Architects and Society Lec6

Architects
& Society
LECTURE 6
Course Tutors:
Prof. Vijay Burathoki
Asst. Prof. Sankalp Pokhrel
Prepared by:
Asst. Prof. Sankalp Pokhrel
Evolu&onism
In general, the term evolu0on represents the process of gradual development. This is the
process through which simple things, over the &me, become complex. The English naturalist
Charles Darwin, in his extraordinary classic 0tled ‘On the Origin of Species’ depicted the evolu0on
of the biological organisms exis0ng in the world. This work was published in 1859. This landmark
work immensely influenced the then scien0fic community of that 0me.
The protagonist, Darwin is mainly considered as a naturalist. Herbert Spencer is more renowned
as a sociologist. The two evolu0onists who were regarded as anthropologists are the Bri0sh
anthropologist E. B. Tylor and the American anthropologist L. H. Morgan. They are considered as
the founders of the nineteenth century evolu0onism.
E. B. Tylor’s famous contribu0on 0tled ‘Primi0ve Culture’ was published in 1871. He got
influenced by the revolu0onary philosophical development of the nineteenth century. He was
influenced by the works of Charles Darwin also. Tylor gave an innova0ve all-‐embracing defini0on
of culture:
“Culture, or civiliza<on, taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which
includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabili<es and habits
acquired by man as a member of the society”.
Tylor proposed the idea of unilineal evolu@on. According to him, a society’s evolu@on is
unidirec@onal and it passes through three different stages one aCer another: the savagery, the
barbarism and the civiliza&on. According to Scupin and DeCorse (2012; 281):
Tylor also proposed an evolu@onary theory of the origin of religion. He defined religion as the
belief in spiritual beings. Langness (1974) commented that Tylor has shown the different stages
of evolu0on of religion. From a state of non-‐religious condi@on, it moves towards the belief in
souls and phantoms. Then people started to believe in ghosts-‐souls. AZer that they set their
beliefs on the spirits. Then they started to believe in individual’s guardian spirits and species
dei0es. AZer that the idea of polytheism came. The last stage in the evolu0on of religion,
according to Tylor, is the belief in the supreme deity (Langness, 1974; 27).
Prepared by: Asst. Prof. Sankalp Pokhrel

Neo -‐ Evolu&onism
ACer the Second World War, the highly cri@cized issue of evolu@onism again got a
momentum by some new anthropologists. This school of thought is termed as neo-‐
evolu<onism. The main theorist in neo-‐evolu&onism was Leslie White. He tried to
highlight the factors like energy use and technology as the main causes of cultural
evolu&on and change. According to him, the cultural change depends on the per
capita use of energy in a year. If this per capita energy use increases, change
happens.
For example, in the hunter and gatherers society, people only used human energy and
could not use any other energy.
In the agricultural society, people could use their own energy plus the energy of
animals and plants. As a result, cultural change happened.
In the modern industrialized socie0es, people are using diverse sources of energy. As a
result, there was a huge transforma0on in culture. The more complex the use of
technology, the more complex becomes the cultural development.
It is to be men<oned here that Leslie White did not men<on about any par<cular
case or culture when describing this evolu<on. That is why this view is not
ethnocentric and can be associated with the society in general. That is why, some
oIen call this theory in the name of ‘general evolu<on’.
Another important theore0cal development was termed as the ‘cultural ecology’. It is
also called as ecological anthropology. Its main proponent was Julian Steward.
Neo -‐ Evolu&onism
Steward classified evolu&onism suggested by different scholars at different &mes
into three categories. The first one is the unilineal evolu@on that is suggested by Tylor
and Morgan. The second one is the neo-‐evolu<onism suggested by Leslie White.
Steward termed it as universal evolu@on as Leslie White, in his theory, did not focus on
any par0cular/individual culture and used the term culture in a broad sense (Ember,
Ember and Peregrine, 2011; 22). According to Ember, Ember and Peregrine (2011; 22),
Steward ‘classified himself as a mul<lineal evolu<onist: one who deals with the
evolu<on of par<cular cultures and only with demonstrated sequences of parallel
culture change in different areas’.
Steward men0oned that ‘a social system is determined by its environmental
resources’ (Mahmud, 2008; 83). According to Mahmud (2008; 83), the main idea of
cultural ecology is ‘to determine whether cultural adapta@on toward the natural
environment ini@ate social transforma@ons of evolu@onary change’. Steward
emphasized the ‘interrela&on among the natural condi&ons in the environment –
rainfall, temperature, soils – and technology, social organiza&on, and aFtudes
within a par&cular sociocultural system’ (Scupin and DeCorse, 2012; 286-‐287).

Diffusionism
Haviland, Prins, Walrath and McBride (2011; 579) defined diffusion as ‘the spread of
certain ideas, customs, or prac<ces from one culture to another’. Diffusionism as an
anthropological school of thought started growing in the late nineteenth and the early
twen0eth centuries (Ember, Ember and Peregrine, 2011; 20). Among the diffusionists,
there are mainly two different schools: the Bri0sh school and the German school.
The Bri0sh diffusionists like G. E. Smith and W. J. Perry were experts in Egyptology and
they proposed that every aspect of the civiliza0on (from technology to religion)
actually originated from Egypt and later it got spread in the other parts of the world
(Ember, Ember and Peregrine, 2011 : Scupin and DeCorse, 2012). According to Ember,
Ember and Peregrine (2011; 20):
“People, they believed, are inherently uninven&ve and invariably prefer to borrow
the inven&ons of another culture rather than develop ideas for themselves”.
In their effort to clarify the fact that why some cultures do not possess any sign of the
Egyp0an culture, they said that ‘some cultures have simply become
degenerate’ (Scupin and DeCorse, 2012; 20). The ideas of Smith and Perry are no
longer considered as valid. This view was also ethnocentric as they treated Egypt as the
origin of every culture.

Diffusionism
One of the most prominent scholars of German diffusionism was Father Wilhelm
Schmidt. Just like the Bri0sh diffusionists, the German diffusionists also believed
that men are in general uninven0ve and try to borrow from the other cultures.
But the German diffusionists did not believe that there is only one origin of
culture (like Egypt). They believed that there used to be several cultural centers
and cultural diffusion occurred from these different cultural circles. This
German view of diffusionism is also known as Kulturkreise which means cultural
circles.
Like the other schools of thoughts, the diffusionists also faced a lot of cri0cisms.
Firstly, it could not come out of the ethnocentric ideology that some cultures are
beOer than the others. Thus, again, the inherent inferiority of the non-‐Western
people got highlighted by them (Scupin and DeCorse, 2012; 283). Secondly, they
could not give any convincing explana@on of the fact why some cultures do not
show any sign of the culture origins (like Egypt). Thirdly, though they take
diffusion as an inevitable process, anthropologists found that ‘socie@es can
adjoin one another without exchanging cultural traits’ (Scupin and DeCorse,
2012; 284).

Functionalism
The func0onalist school had huge influence on the disciplines like sociology and
anthropology. Ember, Ember and Peregrine (2011; 21) men0oned that func0onalism ‘looks
for the part (func<on) that some aspects of culture or social life plays in maintaining a
cultural system’. The base of func@onalist theories was the organic theories. By comparing
the society with the biological organisms it was said that just like a living body, the
society also has different parts that are interrelated and each of these parts has some
specific func&ons to be performed. Langness (1974; 87) men0oned that:
“In somewhat simpler terms: just as an individual human being cons&tute a finite system
with a dis&nc&ve structure-‐ each organ performing a par&cular ac&vity, the func&on of
which is to contribute to the maintenance of a system as a whole .... so a human society
cons&tutes a similar system with its dis&nc&ve structure and func&ons”.
In case of the society, these body parts are the several ins0tu0ons that perform several
func0ons. According to Mclntyre (2002; 106), social ins0tu0ons represent a ‘set of ideas
about the way a specific important social need ought to be addressed’. The pioneers of
sociology like Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim were the main proponents
of the structural func0onalist school. In anthropology, the main scholars of this school are A
R Radcliffe-‐Brown and Bronislaw Malinowski. Both of them are regarded as the leading
ethnographic researchers of all 0me.
The func&onalist scholars were always cri&cized because of their lack of aTen&on
towards change and historical processes. Their too much emphasis on structure, harmony
and stability ignores the need for change in the society.

Structuralism
Another influen0al school in anthropology is the structuralist school. According to
Klages (2006; 31), structuralism is ‘a way of thinking that works to find the
fundamental basic units or elements of which anything is made’. Barry (1995; 39)
men0ons that:
“...its essence is the belief that things cannot be understood in isola<on – they have
to be seen in the larger context of the larger structures they are part of (hence the
term ‘structuralism’)”.
In anthropology, the main scholar of structuralism is the famous French
anthropologist Claude Lévi-‐Strauss. He studied on kinship. He suggested that if
anyone tries to understand kinship, it cannot be understood by studying a single-‐unit
family consis0ng of father, mother and their children. Rather, this single-‐unit family is a
unit of a larger kinship system which is generally considered as secondary. Other than
the kins like father, mother, son and daughter, there are other kins like grandfather,
grandmother, uncles, aunts, cousins, nephew, niece and others. Kinship is to be
analyzed in the context of this greater structure. Kinship can only be understood when
it will be treated as a part of the larger whole.
“The existence of structural similari@es among seemingly different myths of different
cultures was one of Levi-‐Strauss’s par@cular areas of interest”. He analyzed the
common features/themes of the different versions of the myths and classified them in
groups. He named these bundles as ‘mythems’.

Structuralism
From these, he found that human mind fundamentally thinks through binary
opposi<ons. Hegel’s prominent issues of thesis, an0thesis and synthesis are present
here. He found that myths deal with the binary opposi0ons, i.e., thesis and an0thesis
and finally looks for reconcilia0on through synthesis.
According to him, the structure of savage mind was similar to the civilized mind. He
was interested in the universal model of mind and looked for this universal structure
for everything. Thus, his thinking was ‘synchronic’ in nature rather than ‘diachronic’.
Lévi-‐Strauss was cri@cized because of focusing on human mind only. According to many
scholars, his theories are difficult to understand. Specially, the postmodernists do not
believe in this universality.

Post-Modernism in Anthropology
On the other hand another philosophical and sociological trend that had huge effect
on the anthropological theories is postmodernism. Postmodernism, oIen referred to
as the ‘linguis<c turn’ in the field of philosophy and social sciences, mainly
concentrates on language and power (McGee and Warms, 2012; 489):
“...the postmodernists held that languages were systems of signs and symbols that
took their meaning from rela@onships with one another rather than rela@onship with
the empirical world. The empirical world itself is ineffable, beyond our direct
understanding”.
According to Mahmud (2008; 88), ‘postmodernists ques<on the validity of external
imposed order as well as linear analysis’. By taking an an@-‐posi@vist approach, the
postmodernists disagree with the ul@mate faith on science. They believe on
individuality and diversity and thus maintain that truth is not universal. Truth is
created. Scupin and DeCorse (2012; 293) commented that:
“...the postmodernists complain that the ethnographers assume they have a
thoroughly scien<fic and objec<ve view of reality, whereas the na<ve view is highly
subjec<ve, based on tradi<onal worldview and cosmology”.
One of the famous contributors of symbolic anthropology is Clifford Geertz who tried
to establish ‘culture as an organized collec0on of symbolic systems’ and said that
‘symbols were means of transmihng meanings’ (McGee and Warms, 2012; 438).

Post-Modernism in Anthropology
Clifford Geertz highlighted the issue of interpre0vism. He conducted his fieldwork in
Java, Bali and Morocco. In his classic, 0tled ‘Works and Lives’ published in 1988, by
examining the works of the great anthropologists like Evans-‐Pritchard, Malinowski,
Levi-‐Strauss and Ruth Benedict, Geertz, like the postmodernists,argued that
anthropology is just a kind wri0ng. According to Barnard (2000; 165):
“This is a major postmodernist challenge to the discipline, and one which is
commonplace in the work of both American and French writers.”
From these discussions it can be understood that postmodernists mainly highlighted
the methodological issues related to anthropological research. That is why, these
days, in many cases, anthropologists are asked to conduct ‘collabora<ve fieldwork,
with teams of ethnographers and informants working together to understand a
society’ (Scupin and DeCorse, 2012; 293).

Phenomenology
Phenomenologists generally stress that social reality should not be conceived as a fixed
and objec<ve external reality. Rather, social reality is essen0ally a product of human
ac0vity. Inter alia through processes of ‘typifica0on’, we ‘cons0tute’ a meaningful social
world around us. This is obviously not the achievement of isolated individuals ac0ng alone;
most of our typical assump0ons, expecta0ons and prescrip0ons, indeed, are socially
derived. However, phenomenological sociologists insist that we must not downplay the
role of individual subjec<vi<es. Social reality cannot be reduced to rela0ons between
individual subjects; yet without the lajer – that is, without intersubjec@vity – there is
ul0mately no social reality. Phenomenology con<nues to be of relevance to the sociology
of everyday life and has the resources to respond to the cri<cisms typically directed
against it.
Not only because sociality is a central theme in phenomenology, but also because
phenomenologists consistently emphasize the importance of examining the world,
including social reality, just as we experience it in everyday life. Or, as many
phenomenologists prefer to put it, phenomenology must examine the ‘life-‐world’.
The influence of phenomenology, however, extends beyond philosophy. Philosophical
phenomenology offers general ideas of relevance to the social sciences (anthropology,
economy, law, poli0cal science, and so on). But in addi&on to this, there are
phenomenological tradi&ons in psychology and psychiatry, and, more relevant in the
present context, there is a dis&nct phenomenological approach to sociology, which was
developed by Alfred Schutz (1899-‐1959) and his students. Schutz’s main inspira&on was
drawn from Husserl’s later thoughts on intersubjec&vity and the life-‐world. In the next
sec&ons, we will briefly sketch these ideas.
Phenomenology and Intersubjec<vity
Phenomenology insists on understanding sociality in its most fundamental form as
intersubjec&vity (see Zahavi 2001a). It only makes sense to speak of intersubjec<vity
if there is a (possible) plurality of subjects, and intersubjec<vity can therefore
neither precede nor be the founda<on of the individuality and dis<nctness of the
various subjects. Thus, one cannot invoke the no0on of inter-‐subjec0vity without
commihng oneself to some form of philosophy of subjec0vity. Yet, on the other hand,
Husserl maintains that a sufficiently radical and thorough phenomenological reflec0on
not only leads us to subjec0vity, but also to intersubjec0vity (Husserl 1962:344).
Life World
As part of their ongoing concern with the rela0on between science and experience,
phenomenologists have oZen emphasized the importance of the ‘life-‐world’. The life-‐
world is the world we ordinarily take for granted, the pre-‐scien<fic, experien<ally
given world that we are familiar with and never call into ques<on. The life-‐world
needs rehabilita0ng because, although it is the historical and systema0c sense-‐
founda0on for science, the lajer has forgojen or ignored the life-‐world.
Phenomenology, however, rejects the idea that natural science is the sole judge of
what is real and what is not, and that all concepts that we wish to take seriously
must be reducible to concepts of the exact sciences. According to phenomenology,
the exact sciences do not describe a world that is different from the ordinary world.
Rather, they simply employ new methods to describe and explain the world we already
know and thereby enable us to obtain more precise knowledge about it.
For the phenomenologists, science is not simply a collec<on of systema<cally
related, well-‐established proposi<ons. Rather, science is something that people do;
it is a par<cular – markedly theore<cal – way of rela<ng to the world.
A more independent interest in the phenomenology of the life-‐world – in par0cular its
social structure – is found, above all, in Alfred Schutz and his successors within
phenomenological sociology.
Among the key figures in phenomenological sociology are Alfred Schutz (1899-‐1959),
author of the works The Phenomenology of the Social World (1932/1972), Collected
Papers I-‐III (1962-‐1966), and The Structures of the Life-‐World, co-‐authored by Thomas
Luckmann and published in 1973.
Alfred Schutz is oIen referred to as the founder of phenomenological sociology.
According to Schutz, science and research, too, take place within a dis<nct province
of meaning. One region has a special status, however, and that is the life-‐world. This
is not only because it is the region in which we spend most of our lives. Equally
important is the fact that each of the other regions, or limited ‘reali<es’, is a
modifica<on of the life-‐world.

Schutz’s concrete contribu0on here is twofold. First, he aims to describe and analyze
the essen@al structures of the life-‐world. Second, he offers an account of the way in
which subjec@vity is involved in the construc@on of social meaning, social ac@ons and
situa@ons – indeed social ‘worlds’. Relying on Husserl’s analyses of inten0onality and
the life-‐world, Schutz accordingly claims that the social world reveals and manifests
itself in various inten<onal experiences. Its meaningfulness is cons0tuted by subjects,
and in order to understand and scien0fically address the social world it is therefore
necessary to examine the social agents for whom it exists as such.
Some of the crucial features of phenomenological everyday life sociology.
First, all phenomenologists share an insistence on descrip0on and a resistance to-‐
ward theore0cal specula0on.
Second important feature of phenomenological sociology is its emphasis on the need
to take everyday life seriously. The ‘naturally ajuned’, prac0cally oriented common-‐
sense person and her experienced life-‐world is the primary object of sociology.
Thirdly, phenomenology maintains that an examina0on of sociality and social reality
has to take subjec0vity into account. Human subjec0vity is not merely moulded and
determined by social forces. In interac0on with others, subjec0vity also shapes social
reality.

Conclusion
Though anthropology as a discipline started with the works of the armchair
anthropologists, over the years it has developed its unique all-‐embracing research
methodology called ethnography which is extensive and rigorous in nature.
Anthropologists of the different parts of the world have shown keen interest in
studying different islanders and tribes. They studied diverse topics like social
ins@tu@on, gender, race, social and cultural change, economy, poli@cs, religion, kinship,
myths etc.
In this way, the scope of anthropology was broadened over &me. Anthropologists
were also influenced by the philosophical developments of their &mes. Thus they
were influenced by evolu&onism, structural-‐func&onalism, structuralism, post-‐
structuralism, and postmodernism. The ethnographic methodologies have also
undergone different changes. From the tradi@on of short field trips by Boas,
anthropologists started to conduct extensive prolonged field studies. From a one-‐
person observer method, postmodernists suggested for mul@ple observer methods.
Each of these changes created new controversies and opened new avenues and
dimensions for anthropological research.

THANK YOU

Architects and Society Lec6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Architects and Society Lec6

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Architects and Society Lec6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Architects

Prepared by: Asst. Prof. Sankalp Pokhrel

Prepared by: Asst. Prof. Sankalp Pokhrel

Prepared by: Asst. Prof. Sankalp Pokhrel

Prepared by: Asst. Prof. Sankalp Pokhrel

Prepared by: Asst. Prof. Sankalp Pokhrel

Prepared by: Asst. Prof. Sankalp Pokhrel

Prepared by: Asst. Prof. Sankalp Pokhrel

Prepared by: Asst. Prof. Sankalp Pokhrel

Prepared by: Asst. Prof. Sankalp Pokhrel

Prepared by: Asst. Prof. Sankalp Pokhrel

Prepared by: Asst. Prof. Sankalp Pokhrel

Prepared by: Asst. Prof. Sankalp Pokhrel

Prepared by: Asst. Prof. Sankalp Pokhrel

You might also like