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.
No comments:
Post a Comment