Social Anthropology

I

Introduction

Social Anthropology, study of human social life or society, concerned with examining social behaviour and social relationships.

The term social anthropology is particularly associated with European, especially British, studies; it can be contrasted with the term cultural anthropology, which is associated with the United States. The focus of social anthropology is on patterns of social interaction and understanding society. Cultural anthropology examines culture, that is, learnt and transmitted beliefs and standards of behaviour, and, in particular, meanings, values, and codes of conduct. It could be described as the study of culture in its social context. However, culture and society are interdependent, and today the single term 'sociocultural anthropology' is sometimes used.

Social and cultural anthropology differ from other social sciences in being highly comparative, taking all human societies and cultures, past and present, for their study.

II

Historical Perspective

In the 19th century, anthropology in the United States and Europe shared common interests. In Britain, it combined the study of human biology, culture, and prehistory; but with the development of social anthropology, the three disciplines of biological anthropology (previously known as physical anthropology), archaeology, and social anthropology became distinct, with little interchange between them. Social anthropology came to focus on the study of non-European, usually small-scale, societies, and it became particularly the study of “other” societies (which were initially termed “primitive”) with forms of organization differing from industrial, Western societies. Culture has remained the focus of much American anthropology, which did not become restricted to studying non-industrial societies and maintained a concern with the nature of American society, often challenging propositions made by American sociologists. It retained the links between cultural anthropology, archaeology, biological anthropology, and linguistics. These disciplines are the four fields of the American anthropological tradition.

In British anthropology, the creation of a distinct discipline of social anthropology is associated with A. R. Radcliffe-Brown. He and his contemporary Bronislaw Malinowski are together credited with changing the nature of British anthropology, which, under the influence of Radcliffe-Brown’s theoretical approach, became sociological. Previously, its focus was on culture, and various kinds of historical explanation were prominent. The earliest explanations were evolutionary, a product of the 19th-century concern with theories of evolution. When the limitations of this approach, as applied in early anthropology, became evident, it tended to be replaced by another historical approach, which stressed the transmission of cultural items between peoples. Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski rejected such explanations as speculative, and British anthropology in the inter-war years became characterized by an anti-historical attitude.

Radcliffe-Brown was influenced by the French sociologist Émile Durkheim, who conceived of society as a system of interrelated structures and ideas that have primacy over the individual. For Durkheim and Radcliffe-Brown, society is an object of study in its own right. Any social activity or belief is part of a complex of interrelated activities and beliefs that constitute society, and should be examined holistically—that is, in terms of its relationship to this greater whole. It should not be reduced to psychology, biology, or history. Radcliffe-Brown introduced social anthropology as a form of functionalism (whereby activities and beliefs are examined in terms of the contribution the analyst believes they make to the needs of the society or group), with emphasis on structures, the patterns of relationships that constitute organized groups. Structures exist because they enable the performance of activities crucial for the existence of society, and can be classified as, for example, political structures, economic structures, or religious structures. This structural-functional approach dominated British social anthropology from the 1930s to the 1960s.

The other main characteristic of social (and cultural) anthropology was the collection of data by detailed personal investigation using intensive fieldwork methods to gather qualitative as well as quantitative information, rather than by large-scale sample surveys using questionnaires to obtain numerical data to be analysed by statistical methods. The classic fieldwork technique became “participant observation”, which required the researcher to reside in the community under study for a prolonged period and, as far as possible, to participate in its activities. In reality, the degree to which a researcher can effectively utilize such a strategy is limited by his or her situation and any researcher may use a variety of techniques, including quantitative ones. However, anthropological field research usually demands a high degree of personal involvement by the researcher. Such research methodology was largely dictated by the kinds of society that became the object of anthropological study, where unfamiliar languages and customs necessitated deep and extended involvement. The products of such studies, a combination of data and the interpretation of data, are termed ethnographies (see ethnology), and the fieldwork method in anthropology is known as the ethnographic method.

In social anthropology Malinowski is credited as the most important figure in the development of the modern fieldwork tradition, through his study of the Trobriand Islanders of New Guinea during World War I. Malinowski espoused a type of biological and psychological functionalism, but his general theoretical stance was less sophisticated than that of Radcliffe-Brown, for whom social anthropology was a natural science seeking laws that governed the nature of society. Radcliffe-Brown’s functionalism provided a conceptual framework that was suited to the application of intensive fieldwork methods, with its tenet that the social structures of any group are integrated with each other and must be examined through their patterned interrelationships.

Radcliffe-Brown was influential in spreading social anthropology to universities in the English-speaking world. In the development of modern anthropology in the United States, Franz Boas played a role similar to that of Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski in British anthropology. Like them, he rejected conjectural history and stressed the need for detailed fieldwork. However, he emphasized the key importance of culture, and advocated cultural relativism (the doctrine that each culture is constructed according to a logic of its own, and must be understood in terms of this logic).

III

Related Disciplines

Except for cultural anthropology, sociology is the discipline closest to social anthropology. Both are concerned with the study of social relationships and beliefs. The traditional differences between them are in subject matter and research methodologies. Sociology is concerned particularly with “modern” societies (a type of society associated with capitalism, industrialization, individualism, and the modern state); and much sociological research is carried out by large-scale quantitative techniques. The differences were never absolute, and the division is now even more blurred, with interactionist and phenomenological approaches in sociology, and particularly with the development of anthropological studies in modern societies.

There are now specialist areas of study such as gender studies, the sociology of health and illness, and development studies, which draw upon both disciplines. Nonetheless, sociology remains concerned particularly with industrial societies and large sample populations. Social anthropology is more cross-cultural and comparative. It draws its examples from all kinds of societies, concentrating on the detailed study of small groups or local organizations, or particular kinds of institutions such as the family, kinship, and religion, with its data collected by intensive fieldwork techniques.

Biological anthropology studies the biological aspects of humankind, particularly from the standpoint of evolution and the biological diversity of human populations. Its sub-disciplines include the study of human evolution and human genetics. Culture and social organization are examined in their relationship to human biology.

Archaeology investigates societies and cultures of the past, through the recovery and interpretation of material remains and artefacts, and the physical contexts in which they have been preserved. Anthropological researches into living societies may be used by archaeologists to assist their interpretations, and archaeology can provide information on the origins and development of cultures and societies studied by anthropologists in the 20th century.

Because of its crucial importance in human communication, and hence in culture and organization, language is a field of vital interest to anthropology. Many developments in social and cultural anthropology have been influenced by ideas, concepts, and models derived from linguistics. A notable example is the influence of structural linguistics on the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss. The related subject of semiotics, the science of signs and significations, has also influenced some anthropologists to view culture as a system of communication. With regard to language itself, social anthropology is interested in how it is used in social interaction—how it relates to, reinforces, or creates social differentiation and empowerment, for example. Its concern is with what language does in social situations, and not with language as an abstract system of rules and relationships.

Psychology, and particularly social psychology, also studies the behaviour of individuals within groups. However, the focus is upon the individual within a social framework, rather than the framework within which the individual is operating. Its concern is with the cognitive and affective processes by which individuals interpret information. Although the analytical models used by some social anthropologists focus on a conception of individuals manipulating culture and organization, these are abstract individuals, and the psychological processes by which they actively create meanings are taken as given.

There are no sharp boundaries between these disciplines and social and cultural anthropology. There are areas of overlap in subject matter, research aims, and research methodology.

IV

Changing Approaches

In the post-World War II period, the dominance of structural-functionalism was broken as its intellectual limits became clear and as the social situation within which anthropologists operated altered. Its influence had never been total. Some prominent social anthropologists such as Raymond Firth and Edmund Leach had always rejected the conception of cultures as integrated systems of ideas. Others, notably the Oxford school of social anthropology associated with Sir Edward E. Evans-Pritchard, rejected the scientific pretensions of functionalism and argued that social anthropology belongs with the humanities. For the Oxford school, social anthropology was an exercise in translating cultures or sets of meanings into an academic language rendering them understandable to the anthropological community, and although it might discern patterns it could not discover laws.

Other new approaches were also introduced. Some, such as transactional analysis, associated with the Norwegian anthropologist Fredrik Barth, emphasized an abstract individual pursuing self-interest within a variety of social and cultural constraints and choices. Others, such as structuralism and structural Marxism, took patterns of behaviour or patterns of beliefs as their analytical focus. While few anthropologists now believe they can find laws, most believe it is possible to make meaningful generalizations about society and culture.

The influence of French anthropologists and other intellectuals on these and subsequent developments has been marked. Important French figures include Lévi-Strauss, Louis Dumont, Roland Barthes, and Louis Althusser. French anthropology also has a strong sociological emphasis and has its modern origins in Durkheim, but it has concentrated on grand theory and fundamental questions about the nature of society, as well as on detailed ethnographic studies.

The most recent theoretical influence in anthropology is postmodernism, which has given rise to an awareness of the subjectivity of anthropological studies. This has promoted a more critical attitude to ethnography, rather than introducing a major change of approach. Many anthropologists criticize postmodernism, on the grounds that it diminishes the importance of power relationships and social inequality.