.

2. Lamark and Darwin developed a biological view to explain the origin and development of
organism. Based on their biological explanation, Herbert Spencer made a comparison of
society with organism. The different organs of an organism need to accomplish their function
to make the organism live and active. In the same way the different units of a society need to
have their function accomplished to make the satiety maintain its order and existence. This
analogy led to the emergence of functionalism.

3. The supporters of evolutionism and diffusions were not able to explain satisfactorily about
the integrative element of culture. This made the anthropologists and sociologists to search a
new theory to explain it.

22
4. In the later years of 19th century and the beginning years of the 20th century, there
occurred developments of many philosophical theories. There was a competition to develop
different new theories. This led to the development of functionalism.

5. The problem created by the First World War were the challenges to the government of
different countries. With an attempt to solve the problems, it necessitated to study how the
societies are functioning. This led to the emergence of functionalism.
6. The period between 1890 and 1920 was full of crisis for America. This age is also known
decline. To cope with this grave situation, there was felt necessary to study about American
society deeply which helped to the emergence of functionalism.
7. The economic depression of 1930s all over the world created many problems in society.
Methods and ways to solve this economic crisis also led to the emergence of functionalism.

Key Assumption of Functionalism

1. Society is an integrated system of different parts

The main assumption of functionalism is that a social system consists of a number of units of
parts which are intimately related and interdependent with one another. They are unified
together to make an integrated whole.

2. Various organs of an organism are functionally related like an organism

Different parts of an organism perform their biological function to make the organism alive
and active. In the same way different part of a social system such as institution, values norms
vulture etc. perform their sociological functions. The various parts are functionally
interrelated with one another. If any organ is cut out from an organism it may be disabled or
even died. In the same way if a part of a social system is removed, it will create imbalance,
instability and disorder in society.

3. All units of a society are indispensable and indivisible

According to functionalism, each part of a society is indispensable and cannot separate from
the rest for the existence of each other. Each another part needs fro one to keep it alive. None
of its parts can exist.

4. Society always tends to be an integrated, organized, stable and balanced system

According to functionalism, the units of a society always tend to make it balanced and in
order. If any challenges to this arise, the social system immediately makes readjustments. In
this way there is always stable, order and unity maintained in society.

5. Functionalism regards change and disintegration as abnormal process

Functionalism is against the processes like change, collapse, imbalance etc. all the units of a
society have a positive role and change and integration are not regarded well. This theory is
against revolution, upheaval, imbalance and disorder in any society.

Variant of functionalism
The various schools of thought that were emerged in course of explaining and analyzing
functionalist theory can be summarized as follows:

23
1. R.K. Merton
2. Emile Durkhim
3. Bronislaw Kaspar Mallinowski
4. A.R.Radcliffe Brown

R.K. Merton
Robert K. Merton is an American sociologist. He was influenced by anthropology deeply. His
major works are:
a. Social Theory and Social Structure
b. The sociology of science

He got the concept of functional analysis from the anthropologist Malinowski, Radcliffe
Brown, Klukhon etc. He talked about the five different meanings of function as
a. Function as a public ceremony or conference
b. Function as an occupation
c. Function as activities of persons holding public post
d. Function as relation between variables in mathematics.
e. Function as organic or social activities to maintain a system.

Among the above five meaning of function, Merton has taken the fifth meaning as the basis of
his theory. According to Merton there are other meanings also apart from the above five.
Usually the word function is used as an alternative to the words like purpose, motive, primary
concern, aim etc.

Other functionalist prior to Merton had made explanation based on the studies of primitive
societies where as he is based on the studies of modern industrial societies. His functionalist
theory has made explanation based on empirical observation. That is why Merton's theory is
also known as empirical functionalism. He is the supporter of middle range theory.

Other functionalists argue that all the cultural units contribute to maintain the whole system
and all the units in the society make solidarity but Merton has an opinion that not all the units
in a social system do have similar roles in all circumstances. There cannot be total unity in
human society since the social system and its units are not buildup with institution of similar
characteristics. There are good as well as bad elements in a society. In this why, Merton
argues that the structural variations and functional specialists should also be considered to
analyze positive and negative consequences. According to Merton, some social units have
functional roles, some have partially dysfunctional roles, and some have non-functional role
and some other have totally dysfunctional roles.

Merton has developed the following four concepts regarding functional analysis:

1. Function
Function is such an observed consequence that helps to adaptation and adjustment of a system
and helps to social organization. It gives force to social solidarity. If a unit of society
contributes to fulfill one or more needs of men then role of that unit is called function.

2. Dysfunction
24
Dysfunction is such an observed consequences that, help to adaptation and adjustment of the
social system and it plays a role in social disorganization. One can not say that all the social
units play positive role to the society. A social unit may have played a positive role in a
society whereas the same social unit may have played a negative role in another society.
Activity or function that helps to disorganize society may be called dysfunction.

3. Manifest function
Manifest functions are those functions of a social system which are intended and overtly
recognized by the participant in that social system. This is such a function which is wanted by
the participant. If a student, for example, studies hard to get good marks in his examination, it
is his manifest function. If the punishment is aim at the improvement of the criminal behavior
then it is called a manifest function.

4. Latent function
Latent functions are those functions which are hidden and remained unacknowledged by
participants. Merton has described about rain dances of Hopi Indians in which these dances
are intended to bring rain, but function to increase social integration. Latent function is such
an observed consequence which is neighbor recognized not intended. In latent function, the
motive, circumstance and consequence is not known to the participant. It has a long lasting
consequence which is not presently imagined by the participant.

Emile Durkheim

Emile Durkheim was born in France and he considered to be one of the founding father of
sociology. He developed objective approaches in analyzing social facts. The following are his
major contribution:

1. The Division of Labor in society

2. The Rules of Sociological Method
3. Suicide
4. Elementary forms of Religious Life

To analyze Durkheim as a functionalist, we will have better to analyze his major books on
division of labor he has mentioned about the following two types of solidarities:
1. Organic solidarity
2. Mechanical solidarity
According to him, the modern society has organic solidarity where there is specialization in
division of labor. Mechanical solidarity is related with primitive society where there was
similarity and unity in division of labor. The social unity of that society was strong due to the
combination of social units like social values, norms, customs nationality, glory etc.
Durkheim emphasized on social and moral function in division of labor.

In finding out the causal relationship between social facts, Durkheim laid the foundation for
the functional method. He stressed that social facts are to be studied in term of their
usefulness in meeting human desires. The task of sociology is to know the cause as well as the
function of social facts. Thus, sociology must inquire into the functions of social institutions
and other social phenomenon that contribute to the maintenance of social whole.

25
In his book about suicide, Durkheim has stated suicide is an individual phenomenon whose
causes are essentially social. There are social forces running through society whose origin is
not the individual but the collectivity. There are the forces that are real and determining
causes of suicide delves into the sources of social order and disorder that are at the root of
suicide. He has spoken of three kind suicides: egoistic, anomic and altruistic.

Durkheim's book about religion seems to be the last of his major works. In this book he brings
his analysis of collective or group forces to the study of religion. The central thesis of his
theory of region is that throughout history men have never worshipped any other reality than
the collective social reality transfigure by faith. According to him, the essence of religion is a
division of the world into two kinds of phenomena, the sacred and the profane. The sacred
refer to things human beings set apart, including religion belief, rites, deities or anything
social defined as requiring special religious treatment. The profane is the reverse of the
sacred. Beliefs and practices unite people in social community by relating them to sacred
things.

Bronislow Kaspar Malinowski

Bronislow Kaspar Malinowski was born in Germany. He studied in Germany where he got his
PhD in physics and mathematics. He was not able to continue his study due to ill health.
During this period he read Golden Bough written by James Frazer and was very much
attracted towards anthropology. Later he came to England and taught sociology. The
following are his major contributions.
1. Australian aboriginal family
2. Sex and recreation in savage society
3. Crime and custom in savage society
4. A scientific theory of culture
5. Magic, science and religion
6. The dynamics of cultural change
7. Garden and their magic

Malinowski took his field work of Paupua community at Tobriand Island in New Guinea.
There he studied deeply on how the different tradition and social institution are fulfilling the
needs of people and what kind of roles those social units are playing to maintain their social
solidarity and unity.
According to him each cultural unit has its own function and functionless cultural unit cannot
exist. One traits of culture is integrated with another and thus, if one trait disturbed, it
paralyzes the other. According to him, cultural traits are functioning to satisfy basic needs of
individual and that is why Malinowski is also known as individualistic functionalist.

According to Malinowski, culture is that means from which man is able to endure his
physical, mental and intellectual existence. Man develops culture to satisfy his various needs.
Malinowski has spoken about the following seven basic needs of man for which culture was
developed.

1. Metabolism
2. Reproduction
3. Bodily comfort
4. Safety
26
5. Movement
6. Grown
7. Health

Malinowski explains that each cultural trait fulfills the above needs of man. He was of
opinion that an essential characteristics of human social life is that habits becomes transmitted
into custom, parental care into the deliberate training of the rising generation, and impulses
into values. He demonstrated his scheme of function through a character that the aim or
purpose of the society. The first aim if every society, according to Malinowski, is its survival.
Thus according to charter, in every society, they are personnel who have norm or set of
values. Thus according Malinowski these norms or values inspire the personnel of material
apparatus which crates activities according to Malinowski, lead to function. This may also be
shown below:

For Malinowski culture was adaptive, and without the satisfaction of basic biological needs
neither man not culture itself could survive. Many activities are related to or associated with
the satisfaction of biological needs, which he called derived needs. In order to understand this
dimension of culture, according to Malinowski, one should apply the theory of function. In
other words, Malinowski devised a very scientific framework for the study of the dynamics of
culture through the theory of function.

Criticism
1. Malinowski emphasized on the function of cultural traits only but he was not able to give
sufficient attention to their structure.
2. Modern, complex and changing society can not be studied in an integrative way through his
functionalist approach.
3. It is not true that all the units of society and culture play positive role and hence some of the
units may play negative role to the society.
4. It cannot be said true that each and every units of society and culture are functioning their
role properly.
5. Malinowski described man as mere collection of needs and interest only.
6. The growth and development of culture may take place even without man's need.

A. R. Radcliffe Brown

A. R. Radcliffe Brown was a British anthropologist. In his studies he put more emphasis on
social structure in culture. He taught anthropology in well known universities of the world
lime Sydney, Cape Town, Chicago and Oxford. His major contribution are:
1. The method of Ethnology and social anthorpology
2. The present position of Anthropological studies
3. Meaning and scope of social Anthropology

Radcliffe Brown went to his field work in Andman Island and he studied about their ways of
life, tradition and culture. He used structural function approach to analyze the relationship
among various units of their culture. The nature of his study was scientific and based on
fieldwork. He studied about the importance of rites and ritual in social life. According to him,
names, values, customs and institution in as society are interrelated to each other. The
integrated whole to their units is social structure. The integration, interdependence and
functional relation among the different units of social structure contribute to the existence and
27
continuation of social system. Like Malinowski, Brown was also against evolutionism. He
gave a little importance to the analysis of culture but more importance to the study of social
structure. In course of explaining structural functionalism, he put forward three main
concepts.

1. Process
2. Function
3. Structure

Here, social process indicates a unit of social activities. By activity we should understand the
synchronic processes related with the present only. Function is the contribution done by the
activities or processes for the sake of social structure. This concept is taken from physiology.
In physiology function is the relationship between life and physical structure. Brown made an
analogy of the functions of the organs in physiology with that in social science.

According to Brown, structure is the integrated installation of structural part. Individuals are
the smallest parts of social structure.. They are guided by social rules. Individuals have
gained certain status in social structure according to which they are playing their roles, their
activities contributes to society which is called function. Function is done for the continuation
of social structure. According to Brown, social facts or events are not to the outcomes of
individual activities but are activities of social structure.

Criticism of Radcliffe Brown's Structural Functionalism

1. This theory has its root on the society in a balanced and stable condition only and hence it
is not able to explain changes occurring in the social structure in its historical process.

2. This theory is not a scientific theory and it is only a speculative theory because the roles
played by the different component part of whole social system can not be tested and verified.

3. This theory has exaggerated about the uniformity, solidarity, stability, coordination and
integration of society.

4. This theory has emphasizes on the norms and values of a society and gives little attention
towards the acitivies deviated by such norms and values.

5. A theory is related to define what is but this theory is related to define what it should be.
Hence this theory is said to be teleological.

6. He has ignored to the culture in social anthropology but according to other anthropologists,
culture is the central subject of anthropology.

Critique of functionalism
1. It favors the elite class
Functionalist theory argues in favor of the continuity of the present social system. It says that
all the parts of a social system should continue to accomplish their respective functions and
there should not be any changes to these systems. This assumption advocates to the continuity
of the present class differentiation of the society and it is in favor of the rich class of the
society.
28
2. It is not able to explain the social change process

Social change is a major and an important process occurring in society. Functionalism has so
little spoken about this process that some criticizers have even said that this theory has
neglected or ignored the social change process.

3. Status Quo Theory

This theory advocates the continuity of present social structure and hence it hinders the notion
of progress and development. This theory considers the process of change and revolution as
unwanted and deviation from the social norms as unnecessary.

4. Unscientific and Non-verifiable

This theory is not based on data therefore sheer interpretation may be unscientific and non-
verifiable.

Implication

1. Functionalism helps to understand the structure of society.

2. Majorities of sociological theory are influenced by functionalism.
3. Functionalism encourages many societal researches.
4. Functional theory has brought forward 'the holistic approach.'
5. This theory has reshaped and refined the concept of culture. Further it has also analyzed
dysfunction of culture.

29
 CHAPTER SIX
Conflict Theory
Introduction
Each members of a society have their own and separate interests. They are trying to
satisfy their separate individual interests. In this process, social conflicts are appeared.
Conflict arises due to the limited and scarce availability of resources, means or opportunities.
As long as the history of cooperation and accommodation in human society is, so long is the
history of tussle, war or conflicts. Marx has even that history of hitherto existing society is the
history of class struggle.
Conflict is such a process in which an individual or group uses force to dominate or
sometimes even destroy the other individual or group and attempts to gain its goal or interests.
Elements like hatred, anger, violence and cruelty ate also associated with the process of
conflict are a natural or usual concept since even an organism makes its struggle against the
nature and against his competitors to live and continue its existence and survival.
Conflict in society is a deliberate and conscious process. In this process, a group
attempts to destroy or defeat another group in competition. Conflict also occurs between
nations, between peoples of different religion or race, between riches and poor and between
rulers and ruled.
The theory which considers the process of conflict indispensable and usual in society
and regard conflict as an important and basic element for social change is called conflict
theory. In others words, conflict theory is the theory which gives more emphasis on conflict in
society.
Characteristics of Conflict
1.) Conscious Action
Conflict is a conscious and deliberate action. In conflict, the competitors try to defeat
each other consciously. One group in a conflict knows well the capacity and means of another
group. Conflict is not a spontaneous action.
2.) Personal Activity
Conflict is waged to defeat the antagonist and not to achieve any particular goal. The
chief aim of conflict is to cause harm or severe loss to the antagonist.
3.) Intermittent Action
Conflict is not a continuous action. It lacks continuity or it occurs intermittently. After
the occurrence of a conflict, either one defeats the other or the two make accommodation or
compromise with each other. No society can sustain itself in a stage of continuous conflict.
4.) Universal
Conflict is found in each and every part of the human society. Conflict or clash of
interests is universal in nature. In some societies conflict may be very acute and vigorous
while in some others it may be very mild. But it is present in almost all the societies.
Context of Conflict Theory
1.) Intellectual Context
Although conflict is systematically analyzed and studied alter, it's concept dates back to
the ancient time. The philosophers like Socrates, plato, kautilya, Hobbs, Hegel and Darwin
had also talked about conflict in society. The old concepts helped to redefine conflict by now
theory.
2.) Historical Context
The historical series of war and battles in the world persuaded the thinkers and
scholars to think that the process of conflict is usual, natural and unavoidable process in

30
human society. They attempted to understand, interpret and analyze this process which led to
the development of conflict theory.

3.) Social Context

Industrial Revolution, rise and development of capitalism, miserable condition of the
workers, exploitation and inequality in the society created such a situation that struggle was
necessary to get rid of such situation. Exploitation and domination necessitated conflict. A
theory to define conflict was considered necessary at that time.

4.) Contribution of Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin published his book Origin of Species in 1859. He explained about
the natural process of struggle for existence and selection of the fittest. An organism which
defeats its competitors can survive and the one which can not defeat others cannot survive.
Herbert Spencer was influenced by this theory of natural selection. He made an analogy of
human society with an organism. He also said that only those people can survive in society
who can defeat others. Hence Darwin's theory has also an important role in developing
conflict theory.

5.) Weakness in Functionalism

The functionalist theory has explained the society with only the functions of its
elements and has emphasized only on the stability of society. It has ignored the indispensable
process of conflict in society. The criticism of functionalism played an important role in
giving birth to conflict theory.

6.) Feurabach's Theory

Feurabach was a materialist thinker. He said that God did not create the Man but the
Man created the God. This concept of him changed the contemporary belief of people
regarding the God. Materialist analysis was spread at that time's society. This also helped in
the emergence of conflict theory.

7.) Influence of Positivism

Positivism is a doctrine formulated by Auguste Compte. This doctrine asserts that the
only true knowledge is scientific knowledge. This doctrine was in favor of positive
knowledge based on systematic observation and experiment. Compote's positivism has also
influenced to grow the theories conflict.

Key Assumptions of Conflict Theory

1.) Society is Not a System of Equilibrium
The main assumption of this theory is that the society is never in a state of stability or
equilibrium. Social conflict is the inherent process of social structure. A social system is
composed of various antagonistic parts. The continuous conflict between these parts makes
the social system dynamic.
2.) Society is a Stage populated with Living, Struggling and Competing Actors
A social system is an interrelationship of the individuals with various interests, desires and
goals. Each and every individual there are waging struggle against their competitors for their
existence and dominance over others. Hence, according to this theory, society is a stage of
conflict where different antagonistic roles with their own interests are plated.
3.) Conflict is Essential Law for Social Development
31
 There is an incessant conflict between the antagonistic elements within a society which
is responsible and essential for the social change. Conflict theorists believe in incessant
change as against the functionalists according to whom, change is a deviation form the normal
condition of society. Therefore conflict theory seeks to explain factors involved in the
perpetual process of social change.
4.) Conflict cannot be abolished
Dehrendorf stresses the underlying assumption that conflict can be temporarily
suppressed, regulated, channeled, and controlled but that neither a philosopher, king nor a
modern dictator can abolish it once or for all. He rejects the notion of conflict resolution on
the ground that it deals with causes rather than expressions of social conflict.
5.) Social Conflict May be Both Latent of Manifest
Conflict is occurring continuously in a social system and it appears manifest sometimes
or remains latent sometimes. Social conflict is not always violent. It is inherent in the social
structure. It may be manifest or controlled or uncontrolled, violent or non-violent,
disintegrative or integrative, explicit or implicit, such different types of conflicts are always
happening between interest groups in a social structure.
6.) Conflict is rooted in Social Structure
The conflict theorists maintain that conflict is as much rooted in social structure as
consensus. A society is dynamic due to the conflict among its structural parts. Welfare and
interests are rooted to the each individuals groups of a society. They are always making
conflict to satisfy their own interest.
7.) Conflict is Not a Continuous Process
Conflict never takes place continuously. It takes place occasionally and intermittently. No
society can sustain itself in a state of continuous conflict. Conflict needs some causes which
may not always appear in a society.
Variants of Conflict Theory
While talking about conflict theory one immediately cites Karl Marx as its major
proponent but there are other sociologists also who opined about the role of constructive
conflict in society. The following are such schools of conflict theories:
1.) The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory

The Frankfurt School was German based school which establishes Institute for school
research and Frankfurt in German. They were follower of Marx; the main scholars of this
school were Theodre Andron, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse etc. Later they were known
as neo-Marxist in the world. In the beginning of the year, they were chased away by Hitler.
After the fall of Hitler, they back from America. The main feature of this school was to
interpret Marxian theory in a new way.

2.) The New or Radical Sociology

Radical sociology was emerged from America in 1966. The main scholar of this theory was
Iving Locis Horowitz whose main idea was to address the common social problem rather
individual problem. According to him, all poor, underprivileged, disadvantaged group should
be unified in order to fight against bourgeoisie to the benefit of society. For example, the
discrimination of between white and black or apartheid policy, that is prevailed in America.

3.) Dehrendorf and Dialectic Sociology

32
The propounder of this approach is Ralf Dahren Dorf who described the dialectic nature of
society. According to him, one can obverse various types people within the structure of
society. Like rich and poor, individual society, rulers and ruled, owner and slave, majority and
minority etc.

4.) Conflict Functionalism of Coser

The main scholar of this approach is L.A. Coser who advocates against the stagnation of
society. According to him, the struggle and conflict bring positive change in society. The
drastic and radical change in society is only possible through conflict. Therefore conflict will
bring new changes in the field of economic, political or social and cultural change. Ultimately
that leads new direction.

5.) Analytical Conflict Theory

The main scholar of this approach is Randall Collin who analyzes equitable distribution of
natural resources of state among people. There should not be any discriminatory policy in
term of economic, political, religious, social, cultural and ideological. This approached is also
followed by Max Weber, Emilie Durkhiem, and G.H. Mead etc.

6.) Formal Conflict Theory

The main scholar of this approach is Theodore Caplow where he mentioned about formal
organization to work for in collective interest. He stressed on organizational institution.
According to him, the formal conflict can be done through two ways: first thorough
revolutionary coalition and conservative coalition. Therefore formal conflict formed through
coalition and agreement.
Karl Marx (1818-1883)
Introduction
Karl Marx was an economist, a philosopher and a revolutionary thinker of the
nineteenth century. He was born in Trier city of Germany in June 5, 1818. He studied
philosophy and law in the universities of Bonn and Berlin. He was influenced by Hegel and
furbish. He became the editor of a newspaper in 1842. in 1849 he went to London with his
family and stayed there till his death. He passed away in London in 1883. He wrote many
books with his intimate friend Frederick Engles. Among them The Communist Manifesto
published in 1848 is considered as the basic book of Marx's conflict theory.

Major Works
1.) The German Ideology
2.) The Communist Manifesto
3.) Capital
4.) The poverty of philosophy
5.) Contribution to the Critique of political Economy
6.) The Gotha programme

Historical Materialism
33
 Historical materialism is an important principle of Marx to interpret the society and the
history. With this theory Marx has explained and analyzed the historic, social and economic
changes in an objective way. He argued that the historical incidents and changes should not be
interpreted in idealistic explanations but they should be interpreted by the explanations of the
natural characteristics of matter and production process.
A man needs food, shelter and other physical materials for his existence and survival.
To gain these needs, a man always remains active and working. He used his labor upon the
resources available from nature to produce these goods. In the process of production, he
obtains production experiences and labor skills. He can not produce and consume these goods
alone and interdependence maintains production relation with other people. This production
relationship also determines the form of production.
With the continuous progress of labor and production, there occur changes in
production technology and production relationship creates the great impact on the whole
social system, political system, thought and philosophy and political institutions. The great
upheaval in the form of production determines the changing way of history. Hence, according
to Marx, the actual history of the world is not the history of the kings and lords, but the
history of the serial changes occurred in the forms of the production. The creators of the
historical are not the kings and lords, but the working class people. He argued that the bases
of historical changes should be sought in materialistic interpretation of labor and production
efforts and not in the idealistic way of human thought. He attempted to find the general rules
of the historical changes occurred and occurring all over the world in a materialistic way.
According to Marx, production of goods is the basic, primary and crucial process which
determines the historical epochs. Hence the creation of history is always in the hands of
general working class people. Marx's historical materialism has divided the whole history of
human society into following six stages:
1.) Primitive Communism
2.) Slavery Society
3.) Feudal Society
4.) Capitalistic Society
5.) Socialist Society
6.) Communist Society
1.) Primitive Communism
This is the first human society in history. In his stage all the means of production are
under the control of the community. They worked collectively and jointly upon these
collective means of production. There was no system of private ownership of society. The
society was classless and there was no exploitation.
2.) Slavery Society
The private ownership system replaced the system of collective ownership in this
stage. There were two classes-slaves and lords- appeared for the first time in human history.
The lords owned all the means of production and lands and even all the slaves. Agriculture
animal farming and the use of metals were the basic production processes in this society. The
two antagonistic classes-slaves and lords-were always in conflict in this society.
3.) Feudal Society
The class struggle between lords and slaves gave rise to the establishments of feudal
society in which there were two class-self and feudal. The feudal owned most of the lands to
be used for farming. The serfs were free as compared to the slaves but they had to work hard
in the farms owned by feudal. In this society again, the two classes- serfs and feudal- are
always in class struggles.
4.) Capitalistic Society
34
 The capitalistic society is the outcome of the class struggle between serfs and feudal.
Great factories and industries were developed in this stage. In this stage, there were two
classes of people- proletariat, who used their labor for their livelihood and bourgeoisie, who
owned the means of production. The bourgeoisie uses labor of the proletarians to produce
goods. This society provides more freedom to the people as compared to the feudal society.
The bourgeois became richer day and proletarians become poorer and poorer. This condition
creates a great class struggle between the two classes.
5.) Socialist Society
Due to the development of class consciousness in the proletarians, they are ready to
topple the regime of the capitalists and after this class war they establish a socialist society. In
this society, all the means of production are owned collectively by the working class
themselves. They establish the dictatorship of proletariats. This stage is the transition between
a capitalistic society and a communist society.
6.) Communist Society
This society is the last stage of world history. This stage is classless and stateless. The
means of production are owned by the society. Distributions of goods are according to the
need of the people.
In this way Marx argued that human history is created by the changes in the form of
production. This is the historical materialism or the materialistic interpretation of history of
Karl Marx. In his explanation, matter is the basic thing to determine everything rather than
thought or idea.

Dialectical Materialism
Dialectical Materialism is the main philosophy of Marxism. This theory considers
that matter is the main basis of this world. Due to its internal characteristics the matter
changes into various forms. This process of development is continuous and universal. This
theory of Marx explains that changes and development process of matter in nature.
Marx asserted that between matter and mind the matter is primary and the mind or idea is
the secondary. Mind or idea is just the reflection of the matter. According to Marx, matter is
not a product of mind; on the contrary mind is simply the most advanced product of the
matter. It is possible to separate the thought from the reality of the matter. Mind or idea
cannot create matter since the idea is born in mind and mind itself is the product of matter.
The following three are the laws of Marx's dialectical materialism:
1.) The Law of the Unity and Struggle of Opposites
2.) The Law of the passage of Quantitative into Qualitative Changes
3.) The Law of the Negation of the Negation
1.) The Law of the Unity and Struggle of Opposite
According to this law, there are always two opposite elements inside a matter which are
in unity as well as in conflict. Hence, it is right to be two opposite antagonistic forces in
society, state, economy and everything else in the world. A conflict is always occurring
between the two, which keeps the whole alive and active.
2.) The Law of the Passage of Quantitative into Qualitative Changes
As a result of the continuous struggle between two opposite forces within a matter or
society, there always takes place quantitative changes. After passing sufficient quantitative
changes it leaps into a quantitative change. We may give an example of boiling water starts,
heating from oo Celsius, its temperature goes on increasing. This is a quantitative change.
When the temperature of water reaches 100o Celsius, the water changes into vapor. This
qualitative change. This kind of changes where qualitative changes take place after a long
series of quantitative changes is the second law of dialectical materialism.
35
3.) The Law of the Negation of the Negation
After the qualitative change, the new stage of development is always better, higher
and more advanced than the previous stage. The new stage replaces the old one. Slavery stage
was replaced by feudal society. Feudal stage was also replaced the capitalistic society. This
each new and qualitatively higher and developed stage always replaces the previous older
stage of matter and society. This is the law of the negation of the negation. This process takes
place for without any interruption and returning back. For example, when a seed is planted in
soil, it changes into a bud. This bud grows to a tree. Thee tree gives fruits. The tree one day
wilts. This is a process of negation of negation.
In this way Marx put forward a generalized natural law for explaining the change process
occurring in nature through his dialectical materialism. Marx had taken the dialectical concept
from Hegel. According to Hegel, there are three levels of any logical process: thesis,
antithesis and synthesis. According to him, any idea or concept gives birth to its opposite idea
and there takes place contradiction these ideals. As a result of this contradiction, a new idea is
created with proper adjustment of these two ideas. According to Hegel, change and
development take place because of idea, spirit and universal spirit. He gave more importance
to idea rather than matter. Marx refuted to this concept of Hegel and developed the theory of
dialectical.

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle. Freeman and
slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor
and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now
hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution
of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
Marx has divided the class struggle in different stages. In the first there was a primitive
communism where were no classes and neither was there any class struggle. All the means of
production were owned collectively and there was equality in distribution. The second society
was the slavery stage. In this stage the masters of the slaves were the exploiters and the slaves
were the exploited. There was class struggle of these two classes which led to the
transformation into feudal society. In feudal society, the means of production was owned by
the feudal. They belonged to the exploiter class and the agricultural laborers were the
exploited class. There was also class struggle between these two classes. This class struggle
made the society to transform into capitalistic society. The capitalistic society is also not free
from conflict. There are two antagonistic classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariats. The
bourgeoisies are the exploited or the ruler class and the proletariats are the exploited or the
ruled class. In this society all the means of production are owned by the capitalists and they
also have the right over the goods produced. The proletariats of the workers are impelled to
live on their labor. They own nothing except their labor. There occurs contradiction between
these two classes and this creates a class struggle. According to Marx, the bourgeois class is
ultimately defeated by the proletariat class and the proletarians gain their right over the means
of production.
According to Marx, the main basis to identify a society is the form of holding
property. All the behaviors of any individual are determined by his relationship with the
property. Classes are determined according to the relationship of a person with the means of
production. The line of demarcating class difference lies in the ownership of property. The
class consciousness and the classes in the distribution system give birth to the class struggle.
In this way the continuously occurring conflict between two antagonistic classes is called as
class struggle.

36
 Criticism of Marxism
2.) According to Marx, polarization of the two antagonistic classes-proletariat and bourgeois-
takes place in capitalism and a vigorous class struggle always occurs there. However, he
ignored the existence of strong, middle class which is responsible for enduring capitalist
system.
3.) According to Marx, the change in social structure always takes place through a violent
struggle. However, in modern capitalist societies the organized labor is able to bring changes
to the power balance to their favor without such struggle.
4.) The theory of surplus value is also full of errors and weaknesses. If the surplus value is
only the source of profit, there is no way to get rid of the exploitation and profit collection in
the world. Even the socialist countries are also making profit from their industries and
factories.
5.) Marx has given importance to the economic basis more than required and ignored any
other sources of power.
6.) Marx's prediction of the demolition of the capitalist system has been proved to be wrong
since there are no any sign of future class struggle in modern capitalist countries.
7.) Not only struggle and conflict always take place in capitalist societies. Cooperation,
accommodation, assistance, love, unity etc. are also taking place there. Marx has ignored
these aspects.
8.) Class is formed not only on the economic basis but also on racial, regional, political,
religious and other differences. Struggle also takes place in these classes. Marx has totally
ignored this part of society.
9.) It was wrong prediction of Marx that the proletariat class ultimately wins in the class
struggle against the bourgeois class.
10.) The capitalism explained by Marx is that he had seen throughout his life time only. His
explanation about capitalism does not fit the modern world. There is no such exploitation and
severe condition of the workers in modern capitalist societies as had been explained by Marx.
11.) According to the prediction of Marx, the socialist societies should have leapt forward
toward communism but in reality they are found to go back capitalist societies instead.
12.) The society is not just the reflection of the ownership of property and economic
organization.
13.) It is wrong to predict that the individuals with common interests necessarily polarize in a
class.
14.) The power struggle in society is not always aimed by the ownership of property.

Importance or Implications of Marxism

1.) Marxism has provided an objective and a scientific tool to study, research and explain the
universe, world, nature and society in place of old spiritual, idealistic concept.
2.) Marxism provides revolutionary guidance to the salvation from exploitation in society.
3.) It helps to remove harassment and status quo thought and provides clear concept for
change, development and progress.

37
Cultural Ecology

Introduction

Cultural ecology is the theory which explains and analysis the interactions and
interrelationships between cultural knowledge, information and technology created and
developed by man for the protection of his life and the surrounding physical and biological
environments around him. In short this theory studies and analyses the interrelationships
between environment and culture in a human society.
The term 'ecology' is related with biology. This word is the combination of two Latin
words 'oikos' and 'logos' which means 'household' and ' study or science' respectively. In
biology, ecology means the study of the relationship of an organism with its surrounding
physical and biological environment. In the field of anthropology, the concept of cultural
ecology is originated and developed in the decade of 1950s.
The proponents of this theory have defined culture as the adaptation process
developed by man to adjust and adapt with the changing environments. Cultural ecology
attempts to explain the cultural diversity in the context of man's diverse adaptation with the
different environments. In other words, they argue that the difference in culture is due to the
different physical and biological environments and the different processes of adjustment and
adaptation with those environments.
It is clear that the physical and biological environment surrounding different societies
of the world in different time segment of history never remained the same and similar and
hence there were different cultures developed by man. Old cultures were discarded and the
new ones developed and adopted to cope with the new environmental challenges. The first
person to insist on the studying cultural ecology is Julian Steward. After he published 'The
Theory of Cultural Change' in 1955, the discipline of cultural ecology is gradually developed
as a separate theory in anthropology.
Ecosystem is divided into two parts: Natural Ecosystem and Socio-cultural system. Under
Natural Ecosystem there are two components; Biotic and Abiotic which affects the existence
of life. Socio-cultural ecosystem is also known as artificial or man made ecosystem.

Context of Cultural Ecology

1. Historical Context
From the time of Greek philosopher Aristotle and 18 th century philosopher
Montesquieu, these philosophers had been talking about the relationship between culture and
environment. Natural science, which studies about environment and ecosystem, had been
gaining momentum. Montesquieu opined that weakness and coward ness can be found in
warm climates. The concept of environmental Possibilism stood against the previous concept
of Environmental Determinism. Since these theories and concepts were not sufficient to
satisfy the need of clarifying the concept of culture and environment, it was felt in the midst
of 20th century to create a new theory to explain the relationship of cultural system with
geographical ecosystem.

2. Social Context
Intellectual freedom, human rights and individual rights which begun in the 18 th
century were encouraged further in the 19th century. Due to the excessive development of
industries and factories, problems of environmental pollution were appeared. The emerging
38
new technologies provided facilities to the man and at the same time created many problems
in environment. This led to the emergence of the theory of cultural ecology.
3. Other Context
Regarding the development of culture, many theories aroused such as evolutionism
and diffusionism, which tried to explain how various cultures of the world evolved, developed
and became different in different parts of the world. Anthropologists and sociologists tried to
overcome the shortcomings and drawbacks of these theories and hence this led to the concept
of interaction of culture and environment.

Key Assumptions of Cultural Ecology

1. Cultural ecology studies the interaction and interrelationship between the man-made
cultural means and the natural environment around him.
2. There is an intimate and mutual relationship between culture and environment.
3. Adaptation is the basic process of cultural change and the process of adaptation is
dynamic.
4. Culture and nature are the indispensable and indivisible parts of the whole cultural
system.
5. Environmental diversity causes cultural diversity in human societies.
6. Culture is developed in course of human adaptation to the ecosystem.
7. In the places of the world where there is similar natural environment, people use
similar technologies, and hence they have similar social, cultural, political structure,
norms and values also.
8. Culture is the compromise of the man with the environment.
9. Culture is changed and developed when men develop the technologies to exploit the
natural resources as much as possible.

Variants of Cultural Ecology

Many anthropologists attempted to explain and interpret the theory of cultural
ecology. The contributions of the following are more important among them:
1. Marvin Harris
2. Roy Rappaport
3. Andrew Vayda
4. Julian Steward

Marshall D. Sahlins (1930-...........)

Marshall D. Sahlins is an American anthropologist. He tried to explain the relationship
between ecosystem and culture. He expressed these views in his book 'Culture and
Environment: the study of Cultural Ecology'. Culture is means of tools developed for the
continuity of society. Culture helps to adapt with the environment. According to him, culture
is the compromise of society with the environment. According to him, the main infrastructure
of cultural structure is the forms of production and technology. Politics, philosophy and views
are the superstructure of the society bases on the physical environment.

Marvin Harris (1927 – 2001)

The main principle of Marvin Harris is cultural materialism. He takes technology,
economy and natural environment as the core elements to prove his theory. His theory is also
called Techno-Economic Determinism. According to this theory, similar technology is
utilized in similar environmental situation. As a result of this similar culture is appeared in
which there are similar thoughts, values, norms, law, philosophy, and style are formed. This
39
also influences life styles, organizations, labor and distribution of goods. Marvin Harris has
divided culture in three parts:
1. Infrastructure
2. Structure
3. Superstructure
After a long study in Indian sub continent he came to the explanation of "Why Indians
do not eat Cow?'" as the adaptation process. India is affected by poverty and lack of sufficient
food. From external point of view, it can be utilized as their food since many cows are left
stray in streets which destroy crops and which do not provide sufficient milk as compared
Western hybrid cows. In this context, a foreigner to India may say that the stray sows do not
have any utility but better can be used as their food. However, Marvin Harris tried to explain
this question by internal adaptation process why these cows are protected and taken as sacred
symbol of Goddess.
Harris found that India has an economy based on agriculture. Both hilly and plain
farmlands are found there. Before the beginning of the use of modern ploughing machine
oxen were used to plough the field. To protect and grow oxen for ploughing, protection of
cows were essential. That is why the tradition of protecting and worshipping cow is
developed. If the life if cow had not been linked with religious belief people would have
finished cow and hence there would be lack of ploughing oxen. Therefore, according to
Harris, the geographical environment of India created the tradition of worshipping and
protecting cow.
A living cow provides milk, cow-dung, sow urine and breeds ox whereas a dead cow
provides its useful leather and bones. The cow-dung is dried and used for burning as fuel.
This helps in the conservation of forest. An ox can be useful for pulling cart apart from
ploughing field. This shows that cow and ox have a multi-purpose utility in Indian sub
continent. Hence Marvin Harris came to the conclusion that the natural environment of India
created the tradition of protecting cows. Harris supported Marx in the point that social and
cultural aspect of society is determined by the physical and technological aspect.
Marvin Harris is an American anthropologist known for his studies of Polynesians and
his theoretical contributions to anthropology. He is best known as an advocate of cultural
materialism, a theoretical perspective that assigns primary importance to the economic and
technological aspects of human societies. According to Harris cultural materialism assumes
that all societies can be divided into three primary levels of organization: infrastructure,
structure and superstructure. Infrastructure consists of the production of goods and services,
as well as the reproduction and maintenance of the population. Structure includes the society's
domestic and political relations. Superstructure consists of thoughts, ideas, values, beliefs, art
and religion. Cultural materialists assume that, in general, important changes or innovations in
a culture originate on the level of the infrastructure. These changes are then reflected in the
structure and finally in the superstructure. Harris argues that even the most abstract aspects of
the superstructure should be understood in relation to the basic forces at work in the
infrastructure.

Roy A. Rappaport (1926 – 1997)

Roy A. Rappaport was born in New York City in1926. He first got a degree in hotel
management but eventually received his Ph. D. at Columbia University. He most enjoyed the
religious aspects of society and also ecology
He established this reputation with his first book “Pigs for the Ancestors”. This
particular book was based on his work with the Tsembaga people of New Guinea. Along with

40
this book he wrote three others and also more than 60 articles, reviews and book chapters. His
latest book, written while he was ill, was entitled “Holiness and Humanity”.
Rappaport was a cultural materialist. He explained cultural phenomenon n terms of
material factors among people and the surrounding natural environment. He also analyzed the
relationship between religion and environment. The following are his major books:
1. Pigs for the Ancestors (co-writing)
2. Ritual, Sanity and Cybernetics
3. Ecology, Meaning and Religion
4. Ecosystem, Populations and People
5. Holiness and Humanity

One of his famous books, “Pigs for the Ancestors”, was an example of his cultural
materialistic approach. This book describes the role of a religious ceremony among
Tsembaga, a community of horticulturists in New Guinea. This community conducted a ritual,
called kaiko, when they won new land from warfare. In the ceremony, the Tsembaga planted
ritual trees on the boarder of new territory and that they slaughtered pigs in order to offer the
pork to their ancestors, and they planted ritual trees in order to create a connection with
ancestral souls on their new land.
In addition to describing Tsembaga’s point of view, Rappaport calculated caloric
exchanges among the community, the natural environment, and neighboring populations. As a
result of this calculation, Rappaport found that the kaiko ritual was articulated with the
ecological relationship among people, pigs, local good supplies, and warfare. Warfare and
succeeding kaiko ritual occurred every couple of years and this cycle corresponds with the
increasing pig population. In other words, the ritual kept the number of pigs within the
capacity of the natural environment and prevented land degradation. At the same time, the
kaiko ceremony distributed surplus wealth in the form of pork and facilitated trade among
people.
Rappaport’s analysis on kaiko ritual is typical of cultural materialist point of view. In
general, religious ceremonies are cultural and can be explained in terms of values and other
non-material concepts. However, Rappaport revealed how the kaiko ritual is interrelated with
material aspects of the Tsembaga society and their surrounding natural environment.

Andrew P. Vayda
Andrew P. Vayda was the teacher of Rappaport. Vayda studied about the human
ecosystem in Bismal Himalayan Areas. He also studied about the cultural change in
Polynesian Atolls. He also talked about new ecology and insisted that population of a tribe
shold be the ideal unit of analysis rather than their culture.
Andrew P Vayda is an American cultural anthropologist. Like Rappaport he also
focused his study cultural ecology in various tribal communities. He studied how environment
creates and develops social and cultural system and how such system work for the existence
of those tribes. The following are his major books:
1. Pigs for the Ancestors (co-writing)
2. War in Ecological Perspective
3. Environmental and Cultural Behavior

Julian Steward (1902 – 1972)

Julian Steward was born in 1902 in Washington D.C. He is a Neo-evolutionist who
focused on relationships between cultures and the natural environment. Although Steward
learned Historical Particularism when he was a graduate student of anthropology, his interest
41
later turned to environmental influences on cultures and cultural evolution. He argued that
different cultures do have similar features in their evolution and that these features could be
explained as parallel adaptations to similar natural environments.
Steward began his ethnographic career among the Shoshone, a Native American tribe
in the Great Basin in the west of the United States. Through studying the Shoshone society in
the dry harsh environment, he produced a theory that explained social systems in terms of
their adaptation to environmental and technological circumstances. Steward’s evolutionary
theory, cultural ecology, is determined by its environmental resources. Steward outlined three
basic steps for a cultural-ecological investigation. First, the relationship between subsistence
strategies and natural resources must be analyzed. Second, the behavior patterns involved in a
particular subsistence strategy must be analyzed. For example, certain game is best hunted by
individuals while other game can be captured in communal hunts. These patterns of activities
reveal that different social behaviors are involved in the utilization of different resources. The
third step is to determine how these behavior patterns affect other aspects of the society. This
strategy showed that environment determines the forms of labor in a society, which affects the
entire culture of the group. The principal concern of cultural ecology is to determine whether
cultural adaptations toward the natural environment initiate social transformations of
evolutionary change.
Although Steward did not believe in one universal path of cultural evolution, he
argued that different societies can independently develop parallel features. By applying
cultural ecology, he identified several common features of cultural evolution which are seen
in different societies in similar environments. He avoided sweeping statements about culture
in general: instead, he dealt with parallels in limited numbers of cultures and gave specific
explanations for the causes of such parallels. Steward’s evolutionary theory is called
Multilinear evolution because the theory is based on the idea that there are several different
patterns of progress toward cultural complexity. In other words, Steward did not assume
universal evolutionary stages that apply to all societies. For example, he traced the
evolutionary similarities in five ancient civilizations: Mesopotamia, Egypt, China,
Mesoamerica and the Andes. These cultures shared parallels in development of form and
function because all of them developed in arid and semi-arid environments where the
economic basis was irrigation and flood-water agriculture. He argued that this similarities
stem not from universal stages of cultural development or from the diffusion of civilization
between these regions, but from the similar natural environments.
Julian Steward talked about cultural ecology for the first time when he wrote a book,
“Theory of Cultural Change” in 1955. The following are his major works:
1. Theory of Cultural Change.
2. The People of Puerto Rico.
3. Native People of South Africa.
4. Irrigation Civilization.
Julian Steward is also known as a neo-evolutionist. He criticized the Universal
Energetic Evolutionary Theory of Leslie White. The main principle of Julian Steward is the
interactional analysis of environment and culture. Steward is the first person who divided
evolutionism into the following parts:
1. Unilinear Evolutionism.
This is the classical evolutionary theories of 19th century. They believe that all the
cultures of the world must pass through certain universal stages of development.
Taylor, Morgan, Marx etc. are the main proponents of this theory.
2. Universal Evolutionism

42
 The theories of White and Childe fall under this theory. They believe that culture is
developed according to the extent of energy utilization and the development of
technology.
3. Multilinear Evolutionism
According to this theory, the development of culture does not occur in a single
predefined way, but in different ways in different parts of the world. Julian Steward is
the main proponent of this theory. In this context, he explained about cultural ecology.
He explained culture as the adaptation process of man with changing environment.
Culture is developed and changed to cope with the environmental challenges.

The cultural ecology of Julian Steward can be summarized as the following three points:
1. The interrelationship of exploitative or productive technology and environment
must be analyzed.
2. The behavior patterns involved in the involved in the exploitation of particular
area by means of particular technology must be analyzed.
3. The procedure is to ascertain the extent to which those behaviors is entailed in
exploiting the environment affect other section of culture.

Criticism of Julian Steward

1. It seems inadequate:
His cultural ecological analysis is not able to include aspects other than
technology and environment. He is not able to explain how covariance can exist between
cultural traits and environment and how they can be mutually interrelated. Therefore, his
views are inadequate.
2. This theory does not talk about change. It often talks about the stable and
equilibrium society. Later in 1970's decade, this theory was replaced by system ecology.

3. In cultural ecology, the scholar stresses on material culture rather than non-material culture.
4. Through this theory, we can understand primitive society rather than modern and complex
society.

Implication

1. This theory studies the deep relation between environment and society.
2. This theory has researched about the relation man with environment and there way of
adaptation scientifically.
3. The materialistic approach in this theory seems very scientific and logic. In this way, it
becomes a major analysis in sociology.
4. In this theory, the scholars try to compare the relation between material culture and non-
material culture.

43
Feminism and Sociology

Feminist sociology grew out of the feminist movement. The lecture begins by outlining the
origins of the feminist political movement in the Enlightenment tradition of “rights of man”.
The “first wave” feminists in the 19th and early 20th Century addressed the problems of equal
rights to property, voting, education. “Second wave” feminism began after the Second World
War with a critique of middle class suburban familism. Sociology was soon at the forefront of
developing feminist perspectives on various social problems. The feminist critique of
malestream sociology argued that sociology had been mainly concerned with research on men
and that it generalised from male experience to the whole population (for example in the study
of factory work, or youth sub-cultures). Areas of concern to women were overlooked or seen
as unimportant (such as domestic violence, domestic labour etc). Where women were
presented they were presented in a stereotypical way or gender was simply added as another
independent variable without being critically addressed. Sociology presented a view of the
world based upon male experiences.

Feminist theory (or theorising in general) should suggest questions to be asked (Why don’t
women commit crimes? Why aren’t women promoted at work? Why do women prefer
humanities? Why do women do domestic work? Why are women the victims of violence in
the home?). It provides concepts for analysing these issues (the concepts of “femininity” or
“masculinity” for example) and it provides ways of answering the questions posed. Feminist
theory helps us to interpret what we observe and provides value judgements about how
scientific concepts can be applied to social life.

There are a range of different feminist perspectives. In the lectures I described only some of
them: Liberal feminism; radical feminism; Marxist feminism; postmodern feminism; black
and postcolonial feminisms; post-feminism.

Feminist research and epistemology aims to look at social issues from a woman’s point of
view and the issues addressed are highlighted by feminist epistemologies. One factor which
feminist researchers have especially raised is the relationship between the researcher and the
researched – they have argued that this should be a sharing relationship rather than one based
upon exploitation. For this reason, feminist research has tended to favour qualitative methods
rather than quantitative ones (although quantitative work can be done from a feminist
perspective too – it depends upon the questions framed and how the data is interpreted. Even
if complete equality between researcher and subjects of research is impossible, feminist
researchers aim to be reflexive about their role in the research process.

Four feminist epistemologies were outlined: feminist empiricism, which argues that we
should try to do non-sexist empirical research; standpoint feminism, viewing the world from
the point of view a particular perspective or social group in order to standard outside the
hegemonic discourses of power; feminist contructivism, which aims to construct alternative
discourses from a non-positivistic perspective; post modern epistemologies that concentrate
upon deconstruction and critique, especially around textual analysis.

In the end, feminism allows for a number of different perspectives and different perspectives
are appropriate to different problems and different levels of analysis.

44
You might raise the question: is feminist research only about women? Whilst it began in this
way (to redress the balance in sociology), the problematising of gender is something that has
been taken up by male researchers too in looking at masculinities, for example. This has
helped the explanatory potential of many areas of research –for example for insights into the
rise of suicide among young men. Furthermore, men have used feminist perspectives (see
work by Bob Connell, David Morgan, Keith Pringle
http://www.eurowrc.org/03.network/09.network.htm) – although this is still quite unusual and
some feminist argue that only women can understand the situation of women. In my opinion
this leads to a problem of infinite regress (only black women can study black women, only
poor women can study poor women etc.) in which sociology itself becomes impossible. The
insights of feminist sociology can be used to enrich and improve sociology in general. They
have succeeded in shifting the research questions and paradigms in many fields of sociology,
although others remain more or less untouched.

Basic Premises:

The subfield of Feminist Anthropology emerged in the early 1970s as a reaction to a

perceived androcentric bias within the discipline (Lamphere 1996: 488). Two related points
should be made concerning this reaction. First of all, some of the prominent figures in early
American anthropology (i.e. Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict) were women, and the
discipline has traditionally been more egalitarian, in terms of gender, than other social
sciences (di Leonardo 1991: 5-6). Underlying that statement, however, is the fact that the
discipline has been subject to prevailing modes of thought through time and has certainly
exhibited the androcentric thinking which early feminist anthropologists accused it of (Reiter
1975: 13-14).

The first feminist anthropologists perceived substantial gaps in the corpus of anthropological
literature as a result of male bias (Lamphere 1996: 488). What ethnographic data concerning
women that existed was often, in reality, the reports of male informants transmitted through
male ethnographers (Pine 1996: 253).

Contemporary feminist anthropologists are no longer focusing their research solely on the
issue of gender asymmetry. Instead they have begun to explore the importance of female
activities, such as "foraging, parenting, and sexual selection in our reconstructions of human
history"(McGee and Warms 1996:391). The focus has shifted towards more particularistic
and historically grounded studies that place gender at the center of analysis. Issues significant
to women of color, lesbians, and Third World peoples are now recognized and incorporated
into the scholarship produced by feminist anthropologists (Lamphere 1996:488). This
collection of work has tended to follow a few main trends. The first trend developed along a
materialistic perspective. Several of the scholars who follow this perspective focus on gender
as it relates to class, the social relations of power, and changes in modes of production. The
second of these trends focuses on "the social construction of gender as it is expressed in the
roles of motherhood, kinship, and marriage" (McGee and Warms 1996:392).

45
In general, contemporary feminist anthropologists have shown that gender is an important
analytical concept (McGee and Warms 1996:392). Gender is a term that came into popular
use in the early 1980's. It was often found in the writings of social and cultural
anthropologists. Gender was used to refer to both the male and the female, the cultural
construction of these categories, and the relationship between them (Pine 1996:253). The
definition of gender may vary from culture to culture, and this realization has led feminist
anthropologists away from broad generalizations (Lamphere 1996:488). The focus of
contemporary scholars in this area is on the differences existing among women rather than
between males and females (McGee, Warms 1996: 392).

Points of Reaction:

Anthropology is one of the few disciplines in which women historically have been able to
obtain both high levels of professional achievement and public recognition. In the
anthropological literature, however, the discussion of women, until recently, has been
restricted to the areas of marriage, kinship, and family. Feminist anthropologists believe that
the failure of past researchers to treat the issues of women and gender as significant has led to
a deficient understanding of the human experience (McGee and Warms 1996:391, from
Morgen 1989:1).

One criticism made by feminist anthropologists is directed towards the language being used
within the discipline. The ambiguous use of the word "man" is ambiguous, sometimes
referring to Homo sapiens as a whole, sometimes in reference to males only, and sometimes
in reference to both simultaneously. Those making this criticism cited the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis, which stated that language shapes worldview. Theorists such as S. Washburn and
C. Lancaster were also criticized. In addition to using phrases such as 'poor dependent
females', these theorists placed a great deal of weight on aggression. Working in the 1960's,
K. Lorenz published On Aggression and R. Ardrey published African Genesis. Both were
popular texts that promoted the importance of aggression in the evolutionary formation of
humanity (McGee and Warms 1996:395).

A further point of reaction happened after the initial creation of the subfield. African-
American anthropologists and members of other ethnic minorities were quick to point out
deficiencies in the questions being asked by the early feminist anthropologists. One of those
to do so was Audrey Lorde, who in a letter to Mary Daly wrote: "I feel you do celebrate
differences between white women as a creative force towards change, rather than a reason for
misunderstanding and separation. But you fail to recognize that, as women, those differences
expose all women to various forms and degrees of patriarchal oppression, some of which we
share, some of which we do not....The oppression of women knows no ethnic nor racial
boundaries, true, but that does not mean it is identical within those boundaries" (Minh-ha
1989:101). Early feminist anthropologists did indeed imply, in their search for universal
explanations for female subordination and gender inequality, that all women suffer the same
oppression simply because we are women. The later work done in this subfield has addressed
this criticism.

Leading Figures:

46
Margaret Mead's (1901-1978) theories were influenced by ideas borrowed from Gestalt
psychology, that subfield of psychology which analyzed personality as an interrelated
psychological pattern rather than a collection of separate elements (McGee, Warms 1996:202)
Her work influenced Rosaldo's and Lamphere's attempts to build a framework for the
emerging discipline. Mead's work contained an analysis of pervasive sexual asymmetry that
fit with their reading of the ethnographic literature (Levinson, Ember 1996:488).

Sherry Ortner (1941- ), one of the early proponents of feminist anthropology, constructed a
explanatory model for gender asymmetry based on the premise that the subordination of
women is a universal, that is, cross-cultural phenomenon. In an article published in 1974, Is
Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?, she takes a structuralist approach to the question of
gender inequality. She suggests that a woman's role as childbearer makes them natural
creators, while men use are cultural creators (Ortner 1974: 77-78)).

Michelle Rosaldo, together with Ortner, offered an integrated set of explanations, each at a
different level, for the universal subordination of women. These were in terms of social
structure, culture, and socialization. She argued that in every society women bear and raise
children and that women's socially and culturally defined role as mother provided the basis for
subordination. Early feminist anthropologists such as Rosaldo did not question the concept of
the universal subordination of women and used dichotomies to explain it (Lamphere
1996:488-9).

Ruth Benedict (1887-1948): Benedict, a student of Franz Boas, was an early and influential
female anthropologist, earning her doctorate from Columbia University in 1923 (Buckner
1997: 34). Her fieldwork with Native Americans and other groups led her to develop the
"configurational approach" to culture, seeing cultural systems as working to favor certain
personality types among different societies (Buckner 1997: 34). Along with Margaret Mead
she is one of the most prominent female anthropologists of the first half of this century.

Key Works:

Margaret Mead (1935) Sex and Temperment in Three Primitive Societies. New York:
William Morrow. In this text Mead explores the relationship between culture and human
nature. Culture is dealt with as a primary factor in determining masculine and feminine social
characteristics and behavior. One of the purposes of this text was to inform Americans as to
the nature of human cultural diversity (McGee and Warms 1996:202-3).

Margaret Mead (1949) Male and Female: A study of the sexes in a changing world. New
York: Morrow Quill Paperbacks. By her own declaration, Mead attempts to do three things in
this text. First, to bring a greater awareness of the way in which the differences and
similarities in the bodies of human beings are the basis on which all our learning about our
sex, and our relationship to the other sex, are built. Secondly, she draws on some of the
knowledge we have of all human societies, to see what has been attempted in what situations,
and what the results were. This is done in the hope that we might learn or be exposed to an
idea that will leave us the better for it. Finally, she tries to suggest ways in which our
civilization may make full use of both a man's and a woman's special talents (Mead 1949:5-6).
Her analyses concerning the differences between males and females influenced many of the
discussions that were to follow.

47
Engels, Frederick (1973) The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Moscow:
Progress Publishers. The theories developed by both Engels and Marx influenced many of the
first feminist anthropologists. The quest for a universal understanding of female
subordination, as well as the reliance upon dichotomies both had their roots in the ideas of
these two men, and in the theories posited in this text.

Rosaldo, Michelle and Louise Lamphere, eds. (1974) Women, Culture, and Society. Stanford:
Stanford University Press. This collection of essays emerged from a course at Stanford
University, as well as from papers delivered at the 1971 American Anthropological
Association meetings. These essays deal with the issue of universal sexual asymmetry, or
female subordination.

Reiter, Rayna, ed. (1975) Toward an Anthropology of Women. New York: Monthly Review
Press. This anthology is considered one of the groundbreaking collections of feminist essays
published in the 1970's, and includes works by authors such as Sally Slocum. The ideas
expressed in this collection are heavily focused towards the development of universal
explanations and helpful dichotomies.

Principal Concepts:

Initially, feminist anthropology focused on analysis and development of theory to explain the
subordination of women, which seemed to be universal and cross-cultural. Marxist theory was
appealing to feminist anthropologists in the 1970s because "there is no theory which accounts
for the oppression of women – in its endless variety and monotonous similarity, cross-
culturally and throughout history – with anything like the explanatory power of the Marxist
theory of class oppression" (Rubin 1975: 160). The Marxist model explains that the
subordination of women in capitalist societies, both in terms of their reproductive role, "the
reproduction of labor," as well as their value as unpaid or underpaid labor, arises from
historical trends predating capitalism itself (Rubin 1975: 160-164).

Engels, in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, attempted to explain the
origin of these historical trends, though his 19th century theories seem dated to present day
readers (Rubin 1975: 164-5). He attributed the oppression of women to shifts in the modes of
production at the time of the Neolithic revolution (Rubin 1975: 169). According to Engels,
once men had property (land or herds), they desired to transmit them to their offspring via
patrilineal inheritance. This was accomplished by the overthrow of matrilineal inheritance and
descent systems, leading to the "world historical defeat of the female sex" (Engels 1972: 120-
121).

Accepting the idea that women were universally subordinated to men in some manner,
anthropologists in the feminist subfield developed different models to explain this situation.
Anthropologists such as Rosaldo, Edholm, and Ortner used dichotomies such as
public/domestic, production/reproduction, and nature/culture (respectively) to explain
universal female subordination. Ortner's use of the dichotomy to explain the universal
subordination of women is built upon Levi-Strauss's conclusion that there is a universal
binary opposition between nature and culture. He also argued that cross-culturally women
were represented as closer to nature because of their role in reproduction (Pine 1996:254).

48
E. Friedl and L. Lamphere believe that, although females are subjected to universal
subordination, they are not without individual power. These two anthropologists emphasize
the domestic power of women. This power, according to this theoretical framework, is
"manifested in individually negotiated relations based in the domestic sphere but influencing
and even determining male activity in the public sphere" (Pine 1996:254).

In the late 1970's many feminist anthropologists were beginning to question the concept of
universal female subordination and the usefulness of models based on dichotomies. Some
anthropologists argued that there existed societies where males and females held roles that
were complementary but equal. The work done by A. Schlegal and J. Briggs in foraging and
tribal societies is an example of this. K. Sacks used a modes-of-production analysis to show
that "hunter-gatherers possessed a communal political economy in which sisters, wives,
brothers, and husbands all had the same relation to productive means and resources". Another
criticism made against the use of dichotomies was that these dichotomies were Western
categories. They, therefore, are not applicable to cross-cultural studies and analyses
(Lamphere 1996:489).

The use and development of the concept 'gender ' has helped to further separate feminist
anthropology from the use of dichotomies and the search for universals. Gender, as it came to
replace the term woman in the anthropological discussions, helped to free the issue of
inequality from biological connotations. These new discussions of gender brought with them
more complex issues of cross-cultural translation, universality, the relationship between
thought systems and individual action, and between ideology and material conditions (Pine
1996: 255). I. Illich defines sex as the "duality that stretches toward the illusory goal of
economic, political, legal, or social equality between women and men". He defines gender as
the "eminently local and time bound duality that sets off men and women under circumstances
and conditions that prevent them from saying, doing, desiring, or perceiving 'the same thing'"
(Minh-ha 1989:105).

Criticisms:

Feminist anthropology has been criticized for a number of issues since its emergence in the
1970s. One early criticism, noted above, was made by female anthropologists belonging to
ethnic minorities. Their criticism was that white, middle class female anthropologists were
focusing too intensely on issues of gender. Consequently, the subfield was ignoring social
inequalities arising from issues such as racism and the unequal distribution of wealth. This
criticism has been redressed both by a heightened awareness of such issues by the
aforementioned white, middle class feminist anthropologists, as well as the entry of large
numbers of minority anthropologists into the field.

Additionally, feminist anthropology has been accused of mirroring the situation they
originally criticized. The field began as a critique of the androcentric bias deriving from men
(male ethnographers) studying men (male informants). However, it has often been the case
that feminist anthropology consists of women studying women in the same arrangement. The
field has attempted to address this issue by focusing more broadly on the issue of gender and
moving away from the "Anthropology of Women" (di Leonardo 1991: 1).

49
Finally, the field has always been intimately associated with the Feminist Movement and has
often been politicized. This practice is problematic on a number of levels. For one, it alienates
many from the field by projecting an aura of radicalism. For another, putting politics before
attempts at impartial inquiry tends to lead to research of questionable merit.

Postmodernism
Basic Premises:

Postmodernism is highly debated even among postmodernists themselves. For an initial

characterization of its basic premises, consider one of the founding postmodernists
Anthropologists, Clifford Geertz: “anthropological writings are themselves interpretations and
second and third ones to boot” (Geertz 1973).

A more detailed explanation, anthropological critic Melford Spiro's gave a synopsis of the
basic tenets of postmodernism:

“The postmodernist critique of science consists of two interrelated arguments, epistemological

and ideological. Both are based on subjectivity. First, because of the subjectivity of the human
object, anthropology, according to the epistemological argument cannot be a science; and in
any event the subjectivity of the human subject precludes the possibility of science
discovering objective truth. Second, since objectivity is an illusion, science according to the
ideological argument, subverts oppressed groups, females, ethnics, third-world peoples (Spiro
1996).

Modernity Modernity came into being with the Renaissance. Modernity implies “the
progressive economic and administrative rationalization and differentiation of the social
world” (Sarup 1993). In essence this term emerged in the context of the development of the
capitalist state. Anthropologists have been working towards studying modern times, but have
now gone past that. The fundamental act of modernity is to question the foundations of past
knowledge.

Postmodernity Logically postmodernism literally means “after modernity. It refers to the

incipient or actual dissolution of those social forms associated with modernity" (Sarup 1993).

Modernization “This term is often used to refer to the stages of social development which are
based upon industrialization. Modernization is a diverse unity of socio-economic changes
generated by scientific and technological discoveries and innovations...” (Sarup 1993).

Modernism Modernism is an experiment in finding the inner truths of a situation. It can be

characterized by self-consciousness and reflexiveness. This is very closely related to
Postmodernism (Sarup 1993).

Postmodernism (For more information see Comments Section)

50
“There is a sense in which if one sees modernism as the culture of modernity, postmodernism
is the culture of postmodernity” (Sarup 1993).

“Modern, overloaded individuals, desperately trying to maintain rootedness and

integrity...ultimately are pushed to the point where there is little reason not to believe that all
value-orientations are equally well-founded. Therefore, increasingly, choice becomes
meaningless. According to Baudrillard (1984: 38-9), we must now come to terms with the
second revolution, “that of the Twentieth Century, of postmodernity, which is the immense
process of the destruction of meaning equal to the earlier destruction of appearances.
Whoever lives by meaning dies by meaning" (Ashley 1990).

Ryan Bishop, in a concise article in the Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (1996),

defines post-modernism as an eclectic movement, originating in aesthetics, architecture and
philosophy. Postmodernism espouses a systematic skepticism of grounded theoretical
perspectives. Applied to anthropology, this skepticism has shifted focus from the observation
of a particular society to the observation of the (anthropological) observer.

Postmodernity concentrates on the tensions of difference and similarity erupting from

processes of globalization: the accelerating circulation of people, the increasingly dense and
frequent cross-cultural interactions, and the unavoidable intersections of local and global
knowledge.

"Postmodernists are suspicious of authoritative definitions and singular narratives of any

trajectory of events.” (Bishop 1996: 993). Post-modern attacks on ethnography are based on
the belief that there is no true objectivity. The authentic implementation of the scientific
method is impossible.

According to Rosenau, postmodernists can be divided into two very broad camps, Skeptics
and Affirmatives.

 Skeptical Postmodernists- They are extremely critical of the modern subject. They
consider the subject to be a “linguistic convention” (Rosenau 1992:43). They also
reject any understanding of time because for them the modern understanding of time is
oppressive in that it controls and measures individuals. They reject Theory because
theories are abundant, and no theory is considered more correct that any other. They
feel that “theory conceals, distorts, and obfuscates, it is alienated, disparate, dissonant,
it means to exclude, order, and control rival powers” (Rosenau 1992: 81).
 Affirmative Postmodernists- Affirmatives also reject Theory by denying claims of
truth. They do not, however, feel that Theory needs to be abolished but merely
transformed. Affirmatives are less rigid than Skeptics. They support movements
organized around peace, environment, and feminism (Rosenau 1993: 42).

Here are some proposed differences between modern and postmodern thought.

Contrast of Modern and Postmodern Thinking

51
  Modern Postmodern

Reasoning From foundation upwards Multiple factors of multiple

levels of reasoning. Web-
oriented.

Science Universal Optimism Realism of Limitations

Part/Whole Parts comprise the whole The whole is more than the
parts

God Acts by violating "natural" Top-Down causation

laws" or by "immanence" in
everything that is

Language Referential Meaning in social context

through usage

Source: http://private.fuller.edu/~clameter/phd/postmodern.html

Points of Reaction:

"Modernity" takes its Latin origin from “modo,” which means “just now”. The Postmodern,
then literally means “after just now” Appignanesi and Garratt 1995). Points of reaction from
within postmodernism are associated with other “posts”: postcolonialism, poststructuralism,
and postprocessualism.

Postcolonialism

Postcolonialism has been defined as:

1. A description of institutional conditions in formerly colonial societies.

2. An abstract representation of the global situation after the colonial period.
3. A description of discourses informed by psychological and epistemological orientations.

Edward Said’s Culture and Imperialism (1993) represents discourse analysis and postcolonial
theory as tools for rethinking forms of knowledge and the social identities of postcolonial
systems. An important feature of postcolonialist thought is its assertion that modernism and
modernity are part of the colonial project of domination.

Debates about Postcolonialism are unresolved, yet issues raised in Said’s Orientalism (1978),
a critique of Western descriptions of Non-Euro-American Others, suggest that colonialism as
a discourse is based on the ability of Westerners to examine other societies in order to
produce knowledge and use it as a form of power deployed against the very subjects of
inquiry. As should be readily apparent, the issues of postcolonialism are uncomfortably
relevant to contemporary anthropological investigations.
52
Poststructuralism

In reaction to the abstraction of cultural data characteristic of model building, cultural

relativists argue that model building hindered understanding of thought and action. From this
claim arose poststructuralist concepts such as developed in the work of Pierre Bourdieu
(1972). He asserts that structural models should not be replaced but enriched. Post
structuralists like Bourdieu are concerned with reflexivity and the search for logical practice.
By doing so, accounts of the participants' behavior and meanings are not objectified by the
observer. (For definition of reflexivity, see key concepts

Postprocessualism

Unlike Postcolonialism and Poststructuralism, which are trends among cultural

anthropologists, Postprocessualism is a trend among archaeologists.  Postprocessualists “use
deconstructionist skeptical arguments to conclude that there is no objective past and that our
representations of the past are only texts that we produce on the basis of our socio-political
standpoints.  In effect, they argue that there is no objective past and that our representations of
the past are only texts that we produce on the basis of our socio-political standpoints” (Harris
1999).

Leading Figures:

Michael Agar  Agar is critical of traditional scholarly studies related to the social world for
two reasons (Agar 1997).  Firstly, he feels that it is far too difficult to reconstruct human
interactions based on notes in a meaningful way.  Secondly, he feels that American
anthropology tends to draw a barrier between “applied” and “practiced” work.  This
effectively means that those who are currently paid to teach anthropology in an academic
setting have become out of touch with the current state of scholarship being done by
“practitioners” whose positions within academia are far less secure, having not yet attained
status in a University setting.  To define this distinction he uses the terms “slave labor
academic instructors” and “practitioner civil servants.”

Jean Baudrillard (1929 - 2007) Baudrillard is a sociologist who began his career exploring
the Marxist critique of capitalism (Sarup 1993: 161). During this phase of his work he argued
that, “consumer objects constitute a system of signs that differentiate the population” (Sarup
1993: 162). Eventually, however, Baudrillard felt that Marxist tenets did not effectively
evaluate commodities, so he turned to postmodernism. Rosenau labels Baudrillard as a
skeptical postmodernist because of statements like, “everything has already
happened....nothing new can occur, “or “there is no real world” (Rosenau 1992: 64, 110).
Baudrillard breaks down modernity and postmodernity in an effort to explain the world as a
set of models. He identifies early modernity as the period between the Renaissance and the
Industrial Revolution, modernity as the period at the start of the Industrial Revolution, and
postmodernity as the period of mass media (cinema and photography). Baudrillard states that
we live in a world of images but images that are only simulations. Baudrillard implies that
many people fail to understand this concept that, “we have now moved into an epoch...where
truth is entirely a product of consensus values, and where ‘science’ itself is just the name we
attach to certain modes of explanation,” (Norris 1990: 169).

53
Jacques Derrida (1930 - 2004) Derrida is identified as a poststructuralist and a skeptical
postmodernist. Much of his writing is concerned with the deconstruction of texts and probing
the relationship of meaning between texts (Bishop 1996: 1270). He observes that “a text
employs its own stratagems against it, producing a force of dislocation that spreads itself
through an entire system.” (Rosenau 1993: 120). Derrida directly attacks Western
philosophy's understanding of reason. He sees reason as dominated by “a metaphysics of
presence.” Derrida agrees with structuralism's insight, that meaning is not inherent in signs,
but he proposes that it is incorrect to infer that anything reasoned can be used as a stable and
timeless model (Appignanesi 1995: 77). “He tries to problematize the grounds of reason,
truth, and knowledge...he questions the highest point by demanding reasoning for reasoning
itself,” (Norris 1990: 199).

Michel Foucault (1926 - 1984) Foucault was a French philosopher who attempted to show
that what most people think of as the permanent truths of human nature and society actually
change throughout the course of history. While challenging the influences of Marx and Freud,
Foucault postulated that every day practices enabled people to define their identities and
systemize knowledge. Foucault’s study of power and its shifting patterns is one of the
foundations of postmodernism. Foucault is considered a postmodern theorist precisely
because his work upsets the conventional understanding of history as a chronology of
inevitable facts. Alternatively, he depicts history as under layers of suppressed and
unconscious knowledge in and throughout history. These under layers are the codes and
assumptions of order, the structures of exclusion that legitimate the epistemes by which
societies achieve identities (Appignanesi 1995: 83, http://www.connect.net/ron).

Clifford Geertz (1926 - 2006) Geertz was a prominent anthropologist best known for his
work with religion.  Geertz was somewhat ambivalent about Postmodernism.  He divided it
into two movements that both came to fruition in the 1980s.  “The first led off into essentially
literary matters: authorship, genre, style, narrative, metaphor, representation, discourse,
fiction, figuration, persuasion; the second, into essentially political matters: the social
foundations of anthropological authority, the modes of power inscribed in its practices, its
ideological assumptions, its complicity with colonialism, racism, exploitation, and exoticism,
its dependency on the master narratives of Westerns self-understanding.  These interlinked
critiques of anthropology, the one inward-looking and brooding, the other outward-looking
and recriminatory, may not have produced the ‘fully dialectical ethnography acting
powerfully in the postmodern world system,’ to quote that Writing Culture blast again, nor
did they exactly go unresisted. But they did induce a certain self-awareness and a certain
candor also, into a discipline not without need of them.” (Geertz 2002).

Ian Hodder (1948 - )  Hodder is one of the founders of postprocessualism (Harris 1999).  He
argued that the study of “social acts” is more important to archaeological research than
explanations based around external factors such as the environment.

Jean-Francois Lyotard (1924 – 1998)“The Postmodern would be that which in the modern
invokes the unpresentable in presentation itself, that which refuses the consolation of correct
forms, refuses the consensus of taste permitting a common experience of nostalgia for the
impossible, and inquires into new presentations--not to take pleasure in them, but to better
produce the feeling that there is something unpresentable.” Lyotard attacks many of the
modern age traditions, such as the "Grand" Narrative or what Lyotard termed the
Meta(master) narrative (Lyotard 1984). In contrast to the ethnographies written by
54
anthropologists in the first half of the 20th Century, Lyotard states that an all encompassing
account of a culture cannot be accomplished.

Nancy Scheper-Hughes (1944-) Scheper-Hughes is a professor of Anthropology at the

University of California, Berkeley. In her work "Primacy of the Ethical" Scheper-Hughes
argues that, "If we cannot begin to think about social institutions and practices in moral or
ethical terms, then anthropology strikes me as quite weak and useless." (1995: 410). She
advocates that ethnographies be used as tools for critical reflection and human liberation
because she feels that "ethics" make culture possible. Since culture is preceded by ethics,
therefore ethics cannot be culturally bound as argued by anthropologists in the past. These
philosophies are evident in her other works such as, "Death Without Weeping." The crux of
her postmodern perspective is that, "Anthropologists, no less than any other professionals,
should be held accountable for how we have used and how we have failed to use
anthropology as a critical tool at crucial historical moments. It is the act of "witnessing" that
lends our word its moral, at times almost theological, character." (1995: 419)

Key Works:

 Foucault, Michel (1970) The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human

Sciences. New York: Pantheon.
 Lyotard, Jean-Francois (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
 Marcus, George E. and Michael M. J. Fischer (1986) Anthropology as Cultural
Critique. An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
 Norris, Christopher (1979) Deconstruction: Theory and Practice. New York:
Routledge.
 Scheper-Hughes, Nancy (1993) Death without Weeping: The Violence of Everyday
Life in Brazil. Berkeley: University of California Press.
 Tyler, Stephen (1986) Post-Modern Ethnography: From Document of the Occult To
Occult Document. In Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, ed.
James Clifford and George E. Marcus. Berkeley: University of California Press.
 Vattimo, Gianni (1988) The End of Modernity: Nihilism and Hermeneutics. In Post-
Modern Critique. London: Polity.

Principal Concepts:

Realism “...is the platonic doctrine that universals or abstractions have being independently of
mind” (Gellner 1980: 60).

“Realism is a mode of writing that seeks to represent the reality of the whole world or form of
life. Realist ethnographies are written to allude to a whole by means of parts or foci of
analytical attention which can constantly evoke a social and cultural totality. (Marcus and
Fischer 1986, p.23).

Power Foucault was a prominent critic of the idea of “culture,” preferring instead to deal in
the concept of “power” as the major focus of anthropological research (Barrett 2001).  It is
through the dynamics of power that “a human being turns himself into a subject” (Foucault

55
1982).  This is not only true of political power, but also includes people recognizing things
such as sexuality as forces to which they are subject.  “The exercise of power is not simply a
relationship between partners, individual or collective; it is a way in which certain actions
modify others.  Which is to say, of course, that something called Power, with or without a
capital letter, which is assumed to exist universally in a concentrated or diffused form, does
not exist” (Foucault 1982).

Relativism Gellner writes about the relativistic-functionalist view of thought that goes back
to the Enlightenment: "The (unresolved) dilemma, which the thought of the Enlightenment
faced, was between a relativistic-functionalist view of thought, and the absolutist claims of
enlightened Reason. Viewing man as part of nature...requires (us) to see cognitive and
evaluative activities as part of nature too, and hence varying from organism to organism and
context to context. (Clifford & Marcus (eds), 1986, p.147). Anthropological theory of the
1960's may be best understood as the heir of relativism. Contemporary interpretative
anthropology is the essence of relativism as a mode of inquiry about communication in and
between cultures (Marcus & Fischer, 1986, p.32).

“Culture” in Peril  Aside from Foucault, other postmodernists felt that “Culture is becoming
a dangerously unfocused term, increasingly lacking in scientific credentials” (Pasquinelli
1996).  The concept of Culture as a whole was tied not only to modernity, but to evolutionary
theory (and, implicitly, to euro centrism).  In the postmodernist view, if “culture” existed it
had to be totally relativistic without any suggestion of “progress.”  While postmodernists did
have a greater respect for later revisions of cultural theory by Franz Boas and his followers,
who attempted to shift from a single path of human “culture” to many varied “cultures,” they
found even this unsatisfactory because it still required the use of a Western concept to define
non-Western people.

Self-Reflexivity Reflexivity can be defined as “The scientific observer's objectification of

structure as well as strategy was seen as placing the actors in a framework not of their own
making but one produced by the observer, “ (Bishop 1996: 1270). Self-Reflexivity leads to a
consciousness of the process of knowledge creation (Bishop 1996: 995). It emphasizes the
point of theoretical and practical questioning changing the ethnographers' view of themselves
and their work. There is an increased awareness of the collection of data and the limitation of
methodological systems. This idea underlies the postmodernist affinity for studying the
culture of anthropology and ethnography.

Lament  Lament is a practice of ritualized weeping (Wilce 2005).  In the view of Wilce, the
traditional means of laments in many cultures were being forced out by modernity due to
many claiming that ritualized displays of discontent, particularly discontent with the lost of
traditional culture, was a “backwards” custom that needed to be stopped.

Methodologies:

One of the essential elements of Postmodernism is that it constitutes an attack against

theory and methodology. In a sense proponents claim to relinquish all attempts to create new
knowledge in a systematic fashion, but substitutes an “anti-rules” fashion of
discourse(Rosenau p.117). Despite this claim, however, there are two methodologies
characteristic of Postmodernism. These methodologies are interdependent in that

56
Interpretation is inherent in Deconstruction. “Post-modern methodology is post-positivist or
anti-positivist. As substitutes for the scientific method the affirmatives look to feelings and
personal experience.....the skeptical post modernists most of the substitutes for method
because they argue we can never really know anything (Rosenau 1993, p.117).

Deconstruction Deconstruction emphasizes negative critical capacity. Deconstruction

involves demystifying a text to reveal internal arbitrary hierarchies and presuppositions. By
examining the margins of a text, the effort of deconstruction examines what it represses, what
it does not say, and its incongruities. It does not solely unmask error, but redefines the text by
undoing and reversing polar opposites. Deconstruction does not resolve inconsistencies, but
rather exposes hierarchies involved for the distillation of information .

Rosenau’s Guidelines for Deconstruction Analysis:

 Find an exception to a generalization in a text and push it to the limit so that this
generalization appears absurd. Use the exception to undermine the principle.
 Interpret the arguments in a text being deconstructed in their most extreme form.
 Avoid absolute statements and cultivate intellectual excitement by making statements
that are both startling and sensational.
 Deny the legitimacy of dichotomies because there are always a few exceptions.
 Nothing is to be accepted, nothing is to be rejected. It is extremely difficult to criticize
a deconstructive argument if no clear viewpoint is expressed.
 Write so as to permit the greatest number of interpretations possible.....Obscurity may
“protect from serious scrutiny” (Ellis 1989: 148). The idea is “to create a text without
finality or completion, one with which the reader can never be finished” (Wellberg,
1985: 234).
 Employ new and unusual terminology in order that “familiar positions may not seem
too familiar and otherwise obvious scholarship may not seem so obviously
relevant”(Ellis 1989: 142).
 “Never consent to a change of terminology and always insist that the wording of the
deconstructive argument is sacrosanct.” More familiar formulations undermine any
sense that the deconstructive position is unique (Ellis 1989: 145). (Rosenau 1993,
p.121)

Intuitive Interpretation “Postmodern interpretation is introspective and anti-objectivist

which is a form of individualized understanding. It is more a vision than data observation. In
anthropology interpretation gravitates toward narrative and centers on listening to and talking
with the other, “(Rosenau 1993, p.119). For postmodernists there are an endless number of
interpretations. Foucault argues that everything is interpretation (Dreyfus and Rabinow 1983:
106). “There is no final meaning for any particular sign, no notion of unitary sense of text, no
interpretation can be regarded as superior to any other (Latour 1988: 182-3). Anti-positivists
defend the notion that every interpretation is false. “Interpretative anthropology is a covering
label for a diverse set of reflections upon the practice of ethnography and the concept of
culture” (Marcus and Fisher 1986: 60)

Accomplishments:

57
Demystification Perhaps the greatest accomplishments of postmodernism is the focus upon
uncovering and criticizing the epistemological and ideological motivations in the social
sciences.

Critical Examination of Ethnographic Explanation The unrelenting re-examination of the

nature of ethnography inevitably leads to a questioning of ethnography itself as a mode of
cultural analysis. Postmodernism adamantly insists that anthropologists must consider the role
of their own culture in the explanation of the "other" cultures being studied. Postmodernist
theory has led to a heightened sensitivity within anthropology to the collection of data.

Criticisms:

Roy D’Andrade (1931-) In the article "Moral Models in Anthropology," D'Andrade critiques
postmodernism's definition of objectivity and subjectivity by examining the moral nature of
their models. He argues that these moral models are purely subjective. D'Andrade argues that
despite the fact that utterly value-free objectivity is impossible, it is the goal of the
anthropologist to get as close as possible to that ideal. He argues that there must be a
separation between moral and objective models because “they are counterproductive in
discovering how the world works.” (D’Andrade 1995: 402). From there he takes issue with
the postmodernist attack on objectivity. He states that objectivity is in no way dehumanizing
nor is objectivity impossible. He states, “Science works not because it produces unbiased
accounts but because its accounts are objective enough to be proved or disproved no matter
what anyone wants to be true.” (D’Andrade 1995: 404).

Patricia M. Greenfield  Greenfield believes that postmodernism’s complete lack of

objectivity, and its tendency to push political agendas, makes it virtually useless in any
scientific investigation (Greenfield 2005).  Greenfield suggests using resources in the field of
psychology to help Anthropologists gain a better grasp on cultural relativism, while still
maintaining their objectivity.

Rosenau (1993) Rosenau identifies seven contradictions in Postmodernism:

1. Its anti-theoretical position is essentially a theoretical stand.

2. While Postmodernism stresses the irrational, instruments of reason are freely employed to
advance its perspective.
3. The Postmodern prescription to focus on the marginal is itself an evaluative emphasis of
precisely the sort that it otherwise attacks.
4. Postmodernism stress intertextuality but often treats text in isolation.
5. By adamently rejecting modern criteria for assessing theory, Postmodernists cannot argue
that there are no valid criteria for judgment.
6. Postmodernism criticizes the inconsistency of modernism, but refuses to be held to norms
of consistency itself.
7. Postmodernists contradict themselves by relinquishing truth claims in their own writings.

Melford Spiro (1920 - ) Spiro argues that postmodern anthropologists do not convincingly
dismiss the scientific method. If anthropology turns away from the scientific method then
anthropology will become the study of meanings not the discovering of causes which shape
what it is to be human. Spiro further states that “the causal account of culture refers to

58
ecological niches, modes of production, subsistence techniques, and so forth, just as a causal
account of mind refers to the firing of neurons, the secretions of hormones, the action of
neurotransmitters... .”

Spiro critically addresses six interrelated propositions from John Searle’s 1993 work,
“Rationality and Realism":

1. Reality exists independently of human representations. If this is true then, contrary to

postmodernism, this postulate supports the existence of “mind-independent external reality”
which is called “metaphysical realism”.
2. Language communicates meanings but also refers to objects and situations in the world
which exist independently of language. Contrary to postmodernism, this postulate supports
the concept of language as have communicative and referential functions.
3. Statements are true or false depending on whether the objects and situations to which they
refer correspond to a greater or lesser degree to the statements. This “correspondence theory”
of truth is to some extent the theory of truth for postmodernists, but this concept is rejected by
many postmodernists as “essentialist.”
4. Knowledge is objective. This signifies that the truth of a knowledge claim is independent of
the motive, culture, or gender of the person who makes the claim. Knowledge depends on
empirical support.
5. Logic and rationality provide a set of procedures and methods, which contrary to
postmodernism, enables a researcher to assess competing knowledge claims through proof,
validity, and reason.
6. Objective and intersubjective criteria judge the merit of statements, theories,
interpretations, and all accounts.

Spiro specifically assaults the assumption that the disciplines that study humanity, like
anthropology, cannot be "scientific" because subjectivity renders observers incapable of
discovering truth. Spiro agrees with postmodernists that the social sciences require very
different techniques for the study of humanity than do the natural sciences, but “while insight
and empathy are critical in the study of mind and culture...intellectual responsibility requires
objective (scientific methods) in the social sciences. Without objective procedures
ethnography is empirically dubious and intellectually irresponsible (Spiro 1996).”

“The Postmodernist genre of ethnography has been criticized for fostering a self-indulgent
subjectivity, and for exaggerating the esoteric and unique aspects of a culture at the expense
of more prosiac but significant questions.” (Bishop 1996: 58)

Bob McKinley McKinley believes that Postmodernism is more of a religion than a science
(McKinley 2000).  He argues that the origin of Postmodernism is the Western emphasis on
individualism, which makes Postmodernists reluctant to acknowledge the existence of distinct
multi-individual cultures.

Christopher Norris Norris believes that Lyotard, Foucault, and Baudrillard are too caught up
in the idea of the primacy of moral judgments (Norris p.50). Also in reaction to the
Postmodern movement Marshall Sahlins addresses several post-modern issues which includes
the definition of power. "The current Foucauldian-Gramscian-Nietzschean obsession with
power is the latest incarnation of anthropology's incurable functionalism...Now 'power' is the

59
intellectual black hole into which all kinds of cultural contents get sucked, if before it was
social solidarity or material advantage." (Sahlins, 1993, p.15).

Comments:

Schematic Differences between

Modernism and Postmodernism

Modernism Postmodernism

romanticism/symbolism paraphysics/Dadaism

purpose play

design chance

hierarchy anarchy

matery, logos exhaustion, silence

art object, finished word process, performance

distance participation

creation, totalization deconstruction

synthesis antithesis

presence absence

centering dispersal

genre, boundary text, intertext

semantics rhetoric

paradigm syntagm

hypotaxis parataxis

metaphor metonymy

selection combination
60
 depth surface

interpretation against interpretation

reading misreading

signified signifier

lisible (readerly) scriptible

narrative anti-narrative

grande histoire petite histoire

master code idiolect

symptom desire

type mutant

genital, phallic polymorphous

paranoia schizophrenia

origin, cause difference-difference

God the Father The Holy Ghost

Metaphysics irony

determinacy indeterminacy

transcendence immanence

(SOURCE: Hassan "The Culture of Postmodernism" Theory, Culture, and Society, V 2 1985,
123-4.)

61
62
63