2 Relations with other branches of Anthropology and Relations with other Disciplines

Dr. Deepak Kumar Ojha

Contents of this unit

Learning Outcomes

Objectives

1. Introductory Background
2. Relationship of Social Anthropology with Other Social Sciences
3. Sociology and Social Anthropology
4. Ethnology and Social Anthropology
5. History and Social Anthropology
6. Psychology and Social Anthropology
7. Economics and Social Anthropology

Learning Outcomes

• After studying this module:
• You shall be able to get an informative background of the relationship of social anthropology with other social science disciplines.
• You will also learn the basic introductory background about the social anthropology.
• The module also provides knowledge about the meaning, definitions, conceptual understanding, nature and characteristic features of society and community.
• Adding to this, the module also attempts to give social anthropological perspectives as well as dimensions to these basic social institutions.

Objectives

The primary objectives of this module are:

• To give a basic understanding to the students about the meaning, definition, nature and characteristic features of Society, Social Structure, Social Organization and Community.
• It also attempts to provide an informative background about different dimensions and perspectives of these social institutions.

1. Introductory Background

Social Anthropology is one of the branches of social science. Natural sciences deal with natural phenomena whereas social sciences deal with cultural as well as social data. The scope and subject matter of social sciences consists of social institutions, policy, economy, crime and several other aspects of society. The objective of all social sciences is to study the different aspects of society. On the basis of this study certain empirical generalizations are made, which in course of time, are formed into social theory and the same is the process with natural sciences. Social scientists have tried to define their subject matter from time to time. In a broad sense, social sciences, namely, economics, political science, history, sociology and others focuses on the study of man as a member of a group or society. Thus the nature of social sciences is essentially mental and cultural.

Efforts have been made to classify the social sciences. There is a tradition of the classification of sciences in general inherited from Plato and Aristotle. According to Comte, “the inorganic physical sciences deal with the most simple and universal phenomena. Next, the biological sciences, which presuppose that the phenomena of the physical science, are more particular and complex. Finally, came the social sciences, which presuppose the data of the organic sciences”. Spencer has gone a little ahead and distinguishes three levels of phenomena, namely, the inorganic, the organic, and the superorganic or social. Interpreting the classification or hierarchy of social sciences, David Bidney comments:

Super-organic pheonomena were but extensions of organic phenomena into the social sphere, and hence, the former were not intelligible apart from the knowledge as the kinds of organisms involved in any particular type of super organic process.

Kroeber lays down in detail the scope and subject matter of social sciences in general. He argues that social sciences are highly culture-conscious. They aim to investigate human culture as such. Though his emphasis on culture study may be contested, the fact is that social sciences study all the specializations of a society. When we look at the relationship of Social anthropology with other branches of anthropology namely physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, pre-history, linguistics-it is essential that we look at the differences traditions of anthropology vis-a-vis other social sciences.

2. Relationship of Social Anthropology with Other Social Sciences

When we take up the relationship of Social anthropology with other social sciences, the immediate question which confronts are, what we mean by Social anthropology in terms of its tradition. In Britain, Social anthropology means ethnology or sociology, in the US it refers to culture, and in France and other countries it means structuralism. The point is that all the branches of anthropology have varying meanings and traditions in different countries. Such a situation cautions us from relating Social anthropology with other social sciences keeping in view the specific meaning given by different traditions to Social anthropology.

Yet another explanation is necessary. There are two kinds of relationships in anthropology. One is of sister type. For example, anthropology has some important branches, such as social anthropology, cultural anthropology, ethnology, pre-history, linguistics and physical anthropology. The relationship among theses branches is sisterly or collateral. There is another level, for instance, that with economics, politics, history and psychology. These two kinds of relationships are discussed in the following paragraphs:

3. Sociology and Social Anthropology

Sociology and Social Anthropology are very closely related. This closeness or proximity is more intensive in Great Britain. Sociology studies human behaviour in groups. It is a science of man and studies human behaviour in social surroundings. Thus it is clear that the subject matter of Sociology and Social Anthropology is common to a great extent. Sociology and Social Anthropology have highly influenced each other. For example, the ideology of Durkheim, a sociologist, has greatly influenced the doctrines of anthropologists like Malinowski and Radcliffe Brown. Hoebel has stated very clearly that “Sociology and Social Anthropology, in their broadest senses, are one and the same. “The subject matter of Social anthropology is so much similar to the subject matter of Sociology that many scientists have regarded it as a branch of Sociology. Evans Pritchard has written that, “Social anthropology can, therefore, be regarded as a branch of sociological studies, a branch which chiefly devotes itself to the study of primitive societies”.

Evans-Pritchard agrees that generally both Sociology and Social anthropology study the society. But they differ on the following points:

1.  Field Differences: Social anthropology focuses on primitive societies whereas sociology concerns itself with civilized society.
2.  Methodological Differences: Social anthropology employs field work as a dependable source of data generation. Sociology on the other hand, depends on the collection of documents and generation of statistical data.
3.  Holistic and Specific Differences: Social anthropology believes in making holistic studies of the primitive community. Differences in situations of the community are functionally interrelated. Quite centrally, sociology dwells on specific problems of the society.
4.  Philosophical Orientation: Social anthropology makes a general body of information about primitive social life. In anthropological studies, theoretical input is relatively less; the sociological approach, on the other hand, has a heavy dose of social philosophy and theoretical approach.

In conclusion it could be said that both these social sciences have difference of emphasis and perspective. The specialization of Social anthropology rests on primitive people and methodology of research. Field work method is taken up in small-scale society; it takes a long time to generate data. On the other hand the theme of study of sociology is larger societies and the fieldwork is through tools such as schedule and questionnaire which usually take lesser time.

4. Ethnology and Social Anthropology

In the words of Evans-Pritchard, “Ethnology classifies people on the basis of their distribution irrespective of any time scale”. In other words, ethnology looks at people from the ethnic point of view at the present time, or in the past time by the movement and mixture of people and the diffusion of cultures. There is much similarity in Ethnology and Social anthropology. Both study the indigenous and modern people. In USA cultural anthropology and ethnology are used synonymously. Both are regarded as complimentary branches of the more general sciences of anthropology. It was after the First World War that ethnology parted company with Social anthropology. Earlier under the influence of Durkheim and River, American anthropologists were at first inclined to accept the general position that culture consisted of social facts and that ethnology or cultural anthropology was an autonomous science.

As a matter of fact, ethnology is a science of culture history. It means that an ethnologist seeks to specify cultural and mental laws to explain the processes of culture history. The similarity or close relationship between Ethnology and Social anthropology is simple. Both study society, that is, man and culture. Ethnology is concerned with the common cultural elements of all the groups, not withstanding place or time.

5. History and Social Anthropology

There are many variants of history. It cannot be defined in a single sentence. Most of the scholars define history as a chronological account of the past events. Traditionally therefore, the emperors, rulers and elites, who make history, constitute the theme of history. Looked at from this perspective, history is like a railway timetable which moves year after year, century after century. In simple words, history is the account of ruling dynasties. The preliterate people do not have anything of this history. There are no records for them. Here is a breaking point between history and social anthropology. Social anthropology writes about prehistoric people and their traditions and institutions.

It must be stressed that Social anthropology has never tried to replace history. Its analyses have traditionally been focused on social and cultural interrelationships at a particular point in time, and until recently, have emphasized the historical processes which have led upto the present. Interestingly, in the British, American and French traditions, the aim is usually to account for the working of a particular society or culture, not to try to explain how it emerged. As a matter of fact, the founding fathers of Social anthropology, namely, Boas in the US and Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski in England, were all critical of the rather speculative forms of cultural history which preceded modern anthropology. Thus the older Social anthropology was more or less a still or snapshot anthropology. The historical methodology and Social anthropology remained averse to each other because of the anthropological thrust of functionalism which dominated the first quarter of the 20th century.

As a matter of fact, history and social anthropology are not mutually exclusive. Empiricism and history are both integrated. It could be safely said that in the Indian context social anthropology cannot be properly understood without reference to its history. The classical works of social anthropologists, such as those of Andre Beteille, S.C. Dube and K. S. Singh, very clearly indicate that historical context is quite useful in understanding tribal ethnography and social anthropology. Despite this relationship, social anthropology earns its own autonomous status. It studies its subject matter notwithstanding any period boundaries.

6. Psychology and Social Anthropology

Psychology has two variants-general or individual psychology and social psychology. Both are related to social anthropology. The American Anthropologists are greatly influenced by this relationship. However, Franz Boas, a noted American Cultural Anthropologist, literally dominated the field of relationship of social anthropology and psychology. Boas has undoubtedly stressed the importance of the relationship of these two fields of study. In his monumental book, The Mind of Primitive Man, he set forth his conviction that there is no fundamental difference between the mind of primitive man and that of civilized man. Lewis has also established the role of psychology in understanding the ethnology of primitive people. If, for example, the tribals are influenced by the Devi movements in south Gujarat, it is a clear case of the relationship of social psychology and social anthropology. However general psychology interprets the behaviour of man as his individual manifestation.

Regarding the relationship of psychology with social anthropology, it can be said that there are two different realms dealt with by the two disciplines. Psychology is concerned with the behaviour of man and social anthropology focuses on interrelationship among different institutions of the society. There is a basic contradiction regarding the approach adopted by the two disciplines. Psychologists begin by taking the tribal culture for granted, as if it were uniform and universal. With this assumption they study psychic behaviour in a tribe. On the other hand, the same approach is taken by social anthropology. It tends to take human nature for granted, as if it were uniform and studies the diverse cultures of the tribe.

To simplify the relations between psychology and social anthropology, it could be stated, that the study of interrelationship in a primitive society owes much to the psychological conditioning of the people in that society. This can be illustrated by referring to the situation of Indian tribals. The tribals, historically, have been exploited by the money lenders and traders. I.P. Desai notes that when there is a meeting of the tribals of Bardoli taluka, they simply prohibit the entry of non-tribals. They consider caste Hindus as their enemies. Their psychological mindset determines their behaviour. Therefore, in any study of primitive society, the psychology of the primitives constitute a relevant point. This also explains the relationship between social anthropology and psychology; the former is concerned with a variable of culture and latter with the mind.

7. Economics and Social Anthropology

One important contribution of anthropology is that by providing people with a vast array of information about diverse socio-cultural systems, anthropology creates a kind of natural laboratory for testing hypotheses. Because their subjects often object to being manipulated, all social scientists frequently find it difficult to experiment. What is needed, then, is information about diverse social systems in which the factors involved in hypotheses naturally vary-and this information anthropology often provides. This is the assumption that human wants are infinitely expandable. The assumption that human wants are infinitely expandable is, of course, the major premise in the syllogism that produces a famous definition of economics as the study of the allocation of scarce means among rankable alternative ends. Now anthropology teaches people that one shall get further if one looks at what people do rather than listening to what they say.

Marshall D. Sahlins is a social anthropologist who has worked on the economy of primitive people. He has argued that for a modern society money is everything and for a primitive society it is the kinship which is all important. Sahlins’ observation explains the relationship and differentiation between social anthropology and economics.

The status of economics among primitives can be seen from the theory given by Malinowski. His thesis was that among tribals the economy is an integrated part of social and cultural totality. His observation was that economic systems and actions can only be fully understood if we look into their interrelations with other aspects of culture and society.

Admittedly, social anthropology studies the tribal economy, and this brings it closer to the discipline of economics. Despite this inherent relationship between social anthropology and economics, it must be said that each has its own distinct autonomous status. They differ in their perspective and approach.

Marshall D. Sahlins (b. 1930) has worked on the processes of evolution. His study of polynesian social stratification (1958) is quite interesting. It is in this book that he showed the relationship between state formation and kinship organization. He has constructed the conceptual framework of cultural relativism, that is, each society has its own culture.

In other words, culture is group-specific. He has also been influenced by Marxism and structuralism. His study of primitive economy very clearly establishes and differentiates the relations between social anthropology and economics.

Recently, a new branch of economic anthropology has emerged in the wider domain of anthropology.

This brings economics all the more closer to social anthropology.

Now it is being stressed that tribal economy is basically different from the general discipline of economics. To spell out the specificity of the tribal economy, it would be better if we refer to Eriksen. He observes: 

Anthropologists have always wished to call attention to the ways in which the economy is an integrated part of a social and cultural totality, and to reveal that economic systems and actions can only be fully understood if we look into their interrelationships with other aspects of culture and society.

Just as politics ought to be seen as part of a wider system which includes non-political aspects as well, the economy cannot be property studied as an isolated sector.

Thus, the tribal economics as discussed by anthropologists has a functional nature. It is related to other parts of tribal life such as religion, kin, clan and polity. The modern economy is different in its perspective and approach. This economy is rational and is importantly based on market principles.

This theoretical difference between social anthropology and economics has been aptly brought out by Douglas and Isherwood, in their book, the World of Goods.

The authors have given an anthropological answer to the question: why people in modern societies want commodities? “The drive for consumption witnessed in these societies is far from natural, even if it is taken for granted with in academic economics and among lay people.

S.L. Doshi has elaborately worked on the food habits of the tribals of Rajasthan. He argues that there is culture in food and, therefore, food consumption cannot be analyzed wholly on the principle of economic theory.

The academic economics is quite different from the economy of social anthropology. Modern economy is basically a capitalist economy. It is a newcomer to the world. Its theory and principles are helpful in understanding the general economic behaviour but the tribal economy is essentially different for it stresses ethnicity rather than rationality.

The example of gift system, which is prevalent among the Trobriand islanders, fully explains the nature of tribal economy. As a matter of fact, among the tribals, much of the economics is guided by ‘gift economy’.

In a capitalistic economy, money is the common denominator for what is commonly thought of as an economic activity, and it serves to single out an economic institution in those societies as something apparently separate from the rest of society. If we look at a tribal society there is no single word for economy as an institution separated from social life in general.

What we find in the relationship of economics and social anthropology is that both are concerned with the study of production, distribution, exchange and consumption.

But, the understanding of these processes in social anthropology and economics is altogether different.

To summarize the relations and differences between social anthropology and economics, we observe:

1.  Social anthropology is empirical whereas general economics is analytical.
2.  Social anthropology is basically micro; economics is importantly macro.
3.  Social anthropology considers economics as a part of the whole society. It cannot be studied separately. Economics, on the other hand, is separate and has a distinct existence in society.
4. Economy in social anthropology is basically a community economy; general economics is individual centered. A person wants to maximize his benefits through cost benefit calculations.
5. Social anthropology begins its economic research right from a small, little society. Contrarily, economics concerns itself with the macro level communities.
6.  Social anthropology looks at economic processes from the cultural point of view. General economics is national; it looks at the maximization of benefits.

Social anthropology has by now established itself as an autonomous academic discipline. It has its relations with other social sciences. These relations stem from the fact that as a social science, social anthropology shares some of the common aspects of theory, data and methods of other social sciences.

On a broader plane, it could be safely said that social anthropology is different from other social sci-ences on many counts. However, its distinctness is largely upheld by the study of indigenous people, holistic study and network of interrelationships in the primitive society.