UNIT 11 THEORIES OF STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION1

Contents
11.0 Introduction
11.1 Rise of Functionalism
11.2 Structural Functionalism
11.3 Malinowski’s Functionalism
11.4 Further Developments
11.5 Culture and Personality
11.6 Structuralism
11.7 Conflict Theories
11.8 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions

Learning Objectives
After having read this unit, you should be able to:
 understand the importance of dominant theoretical approaches in structure and function
in anthropological theory;
 gain insights into the contributions of prominent figures such as Durkheim, Radcliffe-
Brown, and Malinowski;
 explore the relationship between culture and personality development;
 understand structuralism as a method of analysing social and cultural relations, focusing
on the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss; and
 explore the role of conflict, understanding its contribution to social change and cohesion.

11.0 INTRODUCTION
1
Dr Smarika Awasthi Sharma, former Academic Consultant, Discipline of Anthropology, School of Social
Sciences, IGNOU, New Delhi.
The study of structure and function occupies a central position in anthropological theory,
providing a framework for understanding how societies are organised and how various social
institutions operate to maintain social order. Rooted in the works of early theorists, such as
Durkheim, Radcliffe-Brown, and Malinowski, these theories explain both stability and change in
human societies− Durkheim through social facts and collective conscience, Radcliffe-Brown via
network of relationships, and Malinowski by addressing individual needs through cultural
practices. Complementing these approaches, the Culture and Personality school probes into how
early experiences, values and emotions shape unique personality traits.

This unit explores these foundational theories, their major proponents, and the critiques they
have encountered, providing a nuanced understanding of how anthropologists conceptualise
social organisation and human behaviour.

11.1 RISE OF FUNCTIONALISM

By the early 20th century, Britain saw the rise of two distinct schools—Structure Functionalism
(led by Radcliffe-Brown) and Functionalism (spearheaded by Malinowski)—which rejected both
evolutionist and diffusionist perspectives. By the late 1930s, these two schools had laid the
foundation for British Social Anthropology.

Initially influenced by Durkheim’s functional interpretation of society, Radcliffe-Brown

remained deeply committed to these ideas throughout his career, while Malinowski eventually
diverged, developing his distinct version of pure functionalism.

11.1.1 Early Beginnings

The conceptual roots of Functionalism can be traced back to ancient philosophy and the use of
organic analogies by Plato (428/7–345/7 BCE) and Aristotle (384–322 BCE). However, the
foundation of functionalism lies in the philosophy of positivism, first proposed by the French
philosopher, Auguste Comte (1798–1857). He emphasised a systematic and scientific method
for understanding society, focusing on empirical observations. He also likened society to an
organism, emphasising the interconnectedness of its parts. Here we recall the British
philosopher, Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), who applied natural selection to society comparing
society to a living organism, where different social structures function together to maintain
stability. Later, Durkheim built on this analogy, asserting that sociologists must provide
"sociological explanations" for social phenomena. These explanations include:

1. Causal-Historical Explanation: Identifying the causes of a phenomenon by examining

historical evidence, avoiding speculative or "conjectural history," as critiqued by
Radcliffe-Brown.

2. Functional Explanation: Understanding how a specific part of society contributes to

maintaining overall social harmony and stability (Durkheim 1895: 125).

In essence, functionalism examines both the origins of social phenomena and their roles in
sustaining society as a cohesive whole.

11.1.2 Émile Durkheim on Social Structure and Functionalism

Émile Durkheim (1858-1917), a French sociologist, introduced key concepts of structure and
function. His influential works include The Division of Labour (1893) considered a foundational
text in sociology and Rules of Sociological Method (1895), where he emphasised empirical study
and the importance of social facts. His later work, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life
(1912), explored the totemic organisation of the Arunta tribe in Australia, which he regarded as a
product of the collective consciousness of their society (Sahay, 2024).

Durkheim’s study of the Arunta society provides a compelling illustration of his functionalist
ideas. The Arunta were organised into 12 totemic groups, each symbolising edible resources.
Members of each group were prohibited from consuming their totem, ensuring a balanced
distribution of food at the subsistence level and challenging ecological conditions. It
demonstrated how social institutions evolve for the survival of society. Here religion serves to
bind people into a moral community, reinforcing social cohesion. Durkheim viewed society as a
superorganic entity—a system that functions beyond the individual.

Though an atheist, Durkheim revered society like a deity, viewing it as sui generis—an entity
existing independently of individuals. While individuals are transient, society endures over time.
Society's shared norms, beliefs, and values create a collective consciousness, uniting individuals
and fostering a sense of community or "we-feeling." Society is more than just the sum of its
parts; it possesses its own identity.
Durkheim’s comparison of society to a living organism furthered his functionalist theory. Just as
organs in an organism fulfil essential needs, social institutions (family, religion, kinship, politics,
economy, religion, etc.) serve vital functions to maintain social order, where each part of society
plays a role in maintaining the stability and cohesion of the whole. This analogy was
foundational for the development of functionalism.

Cells Tissues Organs Organism

Individual Groups Community Society

In The Division of Labour (1893), Durkheim rejected Darwin’s idea of survival through
competition arguing that as populations grow, society evolves through differentiation and job
specialisation, rather than struggle and elimination. He saw the division of labour as fostering
social solidarity and interdependence. Social institutions integrate society and even crime plays a
functional role by reinforcing collective morals and contributing to legal and moral evolution.

Although Durkheim did not label himself a functionalist, his focus on social function influenced
later thinkers like Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski. Unlike his predecessors, he studied religion
structurally and functionally rather than speculating on its origins. His emphasis on analysing
present societies profoundly shaped future research.

Evolving from Comte’s positivism to Durkheim’s sociological positivism, by mid 20th century,
functionalism became a dominant perspective. The publication of Radcliffe Brown's The
Andaman Islanders and Malinowski’s Argonauts of the Western Pacific in 1922 marked a major
turning point.

Main Schools of
FUNCTIONALISM

Radcliffe Brown's
Malinowski's Structural
Functionalism Functional
Approach

Bio-Cultural Psychological
Functionalism Functionalism

11.2 STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM

Building on the foundational ideas discussed earlier, structural-functionalism introduced a

scientific approach to anthropology. Perceiving anthropology as a science of humanity, they tried
to discover general laws through comparison and generalisation rather than speculative methods.
Facing challenges in comparing diverse cultures, Radcliffe-Brown introduced the concept of
social structure— the systematic arrangement of relationships within a society. By focusing on
these recurrent and regular patterns of interaction, structural-functionalism sought to uncover
universal societal laws that maintain stability and cohesion across diverse cultures.

11.2.1 Structural-Functional Approach of Radcliffe-Brown

Arthur Reginald Radcliffe-Brown (1881–1955) was a British social anthropologist influenced

by Spencer and Durkheim. He viewed social anthropology as a natural science, emphasising the
need for a scientific approach to discover social laws. He proposed a comparative study to
identify common social structures and patterns to establish a universal science of society.
He viewed society as a closed system of interrelated parts and emphasised analysing the present
rather than reconstructing historical evolution. He introduced the concept of social structure as
the recurrent and regular patterns of interaction (excluding accidental or sporadic ones).
According to him, a social structure was simply a systematic arrangement of its parts or
individuals, always within a 'network of social relationships' ensuring continuity (Sahay, 2024).
His approach aimed to identify structural patterns in social relationships. In this view, a structural
form is a generalised representation of common behavioural patterns derived from consistent
norms and principles. Moreover, the components of this structure are interdependent and
mutually reinforcing (Channa, 2021)—for instance, in the family system, parental roles and
kinship expectations are reinforced by legal, cultural, and economic structures, ensuring
interconnection and mutual support.

Influenced by Spencer, Radcliffe-Brown viewed society as an organism, where individuals are

its components and institutions function like body parts. Each institution has a role or function to
fulfil, just as organs do in an organism. Thus, in his social structure, social function was
embedded. This integration of structure and function led to his classification as a structural-
functionalist rather than merely a functionalist.

His comparative studies such as The Andaman Islanders (1922), focused on social functions like
kinship rituals, where food taboos taught the young people the responsibility for survival, critical
in subsistence-based societies. He argued that practices of significant social value acquire
symbolic ritual importance, reinforcing the structure of society in an objective, emotion-free
manner.

He emphasised the role of social institutions in maintaining the stability and continuity of
society. Practices like exogamous marriage, where men marry outside their kin group, create
bonds with their wives' families. He argued that kinship norms and obligations promote order
and social stability, ultimately serving society’s collective needs.

One illustration of Radcliffe-Brown's structural-functionalism is his examination of avoidance

rules and joking relationships to manage the tensions that arise among individuals connected by
marriage. Avoidance rules, like those between a father-in-law and daughter-in-law or a son-in-
law and mother-in-law in India, prevent potential conflicts in close living conditions by
enforcing strict non-interaction, including veiling (purdah). In contrast, joking relationships,
such as between a woman and her husband's younger brother, and between a man and his wife’s
sister diffuse sexual tension through humour rather than suppression. These practices reinforce
social stability and remain relevant in many societies today (Channa, 2021).

In studying lineage systems, he argued that they must promote social cohesion to persist. Lineage
groups, particularly in land-owning societies, define property rights and inheritance, helping
resolve conflicts. By analysing these roles at different levels, one can understand how each
system contributes to the structural stability of society as a whole.

He distinguished between social structure (defined by the status of individuals) and social
organisation (determined by activities as per the roles). He argued that when individuals perform
their roles by societal norms and traditions, society is in social eunomia (good health). However,
if they fail to follow these norms, it leads to social dysnomia (disorder or bad health).

Radcliffe-Brown opposed the term ‘functionalism,’ promoted by Malinowski because he

believed science should avoid ideological labels. He also distinguished society from an
organism: while organisms die, societies persist through change. Unlike biological structures,
social structures cannot be studied independently of their function. He defined function as the
life process that sustains the continuity of social structure.

11.2.2 Criticisms of Structural-Functionalism

A significant critique of structural-functionalism is the difficulty in proving that a particular

custom truly contributes to the maintenance of the social system. In biology, the function of an
organ can be tested by removing it, but cultural traits cannot be "subtracted" from society to
evaluate their impact. Some customs may be neutral or even harmful to social stability.
Moreover, the assumption that all customs are functional simply because a society exists is
problematic. Even if a custom’s functionality can be demonstrated, the approach fails to explain
why a society chooses one solution over other potential alternatives to meet its structural needs
(Ember & Ember, 2007).

Structural-functionalism has been criticised for being ahistorical, synchronic, and overly holistic.
It views society as a bounded system where all parts are interdependent but largely isolated from
external influences. This assumption ignores historical changes and external forces like
colonialism and global trade, as pointed out by critics like Eric Wolf. Additionally, following
Durkheim, it explains social phenomena only through other social facts, excluding psychological
and historical variables from its analysis. While it acknowledges the role of the environment, it
does so mainly through indigenous cosmologies rather than external socio-political forces
(Channa, 2021).

11.3 MALINOWSKI’S FUNCTIONALISM

Bronislaw Malinowski’s (1884-1942) functionalism focuses on how social practices fulfil

individual needs. He lived among the Trobriand Islanders during World War I, immersing
himself in their language and customs to gain an insider's perspective—an approach known as
participant observation. Methodologically, he stresses learning the native language (as it is the
chief medium of communication), symbolism (as the foundation of human life, enabling
language and, ultimately, the development of culture), and firsthand fieldwork. His theoretical
framework, functionalism, posits that all cultural traits serve to meet the needs of individuals
within a society.

Malinowski studied the Kula exchange, a ceremonial trading system among the Trobriand
Islanders, to demonstrate how social institutions fulfil individual and societal needs. Islanders
relied on technical knowledge for lagoon fishing but used magic in deep-sea fishing, highlighting
the psychological function of cultural beliefs. Malinowski argued that magic helps individuals
cope with situations beyond their control. He also explored how beliefs about death, sickness,
and the afterlife help people adapt to life's uncertainties.
 Figure 1: Bronislaw Malinowski with the natives of Trobriand islands

Source: Stanisław Ignacy Witkiewics, 1885-1939; https://commons.wikimedia.org/

Figure 2: Kula arm bracelet. You can Figure 3: Malinowski’s mwali plate, one
see the names of the people, who owned of the two main kinds of objects in the
the bracelet, written all over. Kula ritual from Melanesia.

Source: Brocken Inaglory; Source: Bronisław Malinowski (1884-

https://commons.wikimedia.org 1942), Argonauts of the western Pacific;
https://commons.wikimedia.org

Figure 4: Shell necklace used for Kula

exchange (soulava) - Trobriand islands in
Papua New Guinea - Made in the latter half
of the 19th Century.

Source: Yanajin33; National Museum of

Ethnology, Osaka - Shell necklace
Malinowski established a distinct "Functional School," emphasising that every cultural element
—customs, objects, ideas, and beliefs—serves a vital function in maintaining an integrated
system. He argued that anthropology should focus on how these elements contribute to societal
stability.

While Radcliffe-Brown prioritised social structure and integration, Malinowski centred his
analysis on individuals, asserting that culture evolves to meet human biological needs. His
approach, termed "psychological functionalism," contrasts with Radcliffe-Brown’s "sociological
functionalism." Malinowski identified three hierarchical levels of human existence—biological,
social-structural, and symbolic—where each level influences the others. Culture, which he saw
as uniquely human, emerges from these interactions to fulfil basic needs, leading to his concept
of "bio-cultural functionalism."

Malinowski introduced the concept of "vital sequences," outlining eleven biological impulses
universally embedded in all cultures. Each impulse corresponds to a physiological act and results
in a specific satisfaction.
 IMPULSE ACT SATISFACTION

Drive to breathe Intake of oxygen Elimination of CO₂ in tissues

Hunger Ingestion of food Satiation

Thirst Absorption of liquid Quenching

Sex appetite Conjugation Detumescence

Restoration of muscular and

Fatigue Rest
nervous energy

Restlessness Activity Satisfaction of fatigue

Somnolence Sleep Awakening with restored energy

Bladder pressure Micturition Removal of tension

Colon pressure Defecation Abdominal relaxation

Fright Escape from danger Relaxation

Pain Avoidance by act Return to normal state

In his A Scientific Theory of Culture (1944), published posthumously, he wrote that culture was
‘an instrumental reality for the fulfilment of basic needs of man’, i.e. the function of a cultural
trait lies in its ability to fulfil human needs. He categorised needs into three types:

1. Primary (Basic) Needs – Biological necessities like nutrition, reproduction, health, etc.

2. Instrumental Needs – Social structures (e.g., family, economy) that help satisfy basic
needs.

3. Symbolic (Integrative) Needs – Abstract thinking, imagination, and cultural expression.

He proposed seven basic biological needs and their corresponding cultural responses that address
them.

BASIC
CULTURAL RESPONSES
NEEDS

Metabolism Commissariat (food production and distribution)

Reproduction Kinship (regulating marriage and family)

Bodily comfort Shelter (housing and living conditions)

Safety Protection (laws and security systems)

Movement Activities (transport and mobility structures)

Growth Training (education and skill development)

Health Hygiene (medicine and sanitation)

The primary needs are not fulfilled by direct engagement with the environment but are mediated
through culture creating additional instrumental needs. He introduced four instrumental
imperatives (also called derived needs)—economy, social control, education, and political
organisation. Finally, there are symbolic or integrative needs (religion, magic, beliefs and
values) represented by the capacity for abstract thinking and imagination (Channa, 2021) further
sustaining cultural integration. For instance, the need for food gives rise to the derived need for
cooperation in food collection or production, leading societies to develop political systems and
mechanisms of social control to ensure this cooperation (Ember & Ember, 2007).

Let us understand it further. Malinowski viewed individuals as a blend of biology and culture.
Basic needs like food, sex, and protection are essential for survival, but their fulfilment is shaped
by cultural practices. Unlike other species, humans do not consume food instinctively; culture
mediates eating habits—defining what, when, and how to eat. Norms and etiquettes around food
vary across cultures emphasising that even biological functions are shaped by social and
symbolic systems. For instance, Marriage, while rooted in the basic need for sexual satisfaction,
extends beyond it to fulfil economic, social, and cultural functions. Incest rules also vary across
societies, influenced by historical and cultural factors. Malinowski emphasised the psychological
dimension, viewing basic needs as emotional and motivational drives fulfilled through cultural
practices.

Human needs extend beyond basic survival to include higher aspirations such as spirituality, self-
discipline, and artistic expression. People may suppress instinctual desires to pursue inner peace,
as seen in ascetic practices. Throughout history, humans have sought fulfilment in creativity, as
evidenced by ancient cave paintings and artistic expressions, highlighting the deep-rooted need
for symbolism and cultural meaning. It is here that Malinowski emphasised the symbolic value of
human actions, where acts like fasting hold cultural meaning beyond basic needs. He also viewed
rituals as essential for managing uncertainty and providing psychological security in
unpredictable situations. His studies on the Trobriand Islanders highlighted how rituals, such as
those in seafaring and horticulture, reinforced social cohesion and confidence. Unlike Radcliffe-
Brown, he focused on the individual’s engagement with culture rather than using an organic
analogy for society.

Radcliffe-Brown vs Malinowski

Malinowski’s functionalism focuses on the individual within society, whereas Radcliffe-Brown

emphasises society as an abstract system. For Malinowski, functions serve individuals as members
of society, rather than society itself. He contrasts functionalism with grand theories like evolutionism
and diffusionism by prioritising individuals’ interactions with their environment and culture. Unlike
Radcliffe-Brown, who starts with social relationships, Malinowski sees relationships as secondary to
emotions, cooperation, and duty (Channa, 2021).

A key difference between the two scholars is their view of culture. Malinowski saw culture as the
core of human life, while Radcliffe-Brown considered it secondary to social structure, which he
believed was more empirical and observable. Seeking to align social anthropology with natural
sciences, Radcliffe-Brown focused on tangible social structures rather than subjective cultural
aspects.
Critical Evaluation of Functionalism

Functionalism has been one of the most influential theories in social anthropology and sociology
and remained dominant until the 1960s, however, criticisms gradually emerged.

A key criticism of Malinowski's functionalism is its limited capacity to explain cultural variation.
While the needs he outlined, such as the need for food, are universal and essential for survival,
functionalism does not account for why different societies develop distinct cultural practices to
meet these needs (Ember & Ember, 2007).

Their focus on stability limited their ability to explain dynamic social transformations, portraying
societies as static rather than evolving. They emphasised harmony and consensus while
downplaying social conflicts and power struggles.

Functionalism treated individuals as products of society, ignoring their agency and role in
shaping change. The assumption of a universal theory applicable to all societies is problematic,
especially in complex, changing societies.

The concept of "function" in functionalism was criticised for being tautological — that is, using
the effect of an event as its cause, which rendered it an unhelpful analytical tool.

Functionalism ignored the historical contexts of the societies it studied, especially the impact of
colonialism. For instance, Radcliffe-Brown's work on the Andaman Islanders failed to reflect the
broader historical and colonial realities.

Early anthropologists like Malinowski were later found to have been influenced by subjective
biases in their work. By the end of the 20th century, anthropology saw a move towards
reflexivity, acknowledging the subjective experiences of both the researcher and informants,
marking a departure from strict objectivity (Clifford & Marcus, 1986).

The theory was accused of being Eurocentric, ignoring the historical interactions between non-
Western societies and presenting them as isolated until the arrival of Europeans. Scholars like
Wolf (1982) highlighted the long history of trade and migration across non-Western societies,
challenging the assumption that these societies were isolated before colonial contact.
Functionalism was also criticised for being male-centric and white-centric. Non-white and
female anthropologists later pointed out the biases in the field, which ignored the experiences
and contributions of marginalised groups.

Despite these criticisms, functionalism contributed significantly to sociological and

anthropological thought. However, by the 1970s, the rise of conflict theory, Marxist
perspectives, and interactionist approaches marked a shift beyond the functionalist paradigm.

11.4 FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS

British social anthropology advanced beyond Radcliffe-Brown’s structural-functionalism

through scholars like Edmund Leach, Raymond Firth, E.E. Evans-Pritchard, and Meyer Fortes,
each introducing refinements based on fieldwork. Their contributions shifted the focus from rigid
structural analysis to a more dynamic understanding of social change.

Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) shifted from "structural functionalism" to a broader

"functionalism," emphasising both stability (structure) and change (process). His AGIL model
identified four functions necessary for societal survival: Adaptation (economic function), Goal
Attainment (political function), Integration (legal/social institutions), and Latency
(cultural/educational institutions). He also proposed four action systems (culture, society,
personality, and behaviour) to ensure equilibrium.

Robert Merton (1910-2003), Parsons' student, critiqued grand theories, advocating for “middle-
range” theories that focused on specific social phenomena. He rejected assumptions of universal
functional unity and indispensability, distinguishing between manifest and latent functions, as
well as functional and dysfunctional elements in society. His approach emphasised empirical
research over broad theoretical claims.

Edmund Leach (1910-1989) studied political dynamics in Southeast Asia, shifting perspectives
from functionalism to processual analysis and structuralism. He conceptualised social structure
as a model and, in his study of the Kachin of Burma, identified three ideal types: the autocratic
Shan kingdom, the democratic Gumlao, and the intermediate Gumsa. While Gumsa is often seen
as the stable norm, Leach argued that it gradually shifts toward either extreme, a process he
termed "oscillating equilibrium."
Raymond Firth (1901-2002) known for his work in British Economic Anthropology,
distinguished between social structure and social organisation, emphasising decision-making and
institutional processes. His Tikopia study showed that societies evolve through organisational
change, which maintains their core structure (e.g., leadership shifts), and structural change,
which fundamentally alters them (e.g., a shift from democracy to autocracy). He proposed a dual
synchronic model where societies transition between equilibrium states.

E.E. Evans-Pritchard (1902-1973) known for his ethnographic studies in Africa (notably the
Nuer and Azande) transitioned from functionalism to a historical and humanistic approach,
incorporating ecology (or oecology) into social structure analysis.

Meyer Fortes (1949) introduced the concept of "structural time", arguing that kinship structures
evolve through life cycle events, residential shifts, and ageing. He emphasised that studying them
at a single moment overlooks their true complexity, highlighting the need to incorporate time for
an accurate understanding of social structure in his work Time and Social Structure (1970).

Together, these scholars broadened the scope of functionalist thought, integrating new
perspectives that highlighted social dynamics, individual agency, and historical context.

11.5 CULTURE AND PERSONALITY

11.5.1 Introduction to Culture and Personality

The culture and personality school of thought emerged in the 1930s in the United States,
integrating concepts from anthropology, psychology, and sociology. This school primarily
explored how child-rearing customs and cultural practices influence personality development in
different societies. It applied psychoanalytic principles to ethnographic data, offering insights
into the relationship between culture and human behaviour, emphasising how culture shapes
personality development, from ideal to deviant types.

The "Culture and Personality" school, also known as psychological anthropology, emerged
primarily through the work of Edward Sapir (1884-1939). Sapir believed that perception and
meaning arise from organised patterns, rather than individual components. He applied this to
culture and language, suggesting that culture cannot be understood as a fixed system, but as
something akin to an individual’s personality. Sapir argued that to understand a culture, one must
study personality development, particularly through child-rearing practices, as these shape
cultural behaviours.

The term culture here refers to the shared knowledge, beliefs, customs, and practices that
individuals acquire as members of their society. Anthropologically, culture is not innate but
learned through social interactions and experiences, influencing individual development and
personality formation. The word personality originated from the Latin word persona, meaning
‘mask’, symbolising the roles individuals play in society. Ralph Linton (1945) defined
personality as the sum total of an individual’s mental qualities, including perceptions, ideas,
habits, and conditioned emotional responses. Personality development is influenced by four key
determinants- environment, heredity, culture and situational experiences. Situational experiences
can be long-term (continuous interactions with family and society) or short-term (sudden, life-
changing events).

11.5.2 Main Contributors

Key contributors to this school include Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead, Ralph Linton, Abram
Kardiner, and Cora DuBois, all influenced by Franz Boas and Alfred Kroeber.

One of the earliest influences on the Culture and Personality school came from Sigmund Freud
(1856–1939), who helped bridge the gap between anthropology and psychology through his
“critical-periods hypothesis,” which proposed that early childhood experiences shape adult
behaviour. This Freudian concept led to Psychoanalytic Anthropology, with key contributors like
Gregory Bateson, Ruth Benedict, Geoffrey Gorer, and Margaret Mead.

In his book Totem and Taboo, he theorised that early societies were structured as primal hordes,
where the dominant male controlled all females. Sons killed their father out of jealousy, later
feeling guilty and instituting the incest taboo and totem worship. This sacrificial act became the
foundation of cultural and moral norms.

Freud is also well known for his theory of the Oedipus complex, which suggests that young boys
experience unconscious sexual desire for their mothers and rivalry toward their fathers. This
internal conflict is repressed and resurfaces in adult behaviour. Later Malinowski refuted the
universality of the Oedipus complex in matrilineal societies. Franz Boas and Alfred Kroeber
criticised Freud’s theories for being too one-dimensional, oversimplifying culture and ignoring
diversity.

Ruth Benedict (1887–1948), a student of Franz Boas, introduced the concept of cultural
patterns, arguing that each culture develops a distinct psychological configuration that influences
its institutions and behaviours. In Patterns of Culture (1934), she proposed that cultures function
as integrated wholes, with personality traits shaping cultural characteristics.

Benedict pioneered the configurational approach viewing cultures as integrated wholes, each
with a distinct configuration differentiating it from others. She likened culture to an individual
personality structured around a central theme with interconnected elements. She proposed that
cultural traits and customs are functionally related forming a cohesive "configuration of culture."
She viewed culture as an integrated intellectual, religious, and aesthetic construct. Her cultural
configuration theory connected fundamental personality traits with a society’s values and ideas
arguing that the culture one grows up in shapes one's emotions.

Benedict identified two primary cultural patterns:

1. Apollonian Cultures – Characterised by harmony, restraint, and cooperation (e.g., the

Zuni, foragers of Southwest America).

2. Dionysian Cultures – Marked by individualism, ambition, and excess (e.g., the Kwakiutl,
agriculturists of the Northeast Coast of North America).

Her comparative studies showed how child-rearing practices and social structures reinforce
personality traits. The Zuni emphasised group cooperation, modesty, and non-competitiveness,
while the Kwakiutl encouraged aggression, ambition, and individual achievement. Her work laid
the foundation for psychological anthropology, highlighting personality’s key role in shaping
cultural norms and behaviours.

During World War II, the U.S. government sought to understand enemy nations' cultural traits,
leading anthropologists like Ruth Benedict to study Japan's national character through indirect
methods. Since fieldwork was impossible, Benedict pioneered the “content analysis method”,
using historical documents, literature, and interviews with Japanese immigrants to analyse
Japanese culture. Her study culminated in The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (1946), where she
described Japanese child-rearing practices as shaping a dual personality:

 Childhood: Marked by love, care, and freedom, fostering gentleness (chrysanthemum).

 Adolescence: Strict discipline and duty, fostering aggression and resilience (sword).

This contrast explained Japan’s strong sense of duty, hierarchy, and wartime aggression. Her
"culture at a distance" approach influenced later studies on national character, such as Geoffrey
Gorer and John Rickman’s The People of Great Russia (1949).

By the 1950s interest in national character studies declined. Critics argued that Benedict's neo-
Freudian approach (linking early childrearing practices with adult personality) failed to explain
how these personality traits are passed down across generations or why specific traits develop in
particular cultures.

Margaret Mead (1901-1978), a student of Franz Boas, was a pioneering American

anthropologist who studied the relationship between culture and personality, particularly during
childhood and adolescence. She conducted extensive fieldwork in the 1920s and 1930s,
including studies in the Pacific islands. Mead collaborated with Gregory Bateson to introduce
film as an anthropological research tool, to document their work in Bali and other regions.

In her influential book Coming of Age in Samoa (1929) she studied Samoan adolescents
demonstrating that adolescence-related stress is culturally determined, not biological. Samoan
adolescents experienced a smooth transition into adulthood, free from the emotional turmoil due
to open attitudes towards birth, death and sex unlike American adolescents, who faced
psychological stress from conflicting moral standards. Premarital relationships among the
Samoan youth were considered natural.

Her work emphasised that different cultures create distinct personality types due to varying
socialisation practices. Two primary types of socialisation are:

 Dependence Training: Focuses on compliance with group norms, often seen in extended
families. It emphasises collective care, early household chores, and tolerance of
aggression and sexuality.
  Independence Training: Encourages self-reliance, independence, and personal
achievement. Children in such cultures may receive less attention from adults and are not
taught household tasks.

In Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935), Mead examined three cultures—
the Arapesh, Mundugumor, and Tschambuli— to understand why societies in the same region
have different personalities and gender roles. In the Arapesh society, both men and women have
a submissive temperament, which is highly valued. In the Mundugumor society, both genders
display aggressive traits like suspicion, competition, and jealousy. The Tschambuli society is
matrilineal, where males are submissive and females are dominant, with women holding
authority. Mead concluded that personality traits and differences in male and female
temperaments are influenced by cultural factors which vary from one society to another.

In Growing Up in New Guinea (1930) she explored child-rearing practices among the Manus
tribe, emphasising how culture influences personality development at different life stages
(infancy, childhood, and adulthood). Her interest in psychiatry led her to study the cultural
context of mental disorders like schizophrenia, particularly in Bali, where trance states were
culturally accepted.

Mead was recruited by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) to analyse national character,
comparing English and American cultural norms. She found that differences in gender roles and
social interactions often led to misunderstandings between the two nations. In Keep Your
Powder Dry: An Anthropologist Looks at America (1942), she examined that while children in
America, Japan, and Russia initially had similar personalities, these traits began to differ as they
grew due to the influence of family and education.

Her work, including her contributions to psychoanalysis and national character studies,
highlighted the importance of culture in personality development. Despite facing criticism for
neglecting quantitative methods, her legacy in culture and personality research remains
significant. A trailblazer for women in anthropology, she served on numerous mental health
committees. Mead passed away in 1978 and was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal
of Freedom. Her research laid the foundation for psychological anthropology, reinforcing that
human nature is flexible and shaped by cultural environments.
Ralph Linton (1893-1953), conducted ethnographic fieldwork in Polynesia, Madagascar, and
Latin America, and co-founded the basic personality structure theory with Kardiner. He aimed to
define a basic personality for each culture. They believed that while culture and personality are
closely linked, they have a specific causal relationship. They agreed that primary institutions
shape basic personality structures, while secondary institutions are products of these structures.

In his Cultural Background of Personality (1945), he identified three types of culture:

1. Real culture: Actual behaviour of society members, learned and shared in specific
situations.

2. Ideal culture: The philosophical and traditional aspects of culture, often regarded as
ideals.

3. Culture construct: Written descriptions of cultural elements, which are abstractions of

actual human behaviour.

Linton argued that real culture is the lived experience, while culture construct is an intellectual
interpretation of that reality. He also introduced concepts like basic personality (a common set of
habits shared by individuals in society through socialisation), status personality (individuals with
special privileges within society), and social inventors (those who challenge traditions or create
discoveries).

In his The Study of Man (1936), Linton defined roles as rules of behaviour tied to social status.
He distinguished between ascribed status (roles assigned at birth, such as age, sex, or caste) and
achieved status (roles earned through effort, such as occupations or leadership positions). His
concepts were crucial in understanding cultural and social dynamics within a society.

He was a key figure in psychological anthropology and promoted the study of culture change,
particularly acculturation among Native Americans.

Abram Kardiner (1891–1981), an American physician and psychiatrist, studied psychoanalysis

under Freud in the 1920s. He co-authored The Individual and Society (1939) and The
Psychological Frontiers of Society (1945) with Linton exploring how personality types align
with cultural patterns. He introduced the concept of "basic personality type," where members of
a culture share fundamental traits shaped by primary institutions like child-rearing practices.
Kardiner and Linton argued that religion and politics reflect the basic personality of a society.
Similar to Freud, Kardiner believed that personality development begins in early childhood. This
basic personality emerges within the framework of cultural institutions—

 primary institutions (like kinship, childrearing, sexuality and subsistence) which shape
basic personality structures; and
 secondary institutions (like religion, rituals and norms) which are influenced by them and
help individuals cope with conflicts and anxieties.

He studied the Tanala (horticulturalists) and Betsileo (irrigated rice cultivators), concluding that
economic practices influenced their personality traits. Anxiety from intensive agriculture, for
example, led the Betsileo to emphasise magic and spirit possession. He asserted that personality
diversity increases with greater social and political complexity.

Despite its influence, Kardiner's theory struggled to explain personality variations in different
societies, regardless of size.

Cora Du Bois (1903-1991), was influenced by Abram Kardiner in the psychoanalytic study of
culture and cross-cultural diagnosis. In her book The People of Alor (1944), she introduced the
concept of "modal personality structure," which described the dominant personality type within
a culture. Du Bois acknowledged that individual variation existed within cultures but argued that
each culture shares the development of a particular personality type that might not be evident in
every individual.

Along with Kardiner and Linton, Du Bois co-authored The Psychological Frontiers of Society
(1945), which analysed the basic personality traits within three cultures: the Comanche, Alorese,
and a rural American community. Du Bois' research on Alor Island, in the Dutch East Indies, led
her to the conclusion that primary institutions shape personality characteristics, but individual
expression still results in personality variations within a culture. She proposed the "modal
personality" as the most typical personality type in a society while allowing for individual
differences. She viewed infants as blank slates, with their personalities shaped by aspects of
childcare. In her research on Alor, she combined ethnographic data, and psychological tests—
including projective tests like the Rorschach "ink-blot" test and the TAT or Thematic
Apperception Test (in which respondents interpret images), supplemented with observations of
behaviour frequency, life history and dream collections to analyse personality variations. She
found that Alorese individuals were often suspicious, antagonistic, emotionally volatile, and
lacked motivation. She attributed these traits to early childhood experiences, particularly
maternal neglect due to the division of labour, where mothers resumed work shortly after
childbirth, causing anxiety and emotional instability in children. Her statistical approach allowed
for greater recognition of individual differences within a culture.

Later studies: After the 1950s, culture and personality research improved with comparative
studies across multiple societies. A major project using standardised research techniques
analysed child-rearing practices in regions like India, Mexico, Okinawa, the Philippines, New
England and East Africa, linking traits like self-reliance, obedience and aggression to cultural
factors such as warfare (Whiting, 1963).

In 1965, Walter Goldschmidt studied cultural, psychological, and ecological variations among
four African groups—Hehe, Kamba, Pokot, and Sebei—each with different economic practices.
Robert Edgerton used psychological tests and interviews to analyse personality differences
among pastoral and agricultural communities. Findings showed that economic background
influenced personality traits. The Kamba exhibited male dominance and emotional restraint,
while the Hehe were aggressive and secretive. Pastoralists were individualistic and direct,
whereas agriculturists valued group decisions, and hard work, and were more suspicious and
emotionally controlled. This research marked a shift from earlier impression-based studies to
data-driven, statistical analyses.

11.5.3 Criticisms of Culture and Personality

Despite their widespread influence, the works of Benedict and Mead faced several criticisms.
They were accused of assuming culture as a determinant of personality without explaining how
this process occurred and for disregarding historical analysis. Benedict was criticised for her
belief in cultural consistency and for overlooking contradictions, such as cooperation among the
Kwakiutl or issues like suicide and alcoholism among the Zuni. She also faced scrutiny for her
claim that the Pueblo abstained from alcohol.

Mead’s study in Samoa was strongly challenged by Derek Freeman, who found opposite results
regarding sexuality and gender relations. While Mead described Samoan girls as carefree about
sexual experimentation, Freeman reported a strict virginity complex. Their conflicting findings
were attributed to differences in study locations and a 15-year time gap. Marvin Harris also
criticised Mead for making generalised claims about Samoan girls' emotions.

Morris Opler argued against the configurationalist approach, stating that cultural integration is
influenced by more than just two factors. Kardiner’s basic personality structure was also
criticised for failing to account for personality variations within small societies. However, Du
Bois addressed this limitation with her modal personality theory, which allowed for greater
variation in personality traits.

11.6 STRUCTURALISM

Structuralism, which emerged in the 1950s, is a method of analysing social and cultural relations.
It explores how the human mind organises perceptions using the concept of binary oppositions.
Contrasts such as raw–cooked, left-right, and man–woman provide a framework for
understanding phenomena. Structuralism is often seen as a methodology that bridges science and
the humanities. Rooted in the intellectual revolution of structural linguistics, particularly
Ferdinand de Saussure’s work, which sought to uncover the underlying linguistic infrastructure
rather than surface features, structuralism similarly aims to reveal the deeper structures of social
phenomena. By employing a structural method, it seeks to analyse hidden patterns that shape
cultural and social systems.

French structuralism, led by Claude Levi-Strauss (1908–2009), sought to uncover the deep,
universal structures of human thought. He asserted that structuralism goes beyond anthropology,
influencing thinkers like Freud, Marx, and Piaget. He proposed that human cognition operates
through binary oppositions, such as day/night and life/death, shaping how we classify the natural
and social world. His fieldwork in Brazil introduced him to indigenous societies, and his
collaboration with linguist Roman Jakobson shaped his structuralist approach.

In The Savage Mind (1966) and The Raw and the Cooked, he explored how people classify the
world around them, arguing that both technologically simple and complex societies develop
complex classification systems that use similar unconscious reasoning processes. He emphasised
the universal logic underlying cultural practices and beliefs, exploring kinship, mythology,
cuisine, and table manners to reveal the hidden structures connecting nature and culture. He
suggested that even seemingly arbitrary cultural rules reflect a shared mental framework.

Structuralism influenced British anthropologists like Edmund Leach, Rodney Needham, and
Mary Douglas, but they focused on specific societies and institutions rather than universal
cognitive structures. For instance, Douglas analysed how meals follow structural principles,
emphasising contrasts in texture, temperature, and ingredients.

Lévi-Strauss’s structuralist approach has been criticised for its reliance on the supposed
universal dualism of the human mind to explain cultural features, such as moiety systems, which
are not found in all societies. This raises doubts about how a universal principle can account for
something non-universal. Some argued that his model was too deterministic. However, while he
acknowledged cultural diversity, his focus remained on identifying the common mental
structures shaping human thought.

Structuralist theories have also been criticised for their abstract nature and lack of empirical
support. Lévi-Strauss’s interpretations often lack systematically collected evidence, making them
untestable and speculative. Critics argue that while universal patterns may exist, they cannot
fully explain cultural differences.

11.7 CONFLICT THEORIES

Conflict theory is a broad concept that encompasses ideas from various disciplines, with some
tracing its roots to Marx’s dialectical materialism and revolutionary theory, while others see it as
developed independently of Marx. Despite differing views, most scholars agree that conflict is a
universal social phenomenon, not limited to violent episodes or war. Conflict can take many
forms, such as protests, uprisings, or disagreements, and may escalate into more intense forms
like violence or rebellion.

Apart from the Manchester School and Marx, Ralf Dahrendorf, Georg Simme, Henri de Saint-
Simon and G.W.F. Hegel also contributed to the foundation of conflict theory. Saint-Simon
highlighted the conflict between industrialists and workers. Lewis Coser argued that conflict is a
normal and functional part of human life, helps prevent members from leaving the group and
ensures cohesion.
Darwin’s theory of the “struggle for existence” and “survival of the fittest” also reflects the role
of conflict in evolution. Scholars like Ludwig Gumplowics talked about the “struggle of the
races” extending this idea to ethnic groups. By the mid-19th century, social scientists recognised
the importance of both order and conflict.

Conflict as a Fundamental Social Process

Conflict is described as a universal feature of human existence, occurring at various levels from
interpersonal to international. While traditionally viewed negatively, conflict is recognised as a
catalyst for social change, often revealing underlying problems that need resolution. Theories of
social structure and function have historically focused on cooperation and consensus, but conflict
theories highlight the differing interests and power dynamics within societies.

The Manchester School

The Manchester School (linked to the Rhodes Livingstone Institute), led by Max Gluckman,
emerged in the late 1940s and 1950s, challenging the structure-functionalism framework by
emphasising social conflict and change, particularly in African societies affected by colonialism.
It focussed on the interplay between traditional social structures and relationships and the
changes brought about by colonialism. In anthropology, early fieldwork focused on small,
isolated societies, which were seen as conflict-free due to their strong norms and values.
However, Gluckman showed that even tribal societies experience internal conflicts, such as
protests against tyrannical rulers. These "rebel movements" differ from revolutions, which seek
systemic change. His work highlighted that conflict is present in all societies, reinforcing its
universality.

Gluckman and his colleagues studied urbanisation, labour migration, and identity formation in
Africa. They introduced innovative methodologies like network analysis (tracing the networks of
changing formal and informal relationships between people); and the idea of ‘scale’ through
which data was sorted as per the relevance to the levels of social organisation (local, regional,
national, global). One of the most significant contributions to anthropological methodology was
Gluckman’s ‘situational analysis,’ later recognised as the ‘extended case method.’ This approach
became a hallmark of the Manchester School’s research. It focuses on providing rich, detailed
accounts of individuals’ actions and choices to better understand social processes and everyday
life. Gluckman emphasised rituals as mechanisms for resolving conflict and maintaining social
order. He believed that conflict would ultimately be resolved, with rituals and traditions playing
a crucial role in facilitating this resolution.

Impact of the Manchester School

The Manchester School significantly influenced contemporary anthropology by shifting focus

from static social structures to dynamic processes and individual agency. Victor Turner (1920–
1983), a student of Gluckman, studied the Ndembu people of Sambia and developed the concept
of social drama to explain conflict and crisis resolution. His book Schism and Continuity in an
African Society (1957) is a classic.

Other notable figures like Barth and Bailey contributed to understanding political power and
social mobility. F.G. Bailey (1924–), working in India’s Odisha region, explored social mobility,
caste dynamics, and power struggles. His works, including Caste and the Economic Frontier
(1957) and Stratagems and Spoils (1969), examined how individuals manipulate power and
morality.

Edmund Leach (1910–1989), though not formally part of the Manchester School, shared its
themes. His study of the Kachin in Burma (Political Systems of Highland Burma, 1952) analysed
shifting social structures and ideological conflicts.

Fredrik Barth (1928–), influenced by Leach, studied political leadership among the Swat
Pathans in Pakistan (Political Leadership among Swat Pathans, 1959), emphasising individual
agency in shaping political systems.

Marxian Theory and Social Anthropology

Karl Marx (1818-1883) is regarded as one of the greatest intellectuals of the 19th century.
Marxism was integrated into anthropology in the 1960s-70s, especially by structuralists like
Maurice Godelier and Claude Meillasoux. They applied Marxist theory to non-capitalist
societies, showing how institutions like caste act as both infrastructure and superstructure.
Marxian theory is rooted in the idea of class struggle and historical materialism. It posits that
societal changes are driven by shifts in the economic base, influencing the superstructure of
social institutions (kinship, politics, etc.). Marxism brought a historical perspective to
anthropology, highlighting the impact of colonialism and capitalism on societies.

Marx identified several societal stages: Primitive Communism, Slavery, Feudalism, Capitalism,
Socialism, and Communism. He emphasised class struggle, where the ruling class controls
economic resources, leading to social inequality and unrest.

These theories challenged existing frameworks and enriched anthropological thought.

11.8 SUMMARY

This Unit probes key theories of structure and function, exploring their profound impact on
understanding societal organisation and the functioning of social institutions. The unit traces the
origins of functionalism, beginning with early philosophical ideas and evolving into a dominant
approach in the mid-20th century. Key theories like Malinowski’s psychological functionalism,
along with Radcliffe-Brown’s structural-functionalism have been explored in detail.

However, criticisms of structural-functionalism, particularly its focus on stability and neglect of

change, conflict, and power dynamics have also been discussed. This critique paved the way for
the emergence of conflict theories, which emphasise the role of social conflict in driving change.
The shift towards alternative approaches is further examined, highlighting the Culture and
Personality school and Lévi-Strauss’ structuralism. The unit highlights how these theories have
enriched the understanding of social dynamics and continue to influence methodological
approaches in the field.

References

Anderson, S.K. (2007). Conflict Theory. In Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Oxford:

Blackwell.
Bailey, F. G. (1957). Caste and the economic frontier: A village in highland Orissa. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Barth, F., Gingrich, A., Parkin, R., & Silverman, S. (2005). One discipline, four ways: British,
German, French, and American anthropology. US: The Chicago University Press.
Barnard, A. (2000). History and theory in anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Channa, S. M. (2021). Unit-8: Functionalism and Structural-functionalism. In eGyanKosh
[Indira Gandhi National Open University]. https://egyankosh.ac.in/handle
Durkheim, É. (1895). The rules of the sociological method. New York: The Free Press.
-----------------(1915). The elementary forms of the religious life. London: Allen and Unwin.
Ember, C. R., Ember, M. R., & Peregrine, P. N. (2007). Anthropology (12th ed.). Pearson
Education India.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1981). A history of anthropological theory. New York: Basic Books
Gluckman, M. (1954). Rituals of rebellion in South-East Africa (The Fraser Lecture, 1952).
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
------------------(1955). Custom and conflict in Africa. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
------------------(1963). Order and rebellion in tribal Africa. London: Cohen and West.
Harris, M. (1968). The rise of anthropological theory: A history of theories of culture. New
York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
Jenkins, A. (1979). The social theory of Claude Lévi-Strauss. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
Kuper, A. (1973). Anthropology & anthropologists: The modern British school. London:
Routledge.
Leach, E. R. (1954). Political systems of highland Burma: A study of Kachin social structure.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1963). Totemism. Penguin Books.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2004). [1848]. Manifesto of the communist party. Marxists Internet
Archive.
Patnaik, S. M. (2011). ‘Marxism’ in social anthropology (MAN-001). Unit 2, Block 4.
Anthropological Theories II. New Delhi: Material Production, Distribution, and Division on
behalf of IGNOU.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1924). Structure and function in primitive society. Glencoe, IL: The
Free Press.
Sahay, V. S. (2023). Anthropological thought: From evolutionism to postmodernism and beyond.
New Delhi: Rawat Publications.
Srivastava, V. K. (2001). Sociology-MSO 001 Sociological Theories and Concepts, Block-2 Unit
6 and Unit 7, Egyankosh.
Stager, J., & Schmidt, A. (n.d.). The Manchester School. Retrieved from
https://anthropology.ua.edu/theory/the-manchester-school
Turner, V. W. (1957). Schism and continuity in African society: A study of Ndembu conflict
theories of village life. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Suggested Reading

Kuper, A. (1973). Anthropologists and anthropology: The Modern British School. London:
Routledge. Reprint 1996.

Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. (1952). Structure and function in primitive society. London: Cohen &
West.

Upadhyay, V.S. & Gaya Pandey. (1990). History of anthropological thought. New Delhi:
Concept Publishing House. (pp 233- 298).

Sample Questions

1. Discuss the foundational principles of structural-functionalism.

2. Explain Malinowski's concept of functionalism and how it differs from Radcliffe-

Brown's structural-functionalism.

3. Critically evaluate the criticisms of structural-functionalism.

4. Analyse the Culture and Personality school of thought, highlighting the contributions of
any one of the key figures like Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead.

5. Describe Claude Lévi-Strauss's structuralism and its emphasis on universal cognitive

structures.

6. Examine the role of conflict theories in anthropology, with a focus on the contributions of
the Manchester School.