Unit 6

SAPIENS IAS
ANTHROPOLOGICAL
THEORIES
BY PRADIP SARKAR
ADDRESS: 17A/44,3rd FLOOR, W.E.A. KAROL BAGH NEW DELHI – 05

CONTACT NO: 8700922126, 9718354962
WEBSITE: www.sapiensias.in
INDEX
S.No. Name of The Topic Page No.
1 1–3
EVOLUTION AND EVOLUTIONISM
2
INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS AND SCHOLARS 3 – 11
3
HISTORICAL PARTICULARISM 12 – 15
4
DIFFUSION AND DIFFUSIONISM 15 – 35
5
NEO - EVOLUTIONISM 35 – 42
6
CULTURAL PERSONALITY SCHOOL 42 – 49
7
STRUCTURALISM 49 – 58
8
CULTURAL MATERIALISM 58 – 63
9
POST MODERNISM IN ANTHROPOLOGY 63 – 65
Anthropological Theories By – Pradip Sarkar
CLASSICAL EVOLUTIONISM
EVOLUTION AND EVOLUTIONISM:
Evolution can be defined as a gradual progress of change from simple to complex,

homogeneity to heterogeneity and from uncertainty to certainty. Whereas,
evolutionism means perspective to analyze the process of evolution. In other words,
this is an interpretative strategy regarding evolution of society and culture.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
Evolutionism is intimately related to the emergence of anthropology. The root of

evolutionism lies in other tradition i.e. Sociological and biological. The discipline was
heavily influenced by pre-Darwinian and Darwinism thought.
Pre-Darwinism scholars include Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, who existed in the
aftermath of the French revolution. They talked of social evolution e.g. Auguste
Comte gave 3 stages of progression Theological > Metaphysical > Positivism. Herbert
Spencer gave 2 stages of evolution i.e. Military society > Industrial society. Their
discussion was philosophical in nature and therefore they did not give any kind of
proof in favor of their theory that's why they could not be accepted in any scientific
discipline however, they influenced the thought pattern of Darwinism with the idea
of evolution.
Darwinism theory "Origin of Species" by natural selection in 1859 was a major

breakthrough for the development of Anthropology. Although it did not discuss the
evolution of society and culture. However, it provided sufficient proof regarding the
evolution of biological beings. Therefore, Anthropological scholars believed that
evolution must have taken place in human society and culture. As a result,
evolutionism came into being in anthropology in 1860. Thus, pre-Darwinism scholars
and Darwinism had led to the emergence of school of evolutionism in Anthropology.
BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION OF SOCIETY AND CULTURE:
As follows
1. Evolution is a gradual process of change and not sudden change.
1
Address: 17A/44,3rd Floor, W.E.A. Karol Bagh New Delhi– 05 / Contact No: 8700922126, 9718354962
2. Evolution is a ceaseless and ubiquitous process.
3. The idea of evolution can be applied to the entire society or an institution or a

cultural trait.
4. It includes tracing origin and sequence of evolution of human society and culture
i.e. flashing out the evolutionary sequence of the society.
APPROACHES OF CLASSICAL EVOLUTIONIST:
It emerged in Britain and America. The most important scholars in the school are L.H
Morgan, E.B Tylor, and Sir James Frazer etc. They were interested in the study of
historical society i.e. from the ancient society to the Victorian society. They have
adopted following approaches in order to study evolution of society and culture:
1. Tracing origin and evolution of human society from beginning to the Victorian
Age- Evolutionist regarded that the Victorian society which is the highest stage
in the sequence of evolution of human society and culture.
2. Contemporary Tribal Society of that time were considered to be the

descendants of the pre-historic society. The western society having certain
cultural elements resembling with that of the primitive societies and at the
same time the western societies had changed to a great extent. Therefore,
study of the contemporary non-western societies would illuminate our
understanding of pre-historic past. Thus, the anthropologists got interested in
the study of tribal societies. E.B Tylor called contemporary primitive societies
as social fossils, whereas Morgan called them survival of past relics.
3. Different stages or sequence of evolution could be established by speculating

historical explanation and using comparative method. Both Morgan & E.B
Tylor said that comparative method could be used to illustrate past and useful
for evolutionary purposes. Comparative method can be defined as the
practice of equating the contemporary living societies or nonwestern societies
with that of the past and compare them with the Victorian or industrial
society in order to trace origin and sequence of evolution of society and
culture.
4. UNILINEAL EVOLUTION: is similarities in the sequence of evolution which is

caused by psychic unity of mankind.
2
5. Cultural diversities do not occupy significant stand in unilineal evolutionary

scheme.
6. Using secondary data: classical evolutionist gave theory based on secondary

data provided by non-professionals such as missionaries, travelers,
administrators etc.
7. Besides, they did not conduct field works. They were completely dependent
upon inadequate and non-objective sources that's why first anthropologists
have earned the name of armed chair anthropologist.
8. Conjecturalism: They could not provide scientific evidences in the favor of

their arguments. Consequently, they became conjecturalists and this kind of
imaginary explanation have no room in scientific discipline.
They equated evolution with progress.
INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS AND SCHOLARS
L.H Morgan of American School:
BRIEF LIFE HISTORY:
He was born in New York and settled as a lawyer in Rochester in USA. This area had a
significant population of Iroquois Indian. He had a very intimate relationship with
them. The way of life of this people had put very significant impact on his work as far
as evolutionary ideas are concerned.
MORGAN'S CONTRIBUTION TO EVOLUTIONARY STUDIES:
He worked on the whole society, institutions and cultural traits as well and his
contributions to the evolutionary study in anthropology are as follows:
EVOLUTION OF KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY:
Morgan in his famous book "system2 of consanguinity and affinities of human family
in 1871" offered a classification of kin terms as below:
3
Kinship terminology
Classificatory terminology Descriptive terminology
Malayan terminology North American Indian terminology
NOTE:
Classificatory kinship terminology:
Means calling kins of same gender and generation by the same terminology e.g. the
kin term mother is used to call mother, mother's sisters and father's sisters.
Malayan kinship terminology:
All kins of the same gender and same generation called by same kin terminology e.g.
mother is used to call mother, mother's sisters and father's sisters.
North American Indian kinship terminology:
In case of this, few kins of the same gender and generation not called by the same
terminology e.g. mother S used to call mother and mother's sisters but not father's
sisters.
Descriptive kinship terminology:
Here, all kins are called by different terminologies e.g. north kinship terminology
such as father = papa, father’s elder brother = Tao, father’s younger brothers =
chacha, father’s sister = bua, mother = maa, mother’s sisters = maasi, mother’s
brothers = mama.
He was basically interested in evolutionary placement of kinship terminology and

believed that Malayan types of classificatory kinship terminology came first, followed
by North American Indian type and finally came descriptive kinship terminology.
4
DESCRIPTIVE TYPE
NORTH AMERICAN Indian TYPE
MALAYAN TYPE
EVOLUTION OF ENTIRE SOCIETY:
He collected a lot of materials and published his book ANCIENT SOCIETY in 1877
which proposed the evolutionary scheme of entire human society. Morgan borrowed
some terms from French philosopher MONTESQUE and said that human society
passed through 3 phases as given: Savagery > Barbarism > civilization.
He further elaborated this classification in the following way:
SAVAGERY: FOOD GATHERING AND HUNTING SOCIETIES;
LOWER SAVAGERY: Fruits and nuts subsistence ate uncooked food, held property in
common, no evidence of fire e.g. unknown.
MIDDLE SAVAGERY: Discovery of fire, fish subsistence e.g. - Australian Aborigines.
UPPER SAVAGERY: Bow and arrow e.g. Indians of western Canada, Athabaskan.
BARBARISM: Surplus food, invention of pottery and iron. Further sub divided into
LOWER BARBARISM – Pottery and surplus food e.g. American Indian along Missouri.
MIDDLE BARBARISM - Domestication of animals and cultivation of maize by

irrigation e.g. village Indians in Mexico.
UPPER BARBARISM – Iron tools e.g. Allometric Greek of Caesar time.
CIVILIZATION: Script, Metallurgy, emergence of town and city becomes cradle of

civilization e.g. Victorian or western society.
He was an evolutionist and consequently gave the sequence of evolution of human

society in the following manner:
SAVAGERY > BARBARISM > CIVILIZATION
EVOLUTION OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY: - As Follows
5
PROMISCUITY CONSANGUNOUS MARRIAGE PUNALUAN

MARRIAGE
PATRIARCHAL MARRIAGE SYNDASMIAN MARRIAGE
MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE
The first four forms of marriage were practiced among tribes whereas, patriarchal
marriage and family practiced among Hebrews and monogamous marriage and
family among civilized societies.
EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL ORGANISATION:
He made a distinction between SOCIETUS and CIVITUS. According to him, Civitus is

independent of kinship system i.e. existence of modern state whereas, Societus is a
political system which is dependent on kinship system e.g. Stateless Society e.g.
bands and tribal political system.
E.B. Tylor of British School

BRIEF HISTORY:
He was born in Britain and one of the pioneers in the systematic study of
anthropology in the world. He was 1st professional anthropologist offered the post of
museum curator in London. He was a stalwart of 19th century evolutionism and
professionalized the discipline of anthropology. Therefore, he was regarded as father
of British Anthropology.
EVOLUTIONARY CONTRIBUTIONS:
In 1871, his first book "Primitive Culture" was published, completely devoted to the
origin and evolution of religion. In this book, he coined the term Animism. He began
the premise that at one time perhaps there was no religion. There after human
beings started the system called religion. Primitive man was sensitive to
environments. He observed and asked a large no of questions. He was inquisitive. He
dreamt, had thought process called day dreaming. He also had hallucinating
experience, in that he saw himself and others as well. When he woke up he
remembered all he saw in his dreams and started considering all that things. He
thought of himself in some kind of dual existence. Then primitive man encountered
the phenomenon of death. He knew that dead body might get up from sleep.
6
Therefore, they performed 2 funerals; one followed by another. First funerals

tentative affair and man might come back to life and this was called green funeral
there after performed another funeral called DRY funeral, when they were sure that
man would not come to life. Then primitive man started debating and from this
thought process he arrived at a conclusion that existence is the first bodily and
second in term of soul or anima. He also said that there were two types of soul one
which goes and comes back & causes death. Thus, through dream death experiences
one reached the idea of soul/anima. The soul is highly malleable to pass through
orifice. The soul is independent. It can travel long distance. Primitive man is now able
to explain about soul and its power. Anima/soul lives on plants and animals and
people worship them because they provide abode to the soul. Initially they
worshipped plants and animals which was called TOTEMISM. For Tylor, Totemism is a
part of animism. Soul has an independent existence. People attribute power to
anima. It is when attributed with power then soul becomes the object of profession
or worship. Hence first type of rite was created to worship Anima or worship of soul.
He concluded that anima is the first stage of evolution of religion. Later people
attributed soul to plants and animals. Now they believe that souls rather present in
everything. Thus, polytheism came into being. As we moved toward development,
soon belief came that although this soul belongs to diff entities. However, infect they
are one when this idea came into existence it was the beginning of monotheism i.e.
worship of one god.
CRITICISM:
The theory of origin of religion by Tylor has been criticized by many scholars. They
said that this theory believes that primitive man was a philosopher. Hence it is called
theory of savage philosophy. It means critics could not accept primitive man as
logical as accepted by Tylor. They could not investigate into death dream experiences
in such a logical manner. Moreover he did not offer any scientific evidence in favor of
his theory. Therefore, this theory has been discarded.
EVOLUTION OF PLOUGH:
Plough have evolved from simple, plain digging stick according to Tylor.
OTHER THAN EVOLUTIONARY CONTRIBUTIONS BY TYLOR
DEFINITION OF CULTURE: E.B Tylor is remembered not because of theory of

religion but it is mainly because of the contribution to the definition of culture. He
7
was the first Anthropologist to define culture. Better it can be that he was the 1st
scholar who defined culture in a systematic and scientific manner. He was influenced
by German scholar GUSTAVE CLAMN. On the basis of his ideas, he defined culture as
a comprehensive whole comprising knowledge art, moral, belief, law, customs or any
other capability acquired by man as a member of the society.
By saying so, he completely ruled out genetic transmission of culture. Thereby he

focused on social transmission of culture.
USE OF STATISTICS IN ANTHROPOLOGY:
It was a comparative study of 282 societies on which data was available at that time.
On the basis of this statistical data, he showed the correlation-ship between different
institutions e.g. patrilineal society often associated with patrilocal residence. He
called this type of relationship as ADHESION. It proves to be very useful to compare
different societies of the world to arrive at certain universal conclusion and this
method was used by G.P MURDOCK.
LINKING HAPPINESS WITH MONTESQUES 3 STAGES CLASSIFICATION:
Tylor accepted Montesquieu 3 stages classification of society as well as he was the

first to make use of this classification because Morgan's work was completed in
1877. He also believed that society passed through 3 different stages i.e. savagery,
barbaric, & civilization. He did not offer any details of these stages as done by
Morgan. But he said that this classification should not be typo-technological (i.e.
tools and technology) & linked it with acceleration in happiness. He believed that
civilization is not only marked by writing Scripts rather it should be done so by
happiness. At one place he wrote that civilized people are happier than uncivilized
one. He also related it with certain qualities as one move from savagery to civilization
through barbarism. But such ideas were totally rejected as happiness and moral
qualities are subjective in nature. Psychological research shows that primitive people
are much happier than civilized one. Apart from this, he was also criticized since he
did not provide a detail analysis of these three terms. Since, Tylor was not interested
in total macro cultural evolution.
Apart from it, Tylor also offered the 1st theory of why INSECT is prohibited. Many
years later it was developed by CLAUDE LEVI STRAUSS.
Sir JAMES FRAZER of British School
8
Evolution was carried forward in 20th century by English Anthropologist Sir James
Frazer who discussed the evolution of science. He believed that magic was 1st stage
in humanity which led to evolution of religion and finally this led to evolution of
science. He also offered theory pertaining to Totemism. Frazer wrote extensively i.e.
about 10 volumes in the form of a book, called "THE GOLDEN BOUGH" and 4th
volume in "TOTEMISM AND EXOGAMY". In these books, he described theory of
evolution of science and Totemism respectively. Thus, he happens to be an
evolutionist but by that time beginning of 20th century, evolution was discredited
because of establishment of museums in diff parts of the world and commencement
of field works tradition in anthropology. Therefore, Frazer did not make any impact
on evolutionary study at that time.
FEW CLASSICAL EVOLUTIONISTS (FOR INTERVIEW PURPOSES)
1. JOHAN BACIHOFEN- Matrilineal society was the 1st society followed by the
patrilineal.
2. JOHN MCLENAN - Supported the theory of evolution of marriage by Morgan.
3. HENRY MAINE- Patrilineal society was the 1st society followed by the matrilineal
society.
4. KARL MARX & ANGEL- Development Morgan’s idea of evolution of family,

marriage, primitive state and property.
CRITICISM AGAINST CLASSICAL EVOLUTIONISM:
Evolutionist stated to come under criticism in the last decade of 19th century and
beginning of 20th century, as a result of establishment of museum in various parts of
the world, particularly in the western countries and secondly in the commencement
of fieldwork tradition in anthropology. In a nut shell there were three kinds of
criticism to the classical evolutionism as given below:
1. Lack of proper data or adequate data.
2. Ignorance of other process of social changes e.g. diffusion of culture.
3. Including in Conjecturalism about origin and stages of evolution of society and

culture. As a result, they fell far below from the standard of scientific study. All these
criticism are regarded as follow:
9
CRITICISM BY E. WESTERMARK: He conducted a comparative study of marriage

found in different societies in 1892 and said that contrary to the opinion of
evolutionist that most of these primitive societies had monogamy and nuclear family.
However according to the evolutionist both these features should be the
characteristics of civilized society. Therefore, he gave up classical evolutionism.
CRITICISM BY FRANZ BOAS:
He said that nothing is wrong with the idea that society and culture had evolved but
we would not be finally able to establish the sequence of evolution, because we did
not have the data. Hence, he said that the most important thing is the collection of
primary data, as many and as early as possible, rather than relying on data collected
by nonprofessionals such as missionaries, travelers, etc. consequently, since 1882, he
conducted field works and introduced empirical approach in anthropology. In a
nutshell, he was critical of lack of data, psychic unity and comparative methods as
adopted by classical evolutionism.
CRITICISM BY DIFFUSIONISTS:
It came with a group of scholars who said that evolution is one process of socio-
cultural change. There is other phenomenon as well for instance culture change due
to diffusion of culture. Thus, classical evolutionists ignored other process of social
change and resulted in the emergence of school of diffusionism in anthropology.
CRITICISM BY FUNCTIONALISM:
Early evolutionists have been conjectural and they had no data. They talked of stages
through the human society had passed. But they did not give evidence in favors of
their theories. It was simply a figment of imagination. According to EVAN
PARITCHARD their theory was, “If I were a horse theory”. BROWN said that classical
evolutionist is nothing but a kind of conjectural history and such speculation was
unacceptable in a scientific query. Similarly, MALINOWSKS said, “Evolutionism is
nothing but a limbo of conjectural reconstruction”. Therefore both of them rejected
evolutionism.
CRITICISM AGAINST PSYCHIC UNITY:
Evolutionists believe in psychic unity of mankind but they did not offer any proof in
support of it. Simply, it is a belief and it does not explain why there were differences
10
among cultures e.g. couvade found in many cultures but not found in many other
cultures including India.
CRITICISM AGAINST COMPARATIVE METHOD:
Contemporary primitive societies were considered to be the descendants of pre-

historic societies. It evolution is a gradual change which is ubiquitous in nature. So
how it can be assumed that these societies dint undergo change for millions of years.
Moreover, they were called survival of past and social fossils which is highly
derogatory.
CRITICISM IN RELATION TO VICTOTRIAN SOCIETY:
According to the classical evolutionists, the Victorian society is the highest stage of
the mankind in the evolutionary history. But we know that evolution is ceaseless
than how one can regard this society as last stage of human society. Moreover, this
kind of feeling also indicates that early evolutionists were ethnocentric in nature.
CRITICISM AGAINST PROGRESSIVE EVOLUATION:
Further evolution was equated with progress. However, later theories said that
evolution should be seen as change rather progressive or retrogressive. Therefore,
we should not attach any value to the process of evolution.
Though this school of classical evolutionism was criticized on several accounts and
later on rejected, however, this school is the foundation stone for systematic study
of anthropology in the world. Apart from this, it has given the idea of evolution of
society and culture in anthropology.
11
HISTORICAL PARTICULARISM
INTRODUCTION:
The school of historical particularism was developed by Franz Boas in order to bring
out primary authentic data from the entire world for the scientific study of
anthropology so that scientific generation of human behaviors would be possible. It
emerged as strong a reaction against classical evolutionism. Consequently, he was
interested in collecting data for which he applied a lot of scientific approaches.
Though he could not collect data from the entire world yet he contributed a lot to
the discipline of anthropology.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HISTORICAL PARTICULARISM:
He was geographer by profession and German by birth. As a part of study of impact

of environment on human culture, he studied Eskimos in North America in the
middle half of 19th century. During this period, every scholar was concerned with
origin and evolution of human society and culture. He read the types problems
associated with classical evolutionism. Boas submitted that evolution was not wrong
in principle. In fact, evolution had occurred in socio cultural institutions and they had
undergone a process of gradual change which keeps on occurring. But the scholars of
classical evolutionism suffered from great paucity of data. Therefore, they are unable
to talk about evolution in authentic terms. Hence, evolutionist made sweeping
generalization, simply because they did not have authentic primary data. If
anthropology desires to become a science then it was important for anthropology to
collect proper data that is why Lowie says that Boas was first of all a true field worker
and his attack on evolutionism is because of lack of primary data. Apart from this
criticism, Boas criticized Psychic-unity and comparative method. Evolutionist believed
that same phenomena is always for the same cause i.e. psychic unity e.g. among
Navaho, the clan has originated from the fusion of separate groups but among some
tribes of North America, the clans have resulted from village fission. Thus, cause is
different but the result is same. Another example of mask wearing, he says that
masks are worn by people of different regions. These are to disguise the harmful
spirits, to frighten the people and to commemorate the dead ancestors. Thus, this
again shows that there are different causes. Therefore, the belief of evolutionist that
the cause is same for same phenomenon is absolutely wrong. Rather one should
begin with specific cause for specific society. Boas was also critical of comparative
method adopted by classical evolutionism. In 1896, his article called "Limitations of
comparative method in Anthropology". He said that how contemporary simple
12
society could be considered to be the pre-historic people, as evolution is ubiquitous

how these simple societies have not changed or millions of years.
PREMISES IN HISTORICAL PARTICULARISM:
To collect data as much as possible and also as early as possible, before the tribal
societies changed or disappeared. Since it is not possible for anyone to study all
human societies in the world, Boas advised that we must have a battery of students
and they must be interested with the task. In his lifetime he produced a large no of
very prominent students, like Clarke Wissler, Kroeber, Ruth Benedict, Sapir, Margaret
Mead etc. It is not only that we should be concerned with data collection by
systematizing and arranging them carefully. Boas said that we could not be able to
generalize, till we have a chunk of data. So, Marvin Harris wrote that Boas was
guided by a distinctive sense of indistinctive generalization till one has sufficient
data. Hence Harris said that 20th century anthropology was characterized by
pragmatic avoidance of theoretical synthesis.
APPROACHES TO FIELD WORK FOR DATA COLLECTION:
In order to collect authentic data, he gave following approaches.
1. Studying Local History: He tried to give a holistic approach to anthropology not

only at the level of culture but at different branches also. He did not ignore history
but focused on local history. Society could be understood in the particular of past,
since culture is the product of certain circumstances. Surely one should begin written
history. But many societies have no evidence of script. This does not mean that they
are without history. It exists at oral level and suggested that one should try to
construct their oral history. Tribal people have history in the same way as the
civilized society, but most anthropologists ignored it completely because they were
looking for only written history. Whereas, Boas focused on culture and not on
universal culture. He wanted to study the specific culture in full detail. Thus, his focus
was on local or particular history. That's why his approach is known as historical
particularism.
Apart from this, Boas said that the 1st requirement of a professional Anthropologist
was to stay with a community for a long period of time. He should be prepared to
learn vernacular or languages of natives fully. Then only one could be able to
understand the culture of people. He also said that learning local languages is an
uphill task but we should collect information about society and culture in local
13
languages. Later on, anthropologist should engage a local person in translating all
that which has been collected. Boas also said that we should engage local educated
people to write their history, biographies and local songs. If responded is
uneducated, he will help in transcribing data. If educated, he we help in collection in
of valuable data through local languages. One problem of field work is that they are
able to collect data from whom they are friendly, those who are forthcoming
consequently all those who did not come forward or who are shy or indifferent were
left out. These peoples are called MARGINAL MAN and those who are forth coming
are called GARRULUOUS. Boas said that anthropologist should realize that their job is
to provide information about entire culture. Garrulous and reticent people must be
given equal importance. In addition to, Boas also said that most of the primitive
society are socially segregated. There is no concept of mingling of sexes. As a result,
anthropologist is not able to communicate truly with respondent. Hence, the type of
picture we get is partial and we only come to know the point of view. So, he said that
no part remains un-represents because a large no of anthropologist is male. He
decided to correct this imbalance by recruiting women anthropologist. He was the 1st
anthropologist who inspired women to join anthropology in large no e.g. Margaret
Mead, Ruth Benedict etc. boas in his field collected every aspect of society. He was
different from later field workers who emerged in Britain under the leadership of
Malinowski. Thus, his field work tradition was holistic in nature.
CONTRIBUTION OF FRANZ BOAS:
Through his works, boas contributed significantly to anthropology in following way.
1. He will be remembered for laying the foundation of field’s works in anthropology,

particularly American anthropology. All his suggestions are like female point of view
regarding languages and respondents become a part of general anthropological
thinking today. Although field work tradition was later developed by Malinowski, but
Boas was 1st field worker.
2. He is also remembered for a number of concept e.g. the concept of culture is

regarded as very important in anthropology since it is like zero in mathematics.
3. Besides, he gave the concept of cultural relativism i.e. to say each culture must be
understood in its own context.
4. He also used the concept of psychic unity of mankind to fight racism in America.
EVALUATION OF FRANZ BOAS:
14
Boas did not attempt generalization because he kept on postponing it, till data was
to be collected from all over the world which was a grandiose task. It was rather
unachievable. Consequently, students of Boas became critical of his approach and
shifted to other theoretical concern. However, they carried forward Boas, as far as
field work tradition was concerned. Even Boas himself got frustrated in his later years
of life.
CONCLUSION:
Though Franz Boas could not collect data from the entire world and did not
generalize however, he contributed to anthropology by showing the means of
collecting data which could be used for generalization. Thereby, he enabled
anthropology to grow and develop.
DIFFUSION AND DIFFUSIONISM

Cultural diffusion refers to the process of cultural borrowing or the process of
cultural give and take. It assumes that there is a central place or region where
cultural traits are invented or place where they originated and from there these
traits diffused to different areas and brings about cultural change. The most
important thing in this process is context. The school of diffusionism came into being
as a reaction against classical evolutionism. There are 3 main schools of diffusionism-
British school, Austro-German school and American school.
Cultural diffusion is movement of cultural elements from higher culture to lower

culture or cultural give and take leading to cultural change. Whereas, diffusionism is
an interpretative strategy to study the idea of diffusion. In other words, method of
analysis of socio culture change through cultural borrowing is called Diffusionism.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF DIFFUSIONISM:
Diffusionism emerged as a strong reaction against classical evolutionism and activity

of Christian missionaries from the beginning of 20th Century. Diffusionists did not
15
reject the idea of evolution of society and culture. They saw diffusionist as
supplementary to evolutionist. Society evolves over a period of time and gradual
changes keeps on occurring. At the same time society depends on other societies for
cultural elements. Evolution and diffusion go hand in hand to bring about changes.
However, Diffusionists rejected evolutionists as it ignored the process of social
change by means of diffusion of culture. Hence, they encouraged themselves in the
study of the diffusion of culture and society.
PREMISES OF CULTURAL DIFFUSION: As given below
1. People everywhere are not equally inventive or innovative, in certain context or

situation people are more inventive than they are in other places.
2. Inventions which are made at one place depends upon a large number of
ecological and sociological factors. When all these factors are there a kind of creation
is possible.
3. People are not stationary they move from one place to another in search of fertile
land, to escape natural calamities, historical events.
4. Pilgrimages or simply because of increase in population and reduction in carrying

capacities of an area etc. So, there are a large no of factors which shows that people
are not stationary and are at regular contact. Because of these, inventions made at
one place spread to other areas.
5. Process of diffusion can be direct or indirect:
Direct indirect
A B C
Diffusion is a general term that means it is concerned with all the cases of cultural
give and take and it may be direct and indirect. The contact between A & B is first
hand or it is a face to face contact which is called Acculturation e.g. directs contact
Between English and Indians, Japanese and Korean, American Indian & White
American, Australian Aborigine & white Australian, Christian Missionaries and N-E
Indians. Acculturation is of great significance to the anthropology. When traits are
transmitted from A to C through B is called indirect diffusion and has less impact on
each other.
It seems to be that diffusion is a symmetrical process. Where two cultures come in

contact and contribute to each other however, in reality it is asymmetrical in the
16
sense traits of one culture is imposed on other but opposite process does not take
place e.g. American Indian underwent tortuous process of socio cultural change
while Americans acquired hardly anything from them.
D. N. Majumdar made a distinction between active and passive culture. The former
means lending of cultural traits while the latter always remains on the receiving end.
5. When cultural traits travel from place of origin towards outside it gets diluted in
terms of time and space.
FATE OF DIFFUSED CULTURAL TRAITS:
Diffusion should not be seen as a mechanical process. It should not be assumed that
whatsoever come would necessarily be accepted. It has been seen that a culture will
adopt those traits which fiend to be meaningful economically or socially.
a) They may be simply rejected e.g. sewing machine which was introduced among
kondh, was of no was of no use to them and thus they got rejected.
b) Cultural traits coming from outside are accepted as such in some cases e.g.
electronic gadget.
c) Cultural traits are accepted, but after modification so that only modified from that
can serve the society should be adopted. It is so important because society does not
only adopt incoming traits but it is also adapted itself to them.
BRITISH SCHOOL OF DIFFUSIONISM

BRITISH SCHOOL:
It is the first one to study diffusion of culture. It can be divided into Extreme's and
River's school of diffusionism is also known as Egyptology or Heliocentric which
literally means worship of sun. Its proponents are Elliot Smith and W. J. Perry.
BRIEF LIFE HISTORY OF SMITH AND PERRY:
He was a surgeon of repute, while Perry was a school teacher. Smith went to Egypt
to pursue the study of anatomy of mummies. As a result, he stayed in Egypt for a
17
long time and came in contact with Egyptian civilization. He was profoundly
impressed by Egyptian culture. He concluded that the civilization of such
combination of traits could not have been invented twice. He believed that Egypt
was cradle of civilization or center of civilization. A proposition which is regarded
crucially as considered the basis of his observation, he came out with the following
premises.
BASIC PREMISES OF EXTREME DIFFUSIONISM:
1. Man was not equally inventive. It is highly improbable that civilization was
invented simultaneously at two places. Thereby ruling out psychic unity of mankind
or for them there was a single center of invention.
2. Egypt is the center of diffusion as agriculture with irrigation, Sun worship,

pyramids, life after death characterize Egypt and they are not found in other parts of
the world e.g. Africa, south America etc. It means there is a chain of diffusion from
Egypt to various parts of the world. The job of anthropologist is to unravel the
physical path of diffusion from Egypt to different parts of the world.
3. When traits spread to other parts of the world, they tend to become diluted. Thus,
cultural diffusion takes place not only in terms of place but also in terms of time.
Extreme school was convinced that there was no other center of diffusion than
Egypt. That's why this school is called heliocentric school of diffusionism.
EVALUATION OF SMITH:
Smith was only aware of Egypt. He had not seen civilization preceding Egyptian
civilization e.g. Tigris Euphrates civilization staring point in his theory was Egypt. The
kind of anthropology he proposed was simply the study of uninterrupted chain from
Egypt to other parts of the world. So, he did not show any evidence. Thus, his entire
theory was based upon imagination. However, his proposition about the dilution of
diffusion traits is acceptable.
Perry fully supported Smith. He wrote a book ‘children of sun'. In his book he said
that Egypt was the center of cultural growth and cultural traits has spread from
Egypt. They conceptualized the possibility of one center, that's why they are called
EXTREME DIFFUSIONISTS.
RIVER'S SCHOOL:
18
Rivers was a physician and basically a field worker. He started his career as an
evolutionist and conducted field works in India on the Toda of Nilgiris and
Melanesians tribes. As he was a physician, he was more interested in the treatment
of people through socio cultural means. Thus, he is regarded as father of medical
anthropology.
He gave up evolutionism in his last phase of life because of discrepancy between

field works and theoretical works done by classical evolutionists & became a
diffusionist but different from Smith and Perry.
PREMISES OF RIVER'S SCHOOL:
Rivers did not believe that there was only one center of diffusion. But he believed in
the theory of multiple origins i.e. many centers of origin of culture.
He did not arrive at the macro level conclusion i.e. world level. He said that diffusion
took place locally i.e. in the same region e.g. Toda of Nilgiris have characters and they
borrowed from neighbors. Similarly, Melanesians had many elements borrowed from
neighboring communities. Hence, our approach should be to work out social ties
existing at the local level.
He was a field worker. That's why he tried to show diffusion of culture with evidence
but in many cases, he also could not provide evidences.
He also believed that dilution or deterioration of culture takes place as they diffuse.
CRITICISM OF BRITISH SCHOOL:
The contribution of Extreme Diffusionism is virtually nil, since they appeared to be

dogmatic and arrived at rush conclusion. It suffers from pre-conception that Egypt is
the only center of invention; whereas River's diffusion is historical in nature. If
historical data are available one should go ahead and if such data are not available
one should not conjecture which is not scientific. At some places Rivers too could not
give evidence in favor of the theory and became conjecturalists.
Although, they have been heavily criticized; however, they have introduced the
change aspect of society and culture through the idea of diffusion. Thus, they have
made the study of change aspect of culture in anthropology in a holistic manner.
19
ASTRO-GERMAN SCHOOL
This school had its genesis in cultural geography. F. Ratzel was not a diffusionist but
he gave impetus to the work of diffusionism. His student LEO FROEBINUS, FRITZ
GRAEBNER, WILLIAM SCHIMDT carried forward the idea of German diffusionism. For
them the problem was basically of how to demonstrate diffusion historically or how
to demonstrate that there has been a case of diffusion. Such problem did not affect
British school of diffusionism. German scholars have never tried to show the path of
diffusion of cultural traits. This school is known as culture circle theory or Kulturkreis.
PREMISES OF GERMAN SCHOOL OF DIFFUSIONISM:
1) They rejected at the outset Egyptian theory of extreme diffusionism. Single center
of origin and said that there were many centers of diffusion.
2) They also believed that cultures spread like ripples of water. It shows that areas
which are closer to center of diffusion, they have more elements of pure culture and
those areas which tend to be away from center having less developed cultural
elements. Hence culture tends to deteriorate which can be compared with ripples of
water that's why William Schmidt called it culture circle theory.
3) One must analyze diffusion both in terms of space and time.
4) German diffusionist was theoretically against any kind of conjectural study. They
said that we should not go for imagination. Rather we must give primary importance
to material facts.
5. They were concerned with the demonstration of both material and non-material
cultures.
METHODS OF STUDY BY AUSTRO-GERMAN SCHOOL:
The German diffusionists in order to demonstrate diffusion of culture or cultural

traits spoke of 2 criteria. I.e. criteria of form and criteria of quantity.
CRITERIA OF FORM:
This criterion was given by FRITZ GRAEBNER. It means when similarities between 2
cultural elements are explained not on the basis of nature, material or purpose. Then
one can say with certainty that similarities could be because of diffusion irrespective
of physical distance. Here the anthropologist had to eliminate all the identical factors
and may cause similarities e.g. Bow & Arrow & red thread tied on both sides of bow.
20
CRITERIA OF QUANTITY:
Advocated by FRITZ GRAEBNER & WILLIAM SCHMIDTH. When similarities between

two cultures are substantiated by a number of cultural items found together, the
criteria of quantity will be used thus similarities between two cultures when number
of additional items increase.
When examining historical connection between two cultures, one must look at both
forms & quantity. German diffusionist made use of these two tests and they said that
we should apply these ideas of diffusion to both material and non-material aspects of
culture.
Leo Frobenius did not contribute to theoretical ideas but gave due attention to
similarities between mugs, houses, drums, shield, clothing in Malayan, Indonesian
and west African culture.
CRITICISM AGAINST AUSTRIAN-GERMAN SCHOOL:
At some places they became pseudohistorical. In other words, they tried to avoid
Conjecturalism but inadvertently they often imagined. Robert Louis said that
problems faced by German diffusionists pertaining to the degree of complexity, we
must have some ideas about the degree of complexity e.g. Catheter element is found
to exist in Kalahari Desert, where Bushman lives who belongs to the stage of
savagery, it can be inferred without ambiguity that European were present there.
However, it becomes virtually impossible to prove time of diffusion. Louis said that
we should give more attention to how much complexity exist which would tell us
that there was diffusion.
German diffusionist could not show diffusion of non-material cultures with

evidences, hence, they also imagined. They were concerned with demonstration of
diffusion of material cultures only. Consequently, they started losing its impacts.
COMPARISON BETWEEN German & British DIFFUSION
S.No. Features B–S G–S

1 Nature Extreme diffusionism by Multiple Centers of
smith & Perry Rivers Diffusion.
school of Diffusionism.
2 Source Single source of Origin. Multiple source of origin.
Multiple source of origin.
21
3 Criteria No Criteria Criteria of forms &

Criteria of Quantity.
4 Objective To trace the unfettered How diffusion has

Diffusion from the center occurred. They
to diffusion parts of the demonstrated it well.
world.
5 Attention They paid attention to They paid attention to

material culture but net to both.
non-material culture.
6 Typology No Typology They made a distinctive

between two types of
diffusion primary i.e. A ->
B or Secondary i.e. A –> C
through B.
7 Relationship with They just gave importance They tried to integrate

evolution to evolution. evolution & diffusion of
cultures i.e. they talk of
socio-culture change from
simple to complex & at
the same time they also
talked of diffusion &
diffusionism.
AMERICAN SCHOOL OF DIFFUSIONISM

American school of diffusionism was influenced by German school of diffusionism
and the link between these two schools was FRANZ BOAS. He was a German by birth
and was appointed as curator in American museum. He along with his student CLARK
WISSLER supposed to advice on the display of exhibit of American Indians in
museum. Both were against the 3 stages classification of Morgan i.e. Savage,
barbarism and civilization. They were influenced by museum methodology of
22
German. Accordingly, they classified cultural elements from the same geographic
region together. It was found that cultural items of some of the American Indian
tribes, living close to one another are more similar than those who live further apart.
From this exhibition the concept of culture area came into being. The term "cultural
Area" was used for the first time by O.T MASON. Later, it was used by L.KROEBER,
but he did not develop the idea as he was more interested in field work. Further
development of the idea of culture Area was done by CLARK WISSLER. He said that
similarities in the same culture area is due to diffusion.
FEATURES/PREMISES OF CULTURE AREA: As shown below
1. Culture area can be defined as a geographical zone having number of groups living
together and all these groups. Shows cultural similarities, when they are grouped
together.
2. Each culture area has a center and WISSLER called it culture center.
OTHER CULTURAL GROUPS
CULTURAL EXCHANGE
CULTURE CENTRE
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA
Fig: cultural area with a center
3. Culture center control entire area politically or socially i.e. economy, politics and
religion are governed by culture center.
4. Culture center is also the place from where all cultural traits typically appear. So,
traits in their pristine forms can be seen at the center and they get diluted as they
spread towards the periphery. Traits are spread centrifugally, it is not only that the
cultural traits diffuse in the same area rather they spread from one culture area to
another, which had its own center as well.
23
5. Culture center is one where greatest of traits exist.
METHODOLOGY: CONSTRUCTION OF CULTURE AREA
There are 300 American Indian tribes in the entire America. Every American Indian
tribe has its own name & also its myth of origin. But each tribe inhabits in a particular
Eco zone. As they share Eco zone they have considerable similarities between their
economic systems. Accordingly, WISSLER took food as a criterion for constructing
culture area. He began with 8 food areas and later he reduced it to 6 food areas.
Culture areas constructed by him are given below:
FOOD AREAS CULTURE AREAS

Bison Great plain
Caribou Eskimos
Salmon North pacific coast & plateau
Wild seed California
Maize Eastern part of N America
Intensive agriculture Indian groups of W America, S- W Mexico, Peru
With the help of technology, people of a culture area exploit their given environment
and this technology is invented by the driving force of their environment. As they live
24
in same culture area, they do need similar kinds of cultural equipment. Since food
represent the environment which is one of the basic needs of human beings. People
invent cultural equipment accordingly. Thus, food becomes a criterion for
construction of culture areas.
The conclusion was that we can chart out different cultural areas depending upon
close economic or ecological similarities. Wissler also related. Each of this culture
area with ethnology, archaeology, languages etc. but the relationship is more in
terms of ecology or economic organization. Then he also showed the way these
cultures are interconnected and explained all these things by means of diffusion of
cultural traits.
From the concept of culture area, he also gave the concept of age area. AGE AREA: If
a cultural trait is found in wider area it can be inferred that it has diffused a long time
ago. Hence, it is an older element. Similarly, lesser the distribution newer the
element. Thus, the concept of age area has been added. A complete study of
diffusion is possible only when we combine time and space i.e. culture area and age
area.
In addition, he offered a typology of diffusion and divided diffusion into two types-
natural and organized diffusion. The natural diffusion is a long process. Here cultural
elements diffuse slowly and there is no cultural imposition e.g. Maize culture in us,
borrowed from Mexico through natural diffusion. In case of organized diffusion, it is
quickly transmitted by organized agency by cultural imposition e.g. military invasion
or colonialism and imperialism. Wissler said that the white Americans are coming in
contact with American Indians through organized diffusion. If natural diffusion gives
rise to adaptive process, organized diffusion is rejected or resented. One needs to
combine both of them to understand how changes occur.
EVALUATION OF WISSILER:
1. Wissler's approach was definitely superior than Austro - German school of

diffusionism. It was more historical i.e. gave more evidences. Combined with
variables such as economics, ecosystem etc. It is quite empirical because it begins
with culture areas in a particular time which is not abstract. He showed the steps
which should be taken for constructing culture areas. However, many
anthropologists felt that the concept of cultural area, is sometime too narrow
because culture area was constructed on the basis of food. What would be the some
other criteria are taken for constructing culture area? It was not explained.
25
2. People were uncertain regarding, it culture area is constructed on a wider region.

They were doubtful whether concept of culture area could be used in a wider
context. Wissler was aware of the shortcoming i.e. if a culture area is constructed on
a wider case but he could not solve the problem.
KROEBER: - (BIRTH AND DEATH OF CIVILIZATION)
Kroeber made use of diffusion model. He knew approach of culture area. He was
more interested in understanding macro changes at world level. So, he did not use
culture area, rather he began with same ideas regarding rise and fall of civilization.
He said that civilization is a cultural complex and emerges from a lot of borrowings
from other cultures. The borrowed elements are systematized, modified and
transferred so that they become chain of culture. Different cultures are carried
forward and they all evolve into civilization and climax. It is almost like culture -
center of Clark Wissler. When it reaches at its climax it becomes. Rather hostile to
incoming cultural traits, it starts closing and civilization becomes routinized. The
wheel of progress almost stops, becomes stationary and a close system. The
outcome is that the civilizations decline. Whereas other culture remains open,
continue to accept element of outside, all of them continue to grow and surpass the
original civilization. Hence Kroeber says that diffusion is exceedingly important for
building a civilization.
Kroeber's macro level approach has been substantiated with a number of examples.
Later on, his idea was carried forward by Robert Redfield. He made a distinction
between high and low culture. They can also be called great tradition and little
tradition. He found that his concept is extremely useful in the study of peasant
society. Redfleid changed the subject matter of anthropology by bringing in study of
peasantry. Before him the subject was mainly study of tribal and closed society. He
regarded great tradition and little tradition as two dimensions of civilization. Little
tradition was usually the tradition of peasants and simple societies. Whereas, great
tradition was tradition of urban. Later Redfield model is applied in different cultures
such as India, Mexico, and china and in other ancient civilization by a number of his
students.
In Indian context Milton singer, Mc Kim Marriot and L.P Vidyarthi showed the nature
of diffusion at different level of Indian society.
26
FUNCTIONALISM IN ANTHROPOLOGY:
Functionalism can be traced to the discipline of sociology, particularly in the work of

August Comte, Henry De saint Simon etc. However, full development of idea of
function in French tradition came to light by the work of Emile Durkheim, from him
the idea of function was taken by British Anthropologist, A.R.R.Brown. We can say
that functionalism in anthropology came mainly because of inputs of French tradition
in British culture. It was developed by both Brown and Malinowski came to be known
as anthropological functionalists. Apart from this, functionalism in anthropology
emerged as a strong reaction against both classical evolutionism and diffusionism.
Functionalists say that evolution has definitely taken place and diffusion also
occurred, but the study of evolution and diffusion in terms of time and space
demands authentic historical facts for substantiating all of them. Unfortunately, we
have great scarcity of facts. When we have no knowledge about past, we should shift
from diachronic to synchronic study. Brown said that we should study the society as
it exists here and now, such study can be of great value because this study will help
us in changing the society by restructuring it. It can also be useful in the
administration because before initiating programs of change we should know the
character of society.
Premises of functionalism:
Functionalism is the study of how human society functions based on the study of
simple societies. At the theoretical level both Brown and Malinowski shared certain
propositions as follows:
1. Society or culture whatsoever is the unit of study is a system like any other such as
solar system, mechanical system, atomic system, biological system etc.
2. As system society or culture consists of parts. These parts may be groups,

institutions, organizations, association etc. these parts are interconnected
interrelated and integrated.
27
Fig: society
3. Each part function on its own as well as in relation with other part e.g. economic
organization is concerned with production, distribution &consumption. It also
functions in relation with political system, religion etc.
4. A change in part brings about a subsequent change in other parts or at least

functioning of other parts which considerably by affected because parts are
interconnected like boots strap.
5. Society and culture cannot be reduced to anyone part because whole society or
culture is greater than mere summation of parts. That’s why functionalist rejected
marks approach to the study of society. Since he reduced entire society to economic
system.
6. We should assign equal importance to all parts of the society and all should be
studied in a system of relationship.
7. Since it is here and now study of how society functions, field work became the
central method of functional inquiry.
RADCLIFFE BROWN:
Brief history: Radcliffe brown was a student of W.H. Rivers who was initially an
evolutionist and later he became diffusionist. As a student of rivers, he studied
Andamanese. He saw them practicing nuclear family and monogamy despite being
savage. According to Morgan, an American classical evolutionist monogamy and
nuclear family are the characteristics of civilization. As a results, he quit
evolutionism. Moreover, he also came to know that the explanation of diffusionist at
some places was based on Conjecturalism. At the same time, he was influenced by
functionalist school of sociology. Consequently, he started studying society as it is
28
existing “here and now”. The knowledge of such study can be used in administration
and socio-economic development. Thus, he became the founding father of
functionalism in Britain. The “Andamanese Islander” first work brown published
in1992 which was functionalist in orientation and this is regarded as beginning of
anthropological in Britain.
Premises of Brown’s functionalism:
Brown was heavily influenced by Emile Durkheim, a functionalist in sociology. But he

did not follow all the ideas of Durkheim. At places he brought about certain
modification. However, his structural functional approach is really an extension of
some Emile Durkheim’s idea. A complete sociological explanation about society and
culture consist of 2 parts firstly, casual historical explanation and secondly, functional
explanation. The first part includes evolutionism and diffusionism which are historical
if data regarding evolution and diffusion of society and culture are not available one
should continue with functional explanation. Durkheim defined functionalism as
a contribution a part makes to the whole for maintenance and welfare of society.
The contribution of society. But why does the part work? Durkheim said that every
society has needs and unless these needs are met, the society will not be able to
continue. Hence, each part of the society carries out activities so that needs are
fulfilled, and societies can and survive. Brown broadly agreed the idea, but he did not
prefer the use of term need. He said that this term is too biological. Here we are
taking of social needs. So, brown changed the word need and called it necessary
conditions of existence and when they are met society is to satisfy the necessary
condition of existence is integration in society. i.e. cementing or solidarity in the
society. The job anthropologists is to study parts from the point of view of the
contribution they make in social integration.
29
Social continuity
Fulfillment
of needs
Functioning of part Functioning of part Functioning of part
Part Part Part
Fig: showing social functioning
Methodology or approach of Brown’s functionalism:
Emile Durkheim said that for the study of the way how society is integrated and for
that we need certain concept. The concept of society can be analyzed with organism
analogy. Durkheim said that every society has parts and they are interlinked and
integrated. He called these parts social morphology which carry out activities. He
called functioning of parts social physiology. Brown did not approve of these terms;
rather he said that these terminologies are too biological. Consequently, he called
social morphology social structure and social physiology as social functions. Both
these concepts are developed on the analogy of organism. But Brown says that
organism can be seen even when it does not function. But in case of society the
study of parts can only be done when it is functioning. We study inter personnel
relationship. This is only possible when people behave i.e. to say activities are carried
out. Brown said that social study cannot be observed when people are not
functioning. Thus, parts and functioning of parts are inseparable. That's why his
approach is known as structural – functional approach or structural-functionalism.
30
CRITICISM AGAINST BROWN'S FUNCTIONALISM:
Although, Brown's functionalism was based on ethnographic evidences, there was no

Conjecturalism, yet this theory has been criticized on several accounts as follows:
Brown's functionalism was concerned with social continuity not with change. It is
mainly because his theory was based on tribal societies which are very slow to
change. When this theory was applied to modern societies changing very fast got
exposed.
Brown did not emphasize on social conflicts which is an agent of change. According
to functionalist conflict is functional, for functionalist whatever exists is functional
therefore they become dogmatic or teleological.
Apart from these, he could not develop any theory since his work is not applicable to
modern societies.
Although, functionalism advocated by Brown got criticized on several grounds

despite it gave the idea of social functioning in anthropology, moreover, this theory
could be used in administration and social welfare as well.
MALINOWSKI:
BRIEF HISTORY:
Malinowski was a native of Poland and studied psychology. He had been suffering
from T.B during First World War. On doctor's advice he started spending time to
recuperate from the disease in Australia. He said that sir James Frazer book
"GOLDEN-BOUGH" changed his discipline and became an anthropologist. In the
meantime, he studied Australian Aborigine. As a matter of coincidence, he reached
an island of Papua New Guinea particularly Trobriand island. He lived there for 3
years and conducted field works with the people. He collected data on the life of
people without engaging translator. In the course of time he gave a theory of BIO
CULTURE FUNCTIONALISM in his book "FAMILY AMONGST AUSTRALIAN ABORIGIN".
He gave the theory of functionalism in terms of need.
31
PREMISES OF BIO CULTURAL FUNCTIONALISM:
Malinowski in order to give theory of bio cultural functionalism in terms of need, he

gave following basic premises of need theory:
1. All individuals have needs.
2. Needs are primarily biological.
3. Needs are satisfied by cultural mechanism and when these needs are satisfied
other needs arise. Thus, culture is need serving and fulfilling mechanism.
4. To fulfill biological needs through cultural response instrumental needs are vital
and all these are governed by value system which integrates every part of the
society.
Needs individual society
Cultural response survival
Malinowski gives importance to the needs of individuals; hence, his functionalism is

called Psychological functionalism. Besides in his theory needs are described as
biological and are satisfied by culture. So, it is also known as BI0-CULTURAL
FUNCTIONALISM.
METHODOLOGY ADOPTED IN BIO-CULTURAL FUNCTIONALISM:
Malinowski to begin with his discussion on need, first he discussed vital sequence of
life. From this discussion, he moved on to delineate the basic needs of the individual.
These basic needs are called biological or primary needs. He described theory of
need in his book 'A SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF CULTURE AND OTHER ESSAY' According to
him, there are 7 biological needs which are regarded as basic and they are satisfied
through cultural mechanisms. Seven biological needs and their fulfillment by cultural
mechanism are given below:
BIOLOGICAL NEEDS CULTURAL MECHANISM

Metabolism Hunting and gathering
Reproduction Kinship (marriage)
Bodily comfort Shelter
Safety Protection
Movement Activities
Growth Training
Health Hygiene
32
After the basic needs in Malinowski's system, come instrumental or derived needs.
These needs are concerned with arranging the means for the satisfaction of the ends.
Malinowski said that there are 4 instrumental needs.
1. ECONOMIC NEEDS AND ECONOMIC INSTITUTION: The cultural apparatus which

are required to produce consumer goods, their distribution and consumption.
2. POLITICAL NEEDS AND POLITICAL INSTITUTION: Authority with in an institution

must be defined and equipped with power. This is called political institution.
3. EDUCATIVE NEEDS AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION: Human materials must be

maintained, reviewed and transmitted with the full knowledge of total tradition i.e.
Education.
4. NEEDS OF SOCIAL CONTROL AND RESPECTIVE INSTITUTION: Human behavior

such as customs, laws, moral prescription must be codified and regulated in terms of
actions and sanctions. This is called social control.
So, in Malinowski system there are 4 instrumental needs. Each one has institution
attached to it. All these institutions must be integrated. This brings about 3rd types
of needs i.e. integrated need. Integrated needs are concerned with integration of
different parts and these needs are norms, values, standard, religion and magic. They
all tend to integrate with different parts of the society i.e. here parts are institutions.
According to Malinowski the basic of any society is biological system. Although

biological system is the basic it does not mean that Malinowski reduced everything
to biology. He speaks of a hierarchy of needs. On biological needs, he placed
instrumental or socio-cultural needs. Above which he placed integrative or symbolic
needs.
The entire need theory can be presented in the following Diagram;
33
NEED CHARTER
PERSONNEL NORMS
APPARATUS
ACTIVITIES
FUNCTIONS
Some commentators say that no other anthropologist gave such an importance to

biological system as done by Malinowski. Some say that he was 1st to use the idea of
systematic approach. That's why a number of sociologists became interested in
writing of Malinowski. As they said that the idea of system comes from Malinowski.
CRITICISMS AGAINST FUNCTIONALISM:
Functionalism was concerned with the issue of social order. Naturally the premises of
functionalism were exposed when it was applied to the complex society which
changed at a faster pace; naturally it was not applicable to these society. So,
functionalism started coming under criticism. Changes were seen resulting from
conflict. According to functionalists, conflict is functional. Moreover, we should not
assume as whatever existing is functional. If we do so then we will become dogmatic.
Rather we should begin with the idea that the contribution of a part may have
negative or positive consequence and it is also possible that there may not be any
consequence, hence rather than assuming that a part contributes to the whole is
always positive in nature not correct. We should not leave the possibility that it have
negative may consequence. This must be kept in mind e.g. religion in one context
may contribute to social solidarity while in other it may lead to fissiparous
tendencies. Hence, we must look at both positive and negative.
R.K MARTON used the term function and said that one can show an activity having
positive contribution and can be called eufunction. One can further show that an
activity has negative function with lesser the adaptation or adjustment of system
called dysfunction. If we are able to include other analysis then we will be less
34
dogmatic. Matron said that one should make a distinction between activities from
the view of people and from the consequence of those activities e.g. Act carried out
by people about which they are aware is called manifest function. An act carried out
by people about which they are not aware is called latent function. E.g. people go to
place of worship because they have certain desire but what emerges from all these is
a sense of fraternity. The former one is manifest and the later one is the latent
function. If we are able to make a distinction between these two, then we will be
able to make a difference between what are the activities and what are their
consequences.
Thus, the meaning of dysfunction can help us in explaining the process of social
change. One of the biggest problems with functional analysts was that they were
unable to show change of society and they always regarded conflict as extremely
negative. But all these people said that we should regard conflict as functional, in the
sense as it brings about change in society. Dysfunction accumulates and results in
conflict. Sorting out of this dysfunction leading to social changes over a period of
time. Functionalism remained confined to the idea of social order and they were
removed by modifying traditional functionalism by bringing the notion of change and
conflict and this is known as Neo- Functionalism. It considered change, placed
important premium on conflict and tried to deal with change in totality.
NEO - EVOLUTIONISM
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF NEO EVOLUTIONISM:
By the late 1930s, the empirical and functional approach came under criticism. The
basic criticism was that functionalism did not explain how change come to the
society? It is able to show order and not change. The theory of classical evolutionism
is discredited because it became conjectural. They were only interested in stages
through which human society had passed. Consequently, it was rejected by
diffusionists, Franz Boas and functionalist, but the idea of evolution of society and
culture was acceptable to all of them. Scholars of neo -evolutionism was interested
in diachronic study of society and culture. As a result, they decided to study
evolution of human society and culture with historical data. Thus, neo –evolutionism
35
came into being. Thus, neo evolutionism came to be known as "CONTEMPORARY

TREND IN EVOLUTION". Its main protagonists were V.G Childe, Leslie A White, Julian
Stewart and Shalin and Services.
BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION:
1. Evolution is a gradual process of change from simple to complex, from

homogeneity to heterogeneity and from uncertainty to certainty. This concept can
be applied to entire society and equally applicable to an institution or a cultural trait.
2. Evolution is a ceaseless ubiquitous process. Societies have emerged from pre-

historic to Victorian society.
3. The job of evolutionists includes tracing origin and sequence of evolution of

society and culture.
APPROACHES OF NEO - EVOLUTIONISM:
The principles of evolution are accepted by both classical and neo evolutionists.
However, the way classical evolutionists studied evolution of society and culture
were not accepted. They felled not due to principle, but because of speculation.
Whereas, neo evolutionists were not conjectural and speculating and gave
importance to facts and evidences.
Besides, neo - evolutionists focused on those things about which they had data e.g.
materials culture, however non-material cultures like family marriages, religion etc.
have evolved but we do not have data about them. If we study evolution of non-
material culture then we will be conjecturalists. We should study the material
aspects of human being. Where we can produce data. Moreover, they considered
other process of cultural change i.e. diffusion of cultural traits, which was ignored by
classical evolutionists.
In a nut shell, approaches of neo-evolutionism is that in case data is available about a

particular institution it should be able to work out an evolutionary sequence but no
data and no Conjecturalism.
INDIVIDUAL SCHOLARS IN NEO-EVOLUTIONISM:
1. V.G CHILDE:
He was an archaeologist and famous for his work "man makes himself" he is credited
with the large number of excavation and divided archaeological period into
Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, copper age, Bronze Age and Iron Age. One can see
36
the progress from one stage to another and arrive at a conclusion such as initially
most of the artifacts are of stone and later on substituted by metal, over a period of
time large crude stone implements became smaller in shape and size and became
more refined gradually. All these were replaced by metal tools. If one takes off this
common idea, Childe says that one can relate each of the stage with particular kind
of society i.e. savage, barbarism, and civilization. He related each stage with cultural
period such as Paleolithic with savagery, Neolithic with barbarism and Bronze Age
with emergence of civilization. Thus, Childe says that these cultural periods were
related with particular cultural development. Paleolithic man was a hunter Neolithic
was an agriculturist and bronze man used metal and script. Thus, he substantiated
evolutionary ideas regarding materials cultures for which data were available. We
should not evaluate the evolution of non-material cultures of man for which data are
not available.
2. LESLIE A WHITE:
BRIEF HISTORY: Leslie white was a prominent anthropologist brought up under the
Boasian approach, but he was not satisfied with the quest for data. He said that
social anthropology can advance only if it as able to generalize or give theory. L.A
white from Michigan came in touch with writing of Tylor and Morgan. He concluded
that most of the findings of classical evolutionist were of very high order, but the
problem was that they did not know about the universal standards of measuring
evolution.
PREMISES OF WHITE: Evolution has undoubtedly occurred in biological as well as

socio cultural world. In order to study evolution of society and culture we must find
out universal standard of measurement, whereas, White worked for universal
standard of measurement, which he says in terms of energy and technology.
Culture evolved when higher forms of energy is used. Thus, White was not interested
in the study of evolution of particular culture. He was also not interested in evolution
of particular institution. He was mainly interested in most fundamental principle
because of which evolution occurs in culture and that was energy. He described
culture as a kind of behavior and behavior is treated as a manipulation of energy. E.g.
In simple society, the amount of energy used by people were significantly low,
because source of energy which was tapped by simple society are fewer. They
depend upon minimal amount of energy which they get from the environment. They
used free floating energy.
37
Man became pastoralist and made use of animal power. Then came the stage of
agriculture. In this period the energy harnessed is much more. White said that higher
form of energy is where both pastoralism and agriculture are combined to one, with
the passage of time new forms of energy are tapped and which is incorporated into
the system. Energy can be measured in terms of harnessing per capita, with the
passage of time quality and quantity of harnessed energy increases. Thus, the
civilization is not a stage marked by writing. It is the stage marked by an increase in
the amount of energy harnessed by individuals.
He said that the energy is not harnessed by itself. It requires a technology or a set of
techniques e.g. Use of axe for cutting a tree, here axe is a technique that does not
work on its own unless it is coupled with energy.
Manual energy is harnessed with the help of technique without technique energy
remains free floating.
METHODOLOGY ADOPTED BY L. A. WHITE:
White said that product of energy and technology had given rise to culture. For this,
we have to take into considerations three possibilities of the energy for the analysis
of culture.
energy x technology = culture (product)
1st possibility: low energy X high technology = low culture.
2nd possibility: high energy X low technology = low culture
In 1st and 2nd, product will be of inferior quality.
3rd possibility = when energy and technology level both are of optimal type then the
product will be satisfactory.
On the basis of technology and energy, White gave two laws of evolution and later
merged into one; 1st law- other things being equal, the degree of cultural
development varies directly as the amount of energy/capita/ yr. harnessed and put
to work.
2nd law- other thing being equal, the degree of cultural development varies directly
as the efficiency of the technology means with harnessed energy could be put to
work.
38
In the 1st law, the emphasis is on energy and in the 2nd the emphasis is on
technology. Both were combined by White and he propounded law of evolution
which is cultural development when the amount of energy harnessed by
man/capita/yr. is increased or as the efficiency of the technology means of putting
energy to work increased or both the factor increased simultaneously i.e. called
cultural development. He put much emphasis on technology. That's why his theory is
also known as technological theory of change. It does not mean evolution of society
occurs only on the basis of technology rather emphasis is on harnessing of energy by
technological apparatus.
EVALUATION OF WHITE:
WHITE's theory was quite convincing, since it had shown over a period of time there
is an increment growth in the quantity and quality of energy. Naturally one can say
that amount of energy harnessed in simple society is far less than complex society.
Similarly, technology has grown from simple to complex. However, white was
criticized for giving a negligible place to the role of evolution of particular society but
in general evolution that's why he is called UNIVERSAL CULTURAL EVOLUTIONIST. His
major critique was Julian Stewart.
JULIAN STEWARD:
The major critique of L. A white was Julian Steward. He was basically interested in
particular social system, rather than human society in general. He believed that in
"particular evolution environment plays a significant role because human being tried
to adapt to environment which cannot be treated as constant as done by White,
because environment is exploited by human being. White did not distinguish one
environment with the other. Therefore, White's theory was universal theory. He
made a distinction between 3 types of evolution.
1. UNILINER EVOLUTION: Its major advocates were classical evolutionists. They

believed that evolution takes place in the same sequence in different parts of the
world because of psychic unity of mankind.
2. UNIVERSAL EVOLUTION: It is concerned with evolution of culture of mankind as a

whole, rather than with a particular culture. This school was flourished by WHITE
AND CHILDE. In this system distinctive cultural variations and local variations are
excluded.
39
3. MULTILINEAL/MULTILATERAL EVOLUTION: It belies that there is not one time of

evolution rather many lines of evolution and each one of them has its own
characteristics because of the impact of the environment should not be treated as
passive entity.
PREMISES OF JULIAN STEWARD: In his work "ORIGIN OF AGRICULTURE", he

described various sequence and each one was motivated by ecological factor. He
wrote this book by studying SHOSHONIAN INDIANS. In his study, he developed the
concept of relationship between culture and environment. Stewart focus was mainly
on cultural ecology i.e. particular evolution. The basic distinction is that White
regarded habitat as very important factor, for him social organization is a relation to
cultural ecology. Steward says that principle meaning of ecology is adaptation to the
environment he says that there are two ways in which ecology is treated in
anthropology, these are:
1. Human and social ecologists sought universal ecological principle and relegated
culture a secondary place.
2. Cultural anthropologist who offered historical explanation of culture e.g. culture

derives from culture. He completely disregarded extra cultural factor, namely
environment. Steward disagreed with both the views. He said that the 1st view is
incomplete because it gives low place to culture and 2nd view is incomplete because
they disregard environment.
The empirical reality tells us that culture cannot be seen independently of the
environment and environment changes because of impact of culture. Therefore,
critical problem is not to disregard anyone. That's why his method is known as
cultural ecology which helps in explaining the relationship between culture and
environment.
METHODS OF CULTURAL ECOLOGY:
Steward begins by saying that not all the parts of culture are equally related to
environment i.e. certain part of culture is more closely related o environment than
other parts. In every relationship between cultural and environment, people exploit
environment in order to fulfill their material needs. In the process environment also
get affected to exploit resources we require technology. Hence there has to be a
relationship between people and technology and these relationship between people
and technology are concerned with economic value that constitute economic
system. Thus, economic system is more closely associated with the environment.
Hence Stewart says that economic system constitutes the core of the culture and
40
other institution are related to the economic system as they are not directly related
to the environment. E.g. political institution, religious institution etc. for these
institutions Stewart used the term super structure. At the methodological level, we
explore the relationship between man and environment by studying economic
system. There after we study relationship between other institution and economic
system.
Environment is ever changing and man has to survive in this condition. Hence, he has
to keep on changing the cultural materials such as tools, equipment, weapons for
extraction of material resources for his survival. Thus, over the period of time society
and culture evolved. According to Stewart society and culture evolve in a multilinear
manner. It is so because environment is not homogeneous across the world. It varies
from place to place. Hence, differential environment lead to differential evolution of
society and culture.
CRITICISM AGAINST STEWARD: Steward was criticized by his student, who found
that, in many societies the direct relationship with environment is not economic
system, rather religion. RAPPAPERT ANDREW VADYA studied many communities in
Melanesia and wrote a book called "PIG FOR ANCESTOR". He found that there was
direct relationship between religion and environment and he disregarded Stewart
who said that economic system is culture core and all other institutions are simply
super structure. He showed that rituals regulate the ecological cycle. In some
societies, in Melanesia, there is a concept of pig feast. Those who offer more pigs in
feast own the tittle of big man in Melanesia. From this custom he came to know that
the religion had direct relationship with the environment. In the process of fig feast
which is a ritual in Melanesia to commemorate their ancestor, they shaped their
environment. Thus, latest function of this practice is to relate ecological cycle. Hence
it can be said that economic system cannot be always the core of culture other
institution may also be a core of culture.
But Steward did not say that one should follow the order i.e. economic factor. He
said that we should look at on those aspects which are linked with environment.
SAHLIN AND SERVICE:
Sahlin and service, student and colleagues of Julian Stewart and White. They had
developed the concept of general and specific evolution to fill the gap of the theory
of White and Stewart. According to them, evolution in culture spheres move
simultaneously in two directions.
41
1. It creates diversity through adaptive modification (under the impact of

environment), as a result new forms originate from old.
2. Evolution generates progress because of higher form arise and surpass lower
forms. The former is specific evolution and the latter is the general evolution. They
seem to be different but in reality, they are aspect of the same total process.
3. The study of specific evolution employs phylogenetic classification which is

concerned with lines of descent. In general evolution emphasis shift to the character
of progress itself and forms are classified.
Although neo evolutionists have been criticized on some grounds however, they
have been able to remove the shortcomings of classical evolutionism and made a
trend in the study of evolution of society and culture in anthropology.
CULTURAL PERSONALITY SCHOOL

It is one of the research interests mainly in America which emerged after the 1st
world war and developed around the 2nd world war. They tried to know about the
influence of culture on group or collective behaviors in order to have advantage in
war against their opponents. This school introduced a large no of well-known
anthropologists such as Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and Ralph Clinton etc. This
school is associated with national character study, that is to say characteristics of
national groups.eg. French, Indian etc. national character study.
42
PREMISES OF CULTURE PERSONALITY SCHOOL:
This school is associated with culture and personality. It means among other factors
how personality of individuals is influenced by socio cultural factors. Every individual
has unique personality and at the same time they share some common personality as
a member of a cultural group or a nation. We must know as to how socio-cultural
factors influence common behaviors.
THE MEANING AND FEATURES OF PERSONALITY:
Personality can be defined as an integrative and dynamic organization of physical,

mental and social quality of an individuals that manifest itself to the other people in
the give and take of the social life. However, this definition is not adequate to
understand what the personality is? Hence it is better to know features of
personality which are as follows.
1. Personality is not rooted to bodily structure alone.
2. Personality is an individual unit.
3. Personality is neither good or bad every personality is unique.
4. Personality refers to persistent quality of an individual.
5. Personality is acquired.
6. Personality can be individual as well as collective.
7. Various factors affect personality, as given below.
43
ACQUISITION OF PERSONALITY:
It is culture which largely determines the type of personality that predominates in a

particular group. It is culture which teaches an individual to behave in society in a
systematic way i.e. acculturation and assimilation. Some anthropologist in America
were associated with culture personality school who say that one can speak up the
personality of the people i.e. specific personality of the people belonging to a
particular culture. They made a distinction between individual personality and
personality of entire group. i.e. collective personality opposed to the individual
personality. The study of individual personality is a field of Psychology whereas
collective personality is studied by Anthropology.
TIME OF LEARNING:
It is regarded that the early years of children is more important in the formation of
personality. Because of this, many anthropologists embark upon the intensive study
of child training in different societies. E.g. Breast feeding, wearing dress, toilet
training, mode of punishment etc. have crucial implication for child training. Many
studies have supposed it.
1. E.g. 1: Erik Erickson conducted study of Siona Indian (American Indian) and said
that this people treat their children with great indulgence, when children behave
improperly, pick the child soon and thumbed on the other hand of the child. As a
result, they cry and there after they are fed. Because they believe that it will make
them stronger.
2. E.g. 2: Swaddling practice in Russia: In Russia child is tied in a strip of cloth. In that
state they are kept in cradle and make them almost immovable and it is believed that
this type of practice makes them aggressive in their adult life. Since, swaddling leads
to anger, rage which have tremendous impact on adult practice. They can offer
indulge in self-torture.
INDIVIDUAL SCHOLARS:
RUTH BENEDICT:
BRIEF HISTORY:
Ruth Benedict, a student of Franz Boas was truly a relativist. She was not interested
in generalizing human society as whole. She did not believe in similarity of culture,
rather she said that we should try to understand the way culture is patterned. For
doing so, she developed the idea of culture pattern in her book "pattern of culture"
44
which should be traced to Kroeber. But benedict was the 1st one who really
developed it.
CONCEPT OF CULTURE PATTERN:
She says that every culture consists of traits and these are grouped in complex and
all these cultural complexes when integrated forms a culture pattern e.g. Indian
culture.
Cultural trait cultural complex cultural pattern
Indian culture can be divided into large no of traits such as dowry, age in marriage
etc. which can be grouped into the complex of marriage. The complex of joint family'
comprises of large kinds of traits such as common property, common residence,
common kitchen etc. similarly other institution or complex like religion, political
systems, economic institution are also made of their individual traits. When these
culture complexes are linked together, what emerges is called cultural pattern by
Benedict. When we speak of Indian culture, we talk of Indian culture pattern. The
culture pattern is the cause of the personality shared by all the members of a culture.
The job of anthropologist is to find out what the culture pattern is. Then how
because of this pattern we have different types of personality.
METHODOLOGY IN THE STUDY OF CULTURE PATTERN:
She conducted a no. of field works and wrote a book "A comparative study of
culture". In this book she wrote and compared a number of American tribes. She said
that one can broadly discuss 3 kinds of pattern in the study of culture-Apollonian,
Dionysian and Paranoid, later she merged paranoid with Dionysian and spoke of 2
major types of pattern i.e. Apollonian and Dionysian.
1. APPOLONIAN: It is a kind of personality which is docile, where sharing is

emphasized, competition is little and people are basically non- aggressive. This
personality is known after the name of sun god APOLLO, which is regarded as god of
peace.
2. DIONYSIAN: it is named after Greek God- Dionysius, who is described as one who
is ruthless, leading a luxurious life, drink a lot. So, we can say that Dionysian can be
identified with aggression, competition etc. e.g. Personality of KWAKIUTL DOBU
people. They are competitive which is confined to every part of their life.
45
She said that these two types are not the only pattern of all cultures from the study
of culture about which data are available, we can talk of at least two personalities.
But if we understand other study of culture or people, we might describe other
personality as well.
CRITICISM:
Ruth Benedict was criticized by many among them Morris Opler said that benedict
implies that every culture has a design or pattern, which affect all parts of society,
that in fact is not correct. A culture has many themes, that is why we find that a
culture may have diverse ideas which are put together. He said that we must begin
with the premise that there is plurality of themes. However, Benedicts work certainly
laid down the foundation of different kinds of personality which emerge under the
impact of culture. However, she was supported by Margaret Mead.
MARGARET MEAD:
Margaret Mead was a student of Franz boas. She had more ethnographic approach.
She was more important in study as to how different personality emerged, because
people are brought up under different cultural values.
She wrote two books 'Coming of age in Samoan' and 'Sex and temperament'. In her
1st book she tried to change the hypotheses which developed on the basis of
American data, that adolescent is marked with strong stresses. It is a phase of great
tension for an individual and require sometime to cope with. But in case of Samoan
she found that Samoan did not undergo crises associated with adolescent. They
believed that bodily changes are inevitable. Samoan did not have prohibition on pre-
marital sex. For them it is normal. One should not be disturbed due to adolescent
change. Where as in American society there is prohibition on pre-marital sex. As a
result, the kind of crisis which emerges during adolescent of American girl is not
found in Samoan. Thus, cultures moulds personality. We cannot say that there is
uniformity in behavior.
Later in her book 'sex and temperament', she compared 3 societies of Papua New
Guinea. These are ARAPESH, MUNDUGUMOR and TSCHAMBOLE. In each of the
culture she found that they have different types of value system. In the other words
each of them is having certain value system. In other words, each of them is having
certain central value around which certain personality is woven. E.g. for Arapesh the
basic value is centered around food and children, competition among Mundugumor
46
and art is the basic value of Tschambole. Each of these cultures does have central
value around with the social life of these people is centered. Thus, one can conclude
that human nature is not rigid, rather it is the product of culture. Hence different
societies living in same areas, sharing same habitat still differ because of culture.
EVALUATION OF MEAD:
Mead's work was more ethnographical. She tried to show that personality of people
differs from each other due to cultural practices. She also defended Ruth Benedict's
work. She said that Benedict offered only certain categories of personality and
ethnography study can lead to some other categories of personality.
RALPH CLINTON:
He the concept of cultural background of personality. He had said that we gave could
divide the culture into OVERT and COVERT. The Overt culture is that which is seen,
tangible and in public and covert is what is hidden. The overt culture is further
divided into 2 categories:
Overt culture
Material cultures kinaesthetical
Interpretation
Covert culture
Material cultures: include things which are seen and tangible e.g. tools, artifacts,
houses etc.
Kinaesthetical aspects of overt culture; are those which are not seen and tangible but
public in nature e.g. democracy, caste system etc. Both these combined together
give rise to overt culture. But everything hidden in psychological aspect and elements
which give real meaning to culture. It consists of values, beliefs, ideals which are not
seen but they have to be inferred from human behavior. All these psychological
elements come under covert culture and is also known as core of culture. In other
words, every culture has a core consisting of the central value. It is around the core
that entire personality is built up. What Benedict called culture complex and culture
pattern, Linton called it culture core. He said that a culture disintegrates if its core is
affected. However, the change at the periphery are more acceptable. Thus, Linton's
core periphery hypothesis is a very important study of social change. Like Benedict
47
and Mead, Linton also considers culture has a personality and mental construction. It
is built on the basis of what is found at the level of overt culture.
EVALUATION:
Linton's work was more theoretical. However, he introduced PSYCHO DYNAMISM in

the school of culture and personality.
ABRAHAM KARDINER:
He said that we should speak of common personality shared by people, because they
all are product of same kind of enculturation. In a given culture there is a same kind
of uniformity in child rearing practices. Individuals brought up in same child rearing
practices have common personality. Kardinar called it basic personality type.
It is not to deny here that every individual has its own personality as basic child
rearing practice is same. But they have common personality because of similar kind
of child rearing practice. We should first of all study those institutions and shape
personality e.g. family, kinship etc. They are called primary institutions. The 2nd set
of institution is where basic personality type finds its manifestation e.g. religion,
political system etc. and they are called secondary institution. We should study both
the institutions in order to understand the impact of culture on collective
personality.
If changes occur in primary institution then, secondary institution also changes. Since
in a given context i.e. to say in a given nation there is similarity of culture practices.
Hence, we can speak of national character which makes people of one context differ
from others.
CORA DUBOIS:
During 2nd world war it was not possible for Anthropologist to conduct first hand field
work in different parts of the world. At the same time there was a need to know
about enemies or psychological profile of Japanese which was very important to
America. It is well known that Japanese soldiers preferred to commit suicide to
become as POW (prisoners of war).It was really a quiz for American and they wanted
to know about the personality of Japanese soldier; since fieldwork was almost ruled
out in that context and hence, this approach is called study of culture at a distance.
Ruth Benedict made use of available evidence about Japanese e.g. mythology,
biography, novel etc. and brought out a book of national character of Japan, under
48
the title of "chrysanthemum and sword" which was an account of psychological

profile of Japanese people.
In this way many anthropologists used psychological or projective technique. This

technique began with CORA DU BOIS. She worked in ALOR of Indonesia and collected
important data on their culture, in terms of both psychological and sociological. Later
she gave all these data to different scholars and they were not told about from
where data were derived. So, these scholars worked blindly on these data. It was
really encouraging that all arrived at the same conclusion. Cora Du Bois called it
model personality. Thus, one can make distinction between basic and model
personality. Basic personality type is upon qualitative data from culture where as
model personality is made of psychological test.
EVALUATION:
Following the survey of Cora Du Bois, many anthropologists used this projective
technique in their respective school in anthropology, a large no of scholars like
Kroeber; G. Foster worked on the personality of peasant. Oskar Louis worked on
personality of POW in Mexico. In Indian context, many Indian Anthropologists carried
out study on the psychology of martial race. There are also other studies conducted
on the basis of this technology.
STRUCTURALISM
Structuralism in anthropology emerged as a result of debate over what are the parts
of human society and whether these parts are reality or abstract. C.L. Strauss belongs
to the school who believes social structure as an abstract. Since abstraction is a
mental construct so it exists at the level of mind. Hence, he studied product of mind
in order to understand mind by using other products of mind such as language,
mythology, totem etc. Though, he was able to show social structure with the help of
various models yet he was criticized.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF STRUCTURALISM:
The term social structure has been coined by HERBERT SPENCER a French sociologist
in his book 'Principle of Sociology' spoke of study of society as present in organic and
inorganic things. He used analogy of building and also used concept of organism.
49
Later on, EMILE DRURKHEIM also a French scholar used organism analogy for
showing social study. He regarded society as an organism and preferred the term
social morphology. His idea was borrowed and modified by A.R.R Brown. According
to him social structure is concerned with interrelated parts and there is no consensus
about what these parts are. As per all-inclusive views social structure consist of
institutions, groups etc. (virtually every aspect which are components of society) e.g.
Robert McIver said undoubtedly society has a large no of components. But certain
components are more important than others. However, about the issue of parts of
society, different scholars considered parts of society differently as follows:
A.R.R. BROWN:
Parts are inter-personnel relation or IPR; Pritchard said that parts are groups. Maine
Forte said that social structure should be defined as all classes of social relations
which are found in all societies. But we must incorporate time in terms of social
structure. Hence, Maine Forte is very popularly known as for time social study.
NADAL said that parts are role.
Besides this debate, another debate was on social structure whether it is empirical
reality or abstract. Brown considered social structure is an empirical reality. Whereas
C. L Strauss regarded social structure as an abstract, model or idea.
BACKGROUND OF CLAUDE LEVI STRAUSS:
According to French sociologist, C.L. STRAUSS social structure is a method for the
study of human society, structuralism in anthropology was founded by him.
According to Strauss, it is not a theory, not a philosophical tradition and not an
ideology. It is simply a method to analyze human society. He does not reject earlier
schools in anthropology. He said that all of them such as evolutionism, diffusionism
and functionalism have different place in anthropology. However, he pointed out the
weakness of some of them. At the same time, he defined the aim of structuralism to
study society as an abstract, model or idea.
BASIC PREMISIS OF C. L. STRAUSS'S STRUCTURALISM:
The objective of structuralism is to search for the deep, innate and orderly principle,
underlying any system. Deep means it does not lie in conscious mind rather in sub
conscious mind. Innate means, they are from the beginning and order means
properly arranged. Hence, it can be said that one has to explore the mind of human
being. Human mind possesses certain given properties with ultimate source of all.
The aim of structuralism is to unravel the human mind, in this sense; the aim of
50
structuralism is qualitatively different from other approaches of anthropology. E.g.

Functionalism also interested in the study of myth, but their approach was how
mythology contributes to the functioning of society. But our interest lies in what
myth is?
How it is structured? And what does it mean? For structuralism myth is the product
of mind. In the same way rule of marriage, cooking, dressing, all are product of
human mind. We have to understand how mind has been structured. We have to
study its product. The product of mind may be language, myth, totem, etc. There
must be some kind of similarity in human mind so that same products are generated.
E.g. Similar kind of myth are found in different regions of the world, completely
unrelated and where elements of diffusion is ruled out there is uniformity of human
mind this must be due to psychic unity of mankind. Thus, basic method of study of
human mind is the study of products of mind, from the entire discussion premises of
structuralism can be presented as below.
1. Society has a basic study.
2. Variation in basic study from society to society is due to permutation and

combination of element of basic study.
3. The basic structure is mind.
4. The job of structuralist is to unravel or uncover the various layers of human mind.
METHODOLOGY:
It includes the study of basic concept of structuralism. He said that society can be
conceptualized as communication. He emphasized on language. As language
comprises
1. Word as basic unit
2. Rules or grammar
Unit of language is called word, which is also known as phoneme. There are certain
rules according to which phonemes are properly arranged. There is also possibility
that speaker may use script or may not use script. The job of structural linguist is to
discover according to which rules phonemes are arranged. He applied this idea to
society. Hence, we must find out what is the units or parts of society and according
to which rules units are arranged. Because of this, construction of social structure is
done on the model of languages.
51
Study of kinship terminology:
He used the model of language to study kinship terminology because they are
linguistic terms and can be analyzed with language-model. According to Strauss,
structural linguist is based on 4 basic operations.
1. In the study of language there is shift of attention from conscious to unconscious.

Since it is the product of mind.
2. Structural linguist does not consider linguistic term as isolated entity, rather a
relationship between two or more terms.
3. Language can be studied as system.
4. Social linguist is concerned with the discovery of general law. i.e. applicable to all
the societies as a whole.
There are 4 basic operations in the study of society like
1. Phoneme and kinterms also have element of meaning.
2. When they are integrated to a system then only they acquire a meaning.
3. Kinship system is built in the mind at the level of sub conscious thought.
4. All lead to conclude that the observable phenomenon result from action of law
which are generalized.
Although kinship terminology and language are different yet they are based upon
same general principle.
USING LINGUISTIC MODEL TO UNDERSTAND WHOLE SOCIETY:
Levi Strauss later emphasized entire culture and language because both are product
of human mind. Both have universal laws underlying them. Hence both of them have
similar status. According to Strauss there was a total anarchy and disorder once upon
a time. Hence, they wanted to live in peace that is the basic aim of every society. For
this, there should be a contact between human beings and for contact to work there
should be some exchanges, there are 3 basic principles of exchange.
1. Exchange of goods and services.
2. Exchange of ideas.
52
3. Exchange of women or men depending upon whether patrilineal or matrilineal

society came first.
In earlier society, there cannot be exchange of goods and services and ideas. Since
each part produced similar goods and services and had similar ideas only exchange
which could be conceptualized was exchange of women because society was
patrilineal.
Our groups is not procreating group. Women are transferred to other group and
woman from another group is received by our group. Thus, new groups are formed.
So 1st rule which came into existence in humanity was the rule of incest taboo. i.e.
prohibition of sexual relation between close relatives. E.g. father daughter, mother
son, sisters brothers etc. incest taboo gave rise to the emergence of society. That's
why Levi Strauss called incest taboo as pre- social laws. Kinship system is thus
founded on the principle of exchange of women; marriage is a kind of exchange and
alliance of give and take. The first principle in the emergence of kinship is as follows.
1. Restricted exchange:
This is an exchange of women found in societies having two groups only i.e.
Group - Group -
A B
Transfer of women
2. Generalized exchange:
This a kind of exchange of women found in societies with more than two groups.
There are two types of generalized exchange
Including continuous and discontinuous exchange:
Continuous Exchange:
Clan-A Clan-B Clan- C
53
The rule is women go from A> B> C > D and not from D to C and so on but from D to
A thus the cycle is completed in the same generation that is why the rule is called
continuous exchange.
Discontinuous exchange:
Phratry- 1
Gen: 1 Phratry-2 Phratry-3
Phratry-1 Phratry-3
Phratry- 2
Gen: 2
In generation 1, all groups are wife givers and in generation 2 all are wife receivers
therefore, the cycle is completed in two generations thus it is known as
discontinuous change.
Basic property of human mind is our groups and other groups different from our own
consist of wife givers, while ours is wife receiver group. All these dualities emerged
from human mind. This duality of self and others. Kinship study did illuminate the
idea of dualism of human mind. Thus, by knowing the human mind, social system can
be perceived.
HIS CONTRIBUTION TO TOTEMISM:
Totemism is the basis of social system in many societies. People distinguish us from
them. Starting from totem in simple society to the most complex society was studied
by him. In his work he showed the dualism of human mind. In his totem study he said
that structural method has 3 parts.
1. Anthropologists should study phenomenon out of that it should find out two or
more terms which are real or supposed.
2. Now we should per mutate between these terms and chart them in all the possible
manner.
3. Now we have to analyze the chart there by finding out structural study.
54
He said that in totem study the basic binary opposition is nature and culture. There
are 2 basic terms found out from the phenomenon of totemism i.e. nature and
culture; nature cab be further divided into particular nature and category. In culture
there are two possibilities. 1st is groups and 2nd one is individual. Now we should
conduct permutation among these 4
1. Particular relation with groups-A
2. Particular relation with individual- B
3. Category relation with group- C
4. Category relation with individual- D
Now we should construct a table c shows dualism:
A B C D
NATURE PARTICULAR PARTICULAR CATEGORY CATEGORY
CULTURE GROUP INDIVIDUAL GROUP INDIVIDUAL
The most common type is relation between group and category, while least common
type is relation between particular and groups. E.g. Type C Among Australian tribes
there is relation between natural category among animals and a cultural groups;
Type D North American individual totemism, in which an individual seen to identify
himself with some natural category, Type B totemism in Mota in which a child is
believed to be the incarnation of an animal/plants discovered and consumed by
mother at the time she became aware of her as an expected mother, Type A Natures
species being accorded protection by a social group as among Maoris (New Zealand).
These works of totemism pointed out following.
1. How structural method to be used.
2. Basic operation is between nature and culture.
55
Thus, through totemism, he said that structural study or part of society is groups and
these are arranged by the rules of totemism. All these were carried further by
Strauss for the study of mythology.
STUDY OF MYTHOLOGY
He studied mythology with the help of data collected by BOAS and his students. In
addition, he also collected his own data. He said that myth is something which
happened in the past having chronology. The myth cannot be equated with history. It
is an event of what people thought once upon a time. If the same myth is collected
from different people there will be some kind of variation. Hence Levi Strauss said
that we should not be disturbed by the variables. It shows that imagination is
modified. He emphasized on study of social structure through myth. We should do
interpretation of same myth through variety of individuals comparing different
versions of the same myth and arrive at the common conclusion to all these different
versions of the same myth. Once you have arrived at what is common. We should
devise smaller units like in case of language it is phoneme. In case of myth these are
called my themes. In myth of Oedipus complex, Oedipus killed father and married
mother. These are my theme all these my themes must be arranged in a table. When
these my themes having same idea, can be grouped. E.g. my themes concerned with
killing should be grouped differently from that those of marriage. We can understand
them in terms of having opposition like killing is opposed to life. Whereas, marriage
can be opposed to death. This is the very basic idea regarding the study of myth in
order to find social structure. It has following 3 points
1. Meaning of myth lies not in isolated manner but only in the way elements are
combined.
2. Myths belong to the same category as language as but far more complex than
language.
3. Then myth is a bundle of social relation. We can understand them, what they are?
When we analysis them in the context of society. Now Levi Strauss came to conclude
about basic premises in human society. This is duality of mind i.e., nature and
culture. From this duality one can find out parts.
EVALUATION/CRITICISM:
British anthropologists were highly impressed with Strauss. They preferred structural
method but they are different from Levi-Strauss in terms of level of generalization.
Levi Strauss believed that aim of structuralism is to find universal proposition of
56
human mind. British anthropologist said that it is really an ambitious plan but we
won't be able to reach the universal law. Consequently, structuralism can be applied
mainly for the understanding of the particular society. As a result, Leach and Douglas
used structuralism at a local level.
Further he was criticized, since he did not talk of social change so structuralism
started losing its hold in anthropology and some other particular approach came up
e.g. Applied and action anthropology. They are concerned with knowing about study
of particular society so that change can be made. It does not mean that structuralism
is total redundant. It is useful for the study of mind and limited generalization. It also
influenced literature as literature is also product of mind. So, approach is there but
other approaches came into existence which are more particular.
EDMUND LEACH:
He collected raw data of social experience. He made a model out of the data in order
to know the study of the society. According to this model social study is a mental
construction that is idea or abstract. It has only use in the analysis of the society. It is
not a theory. He did not make a distinction between observation and
experimentation and conscious and unconscious as done by Levi-Strauss. However,
he was quite persuaded by social and statistical norm. Statistical norms are based on
the actual behavior of the people whereas mechanical social norms is based upon
what people say e.g. Don't lie is a social norm, whereas people lie is a statistical.
For leach both are analytical important. However, they should be treated in a
separate form of reference. Leach said that social anthropology is not interested in
what people say but in what people do one should begin with statistical norms e.g.
jural rule are qualitative rule of behavior which are supported by coercive power.
Statistical norms are only statistical average of individual behavior and he collected
data on the basis of statistical norms and out of this he made a model.
EVALUATION OF LEACH:
In the world of anthropology Leach is regarded as one who started structural study
as a model but he was concerned with a particular society whereas Levi-Strauss was
concerned with entire human society.
CONCLUSION:
To sum up social study has no consequence but there is no dispute on the view that
it is an ordered arrangement of pasts. They Levi-Strauss was criticized on various
57
aspects of his theory of social study yet he introduced the idea of structural aspect of
society in anthropology. More over the idea is helpful for socio economic
development.
CULTURAL MATERIALISM
By MARVIN HARRIS
Cultural materialism is a reaction against cultural relativism, idealism and

structuralism. Marvin Harris argued that these approaches remove culture from its
material space and place it solely within the minds of its people. Harris believes that
idealist and relativist failed at being holistic by only looking at the emic side of the
society, whereas cultural materialism presents an etic approach to society. The result
is a more holistic approach which is a principle tenet of anthropological research.
BASIC PREMISES:
1. To create a pan human science of society whose findings can be accepted on

logical and evidentiary grounds by the pan human community.
2. To study socio-cultural system within a materialism infrastructure, structure and

superstructure on the basis of change in material culture.
Good example of cultural materialism involves the SACRED COWS OF INDIA. In the
Hindu religion cows are considered sacred and must not be killed. Harris decided to
study this phenomenon by using his cultural materialism model. First, Harris argued
that taboos of cow slaughter (Emic point of view) was super structure, resulting from
the economic need to utilize cow as drought animals, rather than as food. He also
observed that Indian farmers claim that no cows died because cows are sacred. But
in reality, however, male cows are allowed to death when food supplies are low.
Harris argued that ideological belief of the farmers had to change because of scarcity
of food. Thus, change in infrastructure brings about change in super-structure. He
also shown that how by using empirical method and etic perspective is essential in
order to understand cultural change holistically. Maxine Margolis studied the
phenomenon using empirical using empirical evidence and her findings are
interpreted more classical cultural materialistic mode. In 1950s was the time when
ideology held that the duty of women should be located solely within the home
58
(emic theory) in the USA. However, empirically Margolis found that women entered
into the workforce in large number (working outside which was actual behavior- Etic
thought 1984). This movement was an economic necessity that increase the
productive and reproductive of its household. Thus, here we see how the
superstructure is determined by the infrastructure.
METHODOLOGY:
Cultural materialism focuses only on those entities and events, that are observable
and quantifiable. In helping with the scientific method, these events and entities
must be studied using operations that are capable of being replicated. In using these
empirical methods, the goal is to reduce cultural phenomenon into observable,
measurable variables that can be applied across societies to formulate theories.
ACCOMPLISHMENT: As follows-
1. Cultural materialism can be credited with making a challenge to anthropology to

be more scientific, rather than relying solely on native explanation of phenomenon.
Harris and other urged analysis to search deeper and empirical methods. A good
example of cultural materialist approach to culture can be found in William Rathjens
Garbage project (1992). Rathjen excavated modern landfills in Arizona and other
states. Taking careful measurements of artifact frequencies, he wanted these data to
test the difference between stated Alcohol consumption of information and actual
consumption of informants. In order to do this Rathjen selected a sample of house
hold from which he collected and analyzed the refuse. He also gave those
households a questionnaire that asked questions relating to actual consumption.
After analyzing what people said they drank and what was actually found in the
refuse. Rathjen found a significant discrepancy between stated and actual alcohol
consumption. This case study shows the importance of an ETIC approach.
2. Culture change can be studied in terms of place and time to get so called universal
theories.
CRITICISMS: Criticism of culture materialism is plentiful in anthropology which are as

follows.
1. BY MARXIST: Cultural materialism has been said to be vulgar materialism by

Marists such as J. Friedman, because cultural materialist empirical approach to
cultural change is too simple and straight forward. Marxist believed that cultural
materialist relies too heavily on the unidirectional infrastructure superstructure to
59
explain cultural change. However, cultural materialist did not and could not visualize
the change in reverse direction from superstructure to infrastructure.
2. BY STRUCTURALISTS: For example, Durkheim argued that the key to

understanding cultural change lies in the EMIC thought. Thus, they argue that there
is no need of an emic-etic distinction.
3. BY POST MODERNISTS: Also argue vehemently against cultural materialism

because of its use of strict scientific method. Post modernists believed that science is
itself culturally determined phenomenon that is affected by class, race, and structure
infrastructure variable. In fact, some post modernists believe that science is a tool
used by upper classes to oppress and dominate lower classes. Thus, post- modernist
argue that use of any science is useless in studying culture should be studied using
particularism and relativism.
MARVIN HARRIS legacy is very well established in spite of his critiques, he

accomplished at the task of creating an anthropological theory and disseminating it
to both students and public. Moreover, he had shown another process of cultural
change other than the idea of cultural change other through the idea of evolution
and diffusion of society and culture.
SYMBOLISM AND INTERPRETIVE THEORY
Symbolic anthropology or symbolism has emerged in America as a reaction against

structuralism, materialism and Marxism. This school is interested in knowing what
culture actually is by studying symbols of human societies. Most important scholars
belonging to this school were Geertz, Turner and Schneider. Through this school has
contributed to the understanding of culture in many ways yet it is criticized.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF SYMBOLISM:
Symbolism was emerged as a reaction to structuralism, advocated by Levi Strauss. He

used symbol such as language but did not emphasize on from symbolic perspective.
Besides, symbolic anthropology is also a reaction against materialism which regarded
culture as overt and believed that techno environment factors are primary and
casual. Whereas, symbolism view culture in terms of symbols and mental terms as
against Marxism it is based upon western assumption of material and economic
needs which cannot be applied to no western society.
PREMISES OF SYMBOLISM:
60
Edmund Leach made a distinction between sign and symbol. Sign refers to empirical
connection with two entities. E.g. Fire and smoke while symbol is an arbitrary
connection between two things. E.g. Cemetery symbolizes death. According to Lesly
white man is a symbolic animal i.e. man creates symbol to which he assigns some
meaning which is understood in the context. There are two major premises
governing symbolic anthropology as follows:
1. Beliefs however unintelligible become comprehensible. When understood as a

part of a cultural system of meaning.
2. Actions are guided by interpretation through ideals as well as material activities.
3. Studying all symbols of a society in an integrated manner to comprehend culture

of that society.
INDIVIDUAL SCHOLARS:
GEERTZ: He explained symbolism in his essay "the interpretation of culture". For him
symbols are vehicle of culture. Meaning of culture is expressed by the external
symbols that a society uses. His main interest was in how symbol that people see,
feel and think about the world.
VICTOR W TURNER: Initially he was influenced by structural functionalism. But after

the study of NDEMBU in Africa, he shifted focus to ritual symbols. According to him,
symbol instigate social action and exert determinable influences to persons and
groups to action. Turner felt that these operators produce social transformation. This
social transformation ties the people in a society to social norms, to resolve conflict
and aid in changing the status of actors.
DAVID M. SCHNEIDER: He defined culture as a system of symbols and their meaning.

This system can be broken into categories. According to him a category can be made
on observable acts or can be created through inference. Schneider was interested in
the connection between the cultural symbols and meaning that governs the society.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF SYMBOLISM: as follows
1. It turns anthropology towards issues of culture and interpretation than grand

theories.
2. Applied anthropology turn to source outside the bounds of traditional

anthropology such as philosophy and sociology.
3. Studying culture from the perspective of cultural bearers i.e. emic point of view.
61
CRITICISM: as given below
1. Most notably came from Marxist. According to Marxist symbolic anthropology

does not attempt to explain system of symbolism instead focusing too much on
individual symbols.
2. Another attack came from cultural ecology. According to them symbolic

anthropology did not attempt to carry out their research in a manner so that other
researchers could practice their research. Since different anthropologist could view
the same symbol in different ways so it was too subjective in nature.
Thus, symbolism has given a new dimension to the systematic study of culture in a
holistic manner. While other schools have studied culture in terms of change, study
and functioning. But symbolic anthropology emphasized on the meaning of culture.
COGNITIVE ANTHROPOLOGY
Cognitive anthropology emerged in USA and is the study of the relationship between
human society and human thought. The anthropologist study how people in social
groups conceive and think world including everything from a physical object to
abstract concept like social justice. This school is also not beyond criticism.
It was developed in the US around 1950s and was concerned with two issues. Firstly,
observer model, meaning reality as described by the observer i.e. etic approach,
secondly, reality as it is understood by the actor i.e. emic approach. A part from this,
cognitive approach roots can be traced to Edward Sapir. According to him cultures
are abstraction of ideas and behavior patterns have different meaning for different
individuals. Moreover, he which may made a distinction between perception and
cognition. Perception means looking, seeing, whereas cognition refers to attribution
meaning to things and this meaning is collectively shared.
PREMISES:
Cognitive approach is closely linked to psychology. It means it is the study of how

particular groups and categories reason about the basic nature of cognitive process,
no right to impose our own categories or reasons on other's ideas.
METHODOLOGY:
The object of the study is not the material phenomenon themselves but the way they
are organized in the minds of the people. Hence cultures are not material
62
phenomena. They are organization of material phenomenon in the human mind how
the members of a culture see and understand the world around them.
At the methodological level, lot of importance is given to language. Cognitive

anthropologists say that people organize and communicate their ideas, using
language. The meaning of words, text, narration, discourse and behaviors are of
utmost importance.
CRITICISM: Cognitive anthropologists were criticized since its analysis does not apply
to nonverbal behavior. Moreover, cognitive anthropology can hardly reach at
generalization.
Thus, cognitive anthropology is concerned with emic interpretation of realities or

insider's view, secondly to understand how meaning is acquired by people (i.e.
learning process)
POST MODERNISM IN ANTHROPOLOGY

Post Modernism emerged as a theoretical perspective in anthropology. Due to
subjectivity of interpretation of different culture. Consequently, they have developed
methodology in order to reduce subjectivity in the study of culture. They do not
assume that their way of conceptualizing culture is the only way.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDS:
Since 1970s many of the assumptions of 20th field works and ethnography have
become the subject of items in the debate in anthropology. James Clifford, Stephens,
A. Tyler, Renato Rosaldo, Michael Foucault etc. became staunch critic of subjectivity
in the study of culture in anthropology. Foucault argued that those in political power
were able to shape the way accepted truth were defined, in modern age truth is
controlled by western political and intellectual elites. Science then is not only a way
of understanding the world, it is rather a way of controlling and dominating the
world.
PREMISES:
63
According to post modernism it is impossible for anyone to have objective and

neutral knowledge of any culture, because we all interpret the world around us in
our own way. Own language, cultural background and personal experience owing to
this aspect of human nature anthropologist can never be unbiased observers of
other cultures. Post-modernist is sensitive to this limitation. The post-modernist
believes that anthropological is influenced by political and social context within
which they are written. They claim that acceptance of an interpretation is ultimately
an issue of power and wealth. In other words, we tend to legitimize particular
statement represented by these with political and economic advantage. In other
words, to heighten sensitivity towards those who are not part of mainstream culture,
the post-modernist often promotes viewpoints such as those of ethnic minority,
women and others through their works.
METHODOLOGY:
Rather than writing conventional anthropologist report, anthropology should focus

on the process of doing field work with relativistism. They value the process of
understanding other culture and often write about their filed work experiences.
Their reflexivity includes the analysis of their own cultures which is necessary to
understand other culture. Post-modernist does not assume that there are absolutely
objective ways of analysis. They claim that anthropologist should consider local
context of their fields and give legitimacy to explanation by the people.
Vincent Crapanzano has focused on the method of deconstruction. It reveals

reconstruction and hidden bases that authors have for justifying their authority.
Deconstruction does not resolve inconsistency but rather reveal underlying
hierarchies involved in conveying information. Deconstruction forced anthropologist
to become sensitive to their unconscious assumption and authorities.
CRITICISM:
Some anthropologist claim that the post-modernists rely on a particular moral model
rather than scientific methods and empirical data. This moral model is structured by
those who do not passes the sane privilege that the mainstream has in the western
societies. The post modernism can undermine the legitimacy of anthropology by
introduction this political. Another typical criticize on post modernism comes from
the fear of extremely relativistic view. Such critics says that post modernism will lead
to nihilism, because it does not assume a common ground of understanding. Some
opponent claim that post modernism will undermine universal rights and will even
justify dictatorship.
64
CONCLUSION:
Thus, anthropologist realized that their knowledge of others is possibly subjective

and imperfect. But it does not mean it is impossible to study human and their culture
scientifically.
65

Unit 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAPIENS IAS

ADDRESS: 17A/44,3rd FLOOR, W.E.A. KAROL BAGH NEW DELHI – 05

EVOLUTION AND EVOLUTIONISM:

Evolution can be defined as a gradual progress of change from simple to complex,

Evolutionism is intimately related to the emergence of anthropology. The root of

Darwinism theory "Origin of Species" by natural selection in 1859 was a major

BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION OF SOCIETY AND CULTURE:

1. Evolution is a gradual process of change and not sudden change.

2. Evolution is a ceaseless and ubiquitous process.

3. The idea of evolution can be applied to the entire society or an institution or a

APPROACHES OF CLASSICAL EVOLUTIONIST:

2. Contemporary Tribal Society of that time were considered to be the

3. Different stages or sequence of evolution could be established by speculating

4. UNILINEAL EVOLUTION: is similarities in the sequence of evolution which is

5. Cultural diversities do not occupy significant stand in unilineal evolutionary

6. Using secondary data: classical evolutionist gave theory based on secondary

8. Conjecturalism: They could not provide scientific evidences in the favor of

They equated evolution with progress.

INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS AND SCHOLARS

L.H Morgan of American School:

BRIEF LIFE HISTORY:

MORGAN'S CONTRIBUTION TO EVOLUTIONARY STUDIES:

EVOLUTION OF KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY:

Classificatory terminology Descriptive terminology

Malayan terminology North American Indian terminology

Classificatory kinship terminology:

Malayan kinship terminology:

North American Indian kinship terminology:

Descriptive kinship terminology:

He was basically interested in evolutionary placement of kinship terminology and

NORTH AMERICAN Indian TYPE

EVOLUTION OF ENTIRE SOCIETY:

He further elaborated this classification in the following way:

SAVAGERY: FOOD GATHERING AND HUNTING SOCIETIES;

MIDDLE SAVAGERY: Discovery of fire, fish subsistence e.g. - Australian Aborigines.

MIDDLE BARBARISM - Domestication of animals and cultivation of maize by

UPPER BARBARISM – Iron tools e.g. Allometric Greek of Caesar time.

CIVILIZATION: Script, Metallurgy, emergence of town and city becomes cradle of

He was an evolutionist and consequently gave the sequence of evolution of human

SAVAGERY > BARBARISM > CIVILIZATION

EVOLUTION OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY: - As Follows

PROMISCUITY CONSANGUNOUS MARRIAGE PUNALUAN

PATRIARCHAL MARRIAGE SYNDASMIAN MARRIAGE

EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL ORGANISATION:

He made a distinction between SOCIETUS and CIVITUS. According to him, Civitus is

E.B. Tylor of British School

Therefore, they performed 2 funerals; one followed by another. First funerals

OTHER THAN EVOLUTIONARY CONTRIBUTIONS BY TYLOR

DEFINITION OF CULTURE: E.B Tylor is remembered not because of theory of

By saying so, he completely ruled out genetic transmission of culture. Thereby he

USE OF STATISTICS IN ANTHROPOLOGY:

LINKING HAPPINESS WITH MONTESQUES 3 STAGES CLASSIFICATION:

Tylor accepted Montesquieu 3 stages classification of society as well as he was the

Sir JAMES FRAZER of British School

FEW CLASSICAL EVOLUTIONISTS (FOR INTERVIEW PURPOSES)

2. JOHN MCLENAN - Supported the theory of evolution of marriage by Morgan.

4. KARL MARX & ANGEL- Development Morgan’s idea of evolution of family,

CRITICISM AGAINST CLASSICAL EVOLUTIONISM:

1. Lack of proper data or adequate data.

2. Ignorance of other process of social changes e.g. diffusion of culture.

3. Including in Conjecturalism about origin and stages of evolution of society and

CRITICISM BY E. WESTERMARK: He conducted a comparative study of marriage