Franz Boas and E.E. Evans-Pritchard both shared a love for ethnographic studies. Their respect for fieldwork and the collection of data surpasses many others in the anthropological realm. The goal of this paper is to summarize, compare and contrast the theoretical contributions of Franz Boas and E.E. Evans-Pritchard to the world of anthropology. A comparison to their similar respect for the historical method as opposed to the comparative method will be presented. Following the comparison; I will present a contrast of Boas’ descriptive method to Evans-Pritchard’s theory driven approach.
Background
Franz Boas (1858-1942) appeared to have the ideal educational resume to pave the way for his extraordinary success in the anthropological realm. Boas’ education was a fine balance between the methodical science of physics and the social sciences that he discovered through geography (Moore 2009: 35). Boas’ desire to be out in the field was an early development. His first ethnographic study took place in the Arctic where he researched the Inuit. Although there was some dissatisfaction; Moore quotes Boas’ as stating that the year in the Arctic “had a profound influence upon the development of my views… because it led me away from my former interests and toward the desire to understand what determines the behavior of human beings” (Moore: 36). One cannot accept Boas’ desire to understand human behavior without considering his elevated social conscienceless linked to his life-long struggle to disprove racist stereotypes that he, and his Jewish family, fell victim to. Furthermore, one may assume that his “former interests” were probably more geared towards a scientific approach in research; which stemmed from his doctorate study in physics. It is also in the aforesaid quote that the reader can see Boas’ preference to fieldwork over theory begin to blossom.
E.E Evans-Pritchard (1902-1973), like Boas, was from a privileged family; which afforded him a prestigious education from Oxford and the London School of Economics. His time in London under the supervision of Malinowski almost reads like a bad British soap-opera. Moore summarizes that the tension between the two lead to Seligman’s mentorship of Evans-Pritchard. Evans-Pritchard recalls that when seeking advice before his expedition to Sudan, Malinowski told him “not to be a bloody fool” (Moore: 163). One may consider Seligman’s role as mentor as an early influence on Evans-Pritchard’s methods relating to systematic field research. As Moore summarizes; the influence of the British School is only apparent in Evans-Pritchard’s earlier works. In The Nuer (1940) he presents the initiation system for teenage boys of the Nuer. He summarizes the progression related to the initiation as “structural time”. Moore says it best when he states that Evans-Pritchard “makes even a person’s life cycle static” in this passage (Moore: 162). This passage presents the insignificant role of the individual and leans more towards the unilineal evolution method. It wasn’t until ten years after the publication of The Nuer that Evans-Pritchard changed his view towards the important link between anthropology and history.
History as it relates to Social Anthropology
Franz Boas
Boas’ most prominent, and consistent, view was that “cultures were integrated wholes produced by specific historical processes rather than reflections of universal evolutionary stages” (Moore: 40). It is in Moore’s quote that an important line is drawn in the sand between historical and comparative method. Being the father of American anthropology, Boas is the pioneer for such a variance. In Boas’ argument against the comparative approach; he summarizes that one cannot always assume that certain cultural systems proceeded others. A prime illustration is Moore’s example of matrilineal kin systems preceding patrilineal kin systems. Boas links how one can allow the data to reflect one’s own point of view; which can lead to “unproven assumptions” and “not theories derived from ethnographic data” (Moore: 41). Although the etic point of view should remain culturally neutral, one must be aware of the power of perception and interpretation.
E.E. Evans-Pritchard
At the same time Evans-Pritchard was publishing British School-influenced works such as The Nuer and Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande; he was also developing a respect for the importance of the relationship between history and anthropology. In his 1971 publication The Azande: History and Political Institutions he makes poinent statement regarding the importance of history: “to leave out the historical dimension is to deprive ourselves of knowledge that is both ascertainable and necessary for an understanding of political organizations which have… been transformed by European rule” (Moore: 170). Beyond presenting theory and perspective, Evans-Pritchard also provided a research agenda that would place social history as the explanatory model for social anthropology. He presented three distinct parallels between anthropological inquiry and historical methods: First, he links the similarity of understanding and interpreting a culture. Second, he states the shared desire to find patterns and “structural order” among a group that would explain an integrated whole. Last, “the anthropologist compares the social structures his analysis has revealed in a wide range of societies” (Moore: 170-71).
“Just the Facts Ma’am”
Ironic enough; the “anti-theoretical” Boas was essentially the father of the historical particularism theory. Although Harris is credited with forming this school of thought; it is founded on what has been presented in the above summary of Boas. This leads to Boas’ greatest variation from many other anthropologists; his lack of a method other than “just the facts”. One cannot deny his amazing talent for collecting data and his ability to write the best, and worst, bedtime reading. However, one is left with little perspective and a lot of “salvage ethnography”. From Moore, Boas states “The customs and beliefs themselves are not the ultimate objects of research. We desire to learn the reasons why such customs and beliefs exist” (Moore: 41). The aforesaid quote is a prime example of how Boas leaves us without a method to achieve this ultimate goal. As Moore concludes; Boas skirted around the relationship between individuals and society, but never truly addressed how cultures become integrated wholes (Moore: 43).
Unlike Boas, Evans-Pritchard offered perspective and theory to his collection of data. After his earlier works that focused on structure and function, Evans-Pritchard turned his study to witchcraft and magic. As Mary Douglas summarizes; anthropologists such as White, Harris and Radcliffe-Brown present a disconnection between culture and the individual. She credits Evans-Pritchard with answering this comparison dilemma: “the essential point for comparison is that at which people meet misfortune” (Moore: 167). While studying the Azande, Evans-Pritchard summarizes the allocation of accountability as it relates to witchcraft. As discussed in class lecture: this theory essentially explains why bad things happen. There are two levels of misfortune: a physical how and a why that relates to witchcraft. In his classic example, Evans-Pritchard tells of the falling granary: The Zande accept that the granary was weakened by termites and the people sit under the granary to escape the heat of the day (physical how). Beyond the “how” the Zande also accept that the granary falling on the people at that exact moment is an act of witchcraft (why) (Moore: 169).
Conclusion
Although both theorists discussed shared the value of history as it relates to anthropology; Evans-Pritchard’s ultimate use of history was not to support the historical particularism theory, but used his comparative method to support his social structure theories. He essentially used the comparison between history and social anthropology to strengthen his ethnographic work (Moore: 171).
Like Boas, Evans-Pritchard focused on the role of the individual as it relates to the integrated whole. Evans-Pritchard, however, may not have skirted around the ever so important question of how they become integrated wholes as Boas did.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown
Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown were, and still are, influential pieces to the progress and success of anthropological studies. To fully understand their importance, one must examine the background and influences of both theorists. A better understanding of their foundation will allow one to gather an improved perspective of their theories and methods. The goal of this paper is to summarize, compare and contrast the primary theoretical contributions of Bronislaw Malinowski and A.R. Radcliffe-Brown to the world of anthropology. Special consideration will be given to the fact that even though they derive from the same British school of thought and tradition, their views on cultural function hold a striking difference to one another.
Background
Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942) was born into a privileged Polish family decorated with distinguished intellects and aristocrats. His science background began with his doctorate in physics and mathematics. He began his postgraduate education with C.G. Seligman at the London School of Economics in 1910 (Moore 2009: 135). Seligman hailed from Cambridge, where he was a part of the Torres Strait expedition. Moore states that it was during this expedition that the British school was introduced to systematic field research methods (Moore: 135). Malinowski is known by many for his meticulous data collecting and participant observation method. One may see the early influences of Seligman and Boas as Malinowski is exposed to these systematic and ‘salvage’ methods during his postgraduate studies (Moore: 135). The early influence of systematic collection of data is also apparent in his study of the Trobriand Islanders. In his publication Argonauts of the Western Pacific Malinowski states that “the ethnographer had to consider the full extent of the phenomena in each aspect of tribal culture studied… the whole area of tribal culture in all its aspects has to be gone over in research” (Moore: 136).
A.R. Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955) was educated at Trinity College in Cambridge (Moore: 149). As discussed in class, Radcliffe-Brown was considered an outsider. He even changed his name to seem higher up on the social spectrum. His early field work took place in the Andaman Islands. This work, as stated by Moore, was influenced by Haddon and Rivers. However, Radcliffe-Brown did not publish his thesis The Andaman Islanders for nearly 13 years. After completing his thesis, Radcliffe-Brown “became aware of the work of Durkheim and Mauss and began rewriting his thesis” (Moore: 150). As concluded in class discussion; Radcliffe-Brown was influenced by the French. From Durkheim and Mauss he takes the classification system and the comparative method. The aforementioned allows for the cross cultural comparison.
Both Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown share a similar start in their fieldwork in the land of Australia. Malinowski, however, published his first book The Family among the Australian Aborigines without stepping foot onto the continent. It wasn’t until later that he was given the opportunity to travel to Australia as a secretary to anthropologist R.G. Marett (Moore: 136). It is interesting that the father of participant observation began as an armchair anthropologist himself.
Theoretical Contributions
One of Malinowski’s largest theoretical contributions was his functional approach to culture. As Moore states, one must understand Malinowski’s theory of needs to fully understand this functional approach (Moore: 139). The theory of needs was based on the thought that “culture exists to meet the basic biological, psychological, and social needs of the individual” (Moore: 139). Continuing on in his functional approach to culture, Malinowski essentially stands against unilineal evolution when he claims that “culture is not and cannot be a replica in terms of specific responses to specific biological needs; instead they are integrated responses to a variety of needs” (Moore: 140). As Moore addresses; Malinowski was not “reducing complex cultural systems to simple biological needs” (Moore: 141). As discussed in class; he was explaining Malinowski’s view that cultures are adaptive and cultural responses set new environments. Moore quotes Malinowski: “Man does not by biological determinism need to hunt with spears or bow and arrow; use poison darts; nor defend himself by stockades, by shelter, or by armor. But the moment that such devices have become adopted, in order to enhance human adaptability to the environment, they also become necessary conditions for survival” (Moore: 141). Moore concludes Malinowski’s theory of how the culture meets the needs of the individual by stating “culture becomes an enormously complicated behavioral web responding to complex needs that can ultimately-but not always immediately-be traced to the individual” (Moore: 142). Radcliffe-Brown, in his own right, addresses social structures and how they relate to the function of a culture. In Moore’s words: “Social structure includes all interpersonal relations, the differentiation of individuals and groups by their social roles, and the relationships between a particular group of humans and a larger network of connections” (Moore: 153). For Radcliffe-Brown, “the function of cultural institutions was the role they played in maintaining society, not the satisfaction of individuals’ needs as Malinowski argued” (Moore: 154). Radcliffe-Brown supports his theory by connecting a link between unilineal decent and social structure in aboriginal groups in New South Wales. Through Moore, Radcliffe-Brown writes “In such a society what gives stability to the social structure is the solidarity and continuity of the lineage, and of the wider group (the clan); for the individual, his primary duties are those of lineage” (Moore: 157). In this passage Radcliffe-Brown is displaying how insignificant the individual is in the big picture. As discussed in class, this passage also shows the continuing influence of Durkheim on Radcliffe-Brown. Durkheim also addresses the bonds and solidarity that rituals create.
Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown were both revered as “functionalists”, which ultimately referred to “their perspectives on how culture ‘functioned’ to meet specific needs” (Moore: 139). The term “functionalists” did not; however, address to what the culture was meeting the needs of. This fundamental difference between Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown acts as a fork in the road for these two. A conclusion to this difference can be drawn from the above cited writings from Visions of Culture. Malinowski believed that the culture was meeting the needs of the individual. Radcliffe-Brown claimed to be an “anti-functionalist” (Moore: 147) next to Malinowski by stating that the culture was meeting the needs of the society. Both were pioneers of a new way of viewing cultures as a “integrated whole” (Moore: 139). It is unfortunate that their differences sparked a lifetime rivalry between the two.
Conclusion
Both Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown contributed a strong scientific influence to anthropology. Malinowski’s doctorate in physics and Radcliffe-Brown’s devotion to creating a “generalized” social anthropology paid tribute to viewing anthropology as a science (Moore: 149). Through Moore’s background synopsis, the reader learns of the influences of the French anthropologists to Radcliffe-Brown and of the early influences of Boas and Seligman to Malinowski’s systematic approach to collecting data. As gathered from the collected passages from Moore, one can determine one of the greatest differences between these two theorists: a significant opposition to the source of a culture’s function. Despite their opposition, both have made significant contributions to the study of mankind. Malinowski provided other anthropologists, including Mauss, data collection of the Trobriand Islanders; which lead to Mauss’s The Gift (Moore: 138). Radcliffe-Brown made a clear distinction between social anthropology and ethnology. This distinction helped to decipher between studies that are structured around the reconstruction of history and the study of human society (Moore: 151). However significant their opposition or similarities, one cannot deny the eternal gifts that both have granted to the world towards its boundless journey to learn and understand one another.
Background
Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942) was born into a privileged Polish family decorated with distinguished intellects and aristocrats. His science background began with his doctorate in physics and mathematics. He began his postgraduate education with C.G. Seligman at the London School of Economics in 1910 (Moore 2009: 135). Seligman hailed from Cambridge, where he was a part of the Torres Strait expedition. Moore states that it was during this expedition that the British school was introduced to systematic field research methods (Moore: 135). Malinowski is known by many for his meticulous data collecting and participant observation method. One may see the early influences of Seligman and Boas as Malinowski is exposed to these systematic and ‘salvage’ methods during his postgraduate studies (Moore: 135). The early influence of systematic collection of data is also apparent in his study of the Trobriand Islanders. In his publication Argonauts of the Western Pacific Malinowski states that “the ethnographer had to consider the full extent of the phenomena in each aspect of tribal culture studied… the whole area of tribal culture in all its aspects has to be gone over in research” (Moore: 136).
A.R. Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955) was educated at Trinity College in Cambridge (Moore: 149). As discussed in class, Radcliffe-Brown was considered an outsider. He even changed his name to seem higher up on the social spectrum. His early field work took place in the Andaman Islands. This work, as stated by Moore, was influenced by Haddon and Rivers. However, Radcliffe-Brown did not publish his thesis The Andaman Islanders for nearly 13 years. After completing his thesis, Radcliffe-Brown “became aware of the work of Durkheim and Mauss and began rewriting his thesis” (Moore: 150). As concluded in class discussion; Radcliffe-Brown was influenced by the French. From Durkheim and Mauss he takes the classification system and the comparative method. The aforementioned allows for the cross cultural comparison.
Both Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown share a similar start in their fieldwork in the land of Australia. Malinowski, however, published his first book The Family among the Australian Aborigines without stepping foot onto the continent. It wasn’t until later that he was given the opportunity to travel to Australia as a secretary to anthropologist R.G. Marett (Moore: 136). It is interesting that the father of participant observation began as an armchair anthropologist himself.
Theoretical Contributions
One of Malinowski’s largest theoretical contributions was his functional approach to culture. As Moore states, one must understand Malinowski’s theory of needs to fully understand this functional approach (Moore: 139). The theory of needs was based on the thought that “culture exists to meet the basic biological, psychological, and social needs of the individual” (Moore: 139). Continuing on in his functional approach to culture, Malinowski essentially stands against unilineal evolution when he claims that “culture is not and cannot be a replica in terms of specific responses to specific biological needs; instead they are integrated responses to a variety of needs” (Moore: 140). As Moore addresses; Malinowski was not “reducing complex cultural systems to simple biological needs” (Moore: 141). As discussed in class; he was explaining Malinowski’s view that cultures are adaptive and cultural responses set new environments. Moore quotes Malinowski: “Man does not by biological determinism need to hunt with spears or bow and arrow; use poison darts; nor defend himself by stockades, by shelter, or by armor. But the moment that such devices have become adopted, in order to enhance human adaptability to the environment, they also become necessary conditions for survival” (Moore: 141). Moore concludes Malinowski’s theory of how the culture meets the needs of the individual by stating “culture becomes an enormously complicated behavioral web responding to complex needs that can ultimately-but not always immediately-be traced to the individual” (Moore: 142). Radcliffe-Brown, in his own right, addresses social structures and how they relate to the function of a culture. In Moore’s words: “Social structure includes all interpersonal relations, the differentiation of individuals and groups by their social roles, and the relationships between a particular group of humans and a larger network of connections” (Moore: 153). For Radcliffe-Brown, “the function of cultural institutions was the role they played in maintaining society, not the satisfaction of individuals’ needs as Malinowski argued” (Moore: 154). Radcliffe-Brown supports his theory by connecting a link between unilineal decent and social structure in aboriginal groups in New South Wales. Through Moore, Radcliffe-Brown writes “In such a society what gives stability to the social structure is the solidarity and continuity of the lineage, and of the wider group (the clan); for the individual, his primary duties are those of lineage” (Moore: 157). In this passage Radcliffe-Brown is displaying how insignificant the individual is in the big picture. As discussed in class, this passage also shows the continuing influence of Durkheim on Radcliffe-Brown. Durkheim also addresses the bonds and solidarity that rituals create.
Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown were both revered as “functionalists”, which ultimately referred to “their perspectives on how culture ‘functioned’ to meet specific needs” (Moore: 139). The term “functionalists” did not; however, address to what the culture was meeting the needs of. This fundamental difference between Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown acts as a fork in the road for these two. A conclusion to this difference can be drawn from the above cited writings from Visions of Culture. Malinowski believed that the culture was meeting the needs of the individual. Radcliffe-Brown claimed to be an “anti-functionalist” (Moore: 147) next to Malinowski by stating that the culture was meeting the needs of the society. Both were pioneers of a new way of viewing cultures as a “integrated whole” (Moore: 139). It is unfortunate that their differences sparked a lifetime rivalry between the two.
Conclusion
Both Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown contributed a strong scientific influence to anthropology. Malinowski’s doctorate in physics and Radcliffe-Brown’s devotion to creating a “generalized” social anthropology paid tribute to viewing anthropology as a science (Moore: 149). Through Moore’s background synopsis, the reader learns of the influences of the French anthropologists to Radcliffe-Brown and of the early influences of Boas and Seligman to Malinowski’s systematic approach to collecting data. As gathered from the collected passages from Moore, one can determine one of the greatest differences between these two theorists: a significant opposition to the source of a culture’s function. Despite their opposition, both have made significant contributions to the study of mankind. Malinowski provided other anthropologists, including Mauss, data collection of the Trobriand Islanders; which lead to Mauss’s The Gift (Moore: 138). Radcliffe-Brown made a clear distinction between social anthropology and ethnology. This distinction helped to decipher between studies that are structured around the reconstruction of history and the study of human society (Moore: 151). However significant their opposition or similarities, one cannot deny the eternal gifts that both have granted to the world towards its boundless journey to learn and understand one another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)