Essay Plans Flashcards
Nature / Culture Divide
Divide
Bible : stewards
Hobbes : “nasty, brutish, short”
Sherry Ortner :
Levi-Strauss : binary oppositions ; structuralism
Functionalism :
Frazer : Ritual is proof that need to bridge gap
Ingold : biology and nature the same but difference from natural world is culture
Ortner
No Divide
Kropotkin
Against Universalism = Boasian
McCormack Strauss Paradox
Critique of Ortner
Nature / Culture Divide
Precursors : Bible - stewards
Hobbes - before state, animals
Locke - before state, fine = but we could make it better, live in harmony with nature ; social contract theory assumed logical separation between state of nature and society
Rousseau - before state, nature is heavenly
Darwinism -> Social Darwinism
Tylor => ‘Primitive Culture’
William R. Smith = Animism - Polytheism - Monotheism
L.H. Morgan => American Cultural Identity
Frazer => Magic - Religion - Science
Kropotkin = Mutual aid => not fittest survive , nature builds ; opposed social contract
Relativism
Boasian approach
Functionalism
Uhallenges the idea of a universal human nature or a fixed set of cultural norms and values, emphasizing instead the diversity of human experiences and cultural practices.
Structuralism
Durkheim - everything is cultural; God is society = totemism
Strauss = definition of culture is to separate from nature
Paradox = if universal, then that is natural
UK vs US
UK
Malinowski didnt account for biological functions/ needs changing over time
US
Holistic
Cultural Relativism
Methodological Rigour
Cross-Cultural Comparison
Applied Anthropology
Identity and Diversity
Feminist
Anthropology is Activism?
Positivism vs Interpretivism
Does anthropology account for historical change?
- Dominance of Structural-Functionalism
Focus on Stability and Equilibrium: Structural-functionalism, the dominant theoretical paradigm in mid-twentieth century anthropology, emphasized the stability and equilibrium of social systems. This approach was more concerned with how societies maintain order and continuity rather than how they change over time.
Neglect of Historical Processes: Structural-functionalists tended to view societies as static or unchanging entities, analyzing social structures and functions without adequately considering their historical development and transformation. This focus made it difficult to incorporate historical change into their analyses. - Methodological Limitations
Synchronic Analysis: Mid-twentieth century anthropologists often conducted synchronic studies, focusing on a single point in time to understand the functioning of societies. This approach, while useful for in-depth analysis of social structures, did not account for diachronic changes or historical developments.
Ethnographic Fieldwork: The emphasis on long-term, immersive ethnographic fieldwork in specific communities sometimes led anthropologists to prioritize detailed, present-focused descriptions over broader historical narratives. This intensive focus on the present context often came at the expense of understanding historical change. - The Influence of Boasian Anthropology
Historical Particularism: Franz Boas and his followers promoted historical particularism, which emphasized the unique historical development of each culture. While Boasians recognized the importance of history, they often focused on detailed case studies without developing a broader theoretical framework for understanding historical change across cultures.
Cultural Relativism: The commitment to cultural relativism and the rejection of grand evolutionary theories led Boasians to avoid making broad generalizations about historical change, contributing to a fragmented understanding of historical processes. - Lack of Interdisciplinary Integration
Separation from History: Anthropology and history were often treated as separate disciplines with distinct methods and goals. Anthropologists focused on cultural and social aspects, while historians concentrated on political and economic events. This disciplinary separation limited the integration of historical perspectives into anthropological research.
Limited Use of Historical Sources: Mid-twentieth century anthropologists sometimes lacked training in historical methods and were less likely to utilize archival research or historical documents. This methodological gap made it difficult to incorporate historical data effectively into anthropological studies. - Theoretical Debates and Paradigm Shifts
Rejection of Evolutionism: Earlier evolutionary models, which attempted to explain societal development through linear stages, were largely discredited by mid-twentieth century anthropologists. The reaction against these simplistic models led to a reluctance to engage with theories of historical change.
Emergence of New Theories: As new theoretical approaches such as structuralism and symbolic anthropology emerged, the focus shifted to understanding underlying cultural structures and meanings rather than historical processes. These theories often prioritized the analysis of cultural symbols and mental structures over historical change. - Political and Ethical Considerations
Colonial Context: The colonial context in which much anthropological research was conducted influenced how anthropologists approached historical change. There was often a tension between documenting cultures perceived as “timeless” and the realities of colonial impact and historical transformation.
Ethical Concerns: Anthropologists were sometimes cautious about engaging with historical narratives that might align with colonial or nationalist agendas. This caution could lead to a focus on documenting contemporary cultures rather than exploring their historical trajectories.
Synchronic / Diachronic
Cultural Evolutionist Diachronic but Essentializing = assumes historical trajectory
Tylor
Frazer
Most Functionalist / Structural Synchronic
Malinowski
Levi-Strauss
American Anthropology
Boas’ Historical Particularism
Overemphasis = not political , not comparative, essentialist => Benedict
Equilibrium = both
Leach
Gluckman
How does religion influence society?
Anthropology is about studying other cultures?
How does Colonialism effect anthropology?
Alpa Shah - “When Decolonisation is Hijacked” (2024 unreleased)
Kathleen Gough - Child of Imperialism , does it delegitimise
Cultural Relativism vs Cultural Evolution
The Social Body exists?
Marx vs Weber
- Role of Ideas vs. Material Conditions
Weberian Approach:
Ideas and Culture: Max Weber emphasized the importance of ideas, beliefs, and cultural values in shaping history. He argued that religious ideas, such as those found in Protestantism, could have significant effects on economic behavior and social structures. His seminal work, “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,” posits that Protestant ethics and values played a crucial role in the development of capitalism in the West.
Multi-causal Analysis: Weber believed in a multi-causal approach, where both material conditions and ideational factors are important in understanding social phenomena. He emphasized that economic conditions alone could not explain historical developments.
Marxian Approach:
Material Conditions: Karl Marx focused on material conditions and economic factors as the primary drivers of historical change. According to Marx, the mode of production (i.e., the economic base) determines the social, political, and ideological superstructure. Economic relations and class struggles are seen as the fundamental forces shaping history.
Historical Materialism: Marx’s theory of historical materialism posits that history progresses through stages based on the development of productive forces and class relations. Changes in the economic base lead to transformations in the superstructure, including culture, politics, and ideology.
2. Nature of Social Change
Weberian Approach:
Complex and Contingent: Weber viewed social change as complex and contingent, influenced by a variety of factors, including ideas, charismatic leaders, bureaucratic structures, and rationalization processes. He did not see history as following a deterministic path.
Role of Rationalization: Weber emphasized the process of rationalization, where traditional and affective modes of action are replaced by rational and bureaucratic ones. This process is seen as a key factor in the development of modern societies.
Marxian Approach:
Deterministic and Dialectical: Marx saw social change as deterministic and dialectical, driven by the contradictions and conflicts between different classes. The development of productive forces leads to class struggles, which ultimately result in revolutionary changes and the emergence of new modes of production.
Stages of Development: Marx outlined a series of historical stages (e.g., feudalism, capitalism, socialism) through which societies progress, each characterized by specific class relations and modes of production.
3. Sources of Power and Authority
Weberian Approach:
Types of Authority: Weber identified three types of authority: traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal. He argued that the legitimacy of authority and the ways in which power is exercised vary across these types. This typology helps explain the diversity of political and social structures in different historical contexts.
Bureaucracy: Weber highlighted the role of bureaucracy and rational-legal authority as defining features of modern states and organizations. He saw bureaucracy as a rational and efficient form of organization, but also one that could lead to dehumanization and disenchantment.
Marxian Approach:
Class Power: Marx focused on the power dynamics between classes, particularly the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) and the proletariat (working class). He argued that the state and other institutions serve the interests of the ruling class by maintaining and legitimizing their economic dominance.
State as a Tool of Class Domination: For Marx, the state is an instrument of class domination, and political power is ultimately derived from economic power. The overthrow of capitalist systems by the proletariat would lead to the dissolution of state power in its current form and the establishment of a classless society.
Conclusion
In summary, a Weberian approach to history emphasizes the importance of ideas, culture, and multiple causal factors in shaping historical developments. It views social change as complex, contingent, and influenced by various types of authority and rationalization processes. In contrast, a Marxian approach focuses on material conditions, economic factors, and class struggles as the primary drivers of historical change. It sees social change as deterministic and dialectical, driven by contradictions within the economic base and resulting in revolutionary transformations.
Weber’s Influence
Volksgeist historical replacement for identity
Theoretical : Social Action and Rationalisation:
Social action refers to actions that individuals perform with consideration of the behaviour of others and are oriented by that consideration.
Weber categorised social action into four types:
Instrumental Rational (Zweckrational): Actions oriented by goals, where individuals calculate the most efficient means to achieve a particular end.
Value Rational (Wertrational): Actions guided by a belief in the intrinsic value of the behavior itself, regardless of the outcomes.
Affective: Actions driven by emotions and affective states.
Traditional: Actions guided by established customs and habits.
Application to Anthropology: By categorising social actions, Weber provided anthropologists with a framework to analyse why individuals and groups behave in certain ways within their cultural contexts. It emphasized that behaviors are not just responses to immediate stimuli but are also shaped by broader social meanings and contexts.
Rationalization is the process by which traditional and affective forms of action are replaced by goal-oriented, efficiency-driven behaviors. It involves the increasing dominance of reason and calculation in social life, which Weber associated with the development of modernity.
Bureaucratization: One of the key aspects of rationalization is bureaucratization, the development of large-scale, formal organizations governed by rules and regulations to achieve efficiency.
Iron Cage: Weber warned about the “iron cage” of rationality, where individuals might become trapped in systems of efficiency and calculation, losing sight of values and creativity.
Application to Anthropology: The concept of rationalization allows anthropologists to understand how societies transform over time, especially with modernization. It provides a lens to study the impacts of bureaucratic structures on traditional societies and how these structures influence individual and collective behaviors.
- Authority and Power
Typology of Authority:
Weber identified three pure types of legitimate authority, each with distinct characteristics and modes of operation:
Traditional Authority:
Characteristics: Based on established customs, traditions, and long-standing practices. Leadership is typically inherited or established through tradition.
Examples: Monarchies, tribal chiefs, and patriarchal systems.
Application to Anthropology: Helps in understanding how societies that rely on traditional authority maintain social order and cohesion, and how such systems resist or adapt to change.
Charismatic Authority:
Characteristics: Based on the personal qualities and extraordinary leadership of an individual. Charismatic leaders inspire and mobilize followers through their vision and personal magnetism.
Examples: Religious prophets, revolutionary leaders, and charismatic politicians.
Application to Anthropology: Useful for analyzing social movements, religious cults, and revolutionary periods where charismatic leaders play pivotal roles in transforming societies.
Rational-Legal Authority:
Characteristics: Based on legal rationality, rules, and procedures. Authority is vested in offices rather than individuals, and governance is through formalized rules.
Examples: Modern states, corporations, and bureaucratic institutions.
Application to Anthropology: Provides tools to examine how modern states and organizations function, how legal-rational structures impact traditional societies, and the tension between bureaucratic rationality and other forms of social organization.
Integration into Anthropology
Social Action and Rationalization: These frameworks help anthropologists analyse how individuals within different societies orient their actions and how these societies undergo transformation due to rationalization processes. It bridges micro-level actions with macro-level social changes, providing a comprehensive view of societal dynamics.
Authority and Power: Weber’s typology of authority enables anthropologists to categorize and compare different forms of leadership and governance across cultures. It also aids in understanding the legitimacy of power and how authority structures influence social order and change.
Typology of Authority
Verstehen (Interpretive Understanding)
Definition and Concept:
Verstehen: The German term “Verstehen” translates to “understanding” or “interpretive understanding.” Weber used it to describe a methodological approach in social sciences that involves comprehending the meaning and intention behind social actions from the perspective of those engaged in them.
Subjective Meaning: Verstehen emphasizes understanding social actions by interpreting the subjective meanings that individuals attach to their actions. It goes beyond mere observation to grasp the intentions, motivations, and contexts that guide behavior.
Qualitative Methods: Verstehen aligns with qualitative research methods such as participant observation, in-depth interviews, and ethnographic fieldwork. These methods allow anthropologists to gather rich, detailed data that reveal the meanings and interpretations people give to their own actions.
Contextually Rich Analysis: By emphasising interpretive understanding, Verstehen encourages anthropologists to produce contextually rich descriptions and analyses. This approach helps in capturing the complexity and nuance of cultural practices, rituals, and social interactions.
Cultural Relativism: Verstehen supports the principle of cultural relativism by promoting an understanding of cultures on their own terms. Anthropologists strive to interpret behaviors and beliefs within the cultural frameworks of the societies they study, avoiding ethnocentric judgments.
Ideal Types: Ideal types are conceptual tools or models that Weber introduced to help in the analysis and comparison of social phenomena. They are not meant to represent empirical reality perfectly but serve as analytical constructs that highlight certain features of social phenomena to facilitate comparison and understanding.
Key Elements:
Heuristic Devices: Ideal types are used as heuristic devices to simplify and clarify complex social realities. They help in isolating and analyzing key aspects of social actions, institutions, or processes.
Constructed Models: These types are constructed by accentuating certain characteristics of a social phenomenon to create a clear, consistent, and exaggerated representation. This allows researchers to compare real-world cases against these models to identify similarities, differences, and variations.
Application in Anthropology:
Comparative Analysis: Ideal types enable anthropologists to engage in comparative analysis across different cultures and societies. By using ideal types, they can systematically compare social structures, practices, or institutions and draw meaningful insights about their similarities and differences.
Nuanced Theoretical Models: Anthropologists use ideal types to develop nuanced theoretical models that capture the diversity and complexity of cultural phenomena. For example, Weber’s ideal types of authority (traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal) provide a framework for comparing different forms of leadership and governance across cultures.
Avoiding Oversimplification: While ideal types simplify reality, they do so in a way that highlights complexity rather than reducing it. Anthropologists can use ideal types to focus on specific aspects of a phenomenon without losing sight of its broader context and variations.
Verstehen’s Influence:
Depth of Understanding: Verstehen has influenced anthropologists to prioritize deep, empathetic understanding of the cultures they study. This approach has led to more comprehensive and nuanced ethnographies that provide insights into the lived experiences and worldviews of people.
Emphasis on Meaning: By focusing on the meanings and intentions behind actions, Verstehen has contributed to the development of interpretive anthropology, which seeks to understand the symbolic and cultural dimensions of social life.
Ideal Types’ Influence:
Framework for Comparison: Ideal types have provided anthropologists with a valuable framework for comparing social phenomena across different cultures. This comparative approach has enriched cross-cultural studies and contributed to the development of general theories about human behavior and social organization.
Clarity and Precision: The use of ideal types has helped anthropologists to articulate their findings with clarity and precision. These conceptual models have facilitated clearer communication of complex ideas and theories within the discipline.
Intellectual climate : Interdisciplinary popular
Rise of Cultural Anthropology
Academic Influence : Talcott Parsons used Weberian concepts in structural functionalist works
Addressed modern issues
Structural Functionalism vs Structuralism
Nature of Structures:
Structural-Functionalism: Structures are seen as parts of a society that work together to maintain social order and stability.
Structuralism: Structures are viewed as underlying cognitive frameworks that shape human culture and thought universally.
Analytical Focus:
Structural-Functionalism: Focuses on how social structures function and contribute to the stability and continuity of a society.
Structuralism: Focuses on uncovering the universal patterns and rules that govern human cognition and cultural expression.
Methodological Approach:
Structural-Functionalism: Empirical, ethnographic, and often descriptive, emphasising the observable functions of social institutions.
Structuralism: Abstract, comparative, and analytical, often drawing on linguistic models to reveal deep structures.
Purpose and Goals:
Structural-Functionalism: Aims to explain how societies maintain order and how institutions function to meet social needs.
Structuralism: Aims to uncover the universal cognitive structures underlying cultural phenomena, often seeking to explain the similarities across diverse cultures.
