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.
No comments:
Post a Comment