Anthropology and Public Administration

Author(s): H. M. Mathur
Source: Indian Anthropologist , December 1972, Vol. 2, No. 2 (December 1972), pp. 71-79
Published by: Indian Anthropological Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41919216

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

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

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Indian Anthropologist

This content downloaded from

106.76.36.239 on Tue, 07 Jun 2022 11:03:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Anthropology and Public Administration

H. M. Mathur
National Defence College
New Delhi

The fact that anthropology can be helpful to the management of

governmental affairs in many practical ways seems to have been
discovered first in the bygone colonial era by the administrators
governing the culturally and ethnically different subject peoples. A clear
indication given by all available accounts is that the beginnings of using
anthropological knowledge for administrative purposes might have been
made well before the present century. In many Asian, African and other
countries which until recently were part of the British, French, Dutch
and other empires, the colonial administrators found during the course
of their service that a knowledge of the local ways of living was extremely
important to them. With this knowledge they felt better equipped to
carry on effectively the administrative work. Naturally therefore they
turned increasingly to anthropology in the pursuit of their administrative
goals.
So keen was the desire of some of these administrators for infor-
mation on local cultures and peoples that they really did try almost all
possible methods of getting it.1 Local informants were relied on to begin
with. There are even instances of some administrators themselves taking
seriously to the study of anthropology and turning anthropologist to serve
their governments better.
Anthropologist's own interest in and concern for the problems of
administration, particularly in less developed lands, dates back to a fairly
early period in the development of modern anthropology. E.B. Tylor,
regarded as the? 'father of anthropology' was quite emphatic in his asser-
tion that there was a practical side to the study of mankind and that
considerable improvement in human affairs was possible through the
application of anthropological knowledge. In the present state of growing
anthropological knowledge, it is of course easy for anthropologists to
demonstrate the relevance of their studies to governmental work. In fact,
the involvement of anthropologists in governmental programmes has
continually been increasing now.

This content downloaded from

106.76.36.239 on Tue, 07 Jun 2022 11:03:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72 Indian Anthropologist [2, 1972

The term 'applied anthropology in governm

of anthropology to the business of governme
years now. Not all anthropologists, how
definition. Most anthropologists think that
any possible, vague, but only some actual, sp
government work. But there are some who v
broader sense.
A good deal of anthropological research not necessarily commis-
sioned by the governments is often found to be of great practical use by
the administrators. But a majority of anthropologists favours use of the
term 'applied anthropology in government' not in this wider sense but to
denote something really definite.
In Daryll Forde's view the term 'applied anthropology in govern-
ment' cannot have a loose connotation. He feels that "In any strict
sense of the phrase 'applied anthropology in government' must refer to the
actual application of anthropological knowledge by those administratively
responsible in the formulation and execution of government policy".2
Any practically slanted anthropoligical study of some possible
interest to administration is not regarded as truly applied by Philip
Gulliver also. "The work of any adequate anthropologist may be of
practical use to Governments and international agencies; and some
anthropologists for a variety of reasons are oriented towards making their
books and articles as helpful as possible to what they perceive to be
important practical problems.. .But merely to describe and analyse, for
example, the land tenure system of a people - even when this is called for
by a government which wishes to understand it and to do something to
treat current problems is not applied anthropology nor is the researcher
an applied anthropologist. I do rather resent the term 'applied' being
used by anyone who has turned out some facts and ideas which a depart-
ment or agency could use, or because such a department has given some
sort of a blessing in principle to an academic research project."3 The
term has a definite meaning for Gulliver and he goes on to explain that
" 'Applied' seems to me to imply doing - policy-making planning, imple-
mentation - and to involve responsibility. In Tanganyika as applied
anthropologists we had to work primarily in areas and on problems set
by the Government to report (and report quickly!) in the light of both the
Government's and the peoples interests and needs, and to participate in
the application of our anthropological findings. Thus we had to produce
and concentrate on the really relevant facts, to demonstrate their signi-
ficance, and to give considered opinions on the probable trend of events
and on the solution of problems. We had to defend those opinions in the
face of opinions from the Government's specialists and administrators,
and to take responsibility for them; and we had. to plan policies flowing
from these facts and opinions, and even sometimes to assist in putting

This content downloaded from

106.76.36.239 on Tue, 07 Jun 2022 11:03:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
mathür] Anthropology and Public Administration 73

programmes of action into operation. Applied anthropology is, then,

research specifically oriented to administrative and development problems»
together with some degree of responsible participation in the process of
utilizing the results of such research."4
After the end of the first world war, the colonial governments
gradually began evincing some interest in the welfare of the dependent
peoples. Under the impact of modernizing influences, these traditional
societies also had then just begun changing. This process brought into
sharp focus problems that are peculiar to the societies in transition. By
and by, most colonial governments assumed a degree of responsibility for
helping the change along. And consequently, their need for sociological
information of the kind which anthropologists possess grew quite consi-
derably. In the 1920's the governments had fully accepted the relevance
and importance of anthropology to administration and seriously meant
to utilize anthropology as an aid in the formulation and execution of their
policies and programmes.
Following this recognition, several measures were taken by the
colonial governments for regular utilization of anthropological knowledge
in the field of administration. As a first step, anthropology was included
as a subject of the civil service examinations. Then, short training
courses in anthropology were devised for the new entrants to the colonial
civil service. D.N. Majumdar's well-known book "Races and Cultures of
India" grew out of a course of lectures he delivered in 1942 to the I.C.S.
probationers at Dehradun.6 Also, the civil servants interested in anthro-
pology were given positive encouragement to pursue their academic
interests. Taking advantage of the facilities of extended leave etc., many
administrators went to Oxford, Cambridge and other universities for
courses in anthropology. In some cases the administrators were also
seconded for such training assignments by the colonial governments.
With the financial support from the government, the centres to promote
anthropological research were established at many places. The Inter-
national African Institute which came into existence in 1926 carried on
research on many practical problems. Special Commissions too, were set
up occasionally to report to the governments on problems of administra-
tive importance. Some governments encouraged the anthropologists to
conduct action-oriented research. Others even employed the professional
anthropologists to advise them on certain policy matters. S.F. Nadel,
for example, served actively the Sudanese government for some years in
the 1930's. After the Second World War, some colonial governments
seriously considered the desirability of creating a cadre of trained anthro-
pologists but, owing to the decolonisation process that began soon
thereafter, the proposal could not be followed through.
Today the governments in the newly independent nations every-
where are committed to improving quickly thç standard of living of

This content downloaded from

106.76.36.239 on Tue, 07 Jun 2022 11:03:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
74 Indian Anthropologist [2, 1972

their peoples. Such aspirations are reflected viv

their economic modernization plans. To carry o
effectively, the administrators in the developing
anthropologists more than even before. Even e
recognise that conventional economics has n
factorily with the socio-cultural factors in e
understanding of which is essential for planners
The governments in the developed countrie
anthropology has uses for them in many w
anthropologists have been serving the Bureau of
important positions. Jobs for anthropolo
proliferated rapidly. In the training of techn
under various technical assistance programmes, t
emphasis on formulations derived largely from
tant function of the Foreign Service Institute,
training division) is to equip members of the F
with as much background information on vari
is possible. Anthropologists are working on th
And now anthropologist are being increasingly
its agencies to help administer effectively seve
programmes.7
Quite evidently, the possibilities of anth
governments are immense. But anthropologists
have shown much keenness for seeking jobs
reasons that stand out for reluctance on the par
involve them in administration appear to be
anthropologists genuniely feel that any diversio
pological research to practical studies would
fundamental research in anthropology. In f
issued a warning lest "the pressure of political
(should) draw away so many of our small band
purely scientific problems that the advance of t
retarded."8 Two, it is a natural of desire of
pologists to seek their reputations on the unive
they cannot possibly carry on basic research e
in taking up jobs with the government is u
times their reluctance also stems from the app
pologists' participation in the government pro
their support to policies that may prove un
whose cencern for the welfare of the weaker secti
known, do not wish to be privy to policy deci
may not be able to further development of thes
By the large, and anthropologists in governm
always felt happy about their lot. The difficulties

This content downloaded from

106.76.36.239 on Tue, 07 Jun 2022 11:03:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
mathur] Anthropology and Public Administration 75

the administrators chiefly arise from the fact that they belong to tw
separate professional categories. Their ways of looking at the problem
are different, their expectations from each other are often vague, an
consequently they both fail tp achieve a measure of understanding whi
is vital to the success of any collaborative endeavour.
It is pointed out by administrators that the usefulness of anthropology
would become substantially greater for them if only the anthropologi
would (a) provide quicker, more definitive answers to their problems, a
(b) present the required information in a readily digestible form. Her
Administrator, most of the time in a hurry to take decisions on the sp
and to quickly act to implement them, cannot actually be said to be ask
for too much.
Yet, these needs cannot be met by the anthropologist adequately.
It is not easy to provide instant solutions to all the problems that
may arise before the administrator. Problem-oriented research, in fact
research of any kind, is a time-consuming activity. And obviously* the
administrator in most cases cannot be expected to have patience for
experiments or time for research. Usually the anthropologists are also not
able to answer questions in other than general terms. They frankly admit
their weakness as forcasters, but point out that in this regard they are
assumed to have the degree of predictive ability possessed not even by
some physical scientists. Then, the fact must also be faced that anthro-
pological findings which should be helpful to the adminstrators âre often
embodied in forbidding monographs and specialist papers. Consequently
much of their practical value to the administrators is lost.
One minor point of friction is the expectation on the part of some
anthropologists that the governments ought always to act upon their
advice. Now viewing this as some kind of 'technocratic intervention*, a
symbol of all those specialisms that tend to intrude on the administrator
in the name of science or efficiency or welfare, his reaction certainly has
not been friendly to these tall claims. Anthropology is undoubtedly very
helpful but the administrator argues that in reaching at policy decisions
the governments have to give consideration to many other matters
besides.
Sometimes, the interest of anthropologist primarily in theoretical
research is criticized by the administrators. Their point is that by not
paying enough attention to research problems of an applied kind, the
anthropologists themselves are inhibiting the use of anthropology in govern-
mental work. But this is not a very valid criticism. Somehow it is not
widely realized that the development of a body of general theory and
comparative knowledge, though not necessarily of an immediate practical
use, oftener proves to be so in the long haul. It is only because the
anthropologist has a theoretical framework to help him in discovering
new facts that he is able to find some that for the administrator may be

This content downloaded from

106.76.36.239 on Tue, 07 Jun 2022 11:03:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 76 Indian Anthropologist [2, 1972

extremely valuable. Foster, emphasising the imp

the 'principle of scientific capital', makes this
"Anthropologists are able to give quick answers,
surprisingly well, because they can fall back on
scientific capital; they can build on what is alr
capital is not something that is built up to an op
forgotten. Conditions change, new problems arise
so that that the corpus of theory and fact must be c
if the needs of both theoretical anthropology and
are to be met."9 In fact, purely practical conside
more than justify anthropologists' pursuit of theo
As someone said it "The longest way round is
home"
Some administrators still argue that they can very well act as their
own anthropologists. In the past there have been administrators who
really have done splendid work in studying the cultures of the people
among whom they lived and today they are proudly claimed as anthropo-
logists. Administrators certainly know the area they serve better than the
anthropologist. They also know the local people and their language well.
But howsoever valid this argument may have been in the early days of
anthropology, it surely does not hold good in the present age of speciali-
sation. In recent years, they have been very rapid advances both in
theory and the fieldwork techniques of modern anthropology. The
fieldwork today is a full time job. As Godfrey Wilson says "It is now
widely recognised that systematic and detailed knowledge cannot in any
case be easily picked up in his spare time by a busy man who has no
special training in research; even when he is stationed for years in one spot
it is only an' exceptionally ' gifted man who can attain it under such
conditions."10
Admittedly both administrators and anthropologists have by now
gained sufficient experience of working together on common problems, and
there are hopeful signs of their differences gradually receding into the
background. The difficulties in the relationship, noticeable during 1940's
and early 1950's, seem to have been ironed out. In any case Barnett's
statement about administrator- anthropologist relationship that "no
matter how factfully it is phrased, the truth is that anthropologists and
administrator-anthropologist relationship that "no matter how factfully
it is phrased, the truth is that anthropologists and administrators do not
on the whole get along well together" now sounds archaic and certainly
is not in tune with the current trends.11
In actual practice, anthropologists and administrators in jointly
attacking the selected problem areas have collaborated under varying
organisational arrangements. Indeed, a wide spectrum of collaborative
arrangements in this regard is possible. At one end oř the spectrum are

This content downloaded from

106.76.36.239 on Tue, 07 Jun 2022 11:03:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
mathur] Anthropology and Public Administration 17

those arrangements under which the anthropologist is employed either (a)

to merely provide relevant information, or (b) to present analyses of the
problems in the light of his field data. The other end of the spectrum indi-
cates closer involvement of the anthropologist in the functioning of the
governmental machinery. Under these arrangements, the anthropologist
may be seen as either (a) conducting action-oriented research financed by
the government or (b) working in some civil service position.
It is the view of some anthropologists that any administration hoping
to get most out of anthropological knowledge should make them an integral
part of it. Evans-Pritchard, elaborating on this point, observes, "It is
important that the anthropologist who acts as an adviser, or consultant, to
an administration should be full member of it. He cannot advise the
administration on the bearing of the legal, educational, economic and other
social programmes.... unless he knows the bureaucratic machinery from
the inside, has full access to all government documents, and meets the
heads of departments around the same conference table as an equal.
Otherwise he will not be able to see the problems in their full anthro-
pological context, to translate an administrative problem into anthro-
pological terms and vice versa, and to speak as one who shares the full
responsibility for the actions and policy of the government. Administrators
naturally resent advice from outsiders but will gladly accept it from one
who has the same loyalty to the administration as themselves and who can,
moreover, speak about some of its problems with special knowledge they
lack.12 But the administration accepting the anthropologist as full member
of it should not in any way restrict his freedom in research matters. The
anthropologist must have the final say in the selection of topics for research
and the manner of conducting it. This would seem to be try for the best
method of meeting the administrative requirements. Says Evans-Pritchard"
An anthropologist may be particularly interested, let us say, in some
problems of primitive religion and therefore wishes to devote a great deal
of his attention to them, whereas - governments not generally being
interested in such matters - the administration may want chief attention
given to problems of labour migration. Or a government may want
research done solely into a people's system of land tenure, whereas the
anthropologist takes the view that you cannot understand their system of
land tenure without a study of their entire social life."13 And he observes,
"It often happens in the development of a science that the problems which
are of the greatest scientific interest and the solution to which prove to be
of the greatest benefit to mankind, are precisely those which appear at the
time to be of little or no importance to the man of affairs. If, therefore, we
allow his interests to decide the direction of our research we shall not only
do our science a disservice but do him an injury as well."14
On the question of what precisely should be the limits of their
responsibility to the decision-making in the government, the opinion

This content downloaded from

106.76.36.239 on Tue, 07 Jun 2022 11:03:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
78 Indian Anthropologist [2, 1972

amongst anthropologists in sharply divided.

S.F. Nadel, is that the anthropologist as studen
is alone in possession of the knowledge relev
enlightened social policies, and that he shoul
this process.15
But somehow, the advice of the anthrop
unable to influence very much the governme
The other view, envisaging a rather modest ro
ance amongst the anthropologist. The anthrop
mate knowledge of the people, is undoubtedly
else to predict possible consequences of out
aspect of their life. But according to this view
to merely indicating the likely effects of alt
The responsibility of selecting the most appr
taking all the relevant facts into account, sho
trator's. Summing up this viewpoint, L.P. Mair
the anthropologist should be content to put h
of the framers of policy, leaving to them the
into which other considerations must ente
government sould be unwise to disregard alto
before them."16
Everyone now realises that decisions in
knowledge are going to be increasingly taken
years that lie ahead. Therefore it is as necessar
and understand the aims of government polic
them, as it is for the administrators to be 'e
important contribution in bringing the two t
by university departments and research institut
plines of public adminstration and anthropol
problems of common interest, dissemination
among the activities that these academic bod
further this interaction goes, the. better for
trators alike*

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1 . For an account of methods employed to collect information on local cultures

for administrative purposes see H.G. Barnett, Anthropology in Administration.
Evanston, 1956.
2» Darylle Forde, "Applied Anthropology in Government: British Africa", in
AX. Kroeber, (ed.), Anthropology Today, Chicago, 1953.
3* Personal communication from Gulliver* quoted in David Brokensha Applied
Anthropology in English-Speaking Africa, Monograph No. 8, 1966. The
Society for Applied Anthropology.

This content downloaded from

106.76.36.239 on Tue, 07 Jun 2022 11:03:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
mathur] Authropology and Public Administration 79
4. Ibid.

5. See preface to the first edition, D.N. Majumdar, Races and Cultures of
1944.

6. Edward A Kennard and Gordon MacGregor," Applied Anthropology in

Government: United States" in A.L. Kroeber (ed.), Anthropology Today,
Chicago, 1953.
7. Alfred Met raux, "Applied Anthropology in Go'ernment: United Nations" in
A.L. Kroeber (ed.), Anthropology Today, Chicago, 1953.
8. E.E. Evans- Pritchard, "Applied Anthropology", Africa, Vol. XVI, 1946,
London.

9. George M. Foster, Traditional Cultures: and the Impact of Technological

Change, New Yoik, 1962.
10. Godfrey Wilson, "Anthropology as a Public Service", Africa, XIII, 1940.
11. H.G. Barnett, Anthropology in Administration, Evanston, 1956.
12. E.E. Evans-Pritchard, "Applied Anthropology", Africa, Vol XVI, 1946.
13. E.E. Evans-Pritchard, "Social Anthropology," London, 1951.
14. E.E. Evans-Pritchard, "Applied Anthropology", Africa, Vol. XVI, 1946.
15. S.F. Nadel, Anthropology and Modern Life. 1953, Canberra.
16. L.P. Mair, Studies in Applied Anthropology, London, 1957.

This content downloaded from

106.76.36.239 on Tue, 07 Jun 2022 11:03:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms