ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORIES
In AP Theories we’ll Study how society and culture evolved, developed or changed overtime.
Anthropology, the study of humankind, relies on theories to interpret human behaviour, society, and
culture. This exploration delves into the major anthropological theories, examining their key concepts,
historical contexts, and their contributions to our understanding of human diversity.

CLASSICAL EVOLUTIONISM
Social development was witness of successive development in sequences. The present stage of
mankind had undergone progressive changes in course of which the direction of evolution occurred
from simple to complex, homogenous to heterogenous and indefinite to definite.

CE explains the genesis and growth of cultural phenomenon.

BASIC ASSUMPTION
1. Every culture moves in unilinear manner progressively. SAVAGERY-> BARBARISM ->
CIVILIZATION.
2. Direction of Evolution: SIMPLE->COMPLEX, HOMOGENOUS->HETEROGENOUS,
INDEFINITE->DEFINITE
3. Similarities/Parallels b/c of independent invention due to PSYCHIC UNITY OF MANKIND -
reason for following same trajectory.
4. Survival of culture.
5. primitive promiscuity
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

E.B. TYLOR
➢ Tylor was a British anthropologist of 19th century. He defined the concept like ‘Culture’ and
‘Culture survivals’ for the first time. He is regarded as 1st anthropologist who contributed to
evolutionary study of anthropology though his “Study of Origin of Religion”.
➢ In 1865 Tylor published his book "Research into early history of mankind and development
of civilization". He gathered data from missionaries’ accounts explorer journals/travelogues
and ancient texts. He tried to search for similarities in human culture when similar arts,
customs, beliefs are found in people of distinct regions who're not known to each other. Tylor
gave two possible explanations: -
1. parallel invention. (due to PUOM)
2. Evidence of contact (Rejected)
➢ The books also talk about the evolution of language. He described certain societies with
speech that was so imperfect that even to talk about ordinary matters they have to take help of
gestures. He suggested that gesture language is part of original utterances of mankind.

1. CULTURE
In his book ‘PRIMITIVE CULTURE’(1871), Tylor defined culture as “the complex whole which includes
knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities acquired by man as a member of
society” (widely accepted)

In the same book, He sets out to reconstruct the history of human culture. Tylor reconstructed the
primitive culture using 3 principles: -

1. Uniformitarianism - The geological processes observable today are the same processes that shaped
the earth in the past (like erosion, and sedimentation). It was also true of culture. Culture was created
by universally similar mind and governed by same basic laws of cognition/thinking.

Since human mental processes are universal, human societies have developed culture along
same trajectory characterized by progress. societies with same culture can be said to be in the same
stage in development of culture. Tylor explains that similarities are pronounced in the realm of
technology. Since laws of mind are uniform patterns of contemporary 'primitive societies' must be
similar to those of extinct prehistoric people.

2. Comparative method - Based on assumption that similar objects are historically related. The first
step is to dissect civilization into smaller details and then they're supposed to be compared with other
culture.

3. Doctrine of survival - Survivals are those process, customs and opinion carried by the force
habits into a new state of society w/o any contemporary relevance. It is a proof of an older condition
of culture from which the newer one has evolved. For e.g. Ye Coffee Parlor and Ye Olde Pizza Parlor -
"Y" in archaic English was read as "Th". it shows the symbol has survived although the meaning is not
really understood. Devar whose Sanskrit meaning is 'the second husband' which existed in the past.
(Anahuac-1861).

As in the contemporary society there can some practices that can labelled as survival in the same way
an entire society may reflect earlier stage of human evolution.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

Familiarity with the physical laws of the world and accompanying power of adapting nature to man's
end are lowest among savages, Mean among barbarians and highest among modern educated nations.
Based upon society's mastery over material culture one can assign a relative rank to the culture.

2. RELIGION
• According to Tylor Religion is belief in supernatural being or soul. It is culture-Universal and no
known society is w/o Religion. Religion originated as belief in soul (Animism).
• The defining characteristics of primitive mind was its inability to think abstractly. They were
unable to group similar objects into categories. Each object had a unique identity. Primitives
thus were emerged in world of singular object.
• Primitives were unable to comprehend events like Thunder, Rain, flood, drought, etc. They had
no idea of natural laws.
• Primitive man observed soul making man alive or dead. Religion according to Tylor originated
from speculation of dreams, trances and death. Lifelike appearances of dead persons in the
dreams made them believe in dual existence first physical visible body and second psychic
invisible soul. This soul was a reason for appearance for dead people in the dream. The belief
extended to include other living and non-living object as all use to appear in the dream. Hence
savage began to realize everything has a life and soul.

ANIMISM->POLYTHIEM->MONOTHEISM (Primitive Culture,1871). Unilinear path of evolution of

religion.

SUMMARY
✓ Tylor adopted Klemm's ‘culture’, August Comte’s 3 stages but terminology of Montesquieu
[S,B,C]. He proposed Anthropology as science of culture.
✓ His science of had 3 essential premises:
1) The existence of one culture.
2) It's development through one progression i.e. same trajectory – S>B>C
3) Humanity unity by one mind (PUoM).
✓ All society were essentially alike and capable of being ranked by different levels of cultural
advancements. Progression from savaged to civilized didn't occurred evenly or at same pace
but distinct stages will always be the same.

CRITICISM
1. Ranking of society is painted by prejudices (Ethnocentric).
2. He dependent upon secondary source of data like travelogues and missionary accounts which
were not credible (Arm chair Anthropology).
3. The violent events of past century make it difficult to assume that modern educated nations
successfully promote humanity's goodness, power and happiness.
4. Psychic unity of mankind is a flawed assumption. it fails to take into account uniqueness of
an individual.
5. The concept of survival is fine but to assume that an entire human group has been static
representative of an earlier culture is wrong.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

CONCLUSION
Tylor shaped the development of anthropology as field of enquiry. Of all of his contribution Tylor's
definition culture is Most enduring/important by outlining general principle of social life and defining
cultural dimension of human existence Tylor created anthropology the study of Humankind.

LEWIS HENRY MORGAN

Morgan was a 19th century American anthropologist contributed to research of evolution of society and
culture through his study of kinship terminologies, family, marriage institutions, economic and political
organisation.

Morgan in his brief visit to Iroquois collected data about their dance, games, religion, language family
and material culture. He compiled the data in his book the "League of Iroquois”. It is first scientific
account of native American Indian tribe (Iroquois).

Here he observed that people use same term for father and father's brother and mother and mother's
sister. Moreover, they trace their descent from mother's line. In Iroquois political organisations is an
extension of kinship. A few later Morgan discovered that in similar kinship system was used by Ojibwa.
He started to explore the relationship in different societies. He sent printed questionnaire requesting
info. about kinship terms. .

KINSHIP TERMINOLOGIES
The data he got from responses was compiled in a book the name of books is ‘System of Consanguinity
and Affinity in human family’. He classified kinship system into 2 larger group:

1) classificatory- Malayan (Amoris), Turonian (Chinese, Japanese) and Ganowanian (Native

Americans). - Considered Uncivilized, marriage is either polygamous, promiscuous or
communal. Mankind is in a condition similar to an inferior animal. Promiscuous sex and
indeterminant parentage.
2) Descriptive - semitic (Arab, Hebrew), Aryan (Sanskrit, Persian), Uralian (USA). Marriage was
mainly based on monogamy and hence clear line of descent and parentage.

CLASSIFICATORY->DESCRIPTIVE

WHY THIS DEVELOPMENT HAPPENED -

1. When communal husbands defended their communal wife from other men promiscuous society
partially reform. This begins the process that ultimately leads to the family as it now exits.

2. Rise of private properties - there was a need for settlement rights with established certainty of its
transmission to lineal relatives. This led to descriptive kinship terminology and finally nuclear families.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

CRITICISM OF THIS IDEA

▪ As per A.L. Kroeber, none of the society has a kinship terminology that is completely
classificatory and descriptive.
▪ As per Meyer Forte, Morgan's appeal to private property is merely a pure guess. It was a
projection of his American values; he had no evidence are ignorant of inherent property.

STAGES OF EVOLUTION – ‘ANCIENT SOCIETY’

Mankind began their career at the bottom of scale and work their way up from savagery to civilization
through slow accumulation of experimental knowledge. S, B & C represented well defined stage of
progress measured by 4 sets of cultural achievements:

i. Inventions and discovery of tools and tech.

ii. Idea of govt.
iii. Idea of family
iv. concept of property.

INVENTION AND DISCOVERY OF TOOLS AND TECH.

Morgan chose technology as primary but not sole test of progress. Successive art of subsistence
was the foundation of human supremacy on earth. The progress has been identified more or less
directly with enlargement of source of subsistence.

His 7 stages of evolution- divided savagery and barbarism into upper, middle, lower.

IDEA OF GOVT.
• By idea of govt. Morgan referred to what modern anthropologist called social organization and
political organization. Morgan explicitly distinguishes social order based on kin ties
(societas) from social order based on territorial ties (civitas)
• First and most ancient political organization found among simple society was promiscuous
horde which evolved to 'Gentes'. Under this, govt. dealt with person through their relations to
a lineage, clan or tribe. Relation here was purely personal. (his proposition that kinship-based
societies were early form of govt. was accepted by all)
• Second and latest type of organization was found upon territory and property. Political
society was created in which persons dealt with persons through their relations with territory.

IDEA OF FAMILY
• Descent - Promiscuity-> Matriarchy->Patriarchy
• Marriage - Polygamous->Group->polyandry->Polygyny->Monogamy

IDEA OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

• During the stage of savagery property was minimal and not inherited since it was buried as
grave goods. In the lower stage of Barb. property increase in quantity and was distributed among
Gentes on a member's death w/o specific inheritance by spouses.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

• By middle stage of Barb and with development of agriculture. property increase in quantity
and variety, new relationships developed b/w people and land in which people had the right to
use the land.
• By the end of upper Barb. Nation-State govt. developed and two forms of land tenures
evolved. First was state ownership and second was individual ownership of land. This in turn
impacted family, marriage and other social system.

CONCLUSION
Though not w/o flaws Morgan's contributions to Anthropology remains essential and permanent. First
Morgan outline the importance of study of kinship. Second, he conducted research that attempted
to be systematic and global and finally he attempted to organize anthropological data in terms of an
explicit framework of culture evolution rather than simply treating cultural differences as ethnographic
curiosity.

JAMES FRAZER
He was a 20th century classical evolutionist from Britain. His work revolves around the theory of
evolution of science and totemism. He is regarded as arm-chair anthropologist.

EVOLUTION OF SCIENCE
In his book ‘THE GOLDEN BOUGH’ Frazer proposed 3 elements in development in human psyche and
in the spirit of evolutionary thinking. He saw these elements characterising 3 stages of mental
development.

1. MAGIC - Magical thought assume that universe is regulated by impersonal and unchanging
laws, Laws were known to magicians and were applied by him in technical ways to control the
events. Magical believe was derived by faulty reasoning. Magic was of 2 types:
- Homeopathic magic which was based on law of similarity i.e. like produces like.
- Contagious magic based on law of contact i.e. once in contact always in contact.
2. RELIGION - After failure of magic became apparent religious thoughts started to prevail. People
stopped believing in uniformity of nature and they assume that natural events depend upon
the will of God (conscious personal agent). Man, then resided to gain help from God through
prayers, offering or sacrifices.
3. SCIENCE - Man in this stage was now equipped with correct laws and was in a state better
knowledge about natural events. Frazer related magic with science as they both were
depended on cause-and-effect relations. Hence, he called “magic as bastard sister of
science”.

TOTEMISM AND TABOO

Totem is a material object (a tree or an animal) which a savage regards as superstitious and with respect,
believing that there exist relation b/w the Totem and every member of clan. According to Frazer,
Totemism originated due belief in soul. Soul after death resided in the body of totems. Hence people
paid respect to it. Killing or eating them was forbidden or Taboo.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

TOTEMISM AND EXOGAMY (in his book ‘Totemism and Exogamy’)

According to Frazer Belief in exogamy was developed due to totemism since people believe that soul of
their ancestors’ lives in their totem and hence people with same totem is relative. He cited the example
of Arunta tribe of Australia, here the women believe that pregnancy was because of totems. In due
course of time this totem became hereditary and led to the birth of exogamy.

CRITISICM
1. Story approach in his which is not academically at all.
2. Arm chair anthropology. The idea of progress is flawed.

CONCLUSION
Although Frazer’s theories are difficult to appreciate but they were at great importance at that time. His
book ‘The Golden Bough’ inspired Malinowski. He himself anticipated the limitations of his work and
stressed that first hand observation of foreign society would furnish science of man and establish
anthropology with a solid foundation.

OTHER SCHOLAR

JOHN LUBBOCK
He maintained some scepticism about the significance of primitive matriliny. Lubbock pointed that most
‘savage’ society female virtue isn’t highly regarded and females are treated inferior to male thus he didn’t
support matriarchal theory.

HENRY MAINE
Romans were quit ancients and they along with Hebrew and Greeks had patrilineal descent. He
suggested that primitive societies were also patrilineal and patriarchal in nature [ the idea of Patricia
potestas]

JF MCLENNAN
McLennan deferred with Morgan on Why matriliny might have receded patriliny. According to him
struggle for food in early times female infanticide. The resulting shortage of women led to polyandry.
Members for these ancient society couldn’t determine father of any given child so they trace descent
matrilineally.

Man don’t like to share their wives and hence they stated to capture wives from neighbours. This led to
domination of male and patrilineality.

DIFFERENCE ON KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY – according to morgan kinship terminologies are

conservative and they preserve hints past forms of social organisations and marriage (Devar). However,
according to McLennan kinship terminology don’t reflect consanguinity but are based on status and age.

GENERAL CRITICISM
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

1. Evolutionist didn’t think of other forces of cultural change.

2. Origin of similar trait is due to similar cause (psychic unity of mankind). However
human history witnessed that different culture has originated in same geographical
environment and also same culture has originated due to different causes.
3. Same as above scholars.

QUESTIONS
1. Classical Evolutionism. (150 words)
2. Contribution of EB Tylor to evolutionism. (250 words)
3. Briefly describe the contribution of LH Morgan. (250 words)
4. Contributions of Frazer. (150 words)
5. Critically analyse the Morgan’s idea of evolution of family, marriage, descent and kinship.
Elaborate how it was criticised by evolutionists. (20 marks)
6. Psychic unity of mankind and survivals. Explain. (150 words)
ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

DIFFUSIONISM
It emerged as an anthropological school in late 19th and early 20th century as a reaction to classical
evolutionism school’s neglect of diffusion as a medium of cultural exchange. It suggests that cultural
traits are discovered or invented at one place or society and spread from one geographical
area/society to another area/society through migration, colonisation, trade, war and cultural
borrowings.

FACTORS OF DIFFUSION
1) Relations and communication.
2) Need and desire of new traits.
3) Competition with old trait.
4) Respect and recognition of those who bring new traits.

CHARACTERSTICS OF DIFFUSION
1) Usefulness and meaningful of trait – Should have socio-economic relevance.
2) Cultural trait changes in different social and environmental conditions therefore may not remain
in original form.
3) Direction from high culture to low culture.
4) Obstacles – lack of transport, communication and opposition.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

BRITISH SCHOOL OF DIFFUSIONISM

This school argued that all of cultures and civilization was developed only once in Egypt (which was
relatively advanced because of its early development of agriculture) and then the diffused throughout
the world through diffusion and migration. Therefore, all cultures were tied together by this thread of
common origin (heliocentrism) Also known as pan Egyptian school.

G.E. SMITH
Professor of anatomy .Wrote “the origin of civilisation” in 1928 and “Diffusion of culture”. Intro –
British school.

ASSUMPTION

➢ European origin of mankind – In his excavation studies in Egypt, he used x-ray to study the skull
of Egyptian mummies. Egyptians’ skulls had similar features as the European aristocrat. This made
him propose European origin of mankind (Europe included Levant, Egypt, western Europe and
British Isles). He said man didn’t became erect until his brain had developed in very particular way
to make it possible from him to use his hands. This line of thought imposed European origin as
mostly large brained specimen were found in Europe.
➢ He observed the megalithic monuments in Egypt. He saw a lot of similarities with the megaliths
of England which was created by the primitive Drueds. According to him the Drueds didn’t have
the capability to create it by themselves. Hence, he concluded that all the megalithic phenomenon
would have originated in Egypt.
➢ Small groups of people moved out of Egypt and made crude imitations of Egyptian monuments of
pyramid. He found similarities all around the world for e.g. Mayan pyramids, Japanese pagodas,
meso-American burial mounds and Balinese temples.
➢ Egypt place where agriculture through irrigation came into existence. Spread....but poor
imitation...could not reach same height.

Origin of Civilisation → Agriculture through irrigation→ Planted more seeds→ Invented pottery,
ploughing → Weaving, writing→ Build cities, institutions of law, govt. and religion→ Kings will
become deities (personification of sun) → Knew the technique of mummifying king bodies (tombs
and megaliths) → Technique of navigation was discovered→ Diffusion

WILIIAM JAMES PEREY

THE CHILDEREN OF SUN. Transmission of culture accompanied by degradation. Work on Malayan
society.

W.H. RIVERS
1. WH rivers was a moderate diffusionist. He studied Torres strait islanders, Melanesian societies
and Todas (In 1904, Rivers came to India, study polyandrous tribe of toda of Nilgiri hills.
Monograph on toda got published)
2. He explained that similarities and differences among Melanesians due to the process of
diffusionism which took place through a series of migration. In his ‘Article Disappearance of
useful Arts’, he dealt with ‘uninventiveness’ and ‘degeneration’ of human culture. He stated
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

that migration leads to spread of culture and loss of certain traits. When he didn’t found canoes on
some Melanesian islands, He proposed that it might have disappeared due to the death of Canoe
making guilds. (degeneration)
3. In his book History of Melanesian society, he highlighted presence of 5 different burial rituals in a
small community of Australia was due to a series of migration. (Supported theory of uninventiveness
of smith and Perry). According to Rivers, small group of men equipped with superior technology
migrated to Australia, they settled down there and married local women. They borrowed each and
every trait from native Australian including the language. They however retained their burial
mechanism due to strong emotional attachment with them. (Emphasised role of diffusion and
migration)

CRITISICM
1. It is true that every culture borrows more than it invents but this doesn’t mean that inventions
are made only once at a particular place.
2. The hypothetical idea of uninventiveness of man is a flawed idea.
3. They ignored several contemporary civilisations of the world.
4. They emphasized upon diffusion of material culture and in a very subtle manner ignored the
non-material aspect of the culture.
5. They only took into account simple form of diffusion i.e. diffusion of cultural trait not of culture
complex.

CONCLUSION
The heliocentric at neither base of university nor methodological skills to sustain the interest of new
scholars. Ultimately rapid advance in archaeology proved beyond doubt that Egypt couldn’t have been
the source of all human culture and gave ‘Coup de Grace’ to British diffusionism.

GERMAN SCHOOL OF DIFFUSIONISM

According to German school cultural trait and complexes originated independently at several
different places at different times or generations from where they imitated or migrated to rest of
the world. Layers of culture should be examined to find migration or diffusion. Each circle trait has a
circle or a district from where they migrated to all over the world. So, this school is also called ‘culture
Circle school’ or ‘Kulture Kries’.

✓ Criteria of form/ quality.

✓ Criteria of Quantity.
✓ Migration>diffusion.
✓ Degeneration.

FREDRICH RATZEL
1. Ratzel is said to be the founder of anthropology in Germany. In his book ‘Anthropogeography’ he
studied people’s relation to neighbouring countries particularly in term of cultural trait
distribution. People were more influenced by one another than by factors of climate and terrain.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

2. He was also a moderate ‘Degenerationist’. According to him cultural trait may became simplified,
modified and lost in course of diffusion depending on local condition. Most important
consideration was to discover from where cultural traits originated and the path taken by them.
3. Not every similarity can be taken as the proof of historical connection but any similarity which do
not arise out of nature, material or purpose should be interpreted as the evidence of historical
connection [Criterion of Form or Quality/FORMENGENDANKE]. For e.g. he compared bows and
arrows of Africa and Indonesia. Similarities such as pointed edges or wooden raw material used
can’t be taken as proof of diffusion. However, features such as feathers attached to the bow and
arrow have nothing to do with functionality of bow and arrow and hence can be taken as a proof of
historical connection.
4. Ratzel also maintained that cultural traits diffused singularly while complexes spread through
migration.
➢ In his book ‘History of Mankind’ Ratzel gave following principles of diffusion:
1. Man is mostly imitator rather than inventor
2. Single culture traits are usually diffused, while culture complexes are transplanted by
migration. In both cases adaptation to environment will bring changes in culture traits and
culture complexes
3. Principle of criteria of form (Quality).
➢ Ratzel applied these principles:
1. Spread of Buddhism from India to Mongolia through study of Buddhist religious symbols
such as lotus. In Mongolia people adapted lotus flower as symbol of Buddhism, which is an
Indian flower and borrowed by Mongolians.
2. Study of bow and arrow culture that has diffused from Indonesia to Africa.

LEO FROEBINUS
1. According to him migration was more important factor than diffusion in explanation of cultural
similarity. He added another criteria to establish/prove diffusionism which is Geographical
Statistics. It says that one should count the number of similarities. More the number of similarities
more is the probability of historical connection or diffusion.
2. Internal changes should also be accounted while studying diffusionism. When people migrate into
different environment the cultural traits adjust internally.
3. He studied similarities in myths of Africa and Indonesia. In Indonesia the stories of the myth are
organised and related while in Africa they’re present in the form of simple stories. Thus, Indonesia
was according to him the originator (High culture) and Africa the imitator (low culture).

FRITZ GRAEBNER
1. In his book Methodder Ethnology, he accepted the 2 basic rule of culture circle i.e. criteria of
form or quality and criteria of quantity.
The first, called by Graebner the "Criterion of Form" and by Schmidt the "Criterion of Quality,"
states that similarities between two culture elements which do not automatically arise out
of the nature, material, or purpose of the traits or objects should be interpreted as resulting from
diffusion, regardless of the distance which separates the two instances.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

The second, called by both the "Criterion of Quantity," states that the probability of historical
relationship between two items increases as the number of additional items showing
similarities increases.

2. Earlier man invented the basic such as language and tool making, they soon formed a number
of small bands which were isolated. Each band later developed distinct culture [URKULTREN].
These bands started moving in different direction and eventually populating all the continents.
The task of the anthropologist is to trace the waves of migration in a particular geographical
area [layer wise analysis].

3. He analysed culture of Oceania region (Australia) and found 6 layers of migration:

1. Tasmania(oldest) 2. Australian boomerang 3. Totemic Hunter 4. Two class
horticulturalist 5. Melanesian bow culture 6. Polynesian patrilineal culture.
Each of these cultures had counterparts in Asia and Africa. On the way to Australia blending
with other culture had taken place.

Criticism:
1. Some elements arise independently
2. Too much emphasis on material culture
3. Mechanical in approach
4. Per to historical construction

FATHER WILHELM SCHMIDT

He was follower of Fritz Grabner. He applied criteria of form and criteria of quantity to divide the world
into different strata and circles. He distinguished 4 majors circles around the world.

1) Primitive culture circle (Hunting and gatherers)

• Central pygmies
• Arctic
• Antarctic
2) Primary culture circle (Horticulturist)
• Patriarchal cattle rearing nomads
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

• Exogamous patrilineal totemic higher hunters

• Exogamous matrilineal village dwelling horticulturist
3) Secondary culture circle (agriculture, subsistence)
• A pre-Patrilineal system (Sudan, India)
• A pre-Matrilineal system (Melanesia, China)
4) Tertiary/Higher civilization (Egypt, Sumerian, Mesopotamian)

➢ The most striking feature of this scheme is evolutionism. These are familiar sequences leading
from hunter-gatherers to complex stratified civilisation. However, the transition here happened
only once but in Morgan’s idea it happened again and again.

IDEA OF MATRILINY
Women during hunting gathering stage specialised in collection of wild plants this led women to invent
horticulture and become owner of product of soil and the land itself. On the basis of their economic
power women insisted on matrilocal residence and matrilineal descent. The supreme deity was
given feminine attributes. Later on, the property control shifted to men and patriliny development.

THE ORIGIN OF IDEA OF GOD

Most simple people often worship a high god as an all father. Hence, monotheism was the original
form of religion. Later, addition of other gods and spirits led to formation of polytheism (Degenerative
tendency of man)

CRITISICM/WEAKNESS OF GERMAN SCHOOL

1. It is a pure speculation that 4-5 early bands led to different form of culture across the world.
2. Culture circles couldn’t be clearly established.
3. The criteria of quantity and quality can’t be proven w/o doubt.
4. They didn’t have any reason for acceptance and modification of cultural traits or they didn’t
explain why and how diffusion and migration took place.
5. It did not present any historical record.

CONCLUSION
German school of diffusion helped to bust the myth of European superiority by stating that cultural
invention has happened all across the world at different times. Moreover, it emphasised on the role of
environment and ecology in shaping the cultural trait which later on led to the birth of Ecological
anthropology.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

AMERICAN SCHOOL OF DIFFUSIONISM

The foundation of American school of diffusionism was led by Franz Boas. He was influenced by German
school of diffusionism. According to him each cultural group has its own history, comprising its own
development and influences of others on it, give and take of culture had taken place through medium of
transport and communication.

➢ Hence, sharing of culture will be prevalent more among group residing nearby (Geographical
proximity). As culture is learnt, it is easy to imitate and adapt cultural traits among groups
residing in close proximity.
➢ In order to show diffusion of culture, American anthropologist didn’t analyse diffusion prevalent all
over the world instead they focus upon American nations and divided it into several ‘cultural
areas’.
➢ Boas believed that culture developed independently and each culture is a consequence of its own
geography, climate, environment, resources and borrowings. Task before an anthropologist was to
record and document the history of cultural trait in specific geographical area and then plot the
distribution of these cultural traits. Plots of different cultural traits in a geographical area are
indicative of cultural borrowing.
➢ American diffusionist believed that people tend to learn and borrow elements of culture from
people they come in contact with. The likely of borrowings increases with the frequency of
contact. Hence, they proposed the idea of culture area which refer to a geographical space in
which similar culture were found.
➢ The basic proposition was that mapping of distribution of cultural trait in cultural areas would
provide an explanation will provide similarities and differences in different cultures.

CLARK WISSLER
➢ Clark Wissler was student of Franz Boas. He was dissatisfied with the evolutionist idea of treating
American Indians as one uniform population. According to him steps should be taken to highlight
the varieties of their culture and to classify them according to their dominant cultural trait.
➢ In Man and Culture (1923) and The Relation of Nature to Man in Aboriginal America (1926) he
further discussed diffusion and adaptation, and adduced two principles: one has to do with the
manner in which traits spread; the other, with the inference of the relative age of traits from the
extent of their distribution.
➢ Suggested a patterning of diffusion: A trait spreads in all directions, as waves move out in circles
when a stone is dropped into a quiet pool; hence, the greater the spread, the older the trait. Each
culture area has its culture centre. It is the place of origin of cultural traits in the area. It governs
the social, economic, political and religious activities of the culture area.
➢ Culture of no two groups is identical, the closer one has greater similarities. Setting of similar
cultural traits in the total cultural complex will differ in different regions. E.g. polyandry.
Democracy and Parliamentary form of govt. in India.
➢ Culture seems to form clusters i.e. it is homogenous region wise. The geographical area in which
the homogenous culture is found is called cultural area.
➢ According to him subsistence was important means of identifying culture area because the
subsistence was the basis of existence and it influences other aspects of culture. On the basis of
subsistence, he divided the American subcontinent into 8 culture area.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

Caribou - Eskimo, Bison - great plains, salmon - north pacific coast, wild seeds - plateau,
Eastern maze - S. east, Intensive agri. - south west, maniac - amazon, Guanaco - Guanaco.

➢ Wissler also proposed ‘AGE-AREA hypotheses’ by which he meant that a trait which is more
widely distributed around a culture centre is older than the one which is less widely
distributed. (Assumption is all the traits spread at a constant speed). As the traits diffused from
their origin to periphery they tend to lose complexity.

CRITISICM BY EDWARD SAPIR

• Spread of cultural traits maybe faster in one direction than in other.
• Older cultural trait may undergo large scale transformation at the culture centre (at its place of
origin) such that real point of origin could be mistaken. E.g. Vatican City of Christianity or
Amritsar of Sikhism.

ALFRED L. KROEBER
➢ Kroeber attempted ‘Salvage ethnography’ to recover remains of pre-contact language and society
before they were completely wiped out. He compiled the data in the book Handbook of Indians of
California. He created a map of distribution of cultural trait to understand the particular culture and
also the interaction between the culture.
➢ Kroeber revised Wissler’s original division into 7 Grand areas, 21 areas and 63 sub-areas. He also
added the concept of cultural climax and intensity. Cultural climax is the dynamic equivalent
of culture centre. It is the area where the residents have greatest contact with the culture. More
numerous elements are present and are sharply expressed in cultural intensity. The cultural
intensity refers to the amount of cultural contact in that area or influence of cultural practices
or behaviour in that area. It is maximum at cultural centre and decreases as we move towards
the periphery.

CULTURAL CONFIGURATION
• Kroeber wasn’t merely interested in the minutes of culture but also concerned with the
pattern of culture that characterised entire society. Patterns are those arrangement of
internal relationships which gives to any culture its coherence or plan and keep it from being a
mere accumulation of random bits and pieces. Such cultural traits exist independent of
individuals. Culture, regardless of its origin tends to become superorganic or supraindividual.
• The history of inventions is a chain of parallel instances. The co-occurrence of several
inventions (calculus by Newton and Leibnitz, Evolution by Darwin and Alfred Walace) His
evidence of some force greater than genetic inheritance or individual genius. This
organising force is a culture itself. It is nature of culture to be heavily condition by its own
cumulative past. Hence, the most fruitful approach to its understanding is a historical
approach.

CRITISICM OF AMERICAN SCHOOL

1. Culture area is a mental construct not a physical reality.
2. Difficulties or it is impossible to establish the culture centre and culture boundaries.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

3. It is localised and narrow approach and fails to explain diffusion at global scale.
4. The idea of culture centre is flawed as it emphasises the peoples living in the centre are the
inventors and others are the borrowers.
5. They emphasized too much on the geographical areas and ignored other aspects that also
marks the area feeling among inhabitants such as common language, rituals, food habits, etc.
6. They could not explain the methods by which culture area boundary could be established with
certainty.

CONCLUSION

Diffusionism although rejected as theory has contributed to the Anthropological understanding of

culture by emphasizing on the historical past of specific cultures. It provided incentives to
anthropologists for detailed study of any culture in order to reconstruct the past. The prominent scholar
Franz boas also emphasized on understanding culture in its own context (relativism) which became the
foundation of all anthropological theories
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

HISTORICAL PARTICULARISM (FRANZ BOAS)

➢ H.P. suggests that each society is a collective representation of its unique historical past.
Therefore, it rejected the idea of parallel and unilineal evolution and proposed multilinear
evolution.
➢ Boas associated with ‘Historicist’ approach of anthropology. He stressed on the importance of
field work and data collection and showed reluctance toward generalisation and
classifications.
➢ Culture according to Boas is an integrated whole produced by specific historical processes rather
than reflections of universal evolutionary stages.
➢ In his article ‘The Limitations of Comparative Method Of anthropology’ Boas argued that
comparative approach of Morgan and Tylor had three major flaws:
1) Assumption of unilineal evolution
2) Notion of contemporary societies as evolutionary survivals.
3) Classification of societies based on weak and untestable data.

PREMISES OF THEORY
Boas said that we might agree with Tylor and Morgan that certain technological processes have an
inherent evolutionary order like bow and arrow came before rifles but there was no ethnographic data
that matrilineal kinship system preceded the patrilineal kinship system rather, he proved that
KWAKIUTL had a reverse order (P->M) [in The Social Organisations and The Secret Societies of
Kwakiutl]. boas argued that unilineal ordering is simple assumption with no historical evidence.

1. According to Boas each society is a collective representation of its unique historical past. They
could reach the same level of cultural development through different paths (Multilinear Evolution).

There are 3 major factors that determine the cultural development they are:
• Environment.
• Individual psyche.
• Historical connection. (diffusion)

(hence, opposed race theory)

2. Since each society has its unique history, it must be understood on its specific cultural context.
There is an enormous complexity in cultural phenomenon and hence, the focus of the
Anthropology shouldn’t be to make universal law but to collect as much data as possible and
as soon as possible before the culture vanishes. He stressed on meticulous collection of
ethnographic data and field work on all aspect of many different societies.
3. The anthropologist should live among the people he is studying. He should also aim for
reconstruction of history of individual culture through detailed regional studies.
4. Boas gave 4 field method of anthropology: ethnographic evidences should be studied along with
linguistic evidence, archaeological remains and physical & biological evidences
5. Cultures are the product of their own history and hence they can’t be used as the standard to
judge other culture. Evolutionist failed because they assumed that most evolved culture shared
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

similar values as their own. Anthropologist according to Boas must free themselves from
ethnocentrism. They should adopt the value of cultural relativism.

❖ CULTURAL RELATIVISM: is an idea that every culture should be viewed/studied in his own
cultural context. It believes that there is no value that is universally right or wrong. Any belief or
value can be right or wrong in a particular cultural context.

6. Later Boas became disillusioned in the history and the historical reconstruction and his interest in
role of individual increased which led to the birth of culture and personality school of thoughts.

CRITISICM/WEAKNESS OF HISTORICAL PARTICULARISM

1. Long, time taking and costly.
2. Facts recorded by the observer are those that individual consider important and collection of
data done w/o preliminary theorising (Question) is meaningless. [Anti-theoretical]
3. Boas focused only on describing culture but didn’t answer how culture became an integrated
whole and variations in cultures.
4. Only apt to study primitive societies rather than complex ones.

CONCLUSION
Due to Boas contribution Holism and cultural relativism became the basic foundation of anthropology
as a discipline. He rejected race theory and ethnocentrism. Due to his influence American
anthropology took an anti-theoretical turn in early 20th century in which research began to focus on
differences rather than similarities between cultures.

QUESTIONS
1. British school of diffusionism. (10 marks)
2. Culture circle. (10 marks)
3. German school of diffusionism. (10marks)
4. Short note on Diffusionism. (10 marks)
5. American school of diffusionism and Kroeber. (15 marks)
6. Historical particularism.
7. Define culture area. How did it help American diffusionist to understand the diffusion of culture?
ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

FUNCTIONALISM
Functionalism was influenced by Spencer’s organic view of society. According to Herbert Spencer,
society is systematically structured. He saw society made up of many parts, each with its own
functions. We can imagine a society as a healthy organism made of many parts put together. Societies
have structures similar to organism. Cell->tissue->organ->organism likewise Humans->Groups-
>Institutions->society.

1. Culture is a means of satisfaction of ‘needs’

2. Each traits perform certain functions.
3. Traits express themselves through institutions.

❖ Culture is means to satisfy an end. Every element of culture exists to satisfy certain needs.
These needs have been interpreted in different manner by 2 sub schools of functionalism:

1. Bio-cultural functionalism – Bronislaw Malinowski – function to Satisfy individual needs.

Its perspective concerned with needs of individual and satisfaction of those needs through social
and cultural framework.

2. Structural functionalism – Redcliff Brown – function to maintain the existing social structure.
It concerned less with the needs of individual and more with maintenance of existing social
order/structure.
**Status - positions in a society – having Role which is expected behavior**
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

BIO-CULTURAL FUNCTIONALISM-MALINOWSKI
Everything is an instrumental expansion of human anatomy. Any behavior or any kind of cultural
achievement is nothing but an extension of human anatomy.

Malinowski proposed that all cultural traits serve the needs of individuals in a society. He has
Conceptualized culture as an instrument serving man’s biological and psychological needs. He
conducted participant observation studies in the Trobriand Islands.

1. CONCEPT OF CULTURE
According to Malinowski, culture comprises inherited artifacts, goods, technical processes, ideas,
habits and values. Culture is an instrument by which man is able to cope with specific problem that are
imposed by environment. Cultural institutions are integrated responses to variety of needs. Tylor
stressed the complexity aspect while Malinowski emphasized the wholeness aspect of culture.

The cultures are integrated wholes in which every part serves as a means to an end. All traits are
interrelated and operate in relation with each other as a totality. Each trait function to survive. So long
as cultural trait survives, it performs certain functions.

2. FUNCTIONAL SCHEME/ANALYSIS OF INSTITUTIONS

• He illustrated the functional scheme with the charter of the institutions. Charter refers to the
‘system of values’ for the pursuit of which an individual enters into an institution already
existing. According to him, each institutions have a charter, a set of norms, activities, material
apparatus(technology), and a function. He established that this structure is universal through all
cultures.

3. IDEA OF NEEDS
Malinowski contends that ‘function of a cultural trait is its ability to satisfy some basic and derived
needs of the member of the group’

He defines needs as a system of condition in human organism in cultural setting and natural
environment satisfaction of which are necessary and sufficient for survival of organism and group.
Cultural institutions are integrated response to a variety of needs. There are 3 levels of needs in
hierarchy.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

1. Primary/Biological needs/imperative
Types of needs Cultural response
Metabolism commissariat

Reproduction kinship

Bodily comfort shelter

Safety protection

Movement Activities & communication (economic, political)

Growth training

Health hygiene

• Commissariat deals with how food is grown, prepared and consumed. It deals with economic and
social organizations related to food distribution. Safety talks about prevention of bodily injury maybe
by accident, animals or fellow human beings. Protection involved armed responses, magical acts
and even development of houses on a greater height. For growth it involves training of humans for
different stages of life until they’re socially and psychologically matured.

These solutions in turn produces a secondary and artificial environment which has to be constantly
reproduced, maintained and managed. This is what is called as the ‘derived needs. The new
determinants are imposed on human behaviors due to his tendency to extend his safety and his comfort.

2. Secondary/Derived needs – Social control, Economic, Education, Political organization

Types of needs Cultural response
Transmission of culture Education

Communication Language

Material satisfaction Economic system

Social control Law and customs

Organization of collective activities Leadership and political organization

 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

3. Integrative needs – magic, myths, art, religion and science – characterized by cooperation and
interdependence.
➢ These are most derived imperatives behaviors of human beings to organic impulse such as
hunger, sexual desire, protection and is determined by a fixed system of values which defines
how individual should or shouldn’t behave. Relations are given permanence through structural
principles. Rules of conduct are transmitted through tradition (myth and religion).
➢ He proposed a functional approach to study magic, myth, religion, art and science. Magic, myth,
religion and art co-existed with science since eternity. They’re the instruments for existence of
individuals and society.
➢ Man accumulates experiences and reflects upon them and use them to foretell the future.
This creates the new possibilities and opportunities with each generation and leave him striving for
more than he can rationally obtain.
➢ Science is the system of knowledge that organizes and integrates human activities so that the
present can be made to better serve the needs of man based on past experiences.
➢ As the knowledge is insufficient and is subject to accumulation, the gap b/w knowledge and
power create anxiety, hesitation and uncertainty in individuals.
➢ Hence, they use magic as a substitute for rational system. It gives them courage to act even w/o
perfect knowledge. E.g. fishing in calm lagoons is safe so no religious or magical acts but fishing
in deeps sea needs religious or magical rituals.
➢ Myth enhances social tradition by endowing it with ownsome and glorifying beginning and thus,
promotes sustains and integrates appropriate social behavior.
➢ Art satisfies the sensual cravings.
➢ Religion promotes individual security and social cohesion by sanctifying human life and making
public, by dogma and ritual, the social contract of cooperative existence. The limitations of
scientific knowledge make them believe that illness is caused by sorcery and cured by magic and
religion. The sick man weather primitive or civilized wants to feels that something can be done. He
craves for the miracles. Hence, magic and religion persist.

4. ECONOMIC ANTHRO
i. ‘Primitive’ man isn’t purely rational, utilitarian or logical in his economic affairs. Social
convention, social restriction and social structure dictate most of the economic behaviors.
ii. They have highly organized and systematic form of labor. Hence, no pre-economic stage
could likely exist even among the primitive society.
iii. Trade and exchanges were regular, elaborate and complex.
iv. Primitive ownership is neither communal nor individual but in term of multiple rights of group
and individual.

KULA RING CEREMONY

➢ Kula ring Ceremony was highlighted in his book ‘Argonauts of western pacific’ – it is a ceremonial
exchange objects which have no practical use and commercial value, are exchanged with
partners living on different islands on a regular basis. The item exchanged are red shell
necklace(souvlava) and white shell arm band (mwali). Souvlava always moves in clockwise
direction while Mwali moves in anti-clockwise direction. The return of gift may or may not be made
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

at once, but after a lap of a year or two they have to be returned definitely. Hence, it is said that the
kula ring function on the principle that once in kula always in kula.
➢ Every participant has 2 kinds of partners, 1st those from whom he receives soulawa and gives mwali
and 2nd those to whom he gives soulawa and receives mwali. Women are excluded from
participation in kula ring exchange. Chief controls it and bears the expense and provides guidance.
➢ Functional aspect of kula ring ceremony:
1. Indication of social status as many partners enhance one’s social standing.
2. Canoe making (organization/division of labor).
3. Protection from dangers (human and spirits).
✓ Wasi exchange
✓ Urigubu exchange

5. KINSHIP STUDIES
Kinship terminology emphasized too much on complexity of kinship terms. It nothing but ‘noun’. We
should not focus on language but on behavioral rule and norms governing kinship system functionally.
Kinship should be seen as cultural response to basic need of reproduction and also for marriage,
property, polity and social conduct.

6. FAMILY DISRUPTION THEORY

Malinowski's family disruption theory states that sexual competition among family members would
cause so much tension and rivalry that the family would not be able to function effectively.

SOCIAL CHANGE
Culture is a means to an end where the end is to satisfy the needs of the individual. The social/cultural
change can be explained as a response to change in the needs. When new needs are created the
mechanism to satisfy them also alters.

CRITISICM
1. Adam Kuper commented that although Malinowski insisted upon interrelation b/w various
aspect of culture he was unable to produce a coherent description of Trobriand culture which
would reflect this integration. He never mentioned the reason for this integration.
2. They couldn’t explain variations in different cultures.
3. Ahistorical nature of theory.
4. Malinowski extrapolated data from Trobriand case to all the societies in general.
5. According to Kuper, Malinowski’s functionalism is a crude theory in which all sort of
behaviors is reduced to simplistic notion of utility. Societies do thinks which are counter-
productive and there are certain cultural elements which are non-functional but are maintained
as they’re customary in nature.
6. By viewing society as a well-oiled machine to satisfy individual needs, Malinowski didn’t
integrate conflict into his thinking.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

CONCLUSION
Yet Malinowski has been very influential as he emphasized on adaptive significance of cultures. The
ecological anthropology of 1960 took basic insights from Malinowski’s work. Malinowski’s was most
enduring contribution was his efforts to understand the subjective experience of another culture through
participant observation.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM – REDCLIFF BROWN

Radcliffe brown was influenced by Emile Durkheim’s social fact and proposed that culture functions to
maintain existing social structure. Brown Presented his work in two books “The Andaman Islanders”
and “Structure and function in primitive society”

DURKHIEM’S ‘SOCIAL FACT’

➢ Emile Durkheim talks about how order is achieved and maintained. He conceptualized society as a
complex system whose parts are all inter-related but whose independent functioning is necessary
to functioning of whole society. Social structures necessitate certain way of living (Social fact)
who in turn function to maintain society and also make other modes of being almost impossible.
✓ Social Fact– refers to way of acting, thinking, feeling external to individual and endowed
with the power of coercion by the reason of which they control him.
➢ Collective incidence of something in a society is separate from one individual experience of it.
Crime, unemployment, suicide are just normal social fact, criminal play normal role in social life
alongside judges, laws, police, prison, etc. A normal social phenomenon becomes
problematic(pathological) only when its incidence becomes abnormally high compared to its
regular incidence. For e.g. in USA 4% of unemployment rate is normal in times of prosperity but rate
of 8% during recession is consider to be abnormal.
➢ If each individual pursues his/her own individual sensation or physical impulses, society
couldn’t hold together in a relatively ordered and cohesive fashion. We need to take into account
impact on other individuals. This requires a learned capacity so that we cooperate and become
attached to something other than ourself. He argued that the Ultimate reality of human life is
sociological not psychological.

1. SOCIAL STRUCTURE
➢ In his book “Structure and Function in Primitive society”, Brown defined structure as an
arrangement of components or parts related to one another in sort of larger unity. Social structure
refers to arrangements of persons in relations to one another. In a social structure person will
conform to norms or behaviors necessary for its maintenance.
➢ Social structure are associations of individuals and they exist independently of individuals like ‘hero
heroine and villain’ define a set of relation in a melodrama/movie irrespective of actors who play
these roles.

ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE

1. Normative system - set of norms, ideas or values that every member of the structure has to
follow.
2. Position system – allocates status to an individual.
3. System of anticipated responses – duties.
4. Sanction system – for the deviants.
5. Action system – objective and goal to be achieved by that social structure.

STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF SOCIAL LIFE

1. Existence of social group.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

2. Internal structure of social group.

3. Arrangement of person in dyadic relationship (one to one relation).
4. Arrangement into social classes. For example, the economic classes in the Western societies
and the castes in the Indian societies.
5. Social distinction – b/w different classes based on sex, economic distinctions, and authority
and caste distinctions.
6. Interaction b/w groups and persons.

TYPES OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE

There are two types of models of studying social structure i.e. actual social structure and general social
structure. ‘Actual social structure’ according to Brown, the relationship between persons and groups
changes from time to time. New members come into being through immigration or by birth, while
others go out of it by death and migration. Besides this, there are marriages and divorces whereby the
members change in several times. Thus, actual social structure remains changes in many times. On the
other hand, in general social structure, remain relatively constant for a long time.

2. CONCEPT OF FUNCTION
Brown substitutes the idea of ‘need’ with necessary condition of existence. The human society must
fulfill certain basic condition so that they must exist. Continuity of a social structure is maintained by
the process of social life. Function of any recurrent activity is the part it plays in maintaining the
continuity of social structure.

3. FUNCTIONAL UNITY
There is a functional unity in a function or in a society. All the parts of the society work together in a
consistent pattern i.e. w/o producing persistence conflicts which can’t be resolved or regulated.
He talks about 2 states of society –

1. Eunomia - refers to harmonious working together of the parts or the inner consistency b/w the
parts.
2. Dysnomia - refers to a condition of functional disunity. A society prone to a state to Dysnomia
rarely dies but instead struggles to achieve a new state of Eunomia.

R. Brown scantily/subtly recognized the presence of social conflict. According to him, opposition and
regular antagonism is the essential feature of the society.

[BR Ambedkar annihilation of cast and Gandhi’s reformation of caste system]

Andamanese ceremonial weeping

Andamanese ceremonies are marked by formal weeping. Purpose of ceremonial weeping is the
expression and transmission of sentiments which helps to regulate individual behavior in
conformity with the needs of the society. Ceremonial weeping takes places in situation in which social
relationships which has been disturbed or interrupted have to be resumed.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

4. TOTEMISM
[Tribe>Moieties>Phratry>Clans>Lineage]

Exogamous moieties are kin system in which a population is divided into 2 social division and a man of
one moiety must marry a woman of another moiety.

STUDY OF ABORIGINES OF AUSTRALIA

In order to understand the choice of animals (eagle hawk v/s crows) as totems among the aborigines
Brown analyses the stories about eagle hawk and crows in the myths of aborigines. The similarities and
differences b/w animal species are translated into terms of friendship and conflict. The world of animal
life represents social relationship b/w the human group of which they’re totem. Eagle hawk and
crow are both meat eaters but eagle hawk hunts and crow steal and hence competition. Totemism is
more than technique of maintaining group solidarity but also a way to express social opposition
b/w groups. The moieties are thought of as being in relation of opposition and hence, exogamy or
alliance is a recurrent practice to maintain it.

ANCESTOR WORSHIP
Ancestor worship reflect a sense of dependency b/w the worshipper and the ancestors. It is important
among societies where unilineal descent is practiced in such a society this practice gives solidarity and
continuity of lineage. The individual is controlled and his sentiments are inspired by the practice of
ancestor worship.

5. IDEA OF KINSHIP

AL Kroeber
1. Kinship terminology is having no direct relations with behaviors.
2. Psychology determines kinship terminology through language.
3. Psychology independently determine behavior.

W.H. RIVERS
According to him present day terminologies are based on ancient modes of behaviors (Ancient Social
Facts)
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

BROWN
He rejected Kroeber’s idea that kinship terminologies were divorced from behavior. He also rejects
River’s idea of it being ancient social fact. According to him, kinship terminology is an existing social fact.

Kinship provides major organizational principles for most primitive communities. He focuses on
classificatory system of KT. 3 basic principles of classificatory system are:

1. Unity of siblings - brother and sister have a feeling of solidarity and seen as single unit by
outside group
2. Unity of lineage group – lineage just like siblings are seen as a unit by the outsiders
3. Generation principle – in all the kinship system, there is a certain distance or tension b/w the
members of succeeding generations.

In primitive societies, kinship regulates social relationship of individuals. Various pattern of

behaviors is associated with these relations but if we display different kind of behavior towards every
relations thing could get very complicated especially if number of relatives is large. This difficulty is
avoided in a primitive society by a system of classification in which different relatives are clubbed
together.

Relationships in the society are shaped by solidarity and opposition to protect delicate relation and
diffuse the tension, there are certain kinship behaviors/usages. These are joking relationships and
avoidance. Joking relationships are relaxed and friendly relation b/w kins of same generations marked
by exchange of jokes or friendly insults. Avoidances is a usage/behavior b/w kins of different generation.
It is to show extreme respect.

Mother’s brother and sister’s son in certain societies like Bathonga of east Africa and Tonga islanders.
Mother’s brother and sister’s son are observed to share a particularly and affectionate relation. The
nephew is permitted to take many liberties with his maternal uncle. The communities mentioned above
are patriarchal. The father is regarded with awe and fear and mother is regarded with kindness and
affection. In keeping with this trend father’s sister is given respect and reverence and mother’s brother
is given affection and kindness. Paternal aunt is sort of female father while maternal uncle is a sort
of male mother this is called as the notion of extension of sentiments (complimentary filiation).

6. ECONOMIC ANTHROPOLOGY
Economic system can be studied as a mechanism by which different kinds of goods are produced,
exchanged and consumed. It depicts the relation b/w persons involved in production, distribution,
exchange and consumption. Exchange of goods is both a result of and a means of maintaining
social structure.

For example, Potlach – it is a type of social gathering in which resources especially food is
redistributed among the group. It is the form of competitive feasting in which a powerful leader of the
group shows off his wealth and prestige to rival leaders. More the number of guests and food brought to
the Potlach, more is the power and influence the group leader will have.

When interpreted in a structural functionalist manner, Potlach ceremony creates a structure of

hierarchy and helps in maintaining it.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

CRITISISM
1. It us wrong to look at the society as a living organism because structure of living organism
doesn’t change but society does.
2. The approach presents an over-harmonious picture of the society and ignores the conflict
and in doing so it supports the exploitation and marginalization of people (untouchability,
racism).
3. It can’t explain the social change and project a static picture of society.
4. It is Ahistorical in nature i.e. it doesn’t explain how a particular institution has achieved the
present form.
5. It can’t explain variations among cultures.

CONCLUSION
R. Brown analysis of social structure and function directed anthropological enquiry through institutions
of human life and the role they play in maintenance and reproduction of society. However, his vision of
anthropology as a natural science of society never bore fruits or was not accepted by masses.

QUESTIONS
1. Although Malinowski and Brown belong to same school of functionalism, they presented a
distinct version of it. Discuss.
2. Critically analyze the Malinowski’s idea of bio-cultural functionalism.
3. What is functionalism? Explain functional aspect of religion.
ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

STRUCTURALISM
Structuralism states that human culture is just an expression of the underlying structures and pattern
of the human mind that shape human behaviour and thought. Human Culture are shaped by a certain
pre-programmed code of human mind. Anthropology aims to examine the unconscious foundation
of social life.

GESTALT PSYCHOLOGY
Gestalt psychology says All human conscious experience is patterned. We make sense of things by
seeing whole rather than individual part. Whole is different than sum of its parts. General rules of how
our perception operates are:

1. Closure: our brain fills in the gap. We perceive things even if we can’t see all of the information.
2. Proximity: when things are near to each other we them as group.
3. Similarity: things similar irrespective of distance are perceived as a group.
4. Continuity: we perceive things as being continuous.
5. Simplicity we tend to perceive simplest explanation of things rather than complex.

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTIC
It is an approach in linguistic which treats language as an inter-woven structure in which every item
acquires identity and validity in relation to other items in the system. Ferdinand De Saussure is the
father of structure linguistic. Saussure realized that we need to understand language not a collection of
individual words with individual with histories but as a structural system of relationship. Structural
linguistics looks for the rules that underlie the language.

The components of a structure are not merely a collection of independent items. They form a working
unit because they exist in relation to one another. Words do not simply refer to objects in the world. A
word is linguistic sign of two inseparable part:

1. Signifier - what we talk i.e. sound

2. Signified - concept and the object signifier refer to.

A sound become a word only when it is linked with concept or object. The relationship b/w signifier
and signified is arbitrary. Structuralist believe that our perception of the world results from conceptual
framework that is an innate feature of human psyche. We don’t discover the world; we create it
according to innate structure within human mind.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

CLAUDE LEVI STRAUSS

According to Claude Strauss, father of structural anthropology, Social structure is abstract term and
it exists only at level of mind . He suggests that human thought process reflects in culture and
structure of human thoughts is same in all cultures. It is the aim of anthropologist (structuralist) to
understand the underlying meaning involved in human thought expressed in cultural act. His work is
inspired by structural linguistic by Saussure.

STRUCTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY (BY LEVI STRAUSS)

Anthropology examines the unconscious foundation of social life. To Levi-Strauss, culture was only a
means of communication, a system of transmission of meanings that held society together as a
system of exchange. Anthropology is a cognitive science as it is concerned with working of brain.

1. Culture is like language; our mind knows the rule but can’t articulate. Culture and language are
homologous (have same origin), analogous (similar in function) and co-relates. They both are the
product of similar activities of human life. Like language, culture is a means of communication. It is
a system of transmission of meanings that holds society as system of exchange. In a society,
communication happens at 3 levels;
i. Exchange of words - linguistic rules will determine the circulation of messages.
ii. Exchange of goods and services – economic and political rules will determine circulation
of goods and services.
iii. Exchange of women – kinship marriage rules ensure circulation of women between
groups.

2. According to Strauss, structure of human mind is invariant/same, we think in the form of binary
opposites. Thus, B.O. helps in understanding human thought process and how it impacts cultural
traits in different societies.
According Levi Strauss there are 3 basic principles of human mind:
i. People follow rules.
ii. Reciprocity is the simplest way to create a social relationship.
iii. A gift binds both the giver and the recipient in a continuous social relationship.

Such social structures, according to Levi Strauss, mirrors cognitive structures, the way in which
mankind thinks and understands. (We think in the form of Binary opposites). Structuralist argue that
binary opposition are reflected in various cultural institution – Kinship, art, religion, ritual.

❖ Preprogramme code -> culture -> social structure

❖ Binary opposite -> us v/s them -> exchange -> social structure

ELEMENTARY STRUCTURE OF KINSHIP

1. According to Levi Strauss, kinship system like language exists in human consciousness. The kinship
organization reflects the human thinking patterns.
o for e.g. Moieties – Moieties are the clear reflection of human thinking in the binary opposites.
The entire tribe is divided into two group who’re similar but different. The social relationship is
built by exchange of women.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

o Moieties -> Binary opposite -> us v/s them -> social relation by exchange of women
➢ Criticism: By his idea is Moiety, Strauss is trying to explain something which is non-universal
(Moiety) by something which is universal (idea of binary opposite).
2. Incest Taboo appears in every society, it is because of property of human mind to think in binary opposite.
There is a distinction between self and others. It is concerned with exchange of women. Binary
opposite creates the group and exogamy is way of communication between the groups.
3. Descent v/s alliance theory: Descent theory of kinship is associated with structural-functionalism
school of thought. According to them, unilineal descent is the reason for solidarity in kinship group. It
emphasizes on transfer of property, office, goods, rituals and obligations across generations which
produces solidarity among the member of the group. Marriage is of secondary importance; it is only of
reproduction, since an individual can’t marry inside his group, he marries somebody outside the group.

Alliance theory brought marriage to the focus. The function of marriage is not only reproduction but
building kinship. Incest taboo is seen as positive force. It is a ‘pre-social’ social fact i.e. it existed
before the formation of society and explain the formation of society. The outcome of incest taboo is a
system of exchange of women which creates federation and hence, brings solidarity.

AVUNCULATE
Avunculate in kin system recognize a special bond between Ego and his maternal uncle. It had often
been misinterpreted as a survival of matrilineal system until they were shown to be present in patrilineal
societies as well. Theres is an inverse relationship b/w Ego and his maternal uncle and Ego and his
father. When the relationship b/w ego and mother brother is familiar, the relationship b/w ego and
father is formal and vice versa. when the relationship b/w ego’s father and mother is formal then the
relationship b/w ego’s mother and ego’s mother’s brother will familiar and vice versa. Hence,
avunculate makes sense not just as relationship that exist in isolation but as a relation that is a part of
system.

Relationships/society A B C D
Ego and father + - + -
Ego and mother’s brother - + - +
Ego’s mother and father + - - +
Ego’s mother and brother - + + -
These 4 relationships are called ‘Atoms of kinship’

TOTEMISM
Levi Strauss in his book ‘Totemism’ explains totemism as a phenomenon where animals and natural
objects are chosen as symbol of class of family because they are useful as linguistic and
classificatory devices to order the social relationship b/w the groups. It clearly depicts the binary
opposite of nature v/s culture. The resemblances and differences of animal species are translated into
friendship and conflict by grouping them in pair of opposites which have at least one character in
common and which allowed them to be compared. Food taboos, economic exchanges and kinship
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

relations can be conceptualized and organized using schemes which are comparable to the
totemic homology between natural species and social characteristics.

In simple societies there is nothing to distinguish one person from another thus different clan groups
are distinguished by totems and they’re believed to be similar in quality to their totemic ancestors.
Thus, the differences of ‘nature’ provides the code by which human groups can be identified and
compared to each other. The function that totemism fulfil are cognitive and intellectual: ‘totems are not
good to eat, they are good to think’

However, women are considered naturally equivalent so that they can rotate b/w groups to create and
maintain bonds.

VIEWS ON SAVAGE MIND

In his book ‘Savage Mind’ Levi- Strauss holds view that human mind has logical pattern of thought
which is found in all societies whether primitive or civilized. Primitive society engage in high level of
reasoning different from but not necessarily inferior to that evolved in cultivated systematic thought.

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MYTHS

In his book Mythologiques Strauss highlighted myths have basic unconscious structure, if basic
unconscious structures are found in myths, then that might reflect existence of fundamental mental
structures (Binary opposites). In his analysis of story of Asdiwal Levi Strauss identifies 4 levels of
representations:

1. Geographic – on geographical level there’s a basic opposition b/w east and west
2. Cosmological – on cosmological level, there’s basic opposition b/w heaven and sub-terranean
world
3. Techno-economic – binary opposite is between surplus and deficit
4. Sociological – binary opposition b/w patrilocal and matrilocal

Myths are made of elements called Mythemes which the myth maker arrange and rearrange to
create meaning. Therefore, to uncover the unconscious meaning of myth the structuralist must break
the myth into his constituent element and identify their relationship. After the analysis it’ll be revealed
that the core element of myth is similar and reflects the human thought of binary opposite.

Levi Strauss proposes that human mind is capable of recognize limited structural pattern hence, one
tale can be converted into another by basic transformation steps i.e. replacing positive with negative
character, reversing the order of sequences and replacing male with female. By this dissimilar myth
can be shown to be variation on common structures. For e.g. he showed how Cinderella story can be
turned into Ash boy with such steps.

CONCLUSION
Lévi-Strauss's structuralist approach revolutionized anthropology by focusing on underlying patterns in
human thought and culture that governs human behaviours. Although his theory has drawn criticised for
being deterministic and anti-humanistic. His work paved the way for Action theory by E. Leach.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

QUESTIONS
1. Structural analysis of myth. 10 marks
2. Structuralism. 10 marks
3. Structural analysis of kinship. 10 marks
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

EDMUND LEACH
Edmund Leach was a British anthropologist associated with structuralist school. His form of
structuralism is more empirically rather than intellectual version of it offered in Europe.

What we know about external world is what we apprehend through our senses. The phenomenon
which we perceive have the characteristics which we assign to them because of the way our senses
and the brain is designed to interpret the external stimuli. One very important feature of ordering
process of brain is that we cut-up the continuum of space and time into segments. It is because
we’re pre-disposed to think of environment as consisting of vast number of separate things belonging to
named classes. Correspondingly when as men we construct artificial things or device ceremonies, we
imitate our apprehension of nature. The product of our culture is segmented and ordered in the same
way as we suppose the product of nature to be segmented and ordered.

Leach uses the term opposites and mediations in structural analysis of culture. The term opposition is
used to refer to pair of categories so that there are an obvious conceptual differences b/w two things
that are put in different categories. A mediating category is one that has something in common with
two opposed categories. These mediating categories serves to resolve opposition by
psychologically linking two opposite categories in human mind. (-1 0 1)

1. In his book “Social Anthropology”, in structural analysis of rituals, Leach proposes that rituals
mark the interval time or liminal time b/w past and present. During festivals people take a break
from ordinary activities and they do things that do not do normally. These breaks are mediators and
symbolic markers by which people comprehend passage of time.
➢ Structural analysis of body mutilation; shaving of widow’s head is the mediating category that
marks the change in status of women.
➢ The structural analysis of church/prayer/sacrifice: church is the mediating category b/w the
binary opposite of this world of lived experience and the other world of imagination.
➢ The idea of gods such as Ganesh clearly reflect the idea of opposition and mediation where
they’re projected as mediating categories b/w binary opposite of human and animal.
➢ Traffic signal: human mind dichotomizes the spectrum. It uses extreme to build that opposition
and logical center(yellow) to mediate b/w those extreme (red and green).

2. In his book “Political System of Highland Burma” Leach expressed his dissatisfaction against
structural functionalist idea of society. He says that structural functionalist models are conceptual
models of society that are necessarily in the state of equilibrium. Real societies can never in a
state of equilibrium they’re always in the state of ‘oscillating equilibrium’. In Kachins, Leach
talks about political system of two polar type:

Kachin Gumsa: aristocratic hierarchal system of organization

Kachin Gumlao: democratic, egalitarian form of organization.

Social landscape of Kachin comprised a social and political relations in which there was segmentation
in form of clans. The political organization of Kachin oscillated b/w Gumsa and Gumlao based on
external influence of Shan (they may internally be hierarchal but they face the outsiders as
Gumlao). Ambitious persons seeking political and economic advantage, use these models strategically
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

to justify their action. There are ambivalent elements of myth and marriage system that can be invoked
to justify the actions.

3. He is associated with Action (practice) theory. It states that individual works to achieve power and
in the process their actions can transform the society they live in.

CONCLUSION
Although Edmund Leach was influenced by Levi Strauss but he never accepted him in entirety and in
fact rejected his idea later when he started to emphasize on idea of cognitive universals. His loyalty
remained with ethnographic details, never to be trumped by theory.

QUESTIONS
1. Contributions of E. leach to structuralism. 15 marks

CRITICISM OF STRUCTURALISM

1. Static, ahistorical nature of theory. Mainly concerned with the structure of human psyche – it
does not address the historical aspects/change in culture.
2. Theory does not account for human individuality. Human thought is not as uniform and
invariable as structuralism assumes it to be. Theory does not account individual human acts.
3. It is criticised for being deterministic and anti-humanistic since it diminishes the value of
human will and portray it largely as a construct of larger system.
4. Lack of proof of assumption of cognitive processes.
5. Theory does not account dynamic aspect of culture. It fails to explain cultural variation i.e.,
why should structure be maintained only by this custom and not by some other one.
6. DM Lewis points to the inconsistency even manipulation of ethnic data to fit the structural
scheme.
7. The feminists have been specifically critical of Levi-Strauss treating the women only as
objects of exchange.
 ANTHROPOLICAL THEORIES

CONCLUSION OF STRUCTURALISM
Structuralism, pioneered by Lévi-Strauss and further developed by Leach, provides a framework for
understanding human culture as a system of interconnected elements. Lévi-Strauss focused on
binary oppositions and universal structures, while Leach emphasized the importance of local variations
and social practices.