Political Leadership among Swat Pathans -Fredrik Barth

Reading notes for Fredrik Barth:

Political Leadership among Swat Pathans

Fredrik Barth is a Norwegian scholar, whose life and career has taken him throughout the world.  He was born in Germany and his early education was in Norway.  After receiving an M.A. at the University of Chicago in 1949, he began doctoral studies at the London School of Economics under Edmund Leach.  He did fieldwork in Swat from February to November, 1954, with funding from the Royal Norwegian Research Council.  While Barth was in the field, his advisor Leach was appointed to a lectureship at Cambridge University.  Barth followed him there, where he completed his doctoral thesis, "The Political Organization of Swat Pathans" in 1957.  He indicates that this monograph, published in 1959, is "essentially identical" to the dissertation.  [For details on Barth's subsequent career, see Ahmed Afzil's project site.]

The Swat Valley is a narrow, lush agricultural valley in the western extension of the Himalayas, in the Northwest Frontier District of Pakistan, bordering on Afghanistan.  At the time of Barth’s study in the early 1950s, its densely-settled population was Islamic, although it was sufficiently Hinduized that caste was a salient principle (at least as a secular hierarchy of occupations).  Controlling the land and Valley politics were the Pakhtuns, comprising about 20% of the total population.  They were warriors and administrators, and all non-Pakhtuns, except the Saints, were clients and working tenants of the Pakhtuns.  The Pakhtun chiefs collected rents of 3/4 to 4/5 of tenant harvest, which they used [in the absence of a commercial market for grain] in hospitality, gifting, and lending The Saints were a complementary elite, basing their status on Islamic virtues of piety, learning, and sanctity.

Like The Nuer, this monograph is a study of politics in a zone of anarchy and acephalous structure, a "land of freedom and rebellion" (133).  Here it was arable land, not cattle, that was sought and contested.  Barth, too, found a social structure of segmentary branching and balanced oppositions.  However, his view of politics was diametrically opposed to E-P's.  He opens with R-B's famous definition of the political system in African Political Systems, but his own formulation followed Isaac Schapera's critique that emphasized leadership as the basis of politics.  Barth is interested in choice and decision-making in the formation, actions, and changes of hierarchical groups of a leader and followers in a shifting field of similar groups.  Leadership and followership must be constantly performed, and enacted.  Thus, as David Jacobson observes, E-P formed his Nuer monograph around chapters on the structural planes of Nuer "politics," but Barth's book is framed by chapters on leaders, followers, and alliances.

In a sense, Barth is still concerned with the longstanding British anthropological theme of social order and how it is insured, like Gluckman and E-P and others.  He puts it more directly as a matter of personal security—how a Valley resident can secure for himself and his family a house, land, and the support of others.  But for Barth, this order is not to be sought in the normative structure of society but in the strategic patterns of interaction.  His interest is not in structural imperatives, nor in structural contradictions but in human intention.  He does not look for systemic function but for personal gain.

Expository logic of the book

Barth announces that “the main purpose of the present study is to give a descriptive analysis of the political system of Swat, with special reference to the sources of political authority, and the form of organization within which this authority is exercised” (1).  After introductory (1) and background (2) chapters, Barth lays out the “component parts” of the political system (chapters 3-6), then shows how these bases of authority combine to define the position and followings of the chiefs (chapter 7) and the saints (chapter 8).  Then he moves to the “second main step in the synthesis”—that of showing “how combinations and oppositions of these smaller groups create the actual political organization of the valley.”  This is subject of chapter 9, the longest of the chapters.  This is followed by an account (in chapter 10) of the emergence of a “native state” in Swat between 1917 and 1926 “within the pre-existing framework” and of how the state continues to rely upon that framework.  The book concludes with a brief statement of the complementary nature of chiefly and Saint political leadership.

1: Introduction

Barth’s starting point is skepticism about R-B’s definition of a political system as “the maintenance or establishment of social order, within a territorial framework, by the organized exercise of coercive authority through the use, or possibility of use, of physical force” (APS 1940:xiv).  Barth accepts Schapera’s criticism of this:

“In studying political organization… we have to study, in fact, the whole system of communal leadership and all the functions (as well as the powers) of the leaders; and in this context such activities as the organization or religious ceremonies or collective hunts, or the concentration and redistribution of wealth, are as relevant as the administration of justice and similarly significant for comparative purposes” (1956:218-219)

Barth identifies three "underlying frames of organization" (that he elaborates in chapter 3), and which he likens to the social structure of Raymond Firth’s distinction.  This formal social structure of Swat society was not unlike the Nuer, with segmentary lineages overlaying political locality relations.  But to him of greater importance was an informal political structure of (1) dyadic contractual ties between a single khan leader and his followers and (2) a kind of balance of power, a violent equilibrium, among the khan.  Politics was thus the maneuvering for advantage, "the art of manipulating these various dyadic relations so as to create effective and viable bodies of supporters" (p. 4).  That in turn required constantly making and reassessing choices, and shifting coalitions.

There had already been a state authority in the valley since the 1920s, the Wali of Swat.  Barth insisted that the Wali had to rely on traditional leadership patterns, although later (65) it turns out that thirty years before he ordered permanent land ownership (that is, no wesh redistribution)

2: General Ecology and Ethnology of Swat

Swat is a 120-mile-long valley setting.  The 400,000 densely-settled residents of the Swat valley are a group of Pashto-speaking Yusufzai Pathans.  There is intensive grain cultivation through capital-intensive artificial and natural irrigation. Land is valuable and is held in common by a lineage; each male adult has claim to a share of lineage land, which is subject to periodic reallotment (wesh).  Leadership is secured by land ownership but depends on lavish hospitality and reckless spending to hold a clientele.

3: Underlying Frameworks of Organization

Barth here returns to detail the three "underlying frames of organization" that he introduced in the introduction

1.  spatial/territorial: locality = Swat »» regions (13 @ 20-30,000) »» "local areas" »» village groups »» villages (@ 500-10,000) »» wards (@ 200-500, @ unit of admin and mosque) »» houses (@ 40-80 of economically-independent elementary families)

A village will thus have a diverse group of persons: Pakhtuns and their tenants, other rival Pakhtuns and their tenants, Saints and their tenants and dependents.  In each ward will be at least one men's house, the social, recreational, and political center

2.  castes (Qoum): roughly ten major patrilineal, hereditary, ranked occupational groups, conceptually endogamous, but without religious importance and not forming localized communities

3.  patrilineal descent groups (khel): segmentary but not corporate (23-30).  Although this is strictly true for only the 1/5 of valley residents who are Pakhtuns, their clients are aligned with their leader’s genealogy

4: Neighborhood, Marriage and Affinity

The above three frameworks are more or less ascriptive, but there were also another set of relations that were achieved—those of neighborhood and association and marriage and kinship.  The former are organized mainly through local associations for life-cycle rituals, and the latter by marriage contract.

Barth details in the chapter the teletole associations (all permanent residents of a ward who associate for Moslem life-cycle rituals—e.g., circumcision, marriage, funerals—providing mutual assistance) and marriage contracts and rituals.

5: Relations of Inequality and Authority

Barth turns here to the overtly “political” groups with more overtly political character, which also differ from above in being internally hierarchical and based on dyadic contractual relations with a leader. 

(a)  economic contracts—six main types, including land tenancy and agriculturalists and craft specialists

(b)  house tenancy contracts—i.e., landowners own houses in proportion to their land, so most villagers must rent

(c)  the men’s house—which serves as a meeting house and dorm

(d)  Saints and their followers—Saints are not leaders of men’s houses, but their followership is a structural equivalent.  Saints are expected to use their religious standing to keep/make peace, and for that they are given land by Pakhtuns.

The following chapter finishes setting the scene by describing the organization of local communities, and the subsequent chapters show how the leaders of these contractual groups manipulate their positions to build followings.

6:  Land Tenure and Political Relations Within Local Communities

This chapter, in effect, shows how the above principles of organization interconnect in a local framework, fundamentally tied by land.  See 65-67 for details of the wesh system, whose administrative machinery was the jirga or village assembly, right to speak in which was held by the landowners.  It is this chapter in which Barth really begins to describe political dynamics. 

69: ‘within such a framework of ideas, let us adopt, for a moment, the point of view of the non-landowners.”  He then analyzes their “choices” within constraints.

7: Authority and Following of Chiefs

The potential authority of chiefs derives predominantly from control of land.  “Though land they gain control over house tenants, occupational contract holders and land tenants, and other dependents; while from it they reap the profits which enable them to enlarge their followings by giving feasts and gifts in their men’s houses.  Furthermore, chiefs gain authority by defending their honor, particularly through blood revenge; but this activity is largely a personal matter and falls outside the field of alliance” (108)

The valley is divided into the “satisfied men” and the “hungry men.”  This is the context for the significance of hospitality and gifts.  A chief will give away hundreds of times the income necessary for his own family subsistence.

Generosity must be complemented by a leader’s reputation for bravado and impetuousness and a sense of honor and a willingness to revenge.  One speaks in the jirga for oneself but also for clients; thus, it is a political forum for demonstrating power and influence.  There was a strong value on personal honor, on defense of one's interests, impetuous bravery.  Feuds in defense of honor both require a following and give one the reputation to attract a following--for whom a khan leader can offer security, hospitality (men's house), and land.  Khan assemble clienteles of cultivator-tenants and craft specialists.  These khan, however, must necessarily compete with one another for followings and for land--thus there is some room for leverage for non-Pakhtun.  Thus, these ties are more contractual than merely dominant/submissive; they are that too, but Barth's point is that everyone is trying to maximize.

89-91: “the general form of a chief’s following”:  see this description

8: Authority and Following of Saints

He notes there are a great variety of Saints, ranging from recluses to minor landowners to headmen and rulers of villagers.  "A majority of saints live as minor landowners in villages dominated by chiefs" (95) Yet the category has very definite social meanings, and “the main sources of political influence and authority of Saints are their control of land, their role as mediators and their reputation for morality and holiness” (92). 

A  control of land (92-96):  In Cyrenaica, the Sanusi were given land along the borders, in a sense “outside” the structure; in Swat, the Saints instead are given the inferior land and the more difficult-to-control villages

B  their role as mediator or arbitrator (96-99)

C  their reputation for holiness and piety (99-102)

102-103: “the general form of a saint’s following”:  Barth describes this as a series of concentric circles, beginning with his close agnatic kin and dependents (land); then wider circles of the territory through which they are spread and his role as mediator is effective; out to the farther reaches of his reputation for holiness.

9: Alliances and Political Blocs

Note the logic of the book above.  In that sense, this chapter, the longest in the book, is really its central chapter, the “second main step in the synthesis”: “that of showing how the combination or opposition of these smaller groups creates the actual political organization of the valley.  This requires a description of the kinds of relationship which imply mutual political support, and, conversely, the kinds of structural situation that imply opposition between leaders” (104).

That is, the elemental unit is a leader and his followers (which is a “politically corporate group”), and “the striking feature of the political organization of Swat is the emphasis on free choice and contract.”  However, such units do not exist by themselves, but rather in combination;  in fact, they tend to be “aligned in two grand dispersed political divisions or blocs” (a gloss for dela suggested to him by Martin Southwold), which is itself the result of a series of alliances among local leaders, who consider themselves equals (unlike the blocs that are relations of leader-followers) of mutual assistance and strategic advantage. 

An alliance is a mutual support contract between two leaders; while Swat is acephalous and segmentary, there is none of the branching fusion and fission that E-P describes for the Nuer; these alliances are fixed and relatively permanent.  What develops then is a “two-party system” up and down the valley (106), although at the end of the book he claims that he has not been able to treat adequately the reasons why no more than two blocs develop (134).

108-109: discusses which categories of persons are apt to be rivals and which make typical allies.[Sharpest lines of cleavage are between close patrilineal kin; agnates are more often rivals and enemies than allies.]

115-118: on the hierarchy of public assemblies, which are the major forums for the wider blocs, including an actual case (117-118, which Jacobson also discusses) alliances are made betweenPakhtuns  . 

Barth goes on to consider the use of force and concludes with a section on “the position of leaders in the blocs” (124-126).  That is, the bloc is a political alliance of more-or-less equals; centralized control requires clientage, and thus structurally the blocs do not yield to a centralized Khanate.

10: History and Organization of Swat State

A “native state” emerged between 1917 and 1926 within the pre-existing framework and using (and continuing to use) this pre-existing structure of political leadership. Its ruler, an ex-"Saint" now with the title of the Wali, now controls the upper 2/3s of the valley; he is recognized by the British and treated roughly as the rajahs of British India.  Barth sees this as an unusual development, still vulnerable and tentative.

129-132:  Barth describes the formal organization of the Swat State and its three constituent units of administration, army, and taxation

11: Conclusion

In the brief, three-page conclusion, Barth turns to the two contrasting styles of leadership offered by the chiefs and the Saints, in which "pride, rivalry, and virility" are bases of chiefly reputation and admiration, and “moderation, reasonableness, and meekness” are authoritative qualities of Saints.  This leads, though, to a complementarity.  The followings of chiefs and Saints tend to cross-cut one another, but the two opposed blocs contain both kinds of leaders.

Barth closes by reiterating how different this pattern of persisting opposed blocs of chiefs and their followers is to the situational fissioning and fusing on multiple levels in other segmentary systems like the Nuer (whom he doesn’t cite here nor take up elsewhere in any detail).

Further Thoughts: On Nuer and Swat Feuding

Swat politics is the often violent, ever-tense competition among and within factional blocs.  "Honor" and "shame" are the culturally marked values of reputation.  Revenge is required of any challenges to honor, and revenge requires a response equal or greater to the rebuke.  Thus, there is a constant tendency toward escalation.  Serious challenges require blood revenge and blood revenge carried out begins a feud.

This raises the question of the similarities and differences between Nuer feuding and Swat feuding, or at least between E-P’s account and Barth’s.  To E-P, the feud is a means of maintaining equilibrium between local communities:

"the blood-feud may be viewed as a structural movement between political segments by which the form of the Nuer political system, as we know it, is maintained... The function of the feud... is therefore, to maintain the structural equilibrium between opposed tribal segments which are, nevertheless, politically fused in relation to larger units." (158-159)

David Jacobson notes about Barth that he "argues that a feud occurs not only as a defense of honor but also as a strategy of leadership.  He indicates tactics by which chiefs, through feuding, may enhance their prestige and attract followers.  It could be read as handbook of leadership stratagems for Swat Pathans, a manual on how to score points in the game of Pathan politics....These rules represent Barth's understanding of the working system; they are organizational, not normative, principles" (Jacobson 88).  [Perhaps if E-P had taken Barth's line of explanation, he would have focused more on the "bulls."]

Still, there are other 'rules of the game' that serve as rational checks that contain conflict and preserve a kind of dynamic equilibrium among the blocs, including:

·    as blocs grow larger, internal rivalries grow and sections hive off.

·    winners don't want to take in too many "absconders" from losing side

·    individual khan try to increase land holdings »»» use of violence »»» killings »»» revenge »»» growing number of enemies ("There is an upper limit to every chief's aggressiveness, since he must always keep the number of his enemies lower than the total force of his following" (1959)

·    the Saints as intermediaries (like the leopard-skin priests of Nuer): they are, in a sense, inverse khan

Metatheory - George Ritzer

Metatheory 

George Ritzer

A metatheory is a broad perspective that overarches two, or more, theories. There are many metatheories – positivism, post-positivism, hermeneutics, and so on – of importance in sociology and other social sciences. Two of the best known and most important are methodological holism and methodological individualism. Methodological holism takes as its basic unit of analysis, and focuses most of its attention on, “social wholes” such as social structures, social institutions, imperatively coordinated associations, and capitalism. It overarches such large-scale, macro-level theories as structural functionalism, conflict theory, and some varieties of neo-Marxian theory. Methodological individualism takes as its unit of analysis and focal concern individual-level phenomena such as the mind, self, action, accounts, behavior, rational action, and so on. It overarches a series of micro-level theories such as symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, exchange theory, and rational choice theory. There is a third, methodological relationism, that concerns itself with the relationship between social wholes and social individuals and overarches a series of theories that arose mainly in the 1980s to compensate for the micro- and macro-extremism of the two extant metatheories. Methodological relationism encompasses a number of largely American micro–macro theories and more European agency–structure theories.

A particularly useful term to use in thinking about metatheories is Thomas Kuhn's famous, albeit highly ambiguous and controversial, notion of a paradigm. In fact, a paradigm is broader than a metatheory because it encompasses not only theories, but also methods, images of the subject matter of sociology, and a body of work that serves as an exemplar for those who work within the paradigm (Ritzer 1975).

The social facts paradigm derives its name and orientation from the work of Émile Durkheim and his contention that sociology should involve the study of social facts that are external to and coercive over individuals. He distinguished between two broad types of social facts – material (now most commonly called social structures) and non-material (now usually called social institutions). The two major theories subsumed under this heading are structural functionalism and conflict theory, and to a lesser extent systems theory. The social definition paradigm derives its name from W. I. Thomas's “definition of the situation” (if people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences). Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical component of the social definition paradigm, as is ethnomethodology. Finally, there is the social behavior paradigm, adopting a focus on behavior from the psychological behaviorists, especially B. F. Skinner. Exchange theory and rational choice would be included in this paradigm.

The relatively narrow macro (social facts) and micro (social definition and social behavior) foci of extant paradigms led to the delineation of a more integrated sociological paradigm. Marx and his dialectical approach, especially to the relationship between the capitalists and proletariat on one side and the structures of capitalism on the other, are taken as the exemplar of this approach and this paradigm can be seen as encompassing the micro–macro and agency–structure theories mentioned above.

Metatheorizing can be seen as a specific form of metasociology that examines sociological theory. While sociological theorizing attempts to make sense of the social world, metatheorizing attempts to make sense of sociological theorizing. As with other forms of metastudy, reflexivity is a crucial component of sociological metatheorizing. All metatheorizing involves a high level of reflexivity, although the highest level of reflexivity is found among metatheorists.

Metasociology encompasses not only metatheorizing, but also meta-methods and meta-data-analysis. Meta-methods involves the reflexive study of the discipline's various methods, while meta-data-analysis takes as its subject a range of studies of a given phenomenon and seeks to gain an overall sense of them and to aggregate the data in order to come to a more general conclusion about a particular issue.

A wide variety of work can be included under the heading of sociological metatheorizing. What distinguishes this work is not so much the process of metatheorizing (it may vary greatly in a variety of ways), but rather the nature of the end products. There are three varieties of metatheorizing, largely defined by differences in their end products.

The first type, “metatheorizing as a means of attaining a deeper understanding of theory (Mu),” involves the study of theory in order to produce a better, more profound understanding of extant theory. Mu is concerned, more specifically, with the study of theories, theorists, and communities of theorists, as well as with the larger intellectual and social contexts of theories and theorists.

The second type, “metatheorizing as a prelude to theory development (Mp),” entails the study of extant theory in order to produce new sociological theory. Thus Marx's intensive (and critical) study of the theoretical work of economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo, philosophers such as Georg Hegel and the Young Hegelians, utopian socialists such as Charles Fourier and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and many others provided the basis for his own theory. More contemporaneously, the McDonaldization thesis is derived, at least in part, from a study of the theories of Max Weber, especially his theory of rationalization.

The third type, “metatheorizing as a source of overarching theoretical perspectives (Mo),” is oriented to the goal of producing a perspective, a metatheory, that overarches some part or all of sociological theory. Alexander's attempts to develop a “general theoretical logic for sociology,” as well as his later effort to develop a post-positivist approach, would both be examples of this third type of metatheorizing.

Although metatheorizing takes place in other fields, it is particularly characteristic of sociology. The prevalence of metatheorizing in sociology is rooted in the fact that sociologists deal with culturally diverse and historically specific subjects. This makes universal truth claims difficult or impossible. The failure to discover universal truths and invariant laws of the social world has informed many metatheoretical efforts. The clashes of multiple paradigms competing in the realm of sociological theorizing create a perfect condition for the emergence of metatheoretical discourse.

Social theory is embedded not only in academia but also in the larger society. As a result, there are a series of larger forces that impinge on, even control, it. Metatheorizing serves to alert theorists to the existence of these forces as well as to the need to resist them.

The coming of age of metatheorizing in American sociology can be traced to the collapse of the dominant social facts paradigm during the 1960s. That paradigm, especially its major theoretical component, Parsonsian functionalism, had dominated American sociology for more than two decades before it was seriously challenged by rival paradigms, as well as critics from a wide range of other perspectives. The emergence of a multiparadigmatic structure in sociology in the late 1960s reflected the growing disunity of the discipline and increasingly fragmented sociological research. There emerged a widespread feeling that sociology was facing a profound crisis. It was this sense of imminent disciplinary crisis that helped to invigorate meta-analyses of all types. At first, this took the form of what was, at the time, called the sociology of sociology. Later, metasociology had to overcome strongly negative views of the sociology of sociology as being dominated by minor studies of trivial aspects of the discipline. However, metasociology, especially metatheorizing, has survived, even prospered, as the sociology of sociology and its weaknesses have receded into history.

A more recent challenge and spur to metatheorizing is the rise of postmodern social theory. Since the latter involves an assault on rationality and the modern orientation and metatheorizing is both modern and rational, it has come to be questioned by postmodernists. On the other hand, postmodernism has provided metatheorists with a whole series of new tools and approaches with which to study theory.

One example is deconstruction, a form of textual criticism that scrutinizes the ways in which texts, including theoretical texts, are constructed. A deconstructionist takes a finished text and analyzes the ways in which various literary devices and strategies of argumentation are used to give the impression of a coherent whole.

One important deconstructionist technique is decentering. This can mean several things to metatheorists. First, it might mean moving away from according primacy to the author (especially one associated with the discipline's canon) and giving up on the objective of attempting to discern what an author “really” means.

Second, it can mean the end of the effort to get to the heart, or central meaning, of a theory. Rather, the objective might be to focus on more promising peripheral aspects of that theory. Certain passages of specific works often are presented in such a way that they are made to seem of central importance. Over the years, metatheorists have tended to emphasize those passages or to enshrine other passages as being of key importance. In this context, deconstructionism leads one away from the familiar passages and into ignored aspects of the theory or perhaps rarely read footnotes.

Third, it might be advisable to focus on an undecidable moment in the history of social theory and an analysis of some of the courses taken and, more importantly from the point of view of deconstructionism, not taken by social theory.

Fourth, an effort might be made to reverse the resident hierarchy, only to displace it. There is, for example, a clear hierarchy of schools of sociological theory and there is a tendency to devote most attention to the leading schools. This suggests that what metatheorists need to do is focus more attention on the most marginal of schools (this is another version of decentering) for their marginality may tell us a great deal about the theoretical system in which they exist. Furthermore, their very marginality may make them far easier to study than high-ranking theoretical perspectives. This is traceable to the fact that those associated with lower-ranking perspectives have little to hide, while thinkers linked with the premier schools have a vested interest in concealing things that may adversely affect their exalted status. Similarly, specific ideas have come to be seen as of central importance in every theoretical perspective. These ideas tend to come to the fore any time a given theory is examined or discussed. However, it is entirely possible that important ideas have been lost and a search for those marginal ideas could pay huge dividends.

However, the search for marginal schools, theorists, or ideas should not be turned into a routine or into a new, albeit reversed, hierarchy. Deconstructionism leads to the idea that all such routines, or hierarchies, need to be continually displaced. This prevents metatheoretical work from settling into any comfortable routines; any new construction immediately must be deconstructed.

It is this last aspect of deconstructionism that has the most important implications for metatheorizing. As modernists, most metatheorists have implicitly engaged in deconstruction, but almost always with the objective that they and/or those influenced by their work would engage in a process of reconstruction. This could involve the rebuilding of the theory they have just deconstructed or the use of the lessons learned to create an entirely new theoretical perspective. As modernists, most metatheorists would reject the idea of deconstruction in order to further deconstruct. Rather, they would be oriented to the modern view of progress toward the goal of the ultimate theoretical perspective, or truth about it. However, as with all modern notions, this seeks an end or closure of the theoretical “conversation” in the creation of that ultimate theory. The postmodern view is that the goal is not to end the conversation in some ultimate truth, but rather to continually deconstruct in order to keep the conversation going. Such an objective makes sense for metatheoretical work; in fact, it may be the raison d'être for such work. A round of metatheoretical work may be seen as merely the basis for the next one and not as aimed at some ultimate and conclusive objective. In these terms, metatheorizing may be seen as the exercise par excellence in keeping the theoretical conversation going.

While it is possible to look at postmodern theory as a threat to modern forms of metatheorizing, it also is possible to see it as offering an array of provocative new ideas that could be of great use to it and point it in a variety of new directions.

Related Entries: Deconstruction; Durkheim, Émile; Hermeneutics; Meta-Analysis; Positivism; Postmodernism; Postpositivisim; Theory Construction

• Furfey, P. H. (1965) The Scope and Method of Sociology: A Meta-Sociological Treatise . Cooper Square , New York.
• Kuhn, T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press , Chicago.
• Ritzer, G. (1975) Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science . Allyn&Bacon , Boston.
• Ritzer, G. (1981) Toward an Integrated Sociological Paradigm: The Search for an Exemplar and an Image of the Subject Matter . Allyn & Bacon , Boston.
• Ritzer, G. (1991) Metatheorizing in Sociology . Lexington Books , Lexington, MA.
• Ritzer, G., Zhao, S., & Murphy, J. (2001) Metatheorizing in Sociology: The Basic Parameters and the Potential Contributions of Postmodernism . In: Turner, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Sociological Theory . Kluwer , New York, pp. 113 31.
• Zhao, S. (2001) Metatheorizing in Sociology . In: Ritzer, G. & Smart, B. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Theory . Sage , London, pp. 386 94.

Functionalist Theorizing by Francis Adu-Febiri

Social Theories ...

CHAPTER 1

Social Theory

Social Thought

Social thought is any of the human thought developed to solve social problems. Social thought is an idea of mankind, his group, his problems, social relations and interactions. Whatever thoughts were born in the mind of man regarding social problems in his social context or situation can be called as social thought. Social thoughts are aimed at making human behaviors ideal and according to certain code of conduct. In other words, we can say that a social thought is the future guidelines for human behaviors.

Mankind has been facing various problems in his society since the beginning of human society. Men used to think about social behaviors and problems in their own way. The most sensitive people out of them who had logical mind tried to answer the questions like what is life? How can we live a happy and blissful life? What is the root causes of human problems? How can we remove or reduce them? etc. As a result of such thinking, various thinkers developed different thoughts in different times of history. These thoughts may be called social thoughts.

Definitions of Social Thought

E.S. Bogardus

Social thought is thinking about social problems by one or few persons, here and there in human history or at the present.

Rolling Chambliss

Social thought is concerned with human being in their relation with their fellows.

R.N. Mukharjee

Social thought is that branch of human thought which is primarily concerned with human relations and interactions in their socio-historical settings.

Nature and Characteristics of Social Thought

(1.)   Social thought is primarily concerned with societal issues and matters.

(2.)   Social thought is concerned with common problems and challenges which the people are facing collectively.

(3.)   Social thoughts are different according to time, place, environment and context.

(4.)   Social thought is based on social experience.

(5.)   Social thoughts attempt to solve the problems in practical way.

(6.)   Social thoughts are influenced by the growth of culture and civilization.

(7.)   Social thought is the indicator of the progressive attitude of mankind.

(8.)   Social thought is the outcome of the critical and analytical thinking of a few scholars, rationalists, scientists and philosophers who have special mental capacity.

Importance of Social Thought

(1.)    A person who is facing various problems may get clues to understand his problems and to face or solve them effectively by means of social thought.

(2.)    Social thoughts may be helpful to the administrators, social leaders, reformers, plan makers and statesmen to decide their policies and programmes to address the different problems of the people.

(3.)    Ordinary people who like to understand their society, their surrounding environment and their life can get assistance from the social thoughts.

(4.)    Social thought has provided background and basis for the development of various social sciences.

(5.)    Social thoughts help us to avoid mistakes and blunders which our forefathers had committed in their life in the past.

(6.)    Social thoughts are the sources of inspiration for those who have sensitive and inquisitive mind.

Types of Social Thought

E. S. Bogardus has divided the social thoughts into the following three types:

(1.) Individual Social Thought

                        (2.) Collective Social Thought

                        (3.) Scientific Social Thought

 (1.) Individual Social Thought

            The social thought which gives more importance to the benefit of individuals rather than the welfare of the majority of the people is called as individual social thought. This thought is aimed at the self-development of a few numbers of persons.

(2.) Collective Social Thought

            The social thought which is oriented towards the welfare of all the people of society, which is against injustice and exploitation and which attempts to establish judicial rights of the people in society, is called as collective social thought.

(3.) Scientific Social Thought

            Scientific social thought is based on the cause and effect reasoning and analysis of each facts, behaviors, processes and problems in the society. In this thought, the analysis and reasoning is neutral and free from any norms and values of any society. There are following types of scientific social thought:

(a.)  Religious Thought

(b.)  Philosophical Thought

(c.)    Psychological Thought

(d.)  Physical Thought

(e.)   Social Thought

Religious Thought

 This is the first stage of scientific thought. People think that there are unseen authority of souls and supernatural souls which govern the living and non-living matters of the world. In this stage, man developed the concept of God and religion.

Philosophical Thought

 This is the second stage of scientific thought. People thought about the relationship between apparent world and unseen world. This thought insisted on the consciousness of the people.

Psychological Thought

 This is the third stage of scientific thought. Man began to think about his own inner-self, sentiments and motivations.

Physical Thought

 This is the fourth stage of scientific social thought. Through this thought man was able to exploit the energy hidden in nature for the comfort and benefit of mankind. Industrial revolution created drastic changes in Western world.

Social Thought

 This is the fifth and the last stage of scientific thought. Under this thought, man thought over social relationship, rights and duties, social progress and development, social welfare, social reform etc.

Social Thought and Sociological Thought

Social thought and sociological thought are not one and the same. Social thought is wider in perspective whereas sociological thought is narrower and limited to the discipline of sociology only. It is very difficult to draw a line of demarcation between social thought and sociological thought. The following are some of the points that show the differences between the two:

(1.)   Social thought has a longer history than sociological thought. From the time of the beginning of human society or from the primitive time of ancient history, people have been thinking over human and social problems and trying to find out the ways of solving them. This attempt has always given birth to various social thoughts. However, sociological thoughts appeared and developed in the nineteenth century only when the separate discipline of sociology was emerged and developed.

(2.)   Sociological thoughts are concerned with the single discipline of sociology only whereas social thoughts cover wide ranges of disciplines like politics, economics, physics, psychology, religion, population science, civics, ethics, moral sciences, anthropology, history, culture etc. Hence the scope of sociological thought is narrower whereas that of social thought is wider. Sociological thoughts can cover the social facts, social relation and social interactions occurring in human society. It does not include the facts or processes which does not affect social behavior and social life of the human beings.

(3.)   Social thoughts are concerned with social problems and the ways to get rid of them or face them effectively. However, sociological thoughts are not concerned with human problems in society only. Sociological thoughts may include the analysis and interpretations of religion, culture, norms, values, human behaviors, social change socialization etc.

(4.)   Social thoughts attempt to put the social behaviors and facts within some norms. But sociological thought interpret the social facts, customs and processes with independent and neutral reasoning. It does not explain which one is right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate, moral or immoral etc. Sociological thoughts describe only what it is and how it is. They try to explain everything with cause and effect relationships. They do not recommend or suggest or predict anything.

(5.)   Examples of social thoughts may be taken as the ancient philosophical ideas of Hindu, Egyptian, Greek or Christian beliefs. Similarly the contributions of Manu, Chanakya, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Cicero, Confucius, Gautam Buddha, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Russo and other philosophers and thinkers may be taken as social thoughts. Examples of sociological thought are, positive philosophy and the three stages of social development of Auguste Compte, Herbert Spencer’s analogy of society with organism, Durkheim’s concepts of mechanical and organic solidarity, Max Weber’s views on protestant religion and the development of capitalism etc.

Theory and Social Theory

Theory is said to be the heart of science. A theory is a verified or established conclusion or generalization. Theory is conclusion or generalization verified logically and scientifically by analyzing the relationships of two or more events, facts or elements, whether it is natural or social.

Definitions of Theory 

Goode and Hatt

Theory refers to the relationships between facts or the ordering of them in some meaningful way.

Talcott Parsons

A theory is a group of closely interrelated concepts used for interpretation of some experience.

Abraham Francis

Theory is a conceptual scheme designed to explain observed regularities or relationship between two or more variables.

Robert Merton

A theory is a conceptual scheme which attempts to explain the relationship between two or more variables.

Functions and Use of Social Theory

1.)    The theory guides research.

2.)    Theory predicts facts.

3.)    Theory points gaps in our knowledge.

4.)    Theory classifies data or facts.

5.)    Theory summarizes existing information or knowledge.

Difference between Social Thought and Social Theory

2.)    Social thought is an old concept whereas social theory is a new concept.

3.)    Social theory is systematic and logical whereas social thought is not.

4.)    Social thought is explanatory whereas social theory is analytical.

5.)    Social thought is influenced by time, place and the surroundings whereas social theory is not influenced by such things.

6.)    Social thought is influenced by the growth and development of culture and civilizations but social theory is not influenced by such things.

7.)    Social thought is not experimented with hypothesis but social theory is experimented with hypothesis.

8.)    Social thought is based on norms, values and philosophy whereas social theory is based on experiment and verification.

9.)    Social thought cannot be verified by facts and proofs again and again but social theory can be verified as many times as desired.

10.)                       Social thought is based on experience whereas social theory is based on facts, experiments and verifications.

11.)                       Social thought may be obtained accidentally or suddenly at any instant but social theory cannot be obtained in such a way.

Historical Development of Sociological Theories

The historical development of sociological theories may be summarized as the contributions of the following sociologists:

(1.)  August Compte

The beginning of social theory may be traced form the father of modern sociology Auguste Compte (1798-1857). He is traditionally considered as the father of sociology because he invented the term sociology. He was the first man to distinguish the subject-matter of sociology from all the other social sciences. Compte was also the originator of positivism. He initiated the use of scientific method in the field of sociology. He introduced the word sociology for the first time in his famous book Positive Philosophy in 1838. He gave maximum importance to the scientific methods. He criticized the attitude of the armchair social philosophers and stressed the need to follow the method of science. He contributed the law of three stages in the field of scientific or positive. According to Compte society is not an individual organism but a collective organism. It is based on universal conscience. Compte presented the theory of the necessary and continuous movement of mankind.

(2.)  Herbert Spencer  

The theories of Compte were improved by the British sociologist Herbert Spencer (1820-1902). He very strongly supported the views of Compte who insisted on the need to establish a separate science of society. He contributed a great deal to the establishment of sociology as a systematic discipline. Herbert Spencer gave a new direction to sociological theory in 19th century. His most significant contribution to sociological theory is the law of evolution. According to him social evolution occurs when the society passes from indefinite incoherent homogeneity to a definite coherent heterogeneity. This concept of society is bio-organismic. Society has several similarities with organism. Thus Herbert Spencer presented structural functionalism as the theory of change in society. In Principles of Psychology he wrote that all organic matter originates in a unified state and that individual characteristics gradually develop through evolution. The evolutionary progression from simple to more complex and diverse states was an important theme in most of Spencer’s later works.

(3.)  Lester F. Ward

Up to the middle of 19th century sociology was sufficiently popularized in America. Lester F. Ward (1841-1913) is known as the father of American sociology. Ward partially adopted Spencer’s evolutionary theory but did not accept it completely. He pointed out that the society and organism are not absolutely similar in character. The society is constituted of human beings who think and act differently while in an organism, the units act similarly. The difference is also important in the theory of evolution. Another important theory introduced by Ward, is known as Gynaecentric Theory. Contrary to prevalent notion, this theory establishes that in the organic scheme the women occupy primary and men secondary status. Thus, from the natural point of view, women are superior to men, though men have over powered them and subordinated them.

(4.)  W.G. Sumner

As pioneer of individualistic sociological theories, the name of William G. Sumner (1840-1910), is notable. He was the first among the university level teachers of sociology in America. He laid emphasis upon individualistic traits such as achievements, labor, discipline and competition. He made a significant contribution in the form of theory of the mores in his famous work Folkways. The concepts of folkways and mores are the contributions of Sumner.

(5.)  Gabriel Tarde

Gabriel Tarde (1843-1904) has the credit of providing psychological basis to sociological theories. He explained imitation as the law of social life in his famous work Law of Imitation. According to his theory society is concrete imitation which spreads from higher to lower, inner to outer in geometrical progression.

(6.)  Emile Durkheim

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) deserves a pre-eminent place in the history of sociological theory. He made a significant contribution to sociological theory in France. He laid the foundation or structural functionalism, the dominant school of sociological theory today. His theory is based on the primacy of society over the individual. Among his famous works are: The Division of Labor in Society; Suicide; The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Thus Durkheim contributed the theory of division of labor, the social theory of suicide and the social theory of religion. He pointed out that division of labor is directly related to density of population and its social consequences are found in the form of substitution of organic solidarity for mechanical solidarity. In his theory of suicide he maintained that suicide is not merely an individual phenomenon and the rate of suicide varies with the degree of social integration. In his book Suicide he divided suicide in three kinds: egoistic, anomic and altruistic. In his theory of religion he maintained that society is the real God and the kingdom of heaven is a glorified society. Thus Durkheim has pointed out the importance of society in each of his sociological theory.

(7.)  Karl Marx

After Herbert Spencer and E.D. Sumner, the most influential name in the field of sociological theory, was that of the pioneer of conflict theory Karl Marx (1818-1883). He was one of the most important thinkers of the 19th century. He never called himself as a sociologist, but his work is very rich in sociological insights. He believed that the task of the social scientist was not merely to describe the world, it was to change it. His most significant contributions were theory of dialectical materialism and the theory of class struggle. According to him society is always divided into the exploiters and the exploited classes in constant conflict. Every new age is born out of this constant conflict between expropriators and expropriated. He considered that the key to history is the class struggle. Karl Marx presented conflict theories of social change.

(8.)  C.H. Cooley

The credit of introducing social psychological theories in the fields of sociology in 20th century goes to Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1929). In his famous theory of socialization he introduced two important concepts: primary groups and looking glass self. His sociological theories may be found in his famous works: Human Nature and the Social Order; Social Organization and Social Process.

(9.)  Thorstein Veblen

Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929), American economist and social scientist, is notable for his historical investigation of the economic structure of society and for his analysis of the contemporary economic system. His first book The Theory of the Leisure Class made a significant contribution to the field of sociological theory. Veblen described society as divided into a "predator", or "leisure", class, which owns business enterprises, and an "industrious" class, which produces goods. He criticized business owners for what he considered their "pecuniary" values. In his most famous work, The Theory of the Leisure Class, he characterized the leisure class as parasitic and therefore harmful to the economy. In this work, he introduced the phrase 'conspicuous consumption', later used to describe the competition for social status among Americans.

(10.)                    Vilfredo Pareto

In the history of the development of sociological theory, the Italian social thinker Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) has an honorable place. He explored the nature of individual and social action. He was widely known for his controversial theory concerning the superiority of an elite class, and his theories were generally associated with the development of fascism in Italy. He presented what is known as logical and non-logical actions, he advanced an Action Theory. He explained the irrationality of man on the basis of his concepts of residues and derivations. According to him history is a grave yard of aristocracies and there is a tendency of circulation among the elites.

(11.)                    Max Weber

An important name in the history of sociological theory is that of the German politico-economic sociologist Max Weber (1865-1920). For him the individual is the basic unit of society.  He devoted much of his efforts to expound a special method called the method of understanding for the study of social phenomena. He developed a new branch of sociology known as sociology of religion in his deep work The Protestant Ethics and Spirit of Capitalism. He showed a deep insight in his theory of the relationship between religious conduct and economic system in his studies of the six world religions. His significant contribution to sociological theory is Social Action Theory.

(12.)                    W.I. Thomas

In 1917 the development of sociological theory was given a new direction by William Isaac Thomas (1863-1947). He published his famous work, The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, in collaboration with Florian Znaniecki. His most important concepts were: Four wishes, social disorganization and Definition of the situation. He explained human behavior from the point of view of situational approach.

(13.)                    Pitirim Sorokin

Russia was able to make a significant contribution to the development of a new science of society in the person of Pitirim Sorokin (1889-1971). Sorokin defined sociology as the study of the general characteristics common to all classes of social phenomena including a careful investigation of the relationship between social and non-social phenomena. He referred to general sociology as the study of those properties common to all socio-cultural phenomena and divided it into two parts: structural sociology and dynamic sociology. His ideas concerning social revolution are available in his work The Sociology of Revolution.

(14.)                    Parson, Hyman and Merton

Talcott Parsons, Hyman and Robert K. Merton are the other sociologists whose contributions are considered significant to sociological theory.

Historical Development of Anthropological Theories

Anthropology is a science that deals with the biological and cultural aspects of man. Although systematic study of man was begun only after 1835, its history dates back to the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. T.K. Penniman, in his book Hundred Years of Anthropology, has divided the history of anthropology into the following four periods:

(1.)   Formulatory Period (before 1835)

(2.)   Convergent Period (1835-1859)

(3.)   Constructive Period (1859-1900)

(4.)   Critical Period (1900 onwards)

(1.)  Formulatory Period (before 1835)

In this period Herodotus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and other social thinkers and philosophers studied about different facts relating to anthropology. Herodotus is considered as the father of history. He traveled various places of Greece and collected anthropological information. He explained about the origin of culture, language, marriage, divorce, social norms and traditions, patter of war, religion etc. of the then society. These informations are important for the modern anthropologists also.

Socrates (470-399 B.C.) had also talked about social morality, social rules and social norms and had opined that each society is guided by universal values. Aristotle is the first Greek philosopher who said himself as anthropologist. He emphasized on empirical method to study the society. This is similar to the methods used by modern anthropologists.

Other philosophers in nineteenth century also attempted to analyze the development and growth of social and cultural processes of society. This helped to emerge anthropology as a separate discipline.

(2.)  Convergent Period (1835-1859)

Karl Marx, Perthes, Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin are the main scientists and philosophers of this period. Marx used dialectical method to study human society. French archeologist Perthes comparatively studied the stone had axes found in the riversides. Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. In this book he described about the biological growth and development of man from vertebrates and mammals to Homosapiens. The contemporary popes and priests refuted his concept. This is because Darwin was the first man to reject the role of God in the development of human species. This book became a base for the theory of evolution. Hence, Darwin is considered as the father of world anthropology.

(3.)  Constructive Period (1859-1900)

In this period anthropology became an independent discipline of study and research. Anthropology was begun to be taught in Oxford University in 1884 and in Cambridge University in 1900. The various subdivisions of anthropology such as ethnology, prehistory, socio-cultural anthropology, biological or physical anthropology were also developed in this stage.

Cultural evolutionists and researchers like Tylor, James Frazer and Morgan published their books which played significant role in recognizing anthropology worldwide. Frazer explained that society is developed through the stages of magic, religion and science.  Tylor and Morgan talked about the savagery, barbarism and finally civilization stages of social development.

(4.)  Critical Period (1900 onwards)

When Penniman published his book, he considered the period between 1900 and 1935 as the constructive period. The researches and studies in this period were analytical and critical. Malinowski and Radcliffe Brown were the major contributors of this period. In this period teaching of anthropology were started all over the world. Department of teaching anthropology was established in the Liverpool University of the United States of American in 1908. In 1919 social anthropology was begun to be taught in Bombay University of India under the department of sociology. Similarly Calcutta University began anthropology in 1920. Various schools of thought such as functional, structural, diffusion, culture and individual etc. were also developed in this critical period.

TU Questions

1.)                Distinguish between social thought and sociological thought. Give examples. (2055)

2.)                Define social theory. What is the difference between social theory and social thought? (2055)

3.)                Give a historical account of the development and convergence in the discipline of anthropology. (2056)

4.)                Explain the relation between theory and social research with sufficient examples. (2057)

5.)                Discuss the importance of the study of Anthropology and Sociology in modern life. (2057)

6.)                Differentiate between Sociology and Anthropology with examples. (2057)

7.)                What is Social Anthropology? Discuss its relation with Sociology and History. (2058)

8.)                Distinguish between social thought and social theory. (2058)

9.)                Give historical development of anthropology as a distinct discipline of study in the contemporary world. (2059)

10.)           Differentiate between Sociology and Anthropology as two distinct disciplines of study and research. (2059)

11.)           What is social theory? Discuss theory in relation to observer and participants’ point of view. (2060)

12.)           What is social theory? Discuss every social theory regard the research process to be the same? Use examples to support your arguments? (2061)

13.)           Define social theory and discuss the context for the development of theories in anthropology and sociology during the 19^th century in general. (2062)

14.)           Write short notes on:

a.      Social theory in relation to observer, participant and data(2062)

b.      Participant observation (2058)

c.       Institution (2056)

CHAPTER TWO (A)

Evolutionism

Meaning

The term ‘evolution’ has been derived from the Latin word ‘evolvere’. ‘Evolvere’ in Latin combines ‘E’ which means ‘out’ and ‘volvere’ which means ‘unfold’ or ‘devolve’. Hence ‘evolution’ means to bring something out. Evolution can be put into a formulae that is Evolution = continuous changes + definite direction + differences in quality + differences in action. Evolutionism is based on assumption that societies gradually change from simple beginnings to complex forms later on. Every society of the world begins with a simple and homogenous society to a more complex and heterogeneous society gradually and continuously and they pass through certain stages of developments.

Definitions

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of English

Evolution is a continued and progressive process of opening out or developing from earlier simpler forms to more complicated and sophisticated forms.

Ogburn and Nimkoff

Evolution is merely change in a direction.

MacIver and Page

When there is not only the continuity of change, but direction of change, we mean evolution.

Karl Popper

Evolution is nothing itself, but the evolution of life on earth or human society is a unique process.

Herbert Spencer

Evolution is a process applicable in organic and inorganic field. It is the integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion during which matter passes from indefinite coherent homogeneity to a definite coherent heterogeneity.

Context of Evolutionism

A social theory cannot evolve suddenly at a moment. It is developed under certain circumstances, ideological background and context. The following are the contexts which led to the emergence and development of evolutionism:

(1.) Traditional Thought about Social and Biological Evolution

Traditional thought that the human society was previously similar to the modern society or even better was prevalent before the emergence of evolutionary theory. People used to think and believe that the God had created human society which was better, more civilized and more blissful but the people were not able to endure that society. Mankind fell due to their sin. Some of the social thinkers denied accepting this traditional theory which led to the invention or emergence of modern theory.

(2.) Emergence of Biological Evolutionism

In 1809, Lamarck published his Theory of Acquired Characters which remarked that the development of the species of animals was due to the gradual change of the structure and organism of their body which was according to their environmental surroundings and adaptation. Similarly Charles Darwin published his famous book Origin of Species in 1859. In his book it was said that the origin and development of animals is due the gradual process of evolution. Darwin played a major role for the origin of evolutionary theory.

(3.) Comparative Study between Organism and Society

Those who were fascinated and influenced by Darwin’s theory of organic evolution applied it to the human society. Herbert Spencer, a British sociologist, carried an analogy of organism with society. He argued that societies must have evolved from the too simple and primitive to that of too complex and advanced form. He argued that society itself is like an organism. Edward Tylor and Lewis Henry Morgan also followed this analogy of society with organism.

(4.) Comte’s Laws of Three Stages

Law of three stages propounded by Auguste Compte also played a role in the emergence of evolutionary theory. He argued that each branch of our knowledge passes successively through three different stages: the theological or fictitious stage, the metaphysical or abstract stage, and lastly the scientific of positive stage. This he wrote in his book Course of Positive Philosophy. He also argued about social dynamics. His thought also led to the emergence of evolutionary theory.

(5.) Role of Travelers, Christian Missionaries and Businessmen

Marco polo, Vasco de Gama, Huen Tsan etc. traveled all over the world and collected a lot of information about the societies and cultures of the different parts of the world. Similarly Christian missionaries and businessmen also traveled different parts of the world. Gathering of information of the various societies and cultures of the world led the social scientists to study and search about the relative history of different cultures. This led to the emergence of evolutionary theory.

(6.) Influence of Science

Social sciences such a political science, economics, history etc. and natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology etc. made a great development during the course of social progress. After the development of science, every actions of the world are analyzed scientifically with cause and effect relationships. When the sciences analyzed the differential structure and characteristics of human physiology, it led to the new thought about the development of human body which challenged the traditional thought about it. This led to the emergence of evolutionary theory.

(7.) Intellectual Enlightenment

Nineteenth century may be regarded as the age of intellectual enlightenment. In this age, men are too much influenced by the social and scientific analysis, study, discourse and awareness. Intellectuals refused old traditional and religious theories and replaced them with new theories which were based on scientific research and analysis. Proofs, verifications and logical explanations were sought in every incidents, concepts and theories. This ultimately led to the refusal of the world as a gift from God. Evolutionary theory was propounded to explain the historical development of the world.

The above mentioned points proves that the emergence and development of evolutionary theory is not a sudden invention but based on various intellectual backgrounds.

Key Assumptions of Evolutionism

(1.)   Evolution is the Universal Process

The process of evolution applies to all the societies of the world. Since the process of gradual and continuous change from a simple, homogeneous society to a complex, heterogeneous society applies to all the societies of the world, the evolutionary theory is not confined to any specific or particular society in the world. Evolutionist Herbert Spencer argued that the law of evolution is not only seen in societies but also in geography and climates.

(2.)   Culture and Society Develops from Simple to Complex

The main assumption of evolutionism is that societies change from simple and homogeneous societies to complex and heterogeneous societies. Any organism is a unicellular in the beginning. But it gains its different organs in its body later on and it develops into complex animals and human beings. Human society which is analogous to an organism also passes through the different stages of development.

(3.)   Every Society and Culture Passes through Certain Stages of Development

According to classical evolutionists, each societies of the world necessarily pass from certain stages gradual development from the primitive uncivilized stage to the civilized one. Each society in the beginning was hunter and gatherer society. Later it became pastoral, agricultural and even later it became a machine and factory user’s society. They argue that a society never returns to its precious stage. Edward Tylor argued that a society passes through savagery, barbarism and civilization stage necessarily and independently.

(4.)   Evolution is  a Differentiation Process

A seed of a plant is very simple and homogeneous in the beginning. On the later stages of development and growth, it is divided clearly into roots, branches, stem, leaves, flowers and fruits. In the same way the simple and homogeneous society and culture in the beginning also is differentiated into complex and heterogeneous society. Thus evolution can be said to the process of differentiation from simple to complex.

(5.)   Emphasis on Psychic Unity of Mankind, Parallel Invention and Cultural Parallel

Another assumption of evolutionism is that the mental capacity of all the people of the world is almost equal. That is why all the people discover various tools in the same way. The cultures at various places of the world are also similarly developed due to this concept. In similar environment and surrounding circumstances, all the people of the world can invent parallelly. Their cultural growth is also similar and equal.

(6.)   Each Institutions Evolves Independently on the Settings of Local Culture

Social institutions such as marriage, festivals, kinship, religion, belief etc. of each society are different and they are based on their local cultures. Needs and problems of each societies are also different which makes their methods of solving such problems are also different. Each society has its own characteristics, ways of life, procedures, aims and problems and they are based on their local cultural settings.

(7.)   Evolution is the Causes of Internal Growth

A change in any matter which is due to external elements is not said evolution. For evolution, it should be grown or developed spontaneously and internally without any external intervention. Darwin, Spencer, MacIver and Page have also accepted this notion of evolution.

(8.)   Evolution Takes Place Continuously and Gradually

Another assumption of evolutionism is the process of evolution takes place continuously and gradually. It does not occur all of a sudden.

(9.)   Evolution Necessarily Involves Progress

Another important assumption of evolutionism is that evolution necessarily involves progress. Each society and culture always develops or grows towards better, civilized, complex form and it never goes back to its preliminary stages. Each later stage is more advanced, more developed and more standardized than before. Evolutionists have termed this kind of growth as unilinear growth.

Unilinear Evolutionary Theory

Lewis Henry Morgan (1818-1881)

Lewis Henry Morgan was an American anthropologist. He is a unilinear and classical evolutionist. He studied about Iroquois Indians in detail. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were also influenced by Morgan’s Ancient Society.

Morgan’s View on Evolution of Society

In his famous book Ancient Society, published in 1877, Morgan has put forward the following three stages of the development of human society:

1.)    Savagery Stage

2.)    Barbarian Stage

3.)    Civilization Stage

1.)   Savagery Stage

In the first stage of human development, men lived in the forests. This stage ranges from the beginning of human life to the invention of art of pottery. Morgan has subdivided this stage into the following three sub-stages:

a.)    Lower (Older) Savagery

b.)    Middle Savagery

c.)     Upper (Later) Savagery

a.) Lower (Older) Savagery Stage

In this stage, men lived on fruits, roots and wild animals. Men used to live in den and under the trees. There were no social institutions. Sex was totally free. In this stage, men learned to make sounds and speech.

b.) Middle Savagery Stage

Men invented fire and started eating burnt fleshes. They also learnt to fish. They were gathered in small groups to live commonly. With such collective subsistence they were able to kill large animals and were safe against their enemies. Morgan claimed that the Australian and Polynesian tribes represented this stage of human development.

In this stage, men learned to make sounds and speech.

c.) Upper (Later) Savagery Stage

In this stage, men invented bow and arrow and they also made pottery of simple types. Their nomadic life became a little stable. They also learnt to make family, although sex was still free. They fought with other groups collectively and not individually.

2.)   Barbarian  Stage

According to Morgan, this is the second stage of the development of human society. Pottery, taming of wild animals, stable life, agriculture and improved metal tools are the main characteristics of this stage. Morgan further dub-divided this stage into the following three stages:

a.)    Lower (Older) Barbarism

b.)    Middle Barbarism

c.)     Upper (Later) Barbarism

a.) Lower (Older) Barbarism

The art of pottery was developed in this stage. Men started to keep individual property and this led to the social stratification among them. Men began agriculture and hence stable life was also appeared. Family life began, but sex was still free and marriage system was not existent.

b.) Middle Barbarism

The main feature of this stage is irrigation of plants and making of bricks and tiles. Nomadic life ended and stable life clearly appeared. Maize was cultivated. Men learnt to exchange goods with each other. Sexual relationships were systematized.

c.) Upper (Later) Barbarism

This stage is also known as metal age. This is because men learnt the smelting process of iron ore and hence was able to make metal pots, and trolley with metal wheels. Small republics were formed. Division of labor differentiated between men and women. Women were thought as asset of men. Men invented the art of making oil, spinning wheel, timber boat, making houses, small towns and forts for fighting etc.

3.)   Civilization  Stage

Invention of phonetic alphabet is the main feature of the civilization stage. Haphazard sexual activities were controlled and it was limited on married couples only. State was formed and laws were made for social control. By virtue of the development of science, industrialization and urbanization fostered. Materialistic thought influenced the society. Capitalism and democratic system evolved.

Period	Conditions
Older Savagery	Subsistence on fruits and roots, invention of speech etc.
Middle Savagery	Fishing and use of fire
Later Savagery	Bow and arrow developed
Older Barbarism	Art of pottery developed
Middle Barbarism	Domestication of animals, irrigation of plants, cultivation of maize, making of brick and tile etc.
Later Barbarism	Invention of the process of smelting iron ore, use of iron tools etc.
Civilization	Invention of phonetic alphabet and writing

Source: An Introduction to Anthropological Thought by Makhan Jha

Morgan’s View on Evolution of Family

Morgan has also explained about the evolution of family from primitive families with no boundaries of sexual relationships to the modern monogamous families. He has divided the family into the following five stages of development:

1.)    Consanguinal Family

2.)    Punaluwa Family

3.)    Syndesmian Family

4.)    Patrilocal Family

5.)    Monogamous Family

1.)   Consanguinal Family

According to Morgan, in the primitive stage there was no institution to control and check sexual relation and free sex was prevailed. Even the sexual relations between siblings of the same family were also not controlled by anyone. Morgan claimed that this kind of relation still existed in Polynesian tribes. He confirmed it by showing the fact that they used the same word for fathers and uncles and also for mothers and aunts.

2.)   Punaluwan Family

In this stage all the brothers of a family married with all the sisters of another family. All the brothers were the common husbands of all women and similarly all the sisters were the common wives of all men of that family. The brothers called each other by saying ‘Punaluwa’, which meant ‘associate’. This stage was the beginning of the control of sexual relations between close relatives.

3.)   Syndesmian Family

In this stage one man married one woman but the sex relationship of the women married into the family were not defined and certain. Both the men and women allowed to have free sex with anybody else.

4.)   Patriarchal Family

In this stage, man dominated the family. He could marry as many wives as liked and had sexual relationship with them but no women were allowed to have it with any others. Women were thought as the property of men.

5.)   Monogamous Family

This stage is the final and civilized stage of family. In this family one man married with a single woman at a time and similarly one woman married with a single man at a time. The father of a child is fixed beyond doubt. Handover of property to the child is also easy because of this. Sexual relationship is confined to the married couple only.

 

Review of Contributions by Edward Burnett Tylor (1832- 1917)

          Edward Burnett Tylor was a classical unilinear evolutionist. He is a British anthropologist. He traveled Mexico in 1856 and investigated Perigord cave in Mexico very carefully. He worked as a caretaker of museum in Oxford University. Later he obtained readership and professorship there. Tylor is famous for his satisfactory definition of culture since it is the central subject matter of anthropology. He wrote many books, most of which are popular. We can summarize the contributions of Tylor as follows:

1)      First Scientific Concept of Culture

2)      Evolutionary Idea

3)      Concept of Continuity of History

4)      Study of Primitive Religion

5)      Matriarchal Form of Society and Couvade          

   

  1) First Scientific Notion of Culture

                 Culture is the focal subject matter of anthropology and Tylor is the first person to define it in a scientific manner. His definition of culture is even popular and satisfactory till nowadays. In the first page of his famous book Primitive Culture he wrote:

                 "Culture or civilization is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, and habits acquired by man as a member of society."

                  In his definition he puts emphasis on the term 'acquired'. This means that culture is acquired or learnt by man after his birth. Culture is something that is acquired by man as a member of society. This can not be a private property of a person. Culture is a common heritage of society. A single person cannot have culture. It must be owned by a society. Culture is not something that a person achieves in his birth. Culture is transmitted from a person to another, one generation to another and one society to another. Culture is not transmitted genetically but it is learnt from society. According to Tylor culture is a historical process and hence its study should be done in historical point of view. His definition of culture is popular even today. Since he defined culture in a scientific manner, he is also sometimes called as culturologist.

2) Evolutionary Idea of Tylor   

              Tylor argued that the culture gradually develops from simplicity to complexity. He put forward the following three stages of human development.

a)      Savagery stage

b)      Barbarism

c)      Civilization   

a)           Savagery Stage   

            Savagery stage was the primitive stage of human development. In this stage men were nomadic and they resided collectively. Their main means of livelihood was hunting wild animals and collecting roots of plants. They also learnt fishing and use of fire in this stage. Men used symbolic language to communicate each other. Men were totally dependent on nature and hence their intellectual thought was very little.

b)           Barbarism

             In this stage, men learnt to protect their group from other groups and to attack other groups. Stable settlement was started. Men learnt pottery, animal husbandry, agriculture and the use of iron tools.

c) Civilization           

             This is the highest, civilized and developed stage of human development. In this stage, men invented language, script, and art of writing. They set up political institutions and the government to organize there. They started the investigation, study and logical system of analyzing things and actions.

3) Concept of Continuity of History

               Tylor believed that culture is a historical process. He was influenced by positivism of Auguste Compte and also by the laws of natural history of mankind. Tylor believed in the continuity of cultural history. He argued that mankind must have passed from a primitive prehistoric stage, a middle stage, and finally to the more advanced civilized stage. In his book 'Anthropology' published in 1881, he tied to describe these three stages briefly. He thought that these three stages are empirical generalizations of history.

4) Study of Primitive Religion    

            Tylor studied primitive religion and tried to explain its types and process of development. He attempted to verify evolution in religious perspective. He thought that religion is the universal form of culture. One should learn religion to understand the culture. We can divide the following three forms of religion put forward by Tylor.

a)      Animism

b)      Polytheism

c)       Monotheism

a)      Animism     

        Animism was the primitive stage of religion. In savage stage, men thought that every matter in the world contains a living soul in it. They believed the existence of the God in the form of living soul. That is why they worshiped stone, soul, plants, water, nature and their ancestors as God. They worshiped soul to protect themselves from the calamities of nature.

b)      Polytheism    

            In the second stage of development, men thought that there are many Gods and Goddesses and they should worship them all to satisfy them. This stage was more logical and thoughtful than animism. Polytheism was prevalent in ancient Roman, Greek, Persian and Hindu religion.

c)      Monotheism

            In the last stage of the development of religion, men believed that there is only one God instead of several Gods and Goddesses. They tried to satisfy the single God.

5) Matriarchal form of society and Couvade  

              Tylor argued that matriarchal form of society is the earliest form of society. He was of opinion that a society has passed through matriarchal to patriarchal. He collected data from 262 societies and analyzed it statistically. This made him to conclude that matrilineality and matrilocality had preceded patrilineality and patrilocality. He also studied about the tradition of couvades, in which men imitate the habits of women especially during pregnancy and labor pains. Nearly 20 societies in the intermediate patri- matrilineality stage adopted the custom of couvade.

Criticism if Edward Tylor

1)     Armchair Anthropologist

     Tylor has been criticized as an armchair anthropologist as he made his theories just sitting in a room and not going to the field. It is alleged that he made conclusion by referring to the books and studies made primarily by others.

2)     Ignorance of the Social Aspects of Religion

          Religion is the belief in Supernatural beings. It is based on such beliefs which are invisible, imaginated and fictitious and which cannot be verified by science. But the belief in such beings plays a great role in social control and social organization. Tylor studied about the evolution and development of religion but he did not mention about the social aspects of religion.

3)     No Distinction between Evolution and progress of Culture

          Tylor made no distinction between evolution of culture and its progress, but they are quite different from each other.

Critique of Evolutionism

1)      The evolutionists are armchair anthropologists. They never went to the field to study but made theories based on the studies already made by others. Field work is the main basis of anthropological studies.

2)      Evolutionists argue that each societies of the world must pass through certain stages of historical development. This is wrong. A society in hunting gathering stage can directly go to the industrial stage without passing through agricultural stage.

3)      It is not compulsory that each society should pass through lower stage to higher stage and uncivilized stage to a civilized one. A civilized culture may be degraded in course of time.

4)      Evolutionists did not mention any role of culture diffusion. A culture may be transmitted from a society to another through migration, communication, trade, travel or marital relations.

5)      Evolution is just a historical description of society and culture, but it is not a theory. This is only a point of view towards culture and not any logical generalization.

6)      There cannot be a single law or rule to describe the development of culture in different societies. There may be political, social, natural, economic, religious and other aspects of cultural development. This makes the cultures of different societies different from each other.

7)      Evolutionists do not mention about the conflicts occurring in a society. The conflict also plays a major role in the change and development of culture.

Implications of Evolutionism

Though evolutionism has been criticized severely in the twentieth century, one can not underestimate its role and importance in studying culture. Its implications may be summarized as follows:

1.) Helpful in Reconstruction of History of Human Culture and Society

               Evolutionism deals with the origin and development of culture from its beginning to the modern civilization. This helps in understanding the culture in scientific manner and reconstructing the concept of culture in different societies.

      2.) Effect on other Theories about Culture Growth

               Further study and research were carried out based on this theory. Anthropologists tried to remove the shortcomings of evolutionism and redefine it. This led to the development of new theories such as diffusionism, functionalism etc. Evolution has a great role in evolving the later theories.

1.)    Role in Reducing the Racial Concept

              Evolution made comparative and historical study of the different cultures of the world which helped to reduce the racial concept to some extent.

2.)   Helpful to know the Real Meaning of Culture 

              Culture cannot be understood well in the present content only. Historical and evolutionary study will help to understand and define culture in proper way. Evolutionism tries to peer into the past to know the culture.

TU Questions

1.)    Describe the main stages of human evolution. (2055)

2.)    What is social/ cultural evolutionism? Discuss the context and critique of evolutionism with suitable examples. (2056)

3.)    What is culture? Discuss the contributions of culture concept by E.B. Tylor. (2056)

4.)    Discuss the importance of culture for (a) individual and (b) the group. (2057)

5.)    Discuss the contribution of E.B. Tylor. (2057)

6.)    Discuss the concept of culture as given by E.B. Tylor. Point out major characteristics of culture. (2059)

7.)    What is social / cultural evolutionism? Discuss the variants and critique of evolutionism with suitable examples. (2059)

8.)    What is evolutionism? Discuss the critique and implications of evolutionism. (2060)

9.)    Evaluate the contribution of E.B. Tylor to anthropology. (2061)

10.)                       Compare and contrast evolutionism and diffusionism in terms of the methods proposed by them for understanding the human societies and cultures. (2061)

11.)                       What is multiliniar evolutionism? How does Steward use this idea to propose his theory of cultural ecology? (2062)

CHAPTER TWO (B)

Diffusionism

Introduction

Diffusionist theory was evolved in the beginning years of the twentieth century. This theory was emerged as the conscious revolt against the unilinear evolutionism. Diffusion is a process of spreading and transmitting the social values, traditions, norms, lifestyles and culture from one place to another. That is why diffusion refers to the process of spreading the cultural traits from a group, community, state or city to other group, community etc.

Diffusionism is an anthropological theory which believes that culture evolves in a definite time by a definite human group and which spreads to other places or other continents by means of migration, travel, transactions, contact, trade, communication, language, marriage etc. and due to which the growth of culture occurs. This theory gives emphasis on diffusion in human society and cultural growth. The growth and change in human society and culture continuously takes place. Emergence and spreading of culture is the main basis of this theory.

It is the diffusion due to which the culture developed in Nile River arrived up to Indian sub-continent. The culture of Tibet or China came to the northern parts of Nepal and similarly the culture from India has come to the southern parts of Nepal. Similarly Buddhism which was originated in Nepal has been spread out to China, Japan, Thailand and Srilanka by means of diffusion process. These are some examples of cultural diffusion.

Context of Diffusionism

1.)                          Failure of Evolutionism

Evolutionism was not able to satisfy the inquiries why there are the variations and similarities among different cultures of the world. Later researches disproved some of the assumptions made by evolutionism. In this way evolutionism was severely criticized which led to the development of diffusionism.

2.)                          Role of Christian Missionaries, Traders and Travelers

The Christian missionaries, traders and travelers traveled different parts of the world during their work of own interest. In this process they collected experiences and information about different cultures of the world. These information and knowledge encouraged the intellectuals to compare the different cultural growths. This led them to propound the diffusionist theory.

3.)                          Contemporary Situation

Industrial revolution, intellectual enlightenment and freedom of expression provided such an environment in Europe and America that it encouraged them to search and find out new theories and explanations which led to the emergence of diffusionism.

Key Assumptions of Diffusionism

1.)                          Culture is not invented parallel in all parts of the world. In fact it grows in a particular place and spreads all around.

2.)                          The mental capacity of all the people is not equal but different and limited.

3.)                          Whatever cultures have been developed and existed in the world, the basic element for their growth and development is diffusion, not evolution.

4.)                          Men do not like to invest new things but they rather like to imitate others. This tendency is the basic element of diffusion process.

5.)                          The means or agents of diffusion are communication, travel, migration, mutual contact, exchange, trade, marriage etc.

6.)                          The cultural traits of a group are accepted by the other only if it is acceptable to the later.         

7.)                          Generally the diffusion of culture takes place from a civilized, developed and higher society to the uncivilized, undeveloped and lower one.

8.)                          Because of diffusion of culture the social and cultural change takes place in the receiving group.

9.)                          Lack of communication and transportation, existence of ocean, hills, mountains etc. are the hindrances to the diffusion of culture.

American Diffusionist School

American diffusionists were influenced and motivated from German diffusionists. American diffusionism is also known as Culture Area Theory. This theory was influenced by German Museum Methodology. Franz Boas, who was considered as the father of American diffusionism, was born and educated in Germany. From Germany he went to America and worked in Clark University. American diffusionism believes that culture is not originated in a particular place but it may be evolved anywhere in the world. This theory is also called Historical Particularism. American diffusionists emphasized to use the terms like Culture Area, Food Area, Age Area, Culture Centre, Culture Climax etc. Among   the American diffusionists, the most important are Franz boas, Clark Wissler and Alfred Kroeber.

Franz Boas (1858-1942)

Franz Boas was born in Germany and hence he received education in Germany. At the age of 30, he went to America. He became the father of American anthropology. He worked as a professor of anthropology in Columbia University. He divided North America into various culture areas and studied about food, language, religion, social organization, building construction, art etc. of those areas and also studied how diffusion of these takes place from one culture area to another. He emphasized on the importance of fieldwork. He studied extensively about American tribes like Kawakuiti Indian and Central Eskimos. He put forward Cultural Relativism against the concept of ethnocentrism which was developed in the nineteenth century. According to Boas, every culture has its specific meaning, value and importance. It is wrong to divide them as higher and lower culture. He suggested using historical method to study various cultures in place of comparative method. Boas is also a well-known folklorist. He published many folksongs and fables of American tribes. He also studied about the relationship between mind and physical development of men. He took physical measurement of 19 thousands American boys and girls of ages between 13 and 19. According to Boas diffusion and internal development both takes place in a culture. The people of one place do not imitate and accept all the cultural traits of another place. How much they accept depends on their relative advantages, disadvantages, adaptation and favorability.

Criticism of American Diffusionism

1.)                           The concept of Culture Area put forward by American diffusionists is static and does not meet the depth of historical processes.

2.)                           American diffusionists have explained the cultural similarities and differences according to their material cultures only and neglected other aspects of it.

3.)                           According to German diffusionists, culture area concept was too narrow in scope and it neglected to take into account worldwide similarities.

4.)                           Culture area concept was considered as method of classification and not actual theory of diffusion.

5.)                           American diffusionists divided the cultures on territorial basis only and they neglected the changes occurred in course of time.

British Diffusionist School

British diffusionist believed that Egypt was the central place of origin of the world cultures. According to them culture was spread out all over the world beginning from Egypt. Since their studies and conclusions are focused on Egypt, British diffusionists are also called as Egyptologists. The British school is also known as Pan-Egyptian School of Diffusionism. They talked about ancient Egypt as the cultural cradle of the world. The most well known among them are Grafton Elliot smith, William James Perry and William Hales Rivers.

Grafton Elliot Smith (1871-1937)

Grafton Elliot Smith was an Australian surgeon and he worked in Cambridge University for a long time. He got an opportunity to visit Egypt. He was too much influenced and lured by the ancient pyramid, temples, artifacts and civilizations of that place. Later when he returned to England he compared these Egyptian artifacts with the monuments of England. With this comparison he was in a conclusion that the monuments of England were the imitations of England. With this comparison he was in a conclusion that the monuments of England were the imitations of ancient Egyptian civilizations. Not only this he became confident that the cultures of the whole world are transmitted and spread from the ancient Egypt. We can summarize the different thought of smith as the following points:

1.)                           Invention takes place in a favorable condition and that condition was existed in ancient Egypt only.

2.)                           Men’s attitude is generally more in imitation of others than to invent by own.

3.)                           Civilization while spreading outside the centre becomes diluted gradually.

Smith divided the human society into two types:

1.)    Civilized society

2.)    Natural or Wild Society

According to Smith, ancient Egypt was a civilized society and other societies who imitated or followed Egyptian civilization also become civilized societies. Smith named the societies which did not follow Egyptian culture as Natural or Wild Societies. He named those cultures as negative culture.

Criticism of British Diffusionism

1.)                           British diffusionists did not mention about the complex forms of diffusion.

2.)                           They did not mention about the different kinds of diffusion like done by German and American diffusionists.

3.)                           British diffusionists entirely depended on the archeological findings and they ignored other aspects of diffusion.

4.)                           It is true that some aspects of culture and civilization were originated in Egypt. However, it is wrong to claim that Egypt is the cultural centre of the world.

5.)                           Lowie has said that they were the last to come and the first to disappear.

6.)                           It is wrong to say those who follow Egyptian culture as civilsed culture and who do not follow that as uncivilized culture.

7.)                           Grafton Elliot Smith, main profounder of this school was too much influenced by Egyptian civilization when he had gone there. If he had gone anywhere else, he would have influenced by that another civilization and he would have said that that place was the cultural cradle of the world instead of Egypt.

Critique of Diffusionism

1.)    Diffusionism is focused mainly on the historical study of culture. It is not interested in what kind of structure is existing in society and culture at present and how it is being operated.

2.)    This theory is focused on the material aspect of culture and it is not able to include the immaterial aspect in its study.

3.)    Diffusionism is not able to answer satisfactorily why diffusion takes place in culture.

4.)    It is too much wrong and ethnocentric view of the British diffusionists that one particular place in the world is the centre of the emergence of the cultures of the whole world and that those cultures that follow them are civilized and those that do not follow them are uncivilized.

Implications of Diffusionism

1.)     This theory has explained about the emergence and growth of culture more satisfactorily than evolutionism and has explained about it something more to meet the shortcomings of evolutionism.

2.)     The theory has encouraged and guided further researches and studies about when, where and how various cultures of the world appeared and developed.

3.)     Support and criticism of this theory has indirectly contributed to discover other theories about society and culture.

4.)     This theory has helped to understand and analyze the similarities and differences between different cultures. This kind of comparison is helpful to understand the cultural development.

5.)     The study of similarities and differences among various culture helps to reduce ethnocentric views.

6.)     This theory has clarified what kind of relationship exists between culture and environment.

TU Questions

1.)    Examine briefly the part played by diffusion in the growth of culture. (2055)

2.)    What is diffusionism?  Discuss its key assumptions and implications. (2057)

3.)    Explain how culture contact leas to diffusion, acculturation and integration concepts. (2058)

4.)    Discuss the approach of the Pan-Egyptian school of diffusion with regard to explaining humans and their cultures. What are the main criticisms against this theory? (2061)

5.)    Compare and contrast evolutionism and diffusionism in terms of the methods proposed by them for understanding the human societies and cultures. (2061)

6.)    What are the key premises of diffusionism? Critically discuss the American School of diffusionism. (2062)

7.)    Write short notes on:

a.      German school of diffusion ism

CHAPTER THREE

Structural /Functionalism

Introduction

The word ‘function’ has been used differently in various situations. Any public programme or ceremony is called a function. In mathematics, the word ‘function’ is used to denote the relationship between variables. However, the term ‘function’ has a different specific meaning in sociology and anthropology.

A watch has its various parts and each part performs its specific work. During their work, they are related to one another. The work done by a part to run the watch properly in relation to each other may be called its function. In order to understand the working process of a watch, studying about the history of the development of watch is not sufficient, so we need to understand the structure of a watch, functions of each of its parts and their functional relationships. In the same way studying of history, growth, development and diffusion of culture and society is not sufficient to understand it well. It needs to study the structure of a social system and functions of each part of it. We should understand how the functional relationships of different parts of a social system are working to make the society and culture run well. This kind of thinking or theory is known as functionalism.

Function is the role played by the different parts of a social system to make the social system to make the social system continuously maintained. In the words of A.R. Radcliffe Brown, “Function of a particular social usage is the contribution it makes to the social life as the functioning of a social system.” All the parts or factors of a society and culture are functionally interrelated and interdependent with one another. Function is the set of activities done by a unit of a social system with relation to another unit for enduring the whole system in order and without any conflict. If any defect or change takes place in single unit of a social system, it will affect the whole system.

A society has its different components such as values, norms, tradition, religion, political institutions, economic institutions, family, kinship, marriage etc. which are all contributing from their own part to make the society alive in order. There is organization, unity and interdependence among these components. In this way, if any change or defect occurs in a component of society, it will affect the whole system. Theory based on this assumption is known as functionalism.

Context of Functionalism

No theory of the world emerges from void. It needs some backgrounds to emerge and develop. The following are the backgrounds from which the theory of functionalism developed:

1.)                          The theory of functionalism states that society and culture cannot be understood just by studies based on the reconstruction of history, but it needs to study how it is being operated at present. In this why, functionalism stood against evolutionism and diffusionism. The existence of functionalism is based on the criticism of evolutionism and diffusionism.

2.)                          Lamarck and Darwin developed a biological view to explain the origin and development of organism. Based on their biological explanations, Herbert Spencer made a comparison of society with organism. The different organs of an organism need to accomplish their function to make the organism live and active. In the same way the different units of a society need to have their functions accomplished to make the satiety maintain its order and existence. This analogy led to the emergence of functionalism.

3.)                          The supporters of evolutionism and diffusionism were not able to explain satisfactorily about the integrative elements of culture. This made the anthropologists and sociologists to search a new theory to explain it.

4.)                          In the later years of nineteenth century and the beginning years of the twentieth century, there occurred developments of many philosophical theories. There was a competition to develop different new theories. This led to the development of functionalism.

5.)                          The problems created by the First World War were the challenges to the governments of different countries. With an attempt to solve the problems, it necessitated to study how the societies are functioning. This led to the emergence of functionalism.

6.)                          The period between 1890 and 1920 was full of crisis for America. This age is also known as the age of decline. To cope with this grave situation, there was felt necessary to study about American society deeply which helped to the emergence of functionalism.

7.)                          The economic depression of 1930s all over the world created many problems in society. Methods and ways to solve this economic crisis also led to the emergence of functionalism.

Key Assumptions of Functionalism

1.)                          Society is an integrated system of different parts

 The main assumption of functionalism is that a social system consists of a number of units or parts which are intimately related and interdependent with one another. They are unified together to make an integrated whole.

2.)                          Various organs of an organism are functionally related like an organism

Different parts of an organism perform their biological function to make the organism alive and active. In the same way different parts of a social system such as institution, values, norms, culture, etc. perform their sociological functions. The various parts are functionally interrelated with one another. If any organ is cut out from an organism, it may be disabled or even died. In the same way if a part of a social system is removed, it will create imbalance, instability and disorder in society.

3.)                          All units of a society are indispensable and indivisible

 According to functionalism, each part of a society is indispensable and cannot be separated from the rest for the existence of each other. Each another part needs for one to keep it alive. No part of society can exist with separation from others. If the whole system is not alive, none of its parts can exist.

4.)                          Society always tends to be an integrated, organized, stable and balanced system

According to functionalism, the units of a society always tend to make it balanced and in order. If any challenges to this arise, the social system immediately makes readjustments. In this why there is always stability, order and unity maintained in society.

5.)                          Functionalism regards change and disintegration as abnormal process

 Functionalism is against the processes like change, collapse, imbalance etc. All the units of a society have a positive role and changes and integration are not regarded well. This theory is against revolution, upheaval, imbalance and disorder in any society.

Talcott Parsons (1902- 1979)

Talcott Parsons is a best known American sociologist of the twentieth century. He worked at the faculty of Harvard University. There he produced a general theoretical system for the analysis of society. This came to be called as structural functionalism. His major publications are:

1)      The Structure of Social Action

2)      The Social System

3)      Structure and process in Modern Societies

4)      Sociological Theory and Modern society

5)      Politics and Social Structure

              He described the following four systems which contribute to the construction of society:

1)      Personality System

2)      Cultural System

3)      Social System

4)      Biological System

             Parsons has said that the society is the systematic and functional combination of the above four systems. According to him a society can be in balance and order only if its different units played their respective roles properly. If they did not, the society will go disorder and imbalance. He mentions that institutionalization and differentiation are the chief two elements which help the social functions to perform.

             Parsons has spoken of four processes which act for maintaining social mechanism active:

1)      Adaptation

2)      Integration

3)      Goal Orientation

4)      Latency

             The first of these is adaptation, adaptation to the physical and social environment. The second is integration, the coordination of the society or group as a cohesive whole. The third is goal attainment, which is the need to define primary goals and enlist individuals to strive to attain these goals. The last is latency, maintaining the motivation of individuals to perform their roles according to social expectations.

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)

Emile Durkheim was born in France and he is considered to be one of the founding fathers of sociology. He developed objective approaches in analyzing social facts. The following are his major contributions:

1.)    The Division of Labor In Society

2.)    The Rules of Sociological Method

3.)    Suicide

4.)    Elementary Forms of Religious Life

To analyze Durkheim as a functionalist, we will have better to analyze his major books on division of labor, he has mentioned about the following two types of solidarities:

1.)    Organic Solidarity

2.)    Mechanical Solidarity

According to him, the modern society has organic solidarity where there is specialization in division of labor. Mechanical solidarity is related with primitive society where there was similarity and unity in division of labor. The social unity of that society was strong due to the combination of social units like social values, norms, customs nationality, glory etc. Durkheim emphasized on social and moral functions in division of labor.

In finding out the causal relationship between social facts, Durkheim laid the foundation for the functional method. He stressed that social facts are to be studied in terms of their usefulness in meeting human desires. The task sociology is to know the cause as well as the function of social facts. Thus, sociology must inquire into the functions of social institutions and other social phenomenon that contribute to the maintenance of social whole.

In his book about suicide, Durkheim has stated suicide is an individual phenomenon whose causes are essentially social. There are social forces running through society whose origin is not the individual but the collectivity. These are the forces that are real and determining causes of suicide. The social forces that are the causes of suicide vary from one society from another; Durkheim's study about suicide delves into the sources of social order and disorder that are at the root of suicide. He has spoken of three kinds of suicide: egoistic, anomic and altruistic. 

Durkheim's book about religion seems to be the last of his major works. In this book he brings his analysis of collective or group forces to the study of religion. The central thesis of his theory of religion is that throughout history men have never worshiped any other reality than the collective social reality transfigured by faith. According to him, the essence of religion is a division of the world into two kinds of phenomena, the sacred and the profane. The sacred refers to things human beings set apart, including religious beliefs, rites, deities, or anything socially defined as requiring special religious treatment. The profane is the reverse of the sacred. Beliefs and practices unite people in a social community by relating them to sacred things.

Durkheim was of the opinion that all the individual activities are performed to fulfill the social needs and whatever people make functions, they are not individual but social function. That is why his analysis is often called as societal functionalism.

Bronislow Kaspar Malinowski (1884-1942)

Bronislow Kaspar Malinowski was born in Germany. He studied in Germany where he got his Ph. D. in physics and mathematics. He was not able to continue his study due to illness. During this period, he read Golden Bough written by James Frazer and was very much attracted towards anthropology. Later he came to England and taught sociology. The following are his major contributions:

1.)    Australian aboriginal family

2.)    Sex and recreation in savage society

3.)    Crime and custom in savage society

4.)    A scientific theory of culture

5.)    Magic, science and religion

6.)    The dynamics of cultural change

7.)    Gardens and their magic

Malinowski took his field work of Papua community at Tobriand Island in New Guinea. The he studied deeply on how the different traditions and social institutions are fulfilling the needs of people and what kind of roles those social units are playing to maintain their social solidarity and unity.

According to him each cultural unit has its own function and a functionless cultural unit cannot exist. One trait of culture is integrated with another and thus, if one trait is disturbed, it paralyses the other. According to him, cultural traits are functioning to satisfy basic needs of individual and that is why Malisnowski is also called individualistic functionalist.

According to Malinowski, culture is that means from which man is able to endure his physical, mental and intellectual existence. Man develops culture to satisfy his various needs. Malinowski has spoken about the following seven basic needs of man for which culture was developed:

1.)    Metabolism

2.)    Reproduction

3.)    Bodily Comfort

4.)    Safety

5.)    Movement

6.)    Growth

7.)    Health

Malinowski explains that each cultural trait fulfills the above needs of man. He was of opinion that an essential characteristic of human social life is that habit becomes transmitted into custom, parental care into the deliberate training of the rising generation, and impulses into values. He demonstrated his scheme of function through a Charter, i.e. the aim or purpose of the society. The first aim if every society, according to Malinowski, is its survival. Thus, according to the charter, in every society, there are personnel, who have Norms or a set of Values. Thus, according to Malinowski these norms or values inspire the personnel for material apparatus which crates activities and activities, according to Malinowski, lead to function. This may also be shown below:

CHARTER

Personnel                                                                                    Norms

 

Material Apparatus

 

Activities

 

Functions

Source: An Introduction to Anthropological Thought by Makhan Jha

For Malinowski culture was adaptive, and without the satisfaction of basic biological needs neither man nor culture itself could survive. Many activities are related to or associated with the satisfaction of biological needs, which he called derived needs. In order to understand these dimensions of culture, according to Malinowski, one should apply the theory of function. In other words, Malinowski devised a very scientific framework for the study of the dynamics of culture through the theory of function.

Criticism of Malinowski's Theory of Functionalism

1.)                           Malinowski emphasized on the function of cultural traits only but he was not able to give sufficient attention to their structure.

2.)                           Modern, complex and changing society can not be studied in an integrative way through his functionalist approach.

3.)                           It is not true that all the units of society and culture play positive role and hence some of the units may play negative role to the society.

4.)                            It can not be said true that each and every units of society and culture are functioning their role properly.

5.)                           Malinowski described man as a mere collection of needs and interests only.

6.)                           David Bidney has said that hi to be a controversial figure.

7.)                           The growth and development of culture may take place even without man's need.

A.R. Radcliffe Brown (1881- 1955)

 A.R. Radcliffe Brown was a British anthropologist. In his studies he put more emphasis on social structure. His major contribution is the analysis of the relationship and influence of social structure in culture. He taught anthropology in well known universities of the world like Sydney, Cape Town, Chicago and Oxford. His major contributions are:

1) The Methods of Ethnology and Social Anthropology

2) The present position of Anthropological Studies

3) Meaning and Scope of Social Anthropology

 Radcliffe Brown went to his fieldwork in Andman Island and he studied about their ways of life, traditions and culture. He used structural functional approach to analyze the relationships among various units of their culture. The nature of his study was scientific and based on fieldwork. He studied about the importance of rites and rituals in social life. According to him, names, values, customs and institutions in a society are interrelated to each other. The integrated whole of these units is social structure. The integration, interdependence and functional relation among the different units of social structure contribute to the existence and continuation of social system. Like Malinowski, Brown was also against evolutionism. He gave a little importance to the analysis of culture but more importance to the study of social structure. In the course of explaining structural functionalism, he put forward three main concepts:

                                                              i.      Process

                                                            ii.      Function

                                                          iii.      Structure

 Here, social process indicates a unit of social activities. By activity we should understand the synchronic processes related with the present only. Function is the contributions done by the activities or processes for the sake of social structure. This concept is taken from physiology. In physiology function is the relationship between life and physical structure. Brown made an analogy of the functions of the organs in physiology with that in social science.

 According to Brown, structure is the integrated installation of structural part. Individuals are the smallest parts of social structure. Individuals have gained certain status in social structure, according to which they are playing their roles. They are guided by social rules. Their activities contribute to the society, which is called function. Function is done for the continuation of social structure. According to Brown, social facts or events are not the outcomes of individual activities but are activities of social structure.

Criticism of Radcliffe Brown’s Structural Functionalism

1)      This theory has its roots on the society in a balanced and stable condition only and hence it is not able to explain the changes occurring in the social structure in its historical process.

2)      This theory is not a scientific theory and it is only a speculative theory because the roles played by the different component parts of a whole social system can not be tested and verified.

3)      This theory has exaggerated about the uniformity, solidarity, stability, coordination and integration of society.

4)      This theory emphasizes on the norms and values of a society and gives little attention towards the activities deviated by such norms and values.

5)      A theory is related to define what it is but this theory is related to define what it should be. Hence this theory is said to be teleological.

6)      He has ignored to use the term ‘culture’ in social anthropology but according to other anthropologists, culture is the central subject of anthropology.

7)      In his writings he writes ‘Men Are Always Absent’ which shows that he is far away from men. But man is the main subject of study in anthropology.

Critique of Functionalism

1.)   It Favors the Elite Class

Functionalist theory argues in favor of the continuity of the present social system. It says that all the parts of a social system should continue to accomplish their respective functions and there should not be any changes to these systems. This should not be any changes to this system. This assumption advocates to the continuity of the present class differentiation of the society and it is in favor of the rich class of the society.

2.)   It is Not Able to Explain the Social Change Process

Social change is a major and an important process occurring in society. Functionalism has so little spoken about this process that some criticizers have even said that this theory has neglected or ignored the social change process.

3.)   Status Quo Theory

This theory advocates the continuity of present social structure and hence hinders the notion of progress and development. This theory considers the process of change and revolution as unwanted and deviation from the social norms as unnecessary.

4.)   Unscientific and Non-Verifiable

Functionalist theory is like an imaginative or fictitious theory since it cannot be tested and verified.

5.)   Ignorance to the Social Conflict

Social conflict is almost indispensable in most of the societies. It is responsible for many social facts and incidents. Functionalism has insisted on the interrelationship among various units of society but it has neglected the important process of social conflict.

6.)    Analogy of  Society with Organism Irrelevant

The organs of a living organism cannot exist separately. All the organs of a living body is regulated by mind. Although man is interrelated and interdependent upon his society, he has his individual and separate existence also. He has a sense, conscience and self-decision power. Thus analogy of human society with organism cannot be relevant and rational.

Implications of Functionalism

1.)    This theory helps to understand the circumstances of social disorganization.

2.)    More than 80% of social researches done in sociology nowadays are based on this theory.

3.)    On the basis of functionalist theory, we can study and analyze the mutual relationships among various units of society.

4.)    The concept of culture can better be understood with functionalism.

5.)    Functionalism makes easy to understand the nature of any society.

6.)    This method is found to be successful in studying jail, medical institutions and trade organizations.

7.)    Since this theory puts emphasis on field work study, it is very much suitable to anthropology.

8.)    This theory has turned the attention of sociologists towards the detailed study of empirical problems in society.

9.)    This theory was proved effective in the study of societies after the Second World War and had helped to the process of social reconstruction.

10.)                       Since the theories prior to functionalism such as evolutionism and diffusionism were silent towards the structure and integration of society, this theory is more scientific and improved than those prior theories.

TU Questions

1.)                Write a critical essay on Functionalism of Emile Durkheim. (2055)

2.)                 Discuss the relationship between social structure and social function. (2055)

3.)                Discuss the theory of Functionalism and role of institutions with suitable examples. (2056)

4.)                Critically evaluate the theory of Functionalism you have studied. (2056)

5.)                Compare the contributions of Radcliffe Brown and Durkheim. (2056)

6.)                Explain the basic contributions of Malinowski to anthropology. (2056)

7.)                Discuss Functionalism of Malinowski. Point out its criticism. (2057)

8.)                Write a brief essay on Functionalism of Radcliffe Brown. (2058)

9.)                Explain the concept of functionalism as defined by Emile Durkheim. (2058)

10.)           Discuss the theory of functionalism in the specific context of contributions as made by Emile Durkheim. (2059)

11.)           What is the meaning or function and functionalism? Distinguish between function and dysfunction. (2059)

12.)           Examine the functionalism as propounded by Malinowski and Radcliffe Brown. (2060)

13.)           Distinguish between functionalism and conflict theories. (2060)

14.)           What are key assumptions of structural–functionalism? Critically assess Radcliffe Brown's scheme for analyzing the society. Use illustrations where necessary. (2061)

15.)           Writ short essay on Durkheim's contribution to functionalist perspective. Remember to cite his relevant works and concepts in your essay. (2061)

16.)           Write short essay on Malinowski's contribution to anthropological theory. (2061)

17.)           What are the fundamental assumptions of functionalism? Critically examine the contributions of Durkheim in this field. (2062)

18.)           Write short note on Radcliffe-A.R. Radcliffe Brown’s contribution to theory in anthropology. (2062)

19.)           One variant of functionalism argues that cultures satisfy the needs of individuals. Identify the proponent of this approach and critically assess the fundamental assumptions of his theory. (2062)

20.)           Write short notes on:

a.      Functions and Dysfunctions (2057)

b.      Radcliffe-Brown's Contributions (2057)

c.       Manifest and latent functions (2058)

d.      Function and Dysfunction (2059)

e.      Use of organic analogy in sociology and anthropology (2061)

CHAPTER FOUR

Cultural Ecology

Introduction

Cultural ecology is the theory which explains and analyses the interactions and interrelationships between cultural knowledge, information and technology created and developed by man for the protection of his life and the surrounding physical and biological environments around him. In short this theory studies and analyses the interrelationships between environment and culture in a human society.

The term ‘ecology’ is related with biology. This word is the combination of two Latin words ‘oikos’ and ‘logos’ which mean ‘household’ and ‘study of science’ respectively. In biology, ecology means the study of the relationship of an organism with its surrounding physical and biological environment. In the field of anthropology, the concept of cultural ecology is originated and developed in the decade of 1950s.

The proponents of this theory have defined culture as the adaptation process developed by man to adjust and adapt with the changing environments. Cultural ecology attempts to explain the cultural diversity in the context of man’s diverse adaptation attempts with the different environments. In other words, they argue that the difference in culture is due to the different physical and biological environments and the different processes of adjustment and adaptation with those environments.

It is clear that the physical and biological environment surrounding different societies of the world in different time segment of history never remained the same and similar and hence there were different cultures developed by man. Old cultures were discarded and the new ones developed and adopted to cope with the new environmental challenges. The first person to insist on the importance of studying cultural ecology is Julian Steward. After he published ‘The Theory of Cultural Change’ in 1955, the discipline of cultural ecology is gradually developed as a separate theory in anthropology. 

Ecosystem is divided into two types: Natural Ecosystem and Socio-cultural Ecosystem. Under Natural Ecosystem there are two components: Biotic and Abiotic which affects the existence of life. Socio-cultural ecosystem is also known as artificial or man-made ecosystem.

Context of Cultural Ecology

(1.) Historical Context

From the time of Greek philosopher Aristotle and eighteenth century philosopher Montesquieu these philosophers had been talking about the relationship between culture and environment. Natural science, which studies about environment and ecosystem, had been gaining momentum. Montesquieu opined that weakness and coward ness can be found in warm climates. The concept of Environmental Possibilism stood against the previous concept of Environmental Determinism. Since these theories and concepts were not sufficient to satisfy the need of clarifying the concept of culture and environment, it was felt in the midst of twentieth century to create a new theory to explain the relationship of cultural system with geographical ecosystem.

(2.) Social Context

Intellectual freedom, human rights and individual rights which were begun in the eighteenth century were encouraged further in the nineteenth century. Due to the excessive development of industries and factories, problems of environmental pollution were appeared. The emerging new technologies provided facilities to the man and at the same time created many problems in environment and culture. In this context, anthropologists tried to redefine the relationship between culture in human society and environment. This led to the emergence of the theory of cultural ecology.

(3.) Other Context

Regarding the development of culture, many theories aroused such as evolutionism and diffusionism which tried to explain how various cultures of the world evolved, developed and became different in different parts of the world. Anthropologists and sociologists tried to overcome the shortcomings and drawbacks of these theories and hence this led to the concept of interaction of culture and environment.

Key Assumptions of Cultural Ecology

(1)    Cultural ecology studies the interaction and interrelationship between the man-made cultural means and the natural environment around him.

(2)    There is an intimate and mutual relationship between culture and environment.

(3)    Adaptation is the basic process of cultural change and the process of adaptation is dynamic.

(4)    Culture and nature are the indispensable and indivisible parts of the whole cultural system.

(5)    Environmental diversity causes cultural diversity in human societies.

(6)    Culture is developed in course of human adaptation to the ecosystem.

(7)    In the places of the world where there is similar natural environment, people use similar technologies, and hence they have similar social, cultural, political structure, norms and values also.

(8)    Culture is the compromise of the man with the environment.

(9)    Culture is changed and developed when men develop technologies to exploit the natural resources as much as possible.

Roy A. Rappaport (1926- 1997)

Roy A. Rappaport was born in New York City in 1926. He first got a degree in hotel management but eventually received his Ph. D. at Columbia University. He most enjoyed the religious aspects of society and also ecology.

He established his reputation with his first book, "Pigs for the Ancestors". This particular book was based on his work with the Tsembaga people of New Guinea. Along with this book he wrote three others and also more than 60 articles, reviews and book chapters. His latest book, written while he was ill, was entitled "Holiness and Humanity".

Rappaport was a cultural materialist. He explained cultural phenomenon in terms of material factors among people and the surrounding natural environment. He also analyzed the relationship between religion and environment. The following are his major books:

(1.)  Pigs for the Ancestors (co-writing)

(2.)  Ritual, Sanity and Cybernetics

(3.) Ecology, Meaning and Religion

(4.) Ecosystem, Populations and People

(5.) Holiness and Humanity

One of his famous books, "Pigs for the Ancestors", was an example of his cultural materialistic approach. This book describes the role of a religious ceremony among Tsembaga, a community of horticulturists in New Guinea. This community conducted a ritual, called kaiko, when they won new land from warfare. In the ceremony, the Tsembaga planted ritual trees on the boarder of new territory and that they slaughtered pigs in order to offer the pork to their ancestors, and they plant ritual trees in order to create a connection with ancestral souls on their new land.

            In addition to describing Tsembaga's point of view, Rappaport calculated caloric exchanges among the community, the natural environment, and neighboring populations. As a result of this calculation, Rappaport found that the kaiko ritual was articulated with the ecological relationship among people, pigs, local food supplies, and warfare. Warfare and succeeding kaiko ritual occurred every couple of years and this cycle corresponds with the increasing pig population. In other words, the ritual kept the number of pigs within the capacity of the natural environment and prevented land degradation. At the same time, the kaiko ceremony distributed surplus wealth in the form of pork and facilitated trade among people.

            Rappaport's analysis on kaiko ritual is typical of cultural materialist point of view. In general, religious ceremonies are cultural and can be explained in terms of values and other non-material concepts. However Rappaport revealed how the kaiko ritual is interrelated with material aspects of the Tsenbaga society and their surrounding natural environment.

Julian Steward (1902-1972)

Julian Steward was born in 1902 in Washington D.C. He is a Neo-evolutionist who focused on relationships between cultures and the natural environment. Although Steward learned Historical Particularism when he was a graduate student of anthropology, his interests later turned to environmental influences on cultures and cultural evolution. He argued that different cultures do have similar features in their evolution and that these features could be explained as parallel adaptations to similar natural environments.

Steward began his ethnographic career among the Shoshone, a Native American tribe in the Great Basin in the West of the United States. Through studying the Shoshone society in the dry harsh environment, he produced a theory that explained social systems in terms of their adaptation to environmental and technological circumstances. Steward’s evolutionary theory, cultural ecology, is determined by its environmental resources. Steward outlined three basic steps for a cultural-ecological investigation. First, the relationship between subsistence strategies and natural resources must be analyzed. Second the behavior patterns involved in a particular subsistence strategy must be analyzed. For example, certain game is best hunted by individuals while other game can be captured in communal hunts. These patterns of activities reveal that different social behaviors are involved in the utilization of different resources. The third step is to determine how these behavior patterns affect other aspects of the society. This strategy showed that environment determines the forms of labor in a society, which affects the entire culture of the group. The principal concern of cultural ecology is to determine whether cultural adaptations toward the natural environment initiate social transformations of evolutionary change.

Although Steward did not believe in one universal path of cultural evolution, he argued that different societies can independently develop parallel features. By applying cultural ecology, he identified several common features of cultural evolution which are seen in different societies in similar environments. He avoided sweeping statements about culture in general; instead, he dealt with parallels in limited numbers of cultures and gave specific explanations for the causes of such parallels. Steward’s evolutionary theory is called multilinear evolution because the theory is based on the idea that there are several different patterns of progress toward cultural complexity. In other words, Steward did not assume universal evolutionary stages that apply to all societies. For example, he traced the evolutionary similarities in five ancient civilizations: Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, Mesoamerica, and the Andes. These cultures shared parallels in development of form and function because all of them developed in arid and semi-arid environments where the economic basis was irrigation and flood-water agriculture. He argued that these similarities stem not from universal stages of cultural development or from the diffusion of civilization between these regions, but from the similar natural environments.

Julian Steward talked about cultural ecology for the first time when he wrote a book, “Theory of Cultural Change” in 1955. The following are his major works:

(1.) Theory of Cultural Change

(2.) The People of Puerto Rico

(3.) Native People of South Africa

(4.) Irrigation Civilization

Julian Steward is also known as a neo-evolutionist. He criticized the Universal Energetic Evolutionary Theory of Leslie White. The main principle of Julian Steward is the interactional analysis of environment and culture. Steward is the first person who divided evolutionism into the following parts:

(1.)  Unilinear Evolutionism

This is the classical evolutionary theories of nineteenth century. They believe that all the cultures of the world must pass through certain universal stages of development. Tylor, Morgan, Marx etc. are the main proponents of this theory.

(2.)   Universal Evolutionism

The theories of White and Childe fall under this theory. They believe that culture is developed according to the extent of energy utilization and the development of technology.

(3.)  Multilinear Evolutionism

According to this theory, the development of culture does not occur in a single predefined way, but in different ways in different parts of the world. Julian Steward is the main proponent of this theory. In this context, he explained about cultural ecology. He explained culture as the adaptation process of man with the changing environment. Culture is developed and changed to cope with the environmental challenges.

The cultural ecology of Julian Steward can be summarized as following three points:

(1.)  The interrelationship of exploitative or productive technology and environment must be analyzed.

(2.)  The behavior patterns involved in the exploitation of particular area by means of particular technology must be analyzed.

(3.)  The procedure is to ascertain the extent to which those behavior patterns is entailed in exploiting the environment affect other section of culture.

Criticism of Julian Steward

(1.) It Seems Inadequate

His cultural ecological analysis is not able to include aspects other than technology and environment. He is not able to explain how covariance can exist between cultural traits and environment and how they can be mutually interrelated. Therefore, his views are inadequate.

(2.) Ignorance of Other Aspects of Culture Other than Technology

Steward has explained technology as culture core. He has not given sufficient attention to other aspects of social structure that directly affect the environment. Festivals, religion, rituals, belief, philosophy etc. play important role to change the whole cultural form in environment. He has ignored this aspect.

(3.) Ignorance of Existence of Other Organism

Steward has ignored the existence and effect of microorganisms of the environment like virus, bacteria etc. he has ignored the physical capacity of mankind to adapt against the environment. He has also neglected the diseases occurring in human society.

(4.) Exclusion of Effect of Neighboring Culture

Steward has explained the origin and growth of a cultural trait with relation to a particular geographical surrounding only. However its contact with neighboring group also plays a significant role in its culture and plays a major role in its cultural change. The cultural system of a geographical area is affected by its contact with its neighboring human society.

(5.) Ignorance of Unnatural Technology

Man tries to exploit the nature for his benefit by means of various technologies. Some technologies are created and developed by him which is not based on nature or environment. Steward has ignored the role of such unnatural technology.

(6.) It Directs its Efforts Only to Isolated Primitive Community

Steward’s cultural ecology theory is applicable only to the ancient and isolated community. Ancient and primitive community is more affected by natural and physical environment. This theory is not able to explain and analyze the cultural change process in modern advanced societies.

(7.) Ignorance of Political Forces

This theory argues that cultural change of a society is due to the technology developed to exploit the environment. However, the environment is also controlled and governed by political power, form of the government, law, etc. Political factor also caused the destruction and protection of the natural energy resources. Steward’s theory ignores the role of political system to the natural environment and culture.

Critique of Cultural Ecology

(1.)   This theory has made its basis on primitive society with stable environment. Hence it is very difficult to apply in the context of modern complex societies.

(2.)   This theory makes its assumption that social and cultural changes are determined solely by natural factors. But in actual practice, we can see that the social and cultural systems are also changed by economic, political, religious and historical factors.

(3.)   Cultural ecology has attempted to explain the culture and environment in the context of technology only but different studies and researches have shown that religious and philosophical factors have also interaction with the environment and culture.

Implications of Cultural Ecology

(1.)     This theory helps to understand what kind of cultural structure has been developed in societies that are based on the ecological background.

(2.)    With ecological anthropology the anthropologists are able to gain the knowledge of ideal relationship between man and the environment since they insisted on the study of traditional human communities. This knowledge may be helpful and applicable to the progress and stability of the modern human societies.

(3.)    This theory helps to understand the minute interrelationship between artificial human surrounding and natural surrounding.

(4.)    This theory has provided encouragement to other theories to analyze the causal relationship of culture and environment.

(5.)    This theory has provided satisfactory explanation of ecosystem.

(6.)    This theory has provided effective explanation of the adaptation of culture with the environment.

TU Questions

1.)                Discuss the strength and weaknesses of cultural ecology as an anthropological theory.  (2055)

2.)                Who was the contributor in the development of the approach of “cultural ecology”? Discuss the key assumptions and variants of “cultural ecology”. (2056)

3.)                Discuss the approach developed by Julian Steward. What are the fundamental assumptions of cultural ecology? (2057)

4.)                Define, ‘Culture Core’. How the cultural core can be differentiated from other aspects of culture? (2058)

CHAPTER Five

Conflict Theory

Introduction

Each members of a society have their own and separate interests. They are trying to satisfy their separate individual interests. In this process, social conflicts are appeared. Conflict arises due to the limited and scarce availability of resources, means or opportunities. As long as the history of cooperation and accommodation in human society is, so long is the history of tussle, war or conflicts. Marx has said even that the history of hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle.

Conflict is such a process in which an individual or group uses force to dominate or sometimes even destroy the other individual or group and attempts to gain its goal or interests. Elements like hatred, anger, violence and cruelty ate also associated with the process of conflict. Conflict is a natural or usual concept since even an organism makes its struggle against the nature and against his competitors to live and continue its existence and survival.

Conflict in society is a deliberate and conscious process. In this process, a group attempts to destroy or defeat another group in competition. Conflict also occurs between nations, between peoples of different religion or race, between riches and poor and between rulers and ruled.

The theory which considers the process of conflict indispensable and usual in society and regard conflict as an important and basic element for social change is called conflict theory. In other words, conflict theory is the theory which gives more emphasis on conflict in society.

Characteristics of Conflict

(1.) Conscious Action

Conflict is a conscious and deliberate action. In conflict, the competitors try to defeat each other consciously. One group in a conflict knows well the capacity and means of another group. Conflict is not a spontaneous action.

(2.) Personal Activity

Conflict is waged to defeat the antagonist and not to achieve any particular goal. The chief aim of conflict is to cause harm or severe loss to the antagonist.

(3.) Intermittent Action

Conflict is not a continuous action. It lacks continuity or it occurs intermittently. After the occurrence of a conflict, either one defeats the other or the two make accommodation or compromise with each other. No society can sustain itself in a state of continuous conflict.

(4.) Universal

Conflict is found in each and every part of the human society. Conflict or clash of interests is universal in nature. In some societies conflict may be very acute and vigorous while in some others it may be very mild. But it is present in almost all the societies.

Context of Conflict Theory

(1.) Intellectual Context

Although conflict is systematically analyzed and studied later, it's concept dates back to the ancient time. The philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Kautilya, Hobbs, Hegel and Darwin had also talked about conflict in society. The old concepts helped to redefine conflict by now theory.

 (2.) Historical Context

The historical series of war and battles in the world persuaded the thinkers and scholars to think that the process of conflict is usual, natural and unavoidable process in human society. They attempted to understand, interpret and analyze this process which led to the development of conflict theory.

(3.) Social Context

Industrial Revolution, rise and development of capitalism, miserable condition of the workers, exploitation and inequality in the society created such a situation that struggle was necessary to get rid of such situation. Exploitation and domination necessitated conflict. A theory to define conflict was considered necessary at that time.

(4.) Contribution of Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin published his book Origin of Species in 1859. He explained about the natural process of struggle for existence and selection of the fittest. An organism which defeats its competitors can survive and the one which can not defeat others cannot survive. Herbert Spencer was influenced by this theory of natural selection. He made an analogy of human society with an organism. He also said that only those people can survive in society who can defeat others. Hence Darwin’s theory has also an important role in developing conflict theory.

(5.) Weakness in Functionalism

The functionalist theory has explained the society with only the functions of its elements and has emphasized only on the stability of society. It has ignored the indispensable process of conflict in society. The criticism of functionalism played an important role in giving birth to conflict theory.

(6.) Feurabach’s Theory

Feurabach was a materialist thinker. He said that God did not create the Man but the Man created the God. This concept of him changed the contemporary belief of people regarding the God. Materialist analysis was spread at that time’s society. This also helped in the emergence of conflict theory.

(7.) Influence of Positivism

Positivism is a doctrine formulated by Auguste Compte. This doctrine asserts that the only true knowledge is scientific knowledge. This doctrine was in favor of positive knowledge based on systematic observation and experiment. Compte’s positivism has also influenced to grow the theories of conflict.

Key Assumptions of Conflict Theory

(1.)  Society is Not a System of Equilibrium

The main assumption of this theory is that the society is never in a state of stability or equilibrium. Social conflict is the inherent process of social structure. A social system is composed of various antagonistic parts. The continuous conflict between these parts makes the social system dynamic.

(2.)  Society is a Stage Populated with Living, Struggling and Competing Actors

A social system is an interrelationship of the individuals with various interests, desires and goals. Each and every individual there are waging struggle against their competitors for their existence and dominance over others. Hence, according to this theory, society is a stage of conflict where different antagonistic roles with their own interests are played.

(3.) Conflict is Essential Law for Social Development

            There is an incessant conflict between the antagonistic elements within a society which is responsible and essential for the social change. Conflict theorists believe in incessant change as against the functionalists according to whom, change is a deviation form the normal condition of society. Therefore conflict theory seeks to explain factors involved in the perpetual process of social change.

(4.) Conflict Cannot be Abolished

Dehrendorf stresses the underlying assumption that conflict can be temporarily suppressed, regulated, channeled , and controlled but that neither a philosopher, king nor a modern dictator can abolish it once or for all. He rejects the notion of conflict resolution on the ground that it deals with causes rather than expressions of social conflict.

      (5.) Social Conflict May be Both Latent or Manifest

            Conflict is occurring continuously in a social system and it appears manifest sometimes or remains latent sometimes. Social conflict is not always violent. It is inherent in the social structure. It may be manifest or controlled or uncontrolled, violent or non-violent, disintegrative or integrative, explicit or implicit, such different types of conflicts are always happening between interest groups in a social structure.

      (6.) Conflict is Rooted in Social Structure

            The conflict theorists maintain that conflict is as much rooted in social structure as consensus. A society is dynamic due to the conflict among its structural parts. Welfare and interests are rooted to the each individuals groups of a society. They are always making conflict to satisfy their own interests.

      (7.) Conflict is Not a Continuous Process

Conflict never takes place continuously. It takes place occasionally and intermittently. No society can sustain itself in a state of continuous conflict. Conflict needs some causes which may not always appear in a society.

Karl Marx (1818-1883)

Introduction

Karl Marx was an economist, a philosopher and a revolutionary thinker of the nineteenth century. He was born in Trier city of Germany in June 5, 1818. He studied philosophy and law in the universities of Bonn and Berlin. He was influenced by Hegel and feurabach. He became the editor of a newspaper in 1842. in 1849 he went to London with his family and stayed there till his death. He passed away in London in 1883. He wrote many books with his intimate friend Frederick Engels. Among them The Communist Manifesto published in 1848 is considered as the basic book of Marx's conflict theory.

Major Works

(1.)   The German Ideology

(2.)   The Communist Manifesto

(3.)   Capital

(4.)   The Poverty of Philosophy

(5.)   Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

(6.)   The Gotha Programme

Historical Materialism

Historical materialism is an important principle of Marx to interpret the society and the history. With this theory Marx has explained and analyzed the historic, social and economic changes in an objective way. He argued that the historical incidents and changes should not be interpreted in idealistic explanations but they should be interpreted by the explanations of the natural characteristics of matter and production process.

A man needs food, shelter and clothes and other physical materials for his existence and survival. To gain these needs, a man always remains active and working. He uses his labor upon the resources available from nature to produce these goods. In the process of production, he obtains production experiences and labor skills. He can not produce and consume these goods alone and hence makes relationship of one or other type with other people. This relationship based on mutual co-operation and interdependence maintains production relation with other people. This production relationship also determines the form of production.

With the continuous progress of labor and production, there occur changes in production technology and production relationships. The change in production relationship creates the great impact on the whole social system, political system, thought and philosophy and political institutions. The great upheaval in the form of production determines the changing way of history. Hence, according to Marx, the actual history of the world is not the history of the kings and lords, but the history of the serial changes occurred in the forms of the production. The creators of the historical changes are not the kings and lords, but the working class people. He argued that the bases of historical changes should be sought in materialistic interpretation of labor and production efforts and not in the idealistic way of human thought. He attempted to find the general rules of the historical changes occurred and occurring all over the world in a materialistic way.

According to Marx, production of goods is the basic, primary and crucial process which determines the historical epochs. Hence the creation of history is always in the hands of general working class people. Marx's historical materialism has divided the whole history of human society into the following six stages:

(1.)   Primitive Communism

(2.)   Slavery Society

(3.)   Feudal Society

(4.)   Capitalistic Society

(5.)   Socialist Society

(6.)   Communist Society

(1.)  Primitive Communism

This is the first human society in history. In this stage all the means of production are under the control of the community. They worked collectively and jointly upon these collective means of production. There was no system of private ownership of society. The society was classless and there was no exploitation.

(2.)   Slavery Society

The private ownership system replaced the system of collective ownership in this stage. There were two classes- slaves and lords- appeared for the first time in human history. The lords owned all the means of production and lands and even all the slaves. Agriculture, animal farming and the use of metals were the basic production processes in this society. The two antagonistic classes- slaves and lords- were always in conflict in this society.

(3.)  Feudal Society

The class struggle between lords and slaves gave rise to the establishments of feudal society in which there were two classes- serf and feudal. The feudal owned most of the lands to be used for farming. The serfs were free as compared to the slaves but they had to work hard in the farms owned by feudal. In this society again, the two classes- serfs and feudal- are always in class struggles.

(4.)  Capitalistic Society

The capitalistic society is the outcome of the class struggle between serfs and feudal. Great factories and industries were developed in this stage. In this stage, there were two classes of people- proletariat, who used their labor for their livelihood and bourgeoisie, who owned the means of production. The bourgeoisie uses the labor of the proletarians to produce goods. This society provides more freedom to the people as compared to the feudal society. The bourgeois become richer day by day and proletarians become poorer and poorer. This condition creates a great class struggle between the two classes.

(5.)  Socialist Society

Due to the development of class consciousness in the proletarians, they are ready to topple the regime of the capitalists and after this class war they establish a socialist society. In this society, all the means of production are owned collectively by the working class themselves. They establish the dictatorship of proletariats. This stage is the transition between a capitalistic society and a communist society.

(6.)  Communist Society

This society is the last stage of world history. This stage is classless and stateless. The means of production are owned by the society. Distributions of goods are according to the need of the people.

In this way Marx argued that human history is created by the changes in the form of production. This is the historical materialism or the materialistic interpretation of history of Karl Marx. In his explanation, matter is the basic thing to determine everything rather than thought or idea.  

Dialectical Materialism

Dialectical materialism is the main philosophy of Marxism. This theory considers that matter is the main basis of this world. Due to its internal characteristics the matter changes into various forms. This process of development is continuous and universal. This theory of Marx explains that changes and development process of matter in nature.

Marx asserted that between matter and mind the matter is primary and the mind or idea is the secondary. Mind or idea is just the reflection of the matter. According to Marx, matter is not a product of mind; on the contrary mind is simply the most advanced product of the matter. It is possible to separate the thought from the reality of the matter. Mind or idea cannot create matter since the idea is born in mind and mind itself is the product of matter.

The following three are the laws of Marx’s dialectical materialism:

(1.)   The Law of the Unity and Struggle of Opposites

(2.)   The Law of the Passage of Quantitative into Qualitative Changes

(3.)   The Law of the Negation of the Negation

(1.)             The Law of the Unity and Struggle of Opposite

According to this law, there are always two opposite elements inside a matter which are in unity as well as in conflict. Hence, it is right to be two opposite antagonistic forces in society, state, economy and everything else in the world. A conflict is always occurring between the two, which keeps the whole alive and active.

(2.)             The Law of the Passage of Quantitative into Qualitative Changes

As a result of the continuous struggle between two opposite forces within a matter or society, there always takes place quantitative changes. After passing sufficient quantitative changes it leaps into a qualitative change. We may give an example of boiling water starts, heating from 0˚ Celsius, its temperature goes on increasing. This is a quantitative change. When the temperature of water reaches 100˚ Celsius, the water changes into vapor. This is a qualitative change. This kind of changes where qualitative changes take place after a long series of quantitative changes is the second law of dialectical materialism.

(3.)             The Law of the Negation of the Negation

After the qualitative change, the new stage of development is always better, higher and more advanced than the previous stage. The new stage replaces the old one. Slavery stage was replaced by feudal society. Feudal stage was also replaced the capitalistic society. This each new and qualitatively higher and developed stage always replaces the previous older stage of matter and society. This is the law of the negation of the negation. This process takes place for ever without any interruption and returning back. For example, when a seed is planted in soil, it changes into a bud. This bud grows to a tree. Thee tree gives fruits. The tree one day wilts. This is a process of negation of negation.

            In this way Marx put forward a generalized natural law for explaining the change process occurring in nature through his dialectical materialism. Marx had taken the dialectical concept from Hegel. According to Hegel, there are three levels of any logical process: thesis, antithesis and synthesis. According to him, any idea or concept gives birth to its opposite idea and there takes place contradiction these ideals. As a result of this contradiction, a new idea is created with proper adjustment of these two ideas. According to Hegel, change and development take place because of idea, spirit and universal spirit. He gave more importance to idea rather than matter. Marx refuted to this concept of Hegel and developed the theory of dialectical materialism. Marx used the dialectics of Hegel and materialism of Feurbach to propound his dialectical materialism. Hegel’s dialectics was without materialism and Feurabach’s materialism was without dialectics. Marx’s new theory caused a great change in the spiritual thought of that time.

Theory of class struggle

According to Marx, there are always two antagonistic classes in a society- the exploited class and the exploiter class. When the exploitation becomes intolerable to the exploited people there always occur class struggle between the two. In Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels have written:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

Marx has divided the class struggle in different stages. In the first there was a primitive communism where there were no classes and neither was there any class struggle. All the means of production were owned collectively and there was equality in distribution.  The second society was the slavery stage. In this stage the masters of the slaves were the exploiters and the slaves were the exploited. There was class struggle of these two classes which led to the transformation into feudal society. In feudal society, the means of production was owned by the feudal. They belonged to the exploiter class and the agricultural laborers were the exploited class. There was also class struggle between these two classes. This class struggle made the society to transform into capitalistic society. The capitalistic society is also not free from conflict. There are two antagonistic classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariats. The bourgeoisies are the exploited or the ruler class and the proletariats are the exploited or the ruled class. In this society all the means of production are owned by the capitalists and they also have the right over the goods produced. The proletariats of the workers are impelled to live on their labor. They own nothing except their labor. There occurs contradiction between these two classes and this creates a class struggle. According to Marx, the bourgeois class is ultimately defeated by the proletariat class and the proletarians gain their right over the means of production.

According to Marx, the main basis to identify a society is the form of holding property. All the behaviors of any individual are determined by his relationship with the property. Classes are determined according to the relationship of a person with the means of production. The line of demarcating class difference lies in the ownership of property. The class consciousness and the clashes in the distribution system give birth to the class struggle. In this way the continuously occurring conflict between two antagonistic classes is called as class struggle.

Criticism of Marxism

(2.)    According to Marx, polarization of the two antagonistic classes-proletariat and bourgeois- takes place in capitalism and a vigorous class struggle always occurs there. However, he ignored the existence of strong, middle class which is responsible for enduring capitalist system.

(3.)    According to Marx, the change in social structure always takes place through a violent struggle. However, in modern capitalist societies the organized labor is able to bring changes to the power balance to their favor without such struggle.

(4.)    The theory of surplus value is also full of errors and weaknesses. If the surplus value is only the source of profit, there is no way to get rid of the exploitation and profit collection in the world. Even the socialist countries are also making profit from their industries and factories.

(5.)    Marx has given importance to the economic basis more than required and ignored any other sources of power.

(6.)    Marx's prediction of the demolition of the capitalist system has been proved to be wrong since there are no any sign of future class struggle in modern capitalist countries.

(7.)    Not only struggle and conflict always take place in capitalist societies. Cooperation, accommodation, assistance, love, unity etc. are also taking place there. Marx has ignored these aspects.

(8.)    Class is formed not only on the economic basis but also on racial, regional, political, religious and other differences. Struggle also takes place in these classes. Marx has totally ignored this part of society.

(9.)    It was wrong prediction of Marx that the proletariat class ultimately wins in the class struggle against the bourgeois class.

(10.)                      The capitalism explained by Marx is that he had seen throughout his life time only. His explanation about capitalism does not fit the modern world. There is no such exploitation and severe condition of the workers in modern capitalist societies as had been explained by Marx.

(11.)                     According to the prediction of Marx, the socialist societies should have leapt forward towards communism but in reality they are found to go back to capitalist societies instead.

(12.)                     The society is not just the reflection of the ownership of property and economic organization.

(13.)                     It is wrong to predict that the individuals with common interests necessarily polarize in a class.

(14.)                     The power struggle in society is not always aimed by the ownership of property.

Importance or Implications of Marxism

(1.)   Marxism has provided an objective and a scientific tool to study, research and explain the universe, world, nature and society in place of old spiritual, idealistic concept.

(2.)   Marxism provides revolutionary guidance to the salvation from exploitation in society.

(3.)   It helps to remove harassment and status quo thought and provides clear concept for change, development and progress.

(4.)   It helps to understand the class structure and the root causes of the problems of any society.

(5.)   It helps to check the potential revolution or struggle in a society so that reformative measures can be implemented to satisfy the downtrodden class.

Critique of Conflict Theory

We have already discussed most of the critiques of this theory in the criticism of Marxism. We can add the following to them:

(2.)   The conflict theorists consider the conflict as the main basis for progress but the main basis of progress is co-operation, not conflict.

(3.)   Not all the classes in society are antagonistic to each other. They may be cooperative and helpful to each other as well.

(4.)   Conflict theorists think that conflict is the only means for social change but thee are also other means of social change.

(5.)   Not always the outcomes of conflict are beneficial but in most cases they are harmful or destructive to the society also.

(6.)   Studies made in conflict theory are based on historical data only and they lack empirical data.

Implications of Conflict Theory

(1.)  With the help of conflict theory, it is easy to study the dynamic aspect of society and to explain the process of social change.

(2.)  It helps to fond out the root cause of the potential or existing conflict in society and also helps in conflict management.

(3.)  This theory encourages the downtrodden and exploited people to be conglomerated for struggle.

(4.)  This theory has clarified that the carriers of the change in social structure are the exploited peoples themselves.

(5.)  This theory has shown the way of removing injustice, tyranny and exploitation through the process of planned struggle.

(6.)  This theory is effective in criticizing the exploitation and other ill aspects of capitalistic society.

TU Questions

1.)    Discuss the Marxian theory of class conflict. (2055)

2.)    Discuss the historical materialism of Karl Marx. (2055)

3.)    Discuss the contributions made by Karl Marx in sociology. (2056)

4.)     Write an essay on dialectical materialism of Karl Marx. (2058)

5.)    Critically evaluate the merits and demerits of Marxism. (2058)

6.)    What do you understand by historical materialism? (2060)

7.)    Distinguish between functionalism and conflict theories. (2060)

8.)    What do you understand conflict theory in sociology? Identify the key assumptions and variants of this theory. (2061)

9.)    Critically assess Karl Marx’s contributions to sociological theory? (2062)

10.)                     Write short notes on:

a.      Variants of conflict theory (2062)

CHAPTER SIX

Conflict Theory

Introduction

Each members of a society have their own and separate interests. They are trying to satisfy their separate individual interests. In this process, social conflicts are appeared. Conflict arises due to the limited and scarce availability of resources, means or opportunities. As long as the history of cooperation and accommodation in human society is, so long is the history of tussle, war or conflicts. Marx has said even that the history of hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle.

Conflict is such a process in which an individual or group uses force to dominate or sometimes even destroy the other individual or group and attempts to gain its goal or interests. Elements like hatred, anger, violence and cruelty ate also associated with the process of conflict. Conflict is a natural or usual concept since even an organism makes its struggle against the nature and against his competitors to live and continue its existence and survival.

Conflict in society is a deliberate and conscious process. In this process, a group attempts to destroy or defeat another group in competition. Conflict also occurs between nations, between peoples of different religion or race, between riches and poor and between rulers and ruled.

The theory which considers the process of conflict indispensable and usual in society and regard conflict as an important and basic element for social change is called conflict theory. In other words, conflict theory is the theory which gives more emphasis on conflict in society.

Characteristics of Conflict

(1.) Conscious Action

Conflict is a conscious and deliberate action. In conflict, the competitors try to defeat each other consciously. One group in a conflict knows well the capacity and means of another group. Conflict is not a spontaneous action.

(2.) Personal Activity

Conflict is waged to defeat the antagonist and not to achieve any particular goal. The chief aim of conflict is to cause harm or severe loss to the antagonist.

(3.) Intermittent Action

Conflict is not a continuous action. It lacks continuity or it occurs intermittently. After the occurrence of a conflict, either one defeats the other or the two make accommodation or compromise with each other. No society can sustain itself in a state of continuous conflict.

(4.) Universal

Conflict is found in each and every part of the human society. Conflict or clash of interests is universal in nature. In some societies conflict may be very acute and vigorous while in some others it may be very mild. But it is present in almost all the societies.

Context of Conflict Theory

(1.) Intellectual Context

Although conflict is systematically analyzed and studied later, it's concept dates back to the ancient time. The philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Kautilya, Hobbs, Hegel and Darwin had also talked about conflict in society. The old concepts helped to redefine conflict by now theory.

 (2.) Historical Context

The historical series of war and battles in the world persuaded the thinkers and scholars to think that the process of conflict is usual, natural and unavoidable process in human society. They attempted to understand, interpret and analyze this process which led to the development of conflict theory.

(3.) Social Context

Industrial Revolution, rise and development of capitalism, miserable condition of the workers, exploitation and inequality in the society created such a situation that struggle was necessary to get rid of such situation. Exploitation and domination necessitated conflict. A theory to define conflict was considered necessary at that time.

(4.) Contribution of Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin published his book Origin of Species in 1859. He explained about the natural process of struggle for existence and selection of the fittest. An organism which defeats its competitors can survive and the one which can not defeat others cannot survive. Herbert Spencer was influenced by this theory of natural selection. He made an analogy of human society with an organism. He also said that only those people can survive in society who can defeat others. Hence Darwin’s theory has also an important role in developing conflict theory.

(5.) Weakness in Functionalism

The functionalist theory has explained the society with only the functions of its elements and has emphasized only on the stability of society. It has ignored the indispensable process of conflict in society. The criticism of functionalism played an important role in giving birth to conflict theory.

(6.) Feurabach’s Theory

Feurabach was a materialist thinker. He said that God did not create the Man but the Man created the God. This concept of him changed the contemporary belief of people regarding the God. Materialist analysis was spread at that time’s society. This also helped in the emergence of conflict theory.

(7.) Influence of Positivism

Positivism is a doctrine formulated by Auguste Compte. This doctrine asserts that the only true knowledge is scientific knowledge. This doctrine was in favor of positive knowledge based on systematic observation and experiment. Compte’s positivism has also influenced to grow the theories of conflict.

Key Assumptions of Conflict Theory

(1.)  Society is Not a System of Equilibrium

The main assumption of this theory is that the society is never in a state of stability or equilibrium. Social conflict is the inherent process of social structure. A social system is composed of various antagonistic parts. The continuous conflict between these parts makes the social system dynamic.

(2.)  Society is a Stage Populated with Living, Struggling and Competing Actors

A social system is an interrelationship of the individuals with various interests, desires and goals. Each and every individual there are waging struggle against their competitors for their existence and dominance over others. Hence, according to this theory, society is a stage of conflict where different antagonistic roles with their own interests are played.

(3.) Conflict is Essential Law for Social Development

            There is an incessant conflict between the antagonistic elements within a society which is responsible and essential for the social change. Conflict theorists believe in incessant change as against the functionalists according to whom, change is a deviation form the normal condition of society. Therefore conflict theory seeks to explain factors involved in the perpetual process of social change.

(4.) Conflict Cannot be Abolished

Dehrendorf stresses the underlying assumption that conflict can be temporarily suppressed, regulated, channeled , and controlled but that neither a philosopher, king nor a modern dictator can abolish it once or for all. He rejects the notion of conflict resolution on the ground that it deals with causes rather than expressions of social conflict.

      (5.) Social Conflict May be Both Latent or Manifest

            Conflict is occurring continuously in a social system and it appears manifest sometimes or remains latent sometimes. Social conflict is not always violent. It is inherent in the social structure. It may be manifest or controlled or uncontrolled, violent or non-violent, disintegrative or integrative, explicit or implicit, such different types of conflicts are always happening between interest groups in a social structure.

      (6.) Conflict is Rooted in Social Structure

            The conflict theorists maintain that conflict is as much rooted in social structure as consensus. A society is dynamic due to the conflict among its structural parts. Welfare and interests are rooted to the each individuals groups of a society. They are always making conflict to satisfy their own interests.

      (7.) Conflict is Not a Continuous Process

Conflict never takes place continuously. It takes place occasionally and intermittently. No society can sustain itself in a state of continuous conflict. Conflict needs some causes which may not always appear in a society.

Variants of Conflict Theory

While talking about conflict theory one immediately cites Karl Marx as its major proponent but there are other sociologists also who opined about the role of constructive conflict in society. The following are such schools of conflict theories:

(1.)  The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory

(2.)  The New or Radical Sociology

(3.)  Dehrendorf and Dialectic Sociology

(4.)  Conflict Functionalism of Coser

(5.)  Analytical Conflict Theory

(6.)  Formal Conflict Theory

Karl Marx (1818-1883)

Introduction

Karl Marx was an economist, a philosopher and a revolutionary thinker of the nineteenth century. He was born in Trier city of Germany in June 5, 1818. He studied philosophy and law in the universities of Bonn and Berlin. He was influenced by Hegel and feurabach. He became the editor of a newspaper in 1842. in 1849 he went to London with his family and stayed there till his death. He passed away in London in 1883. He wrote many books with his intimate friend Frederick Engels. Among them The Communist Manifesto published in 1848 is considered as the basic book of Marx's conflict theory.

Major Works

(1.)    The German Ideology

(2.)    The Communist Manifesto

(3.)    Capital

(4.)    The Poverty of Philosophy

(5.)    Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

(6.)    The Gotha Programme

Historical Materialism

Historical materialism is an important principle of Marx to interpret the society and the history. With this theory Marx has explained and analyzed the historic, social and economic changes in an objective way. He argued that the historical incidents and changes should not be interpreted in idealistic explanations but they should be interpreted by the explanations of the natural characteristics of matter and production process.

A man needs food, shelter and clothes and other physical materials for his existence and survival. To gain these needs, a man always remains active and working. He uses his labor upon the resources available from nature to produce these goods. In the process of production, he obtains production experiences and labor skills. He can not produce and consume these goods alone and hence makes relationship of one or other type with other people. This relationship based on mutual co-operation and interdependence maintains production relation with other people. This production relationship also determines the form of production.

With the continuous progress of labor and production, there occur changes in production technology and production relationships. The change in production relationship creates the great impact on the whole social system, political system, thought and philosophy and political institutions. The great upheaval in the form of production determines the changing way of history. Hence, according to Marx, the actual history of the world is not the history of the kings and lords, but the history of the serial changes occurred in the forms of the production. The creators of the historical changes are not the kings and lords, but the working class people. He argued that the bases of historical changes should be sought in materialistic interpretation of labor and production efforts and not in the idealistic way of human thought. He attempted to find the general rules of the historical changes occurred and occurring all over the world in a materialistic way.

According to Marx, production of goods is the basic, primary and crucial process which determines the historical epochs. Hence the creation of history is always in the hands of general working class people. Marx's historical materialism has divided the whole history of human society into the following six stages:

(1.)    Primitive Communism

(2.)    Slavery Society

(3.)    Feudal Society

(4.)    Capitalistic Society

(5.)    Socialist Society

(6.)    Communist Society

(1.)           Primitive Communism

This is the first human society in history. In this stage all the means of production are under the control of the community. They worked collectively and jointly upon these collective means of production. There was no system of private ownership of society. The society was classless and there was no exploitation.

(2.)           Slavery Society

The private ownership system replaced the system of collective ownership in this stage. There were two classes- slaves and lords- appeared for the first time in human history. The lords owned all the means of production and lands and even all the slaves. Agriculture, animal farming and the use of metals were the basic production processes in this society. The two antagonistic classes- slaves and lords- were always in conflict in this society.

(3.)           Feudal Society

The class struggle between lords and slaves gave rise to the establishments of feudal society in which there were two classes- serf and feudal. The feudal owned most of the lands to be used for farming. The serfs were free as compared to the slaves but they had to work hard in the farms owned by feudal. In this society again, the two classes- serfs and feudal- are always in class struggles.

(4.)           Capitalistic Society

The capitalistic society is the outcome of the class struggle between serfs and feudal. Great factories and industries were developed in this stage. In this stage, there were two classes of people- proletariat, who used their labor for their livelihood and bourgeoisie, who owned the means of production. The bourgeoisie uses the labor of the proletarians to produce goods. This society provides more freedom to the people as compared to the feudal society. The bourgeois become richer day by day and proletarians become poorer and poorer. This condition creates a great class struggle between the two classes.

(5.)           Socialist Society

Due to the development of class consciousness in the proletarians, they are ready to topple the regime of the capitalists and after this class war they establish a socialist society. In this society, all the means of production are owned collectively by the working class themselves. They establish the dictatorship of proletariats. This stage is the transition between a capitalistic society and a communist society.

(6.)           Communist Society

This society is the last stage of world history. This stage is classless and stateless. The means of production are owned by the society. Distributions of goods are according to the need of the people.

In this way Marx argued that human history is created by the changes in the form of production. This is the historical materialism or the materialistic interpretation of history of Karl Marx. In his explanation, matter is the basic thing to determine everything rather than thought or idea.  

Dialectical Materialism

Dialectical materialism is the main philosophy of Marxism. This theory considers that matter is the main basis of this world. Due to its internal characteristics the matter changes into various forms. This process of development is continuous and universal. This theory of Marx explains that changes and development process of matter in nature.

Marx asserted that between matter and mind the matter is primary and the mind or idea is the secondary. Mind or idea is just the reflection of the matter. According to Marx, matter is not a product of mind; on the contrary mind is simply the most advanced product of the matter. It is possible to separate the thought from the reality of the matter. Mind or idea cannot create matter since the idea is born in mind and mind itself is the product of matter.

The following three are the laws of Marx’s dialectical materialism:

(1.)    The Law of the Unity and Struggle of Opposites

(2.)    The Law of the Passage of Quantitative into Qualitative Changes

(3.)    The Law of the Negation of the Negation

(1.)             The Law of the Unity and Struggle of Opposite

According to this law, there are always two opposite elements inside a matter which are in unity as well as in conflict. Hence, it is right to be two opposite antagonistic forces in society, state, economy and everything else in the world. A conflict is always occurring between the two, which keeps the whole alive and active.

(2.)             The Law of the Passage of Quantitative into Qualitative Changes

As a result of the continuous struggle between two opposite forces within a matter or society, there always takes place quantitative changes. After passing sufficient quantitative changes it leaps into a qualitative change. We may give an example of boiling water starts, heating from 0˚ Celsius, its temperature goes on increasing. This is a quantitative change. When the temperature of water reaches 100˚ Celsius, the water changes into vapor. This is a qualitative change. This kind of changes where qualitative changes take place after a long series of quantitative changes is the second law of dialectical materialism.

(3.)             The Law of the Negation of the Negation

After the qualitative change, the new stage of development is always better, higher and more advanced than the previous stage. The new stage replaces the old one. Slavery stage was replaced by feudal society. Feudal stage was also replaced the capitalistic society. This each new and qualitatively higher and developed stage always replaces the previous older stage of matter and society. This is the law of the negation of the negation. This process takes place for ever without any interruption and returning back. For example, when a seed is planted in soil, it changes into a bud. This bud grows to a tree. Thee tree gives fruits. The tree one day wilts. This is a process of negation of negation.

                In this way Marx put forward a generalized natural law for explaining the change process occurring in nature through his dialectical materialism. Marx had taken the dialectical concept from Hegel. According to Hegel, there are three levels of any logical process: thesis, antithesis and synthesis. According to him, any idea or concept gives birth to its opposite idea and there takes place contradiction these ideals. As a result of this contradiction, a new idea is created with proper adjustment of these two ideas. According to Hegel, change and development take place because of idea, spirit and universal spirit. He gave more importance to idea rather than matter. Marx refuted to this concept of Hegel and developed the theory of dialectical materialism. Marx used the dialectics of Hegel and materialism of Feurbach to propound his dialectical materialism. Hegel’s dialectics was without materialism and Feurabach’s materialism was without dialectics. Marx’s new theory caused a great change in the spiritual thought of that time.

Theory of class struggle

According to Marx, there are always two antagonistic classes in a society- the exploited class and the exploiter class. When the exploitation becomes intolerable to the exploited people there always occur class struggle between the two. In Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels have written:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

Marx has divided the class struggle in different stages. In the first there was a primitive communism where there were no classes and neither was there any class struggle. All the means of production were owned collectively and there was equality in distribution.  The second society was the slavery stage. In this stage the masters of the slaves were the exploiters and the slaves were the exploited. There was class struggle of these two classes which led to the transformation into feudal society. In feudal society, the means of production was owned by the feudal. They belonged to the exploiter class and the agricultural laborers were the exploited class. There was also class struggle between these two classes. This class struggle made the society to transform into capitalistic society. The capitalistic society is also not free from conflict. There are two antagonistic classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariats. The bourgeoisies are the exploited or the ruler class and the proletariats are the exploited or the ruled class. In this society all the means of production are owned by the capitalists and they also have the right over the goods produced. The proletariats of the workers are impelled to live on their labor. They own nothing except their labor. There occurs contradiction between these two classes and this creates a class struggle. According to Marx, the bourgeois class is ultimately defeated by the proletariat class and the proletarians gain their right over the means of production.

According to Marx, the main basis to identify a society is the form of holding property. All the behaviors of any individual are determined by his relationship with the property. Classes are determined according to the relationship of a person with the means of production. The line of demarcating class difference lies in the ownership of property. The class consciousness and the clashes in the distribution system give birth to the class struggle. In this way the continuously occurring conflict between two antagonistic classes is called as class struggle.

Criticism of Marxism

(2.)     According to Marx, polarization of the two antagonistic classes-proletariat and bourgeois- takes place in capitalism and a vigorous class struggle always occurs there. However, he ignored the existence of strong, middle class which is responsible for enduring capitalist system.

(3.)     According to Marx, the change in social structure always takes place through a violent struggle. However, in modern capitalist societies the organized labor is able to bring changes to the power balance to their favor without such struggle.

(4.)     The theory of surplus value is also full of errors and weaknesses. If the surplus value is only the source of profit, there is no way to get rid of the exploitation and profit collection in the world. Even the socialist countries are also making profit from their industries and factories.

(5.)     Marx has given importance to the economic basis more than required and ignored any other sources of power.

(6.)     Marx's prediction of the demolition of the capitalist system has been proved to be wrong since there are no any sign of future class struggle in modern capitalist countries.

(7.)     Not only struggle and conflict always take place in capitalist societies. Cooperation, accommodation, assistance, love, unity etc. are also taking place there. Marx has ignored these aspects.

(8.)     Class is formed not only on the economic basis but also on racial, regional, political, religious and other differences. Struggle also takes place in these classes. Marx has totally ignored this part of society.

(9.)     It was wrong prediction of Marx that the proletariat class ultimately wins in the class struggle against the bourgeois class.

(10.)  The capitalism explained by Marx is that he had seen throughout his life time only. His explanation about capitalism does not fit the modern world. There is no such exploitation and severe condition of the workers in modern capitalist societies as had been explained by Marx.

(11.) According to the prediction of Marx, the socialist societies should have leapt forward towards communism but in reality they are found to go back to capitalist societies instead.

(12.) The society is not just the reflection of the ownership of property and economic organization.

(13.) It is wrong to predict that the individuals with common interests necessarily polarize in a class.

(14.) The power struggle in society is not always aimed by the ownership of property.

Importance or Implications of Marxism

(1.)    Marxism has provided an objective and a scientific tool to study, research and explain the universe, world, nature and society in place of old spiritual, idealistic concept.

(2.)    Marxism provides revolutionary guidance to the salvation from exploitation in society.

(3.)    It helps to remove harassment and status quo thought and provides clear concept for change, development and progress.

(4.)    It helps to understand the class structure and the root causes of the problems of any society.

(5.)    It helps to check the potential revolution or struggle in a society so that reformative measures can be implemented to satisfy the downtrodden class.

Critique of Conflict Theory

We have already discussed most of the critiques of this theory in the criticism of Marxism. We can add the following to them:

(2.)    The conflict theorists consider the conflict as the main basis for progress but the main basis of progress is co-operation, not conflict.

(3.)    Not all the classes in society are antagonistic to each other. They may be cooperative and helpful to each other as well.

(4.)    Conflict theorists think that conflict is the only means for social change but thee are also other means of social change.

(5.)    Not always the outcomes of conflict are beneficial but in most cases they are harmful or destructive to the society also.

(6.)    Studies made in conflict theory are based on historical data only and they lack empirical data.

Implications of Conflict Theory

(1.)   With the help of conflict theory, it is easy to study the dynamic aspect of society and to explain the process of social change.

(2.)   It helps to fond out the root cause of the potential or existing conflict in society and also helps in conflict management.

(3.)   This theory encourages the downtrodden and exploited people to be conglomerated for struggle.

(4.)   This theory has clarified that the carriers of the change in social structure are the exploited peoples themselves.

(5.)   This theory has shown the way of removing injustice, tyranny and exploitation through the process of planned struggle.

(6.)   This theory is effective in criticizing the exploitation and other ill aspects of capitalistic society.

TU Questions

1.)  Discuss the Marxian theory of class conflict. (2055)

2.)Discuss the historical materialism of Karl Marx. (2055)

3.)Discuss the contributions made by Karl Marx in sociology. (2056)

4.)  Write an essay on dialectical materialism of Karl Marx. (2058)

5.) Critically evaluate the merits and demerits of Marxism. (2058)

6.) What do you understand by historical materialism? (2060)

7.) Distinguish between functionalism and conflict theories. (2060)

8.) What do you understand conflict theory in sociology? Identify the key assumptions and variants of this theory. (2061)

9.) Critically assess Karl Marx’s contributions to sociological theory? (2062)

10.)                  Write short notes on:

a.      Variants of conflict theory (2062)

CHAPTER SEVEN

Some Miscellaneous Topics

Acculturation

Acculturation is the process in which cultural change takes place due to the long and continuous contact between two societies. Due to acculturation process, some of the cultural traits of a society are lost and at the same time some of the cultural traits of another society are received by the former society. We may take some examples of acculturation in our society such as Brahmins begin to drink liquor and to eat chicken meat. People of Rai and Limboo tribes perform Sathyanarayan Pooja in their home. If two societies are in direct contact for a long time, acculturation takes place.

Definitions

(1.)  Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia

Acculturation is the process by which continuous contact between two or more distinct societies causes cultural change.

(2.)  Columbia Encyclopedia

Acculturation is culture changes resulting from contact among various societies over time.

(3.)  John Lewis

Acculturation is the process by which culture is transmitted through contact of group with different culture usually one having a more highly developed civilization.

Characteristics of Acculturation

(1.) Acculturation is a process of receiving or leaving culture by a group from another group.

(2.) A continuous and long contact between two societies is required to occur acculturation.

(3.) The culture of the receiver society does not totally vanish due to acculturation but a little or more of it changes.

(4.) Acculturation may take place voluntarily or by pressure. The Nepalese communities in Bhutan are impelled to follow the Drukpa culture against their will by the Bhutanese government.

(5.) Acculturation is the process of culture diffusion.

(6.) Acculturation takes place only when the cultural traits of the second group are acceptable by the first one. Hindu people do not accept beef however long they may have contact with Islam of Christian societies.

Cultural Lag

Cultural lag is a problem created when different parts of a culture have different rates of change and one part with slower pace is not able to catch up with the one with faster rate. The concept of cultural lag was first used and explained by William Fielding Ogburn. Later other sociologists like Sumner, Muller, Lyer, Wallas and Spencer also wrote about it. The concept of cultural lag suggests that there is a gap between the technical development of a society and its moral and legal institutions to keep pace with the technical development may create social conflict and problems. Cultural lag is created when the social institutions fail to keep pace with technological change.

The various parts of modern culture are not changing at the same rate. Some parts are changing more rapidly whereas some others are fallen behind in such change. The rapid change in one part requires readjustments to other changes since the various parts of a culture are interrelated and interdependent to each other.

Ogburn has made distinction between material and non-material culture. Material culture includes man-made things like tools, utensils, machines, dwellings, transportation and other goods of human consumption. By non-material culture Ogburn means religion, family, government and education. According to him, the non-material culture is slower to keep up with the rapid inventions and innovations of material culture. When mom-material culture is not able to adjust itself readily to the material changes it falls behind the material culture. As a result a lag between the two is appeared, which is called cultural lag.

Material cultures make rapid changes due to modern technological inventions, whereas ideological system, old beliefs and social organization remain the same or have slower changes. This is the main reason for creating cultural lag. One example of cultural lag in our society is the relation of health facilities and family planning. In the past people had to fight against natural disasters and diseases and less people were able to survive. The nature kept the population in balance. However, due to the inventions and availability of medical treatments, the more people are able to survive and there occurred the problem of increased population in society. At the same time, the people of old ideological belief are not able to follow family planning. This has been creating a cultural lag in our society.

Democratic system of government was formed in our country and even the democratic constitution was made. But the feudal and autocratic culture in society and in the political leaders remained unchanged. In spite of industrialization and urbanization in some parts, the old joint family system which was suited to agriculture-based economy has not been changed instantly. People have changed their methods of cultivating the soil, but not the methods of owning the land.

According to Bidya Bhushan and Sachdeva, the cause of cultural lag is that the various elements of culture possess varying degrees of changeability. The material culture changes ore rapidly than non-material culture. But cultural lag is also due to man’s psychological dogmation. Man is given to traditions. He is wedded to certain ideologies regarding sex, education and religion. On account of his dogmation and ideologies he is not prepared to change his institutions. The failure to adapt the social institutions to the changes in the material culture leads to cultural lag.

Ogburn introduced the term cultural lag noting that an invention directly affecting one aspect of culture may require adjustments in other cultural areas. He used this term to describe the delays in adjustment to invention. Although lags are generally imperceptible over long periods of history, they may be so acute at a given moment as to threaten the complete disintegration of society. For example, a major innovation in industrial processes may disrupt economics, government, and the social philosophy of a nation. In time, a new equilibrium will be established out of these disruptions.

Culture Core

Julian Steward defines the culture core as the features of a society that are the most closely related to subsistence activities and economic arrangements. Furthermore, the core includes political, religious, and social patterns that are connected to (or in relationship with) such arrangements.

Julian Steward has opined that the technologies used by man for his subsistence or livelihood are always suitable and adaptable to his surrounding environment. In other words, the use of technology varies with the ecosystem. Hence culture core should be analyzed for analyzing cultural relationships of man. According to Steward the culture core is linked with the economic aspect of man. Those cultural traits which are closely related with subsistence and economic arrangements are culture cores. Political, religious and social aspects are also included in culture core.

Those cultural features which are not directly related with culture core undergo more changes. Steward has names these features as secondary features. These secondary features are determined by historical and cultural activities. These kinds of features can be invented suddenly or obtained from diffusion. These secondary features determine the external features of any culture. That is why cultures look different from outside even though their cores are similar and same.

Another cultural ecologist who used the term culture core is James N. Anderson. According to him each community and human group has basic cultural features which are closely interrelated with economic activity and subsistence of that locality. This kind of culture is mostly related with nature. This culture core gives birth to the secondary features like religion, knowledge, belief, tradition, values and norms. Each culture has it own core feature. This gives the cultural identification of that society.

In a nutshell, we can conclude that those cultural features of a society which are closely and directly related with the technology of subsistence and economic arrangements are called culture core. Other cultural features beyond the culture core are called secondary features of that culture. Culture core represents the permanent and long lasting features of any culture.

Difference between Anthropology and Sociology

In the modern age, anthropology and sociology have developed so much that to know their differences is more necessary to know relations. They differ from each other in certain respects. The main differences between these two sciences can be summarized as  given below:

(1.)                             Difference in Scope

The scope of sociology and social anthropology is different. Sociology studies the modern, civilized and complex societies whereas anthropology concerns itself with the simple, uncivilized and non-literate societies. Social anthropology studies all the social, economic, political and cultural sides. Sociology studies the social relations and social interactions. In this way, the study of sociology is more particular and that of anthropology more general.

(2.)                             Difference in Object

Sociologist also suggests means for improvement along with his study. But anthropologists are more neutral and they do not offer any suggestions. Sociologists study small as well as large societies. Anthropologists usually concentrate on small societies such as Sherpa, Jirel, Raute, Bankaria etc.

(3.)                             Difference in Methods of Study

 The methods of study of sociology and social anthropology are different. Social anthropology specially uses applied method. One method of this kind is participant observation according to which, anthropologist himself goes to live in that society which has to study. On the other hand, the chief methods of sociology depend on survey and statistics. They use observation, interview, social survey, questionnaires and other methods and techniques in its studies.

(4.)                             Difference in Viewpoints

Sociological viewpoint is different from anthropological viewpoint. One is particular and the other is general. One is the viewpoint of a specialist and the other viewpoint is of scientist. One is actuated by a desire to improve and the other is neutral.

(5.)                             Nature of Study

Sociologists usually study parts of a society and generally specialize in institutions like family, marriage, social change etc of that society. Anthropologists attempt to study their aspects as wholes. They concentrate their studies in a given culture area.

Sociology and social anthropology and their decisions can be of important help for the human well being. For example, they help uprooting the dangerous elements like racialism and color discriminations. They can create a sense of tolerance towards the members of other societies, institutions and cultures and they can also help in understanding and solving social, economic and political problems. For example, anthropological study will be of great help in finding out means for the welfare of different tribes and primitive societies in Nepal.

Environmental Determinism

Environmental determinism is the view that the physical environment, rather than social conditions, determines culture. Those who believe this theory say that environment plays an important role in determining the origin, progress, change and development of culture. According to this concept, the physical environment plays a role of prime mover in human activities. This concept has defined personality, morality, politics, religion, material culture, physique etc. all according to the environmental factors. Any cultures need the assistance of physical environment for its existence and survival. Environment also plays major role in determining and constructing the structure of human and social activities. Environment is everything that determines the fate of culture and hence is considered as on the driver’s seat.

According to this concept, specific characteristics in a society are grown due to the local environment. The main proponents of this theory are Thomas Griffith Taylor and Ellsworth Huntington. The human juice theory of Hippocrates was still popular until the 19^th century, according to which there are yellow bile, black bile, phlegm and blood in human body. The content and proportion of these four elements determine the physical and hygienic condition of man and his personality. The environment determines the content of the four elements. According to him, for this reason, the people in hot climate region are lustful, violent, short aged, tall and light in weight.

Similarly Plato and Aristotle opined that the form of government also depends upon the environment of a locality. According to them, the countries in moderate climate have democratic, in hot climate have autocratic and in cold climate have unstable form of government.

The eighteenth century philosopher Montesquieu claimed that the religion of a society also depends upon the environment. According to him, regions with hot climate have peaceful religion like Buddhism, with cold climate have active religion lie Christianity.

Charles Darwin also reinforced the concept of environmental determinism in his famous book Origin of Species. According to him, the tradition which is favorable and adaptable to the environment is selected by the nature and the nature itself destroys the unfavorable and non-adjustable tradition.

However the implication of this concept has been found to be outdated after the 19^th and 20^th century because these concepts are not able to be verified entirely. Modern scholars have largely dismissed this view as racist and overly simplistic. The new concept of environmental possibilism displaced this concept in the 1930s.

Ethnocentrism

Meaning

Ethnocentrism can be defined as making false assumptions about ways based on one’s own limited experience. It is the way of thinking one’s own group’s ways are superior to other’s or judging other groups as inferior to one’s own. ‘Ethnic’ refers to cultural heritage and ‘centrism’ refers to the central starting point. In this way ethnocentrism refers to the central starting point. In this way ethnocentrism basically refers to judging other groups from one’s own cultural point of view.

Ethnocentrism is the tendency to judge the customs of other societies by the standards of one’s own ethnographic present. This term is first coined by William Graham Sumner. Some examples of ethnocentrism are Afrocentrism, Americentrism, Anglocentrism, Germanocentrism, Eurocentrism etc.

British drivers say that someone is driving on the wrong side when one is driving on left hand side. They would have said it opposite side or left hand side in spite of ‘wrong’ side. It is their ethnocentric view.

In this way, ethnocentrism means mostly two things:

(1.)    Thinking that one’s group is superior to other’s, and

(2.)    Judging other group’s behavior by one’s values and norms.

Definitions

(1.) Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

Ethnocentrism is the assumption based on the ideas and beliefs of one particular culture and using these to judge other cultures.

(2.) Columbia Encyclopedia

Ethnocentrism is the feeling that one’s group has a mode of living, values, and patterns of adaptation that are superior to those other groups.

(3.)  Microsoft Encarta Dictionary

Ethnocentrism is a belief in or assumption of the superiority of one’s own social or cultural group.

(4.)  Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ethnocentrism is the viewpoint that one’s ethnic group is the centre of everything, against which all other groups are judged.

(5.)  Makhan Jha

Ethnocentrism refers to the tendency to use the norms and values of one’s own culture or subculture as a basis for judging others. The concept of ethnocentrism is often contrasted with that of cultural relativism- the perception that norms and values of each culture have their own validity and cannot be used as a standard for evaluating other cultures.

Characteristic of Ethnocentrism

(1.) It is a Way of Judging Others

Ethnocentrism is the way one judges the behavior of other groups based on one's own limited experience and values. Ethnocentrism leads to misunderstanding others. We falsely distort what is meaningful and functional to other peoples through our own tinted glass.

(2.) It is Unconsciously Made

Ethnocentrism is not made consciously. Everyone says that he is not ethnocentric, he is liberal to other groups, he is judging others rightly, but we do not understand. We are not aware that they have different experience about life and our experiences are  not sufficient to understand them.

(3.) It Causes Hatred towards Others

Ethnocentrism causes hatred or contempt towards other groups. It creates contempt for members of other groups. Ethnocentrism makes one think superior to others and it creates hostility with them. Violence, discrimination, procetelysing, and verbal aggressiveness are other means whereby ethnocentrism may be expressed. There are extreme forms of ethnocentrism that pose serious problems such as racism, colonialism, and ethnic cleansing. These views are generally condemned by the world community, but we regularly see such cases in the news.

(1.)  It Cannot Be Avoided Completely

By the development of communication and education, ethnocentric views are being reduced in the present world. Everyone is learning the customs and traditions of other groups also. However, we cannot be completely free from ethnocentrism at a time, because we cannot gain the life experience of all the groups of the world at a single time. Our experiences are always less and limited in the global context.

(2.)  It is Based on One’s Experience

Ethnocentrism is based on the life experiment of one’s own group. By ethnocentrism we see others ways in terms of our own life experience, not their context. We do not understand that their ways have their own meanings and functions in life, just our ways have for us.

Exchange Theory

In social exchange theory social relationships are primarily viewed as exchanges of goods and services among persons. I this theory people are considered to be hedonistic and they try to maximize rewards and minimize costs. This theory assumes freedom of choice and situations that require decision making. This theory is a social psychological perspective. It explains social change and stability as a process of negotiated exchanges between parties. Social exchange theory considers that all human relationships are formed by the use of a subjective cost-benefit analysis and the comparison of alternatives. For example, when a person considers the costs of relationship as outweighing the perceived benefits, then the theory predicts that the person will choose to leave the relationship.

This theory assumes that individuals are always seeking to maximize rewards from their interactions with others. This theory views society as an open market of social interactions where people have choices to get more profit with less cost. The following are the four basic postulates or concepts of this theory:

(1.)    Reward

(2.)    Cost

(3.)    Outcome

(4.)    Comparison Level

(1.)  Reward

Reward is happiness, peace, satisfaction and benefit. Material benefit and mental satisfaction both are included in this term. Reward means such an activity which a person achieves with the other.

(2.)  Cost

Cost means labor, tiredness, fear or loss etc. It is basically a punishment. Such action or behavior which causes tiredness of worry as a punishment is cost. When a person thinks that he has more reward and less cost then he is attracted to do such behavior. On the other hand, if he thinks the cost is more than the reward, he is not attracted to perform such action.

(3.)  Outcome

If the cost is deducted from the reward, whatever obtained is called as outcome. If the reward is comparatively more than the cost, the outcome is called positive outcome. If the reward is comparatively less than the cost, the outcome is called negative outcome.

(4.)  Comparison Level

Comparison level is the level of expectations of benefit from an individual with the interaction with the other. In general, an individual is attracted to perform an action when there is a positive outcome. But it is not always right. The attraction also depends upon individual’s choice.

The following are the variants of exchange theory:

(3.)    George Homans : exchange behaviouralism

(4.)    Peter Blau : structural exchange theory

(5.)    Michael Hechter : rational choice theory

The critiques of exchange theory say that this theory is not able to explain deep and romantic passionate love in which the cost is more than the reward. This theory considers the cost-benefit analysis of the first individual or party only but it is not able to explain the other individual or party’s preference and choice. Hence this theory is considered to be one sided.

Functions and Dysfunctions

            The concepts of social functions and dysfunctions are essentially related to the functional theory. Robert K. Merton has drawn our attention to the fact that not all elements in the social system are functional at all limes. On occasion some element may actually disrupt the social equilibrium and may therefore be dysfunctional.

                Harry M. Johnson has explained,” Any partial structure- a type of sub-group, or a role, or a social norm or a cultural value- is said to have a function if it contributes to the fulfillment of one or more of the social needs of a social system;- any partial structure is said to have a dysfunction if it hinders the fulfillment of one or more of these needs.

                According to Collin’s Dictionary of Sociology "a dysfunction or disfunction is any social activity seen as making a negative contribution to the maintenance or effective working of a functioning social system".

                According to Merton dysfunctions are those observed consequences which lessen the adaptation or adjustment of the system.

                The elements of social system advance in various directions. In the fist place their action creates such results which strengthen the social system and make it more adjustable to other elements. This activity is known as function.

                On the other hand if the activity of the elements creates a situation which leads to disintegration of the social system and regards the possibilities of adjustments it is known as dysfunction.

                According to some scholars functions are those activities which help in maintaining social organization while those activities which lead to social disorganization are known as dysfunctions. Functions are those activities which help in the maintenance of system and organization is society. On the other hand dysfunctions are those activities which are injurious to social system and organization. Functions fulfill general needs and aims whereas dysfunctions are injurious to general social interests. Functions represent those activities which are sanctioned by society. Dysfunctions are those activities which are anti-social and rejected by the society.

                Sometimes, an element, in the social order can be functional in one respect and dysfunctional in another. Any industry in modern society, for example, has the manifest function of providing the goods on which the way of life of the people depends. But it has also the latent function of polluting the environment and is therefore, dysfunctional in the sense. Thus every system has some function as well as function.

Institution

Institution is the socially organized and accepted set of procedures to fulfill men's basic needs. In general, people use the word Institution as association or organization of a group of people assembled to do certain work. In sociology, institution has a different and a more precise meaning.

Marriage, religion and education are social institutions. There is difference between association and institution. Institution is the method of doing something which is socially accepted. When people form an organization to fulfill certain objectives, they also make rules and methods to run such organization. This way, rules and methods are called institution. 

Definitions

(1.) Bogardus

A social institution is a structure of society that is organized to meet the need of people chiefly through well established procedures.

(2.) Ross

Social institutions are sets of organized human relationships established or sanctioned by common will.

(2.) Horton and Hunt

An institution is an organized system of relationships which embodies certain common rules and procedures and meets certain basic needs of the society.

Characteristics of Institution

(1.)      Social institutions are universal. Social institutions are indispensable for the smooth functioning of a society.

(2.)      Social institution is means to control individuals. Family and school are social institutions as these teach individuals to control their behavior.

(3.)      Social institutions are relatively permanent. The methods of marriage may change, marriage never ceases to exist.

(4.)      Social institutions help to satisfy primary needs. The primary needs of people such as childhood, biological needs etc. are fulfilled through family and marriage life.

(5.)      Social institutions have a certain symbol. For example, vermillion and red clothes of married Hindu women, Trisool of Hindu temples, symbol of Islamic mosque etc. certificates are symbols of universities. Cheques and tokens are also symbols given by banks.

(6.)      Social institutions have certain traditions or rules which may be written or unwritten.

Latent and Manifest Functions

            Robert K. Merton has made a distinction between manifest functions and latent functions. According to Merton, manifest functions are those that are intended and recognized; whereas latent functions are unrecognized and unintended.

Manifest Functions

            These are intended and recognized functions. These are functions which people assume and expect the institutions to fulfill. Manifest functions are those objective consequences, contributing to the adjustment or adaptation of the system which are intended and recognized by participants in the system. Therefore, this type of function is known to the society. Society knows the consequences. Consequence is observable and is sanctioned by the society. Manifest functions are those functions in a social system which are intended and/or overtly recognized by the participants in that social system.

                The following are some of the examples of manifest functions:

1.)                                   An educational institution educates the members of the society. So this part which an educational institution is playing is known to the society and that is why society has recognized the educational institution for this. This is the manifest function of the educational institution.

2.)                                   Dashain festival provides the opportunity to the younger members of our society to take blessings and well wishes from the veteran members. This also provides happiness, merriment by eating well things, wearing new clothes, swinging in pings and taking part in Dashain fairs etc. This is the manifest function of dashain festival.

3.)                                   Economic institutions are expected to produce and distribute goods and direst flow of capital wherever it is needed.

4.)                                   Dating is expedited to help the young men and women to find out their suitability for marriage.

5.)                                   The welfare system has the manifest function of preventing the poor from starving.

6.)                                   Incest taboos are expected to prevent biological degeneration.

7.)                                   The rain dances of Hopi Indians are intended to bring rains.

These manifest functions are obvious, admitted and generally applauded.

Latent Functions

            These are unrecognized and unintended functions. These are unforeseen consequences of institutions. Latent functions are those functions which are hidden and remain unacknowledged by the participants. The following are some examples:

1)                   Educational institutions socialize the children. They provide mass entertainment and keep the young out of employment market. This is its latent function.

2)                   Dashain festival makes the members of a family integrated and makes warm relationship between older and younger generations. Social integration is the latent function of Dashain festival.

3)                   Economic institutions not only produce and distribute goods, but also promote technological, political and educational changes, and even philanthropy.

4)                   Dating not only selects marriage partners but also supports a large entertainment industry.

5)                   The welfare system not only protects the starving, but it also has the latent function of preventing a civil disorder that might result if millions of people had no source of income.

6)                   Incest taboo has the latent function of preventing conflicts within the family. Its another latent function is it reinforces the sexual union between husband and wife.

7)                   The rain dances of the Hopi Indians have a latent function of increasing social interaction. When they gather in a place outside their village and make fire and smoke, so that they think the smoke become clouds and bring rain, this rain dances provides them an opportunity to share their happiness and grief and make them integrated. This makes their social relationship more intimate.

Participant Observation

            Observation is the method of investigation in which the investigator directly and carefully sees the social processes in the field. Observation method is a method under which data from the field is collected with the help of observation by the observer or by personally going to the field. In observation the investigator must be present in the field and collect relevant data of his study. This is the oldest method of study. An observer goes to the field with some hypothesis which he has in mind and observes the things for the time being with the background of the hypothesis.

                Participant observation method is one of the different methods of observation. In participant observation method, the observer takes part in all the activities of the group whose behavior is to be observed. This method is used when the observer can so disguise himself as to be accepted as a member of the group under study. The observer must identify himself, closely with the group. This method is mostly used in anthropology. This participant observation may vary from complete membership in the group to a part-time membership in the group. He may find a role in the group which will not disturb the usual patterns of behavior. If the members are unaware of the scientist's purpose, their behavior is least likely to be affected. Thus, he may be able to record the natural behavior of the group.

                C. N. Shankar Rao, in his book Sociology: Primary Principles, has given the following some examples of participant observational studies:

(1.) William Whyte (1943) took the role of a participant observer in an Italian slum neighborhood of an American city, that is, Boston. Whyte learnt Italian language and participated in all the activities of the gang such as – gambling, drinking alcohol, bowling, etc. The gang knew Whyte as some one who was writing a book. Sociologists had previously presumed that such a slum community would not be highly organized. Whyte showed that it was, although not in tune with the middle-class values.

(2.) Erving Goffman (1961), an American social psychologist spent many months as an observer in mental hospital. His description gives us an idea as to how the organization of an asylum systematically depersonalizes the patients and may even aggravate their problems.

(3.) Leo Festinger (1966) and his associates wanted to study a very exclusive cult whose members believed that the end of the world was to come on a certain specified day. Festinger with his associates took part in its meetings by pretending to be believers.

Psychic Unity of Mankind

The postulate of "the psychic unity of mankind" states that all human beings, regardless of culture or race, share the same basic psychological and cognitive make-up and we are all of the same kind. This postulate was originally formulated by Adolf Bastian, the "father of German anthropology". He was a classical German humanist and a cultural relativist, who believed in the intrinsic value of cultural variation. Franz Boas, who is the "father of American anthropology" also followed this postulate and transmitted it on to all of his students. Edward B. Tylor introduced it to 19th century British evolutionist anthropology.

Bastian formulated the "principle of the psychic unity of mankind", which states that human kind is a single species, and that cultures differ for social, rather than biological reasons. This principle formed the foundation of comparative anthropology, in 19th century evolutionism, and later. The psychic unity of mankind is one of the key assumptions of evolutionism. It believes that the mental capacity to think and discover of all the people of the world is almost equal. That is why, we find similarity in different cultures and civilizations of the world which were separately grown and developed. People of different geographical location of the world discover various tools for their use in the same way. The cultures at various places are also similarly developed according to this concept. In similar environmental and surrounding situation, all the people of the world can invent parallel. Their cultural growth is also similar and equal.

Diffusionists believe that a handful of the persons of the world have special mental capacity who can invent and develop new things. Other people do not have such talent; they only know to imitate others. According to diffusionist theory, only specific part of the world have favorable environment to develop civilization and invent new cultures. The main difference between evolutionism and diffusionism lies in this point. Evolutionists claim that cultures are grown and developed all over the world in parallel inventions. Each society has to pass through the evolutionary stages of cultural development.

Adolf Bastian was interested in the study of similarities between different types of people rather than their differences and he attempted to explain these similarities by man's psychic unity. The classical evolutionists believed that cultural similarities are due to similar environments and parallel inventions. The thought and idea in similar environments and situations are also similar. That is why we can see similarities of inventions in different parts of world. The main charm of evolutionism is that people find similar solution for similar problem in similar circumstances. The mental level of all the peoples of the world is same and similar. If they are subjected to similar challenges and in similar situations, they find put similar methods of their solutions. This is because their mind structure and psychic capacity is similar and equal. This is the main assumption of the postulate of the psychic unity of mankind.

TU Questions

1.)              Write short notes on the following:

a.      Acculturation (2055)

b.     Exchange theory (2056)

c.      Institution (2056)

d.     Ethnocentrism (2056)

e.      Functions and Dysfunctions (2057)

f.       Cultural lag (2058)

g.      Participant observation (2058)

h.     Manifest and latent functions (2058)

i.        Function and dysfunction (2059)

j.        Ethnocentrism (2059)

k.     Distinction between Anthropology/Sociology (2060)

l.        Holistic concept (2060)

m.   Environmental  determinism (2061)

n.     Use of Organic Analogy in sociology and anthropology (2061)

o.      Psychic Unity of Mankind (2061)

 CHAPTER SEVEN