13 Manchester School: Conflict theories

Neha Tiwari

Contents

Introduction

1.  Social Problems

2.  Processes of Articulation

3.  Interpersonal Interaction

4.  Semantics and Rhetoric

5.  Points of Reaction

6.  Principal Concepts

6.1 Cross-Cutting Ties/ Cross-Cutting Alliances

6.2 The Dominant Cleavage

6.3 Intercalary Roles

6.4 The Social Drama and its Proccessual Form

6.5 Redressive or Adjustive Mechanisms

6.6 Repetitive and Changing Social Systems

6.7 Repetitive Change

6.8 Situational Analysis

6.9 Situational Selection

6.10 The Social Field

7. Criticisms

Learning Outcomes

• To develop an understanding about the Manchester school of thought
• To know about various concepts studied by this school of thought
• To analyze the concept critically

Introduction

The Manchester School of Thought was an outcome of the extensive fieldwork done during the period of 1950s and 1960s in both the urban and rural areas of British Central Africa. The research was mainly carried out by Manchester University’s department of Social Anthropology and the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute. Max Gluckman at first started the theoretical and methodological innovations in his field research. Later on he along with his students elaborated the theoretical and methodological approaches and thereby, developing a school of thought that has come to be known as the Manchester School.

The fieldworkers of the Manchester School closely observed the situations of conflict contained within an apparent overriding order that is continually threatened by the reluctance of individuals to accept compromises that do not fulfill their immediate desires. The main characteristic feature of the Manchester School of Thought is that it focuses upon the conflicts and methodologically focuses on analyzing the actual situations. The students of this school collected a great amount of data on observed social actions of individual people and described these cases in very detailed manner. They mainly focused on the conflicts and conflict-resolution patterns of society. The entire characteristic features of the Manchester School have been identified by Werbner into four main parts in 1984, which are as follows:

(1)   Social Problems

(2)   Processes of articulation

(3)   Interpersonal interaction

(4)   Rhetoric and Semantics

1.  Social Problems

The central area of study of the students of Manchester School was social problems faced by the people in British Central Africa. The social problems in Africa were mainly due to colonialism, but the processes of Industrialization and labor migration were also amongst the major ones. There were basically two systems of values and norms based on the systems of subsistence: traditional and industrialized. Max Gluckman, disagreed with the Wilson’s notion of “detribalization” as a gradual process largely based on the belief that people opt between the two systems of subsistence. According to Wilson the social actors were forced to choose one system instead of the other. But Gluckman had observed something new and opposite to that, migrants and laborers used to select out certain behaviors from the existing system to suit the specific social situations that they encountered.

5

Theories and methods in social and cultural Anthropology

Anthropology	Manchester School: Conflict theories

In his three early works, Analysis of a Social Situation in Modern Zululand (1940), Economy of the Central Barotse plain (1941), and Some Processes of Social Change, Illustrated with Zululand data (1942) Gluckman had devised an approach for studying the processes of social change. In the colonial context as per his observation his model accounted for the situational selection of behaviors. A specific actor behaves individually with his own purpose and interests and these were considered by Gluckman to be significant reflections of macro processes within the social system (Werbner, 1984). This theoretical approach and requisite methods developed by Gluckman in his early research would form a central set of analytical concepts of the Manchester School of thought.

The theoretical approach constructed by Gluckman was a new and different unique version of Oxford Structuralism. Gluckman’s approach was different from the other Oxford Structuralists because he mainly was interested in social problems like indutrialisation, labor migration and apartheid. Gluckman’s analysis of social problems led him to emphasize on social process and an analysis of structures and systems based on their relative stability. Gluckman de-emphasized the notion of gradual change. He formulated his idea of social change in terms of repetitive and changing systems. In his view, conflict maintained the stability of the system through the establishment and re-establishment of cross-cutting ties among social actors (Werbner 1984). These cross-cutting ties established a situation in which people formed a variety allegiances with others that often transcended the different cleavages resulting more in a system of smaller cleavages ultimately reducing the severity of cleavages. In other words conflict maintains the repetitive destruction and recreation of ties ultimately resulting in a situation of social cohesion. The fieldworkers who were influenced by Gluckman ultimately came to an understanding of social reality in a way that differed profoundly from the relatively conventional views of the students of Evans-Pritchard and Fortes (Kuper 1983).

2. Processes of Articulation

In order to develop a theory on social problems the anthropologists of the Manchester School started emphasizing on the relative correspondence and contradiction among the different systems and domains of social relations. Werbner characterizes this second strand of Manchester School theory as a concern for the “management of systems” or “spheres in articulation”. In many cases their structural paradigms of “fit” and “contradiction” described social processes in areas of articulation between the disparate spheres. Such processes were observable in relations between village organization and the state, relations between industrial and tribal spheres, or the connections between worker organization and the larger system of urban, industrial relations. According to Gluckman’s structural model, a point of articulation within the encompassing political hierarchy of colonial Africa could be understood from looking at inter-hierarchical roles. The inter-hierarchical role, often filled by the village headman, was subject to the conflicting interests and pressures from both the higher political order and the villagers underneath the leadership of the headman. To these theoretical ends Manchester School anthropologists described and analyzed the political activity surrounding the holders of the intercalary or inter-hierarchical roles especially in terms of the social actor’s negotiation of power within the environment of conflict surrounding the role. Anthropologists observed how a politically conscious individual in the intercalary role could negotiate the different levels in the hierarchy or recruit support from outside the hierarchy. The main theoretical objective behind examining such roles was to gain insight into the realities of political power and allegiances in the shifting economy of colonial systems.

With the dual-spheres model Gluckman discussed his observation that in the situation of colonialism, industrialization and labor migration actually strengthen tribal political and kinship systems where one would expect them to break apart. Gluckman insisted on considering in his analyses of the economy of the Barotse Plain (1941) and his analyses of Lozi Royal Property (1943) the total social field as comprised of two spheres, the urban, industrial sphere and the rural, tribal sphere. According to Gluckman, these two fields maintained a functionally coordinated relationship through the process of labor migration as follows. Under the colonial circumstances land control was limited under the tribal authorities. By being a tribesman one was assured through the rights of kinship bonds and obligations of having land ownership. Tribesmen were thus spared the burden of being part of the landless, urban poor in times of unemployment. Tribal peoples therefore found it to their advantage to migrate to urban areas for wages only to return to their families subsisting in the villages. Accordingly, within this system the urban sphere benefited by obtaining the needed labor and forgoing the burden of the social costs of reproducing that labor in situ. Gluckman had suggested that the two spheres articulate in a symbiosis and have achieved a degree of stability or equilibrium.

3. Interpersonal Interaction

Manchester anthropologists asserted the existence of multiple sets of social interaction or spheres of social relations. Social change occurs over the entire social system however, some spheres are affected more than others. As a result, disparities in beliefs and values arise leading to an urban environment characterized by internal inconsistency. In colonial situations such as that observed in central Africa tribal values persist side by side with industrial values despite inherent racial divisions. The internal inconsistency can be best understood using the concept of situational selection. Situational Selection posits that social actors choose their beliefs that seem appropriate to whatever sphere they happen to be operating in at the time.

4. Semantics and Rhetoric

Manchester anthropologists mainly pioneered in the study of ritual and judicial process. In Gluckman’s work describing judicial processes among the Lozi he pioneered the exploration of: (1) the relation between concepts of the person, (2) the language of rules, and (3) the logic of situations. He in this investigates the process by which culturally constituted notions of the person are manipulated by judges to inform their rhetoric and finesse the ambiguity inherent in rules. Gluckman thus established a system for investigating such forms of uncertainity within a hierarchy of norms and values.

In Manchester Anthropology ritual is generally seen as functioning to displace conflict. The ritual emphasizes on achieving harmony among the people rather than the conflicts, also the social institutions and the values are always in harmony that is achieved by ritualisation itself. Ritual can establish harmony as each ritual selects to some extent from the gamut of moods, of cooperative links, and of conflicts. Gluckman predicted that moral dilemmas were likely to be more complex in less complex societies. He points out that in such societies each individual must simultaneously fill a number of varied roles and consequently face the differing expectations of the other members within society. Gluckman characterized simple societies by their multiplex ties. He observed that within the different spheres of relations, for example: political, kin, and religious, a person in a simple society would have ties to the same people in many of these different spheres. On the other hand, he observes that a person in a more complex society will have fewer overlapping relations among spheres. He calls simple societies, multiplex and complex societies simplex. He suggested that within multiplex societies that ritual functioned best, because it simultaneously marked roles and convinced people that despite their many conflicts, they shared overarching values.

5. Points of Reaction

Gluckman along with his other students adapted the functional doctrines then dominant in social anthropology under the influences of Bronislaw Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown. They used some of their functional ideas to formulate a statement about the inter-relationships between such factors as a high standard of living of South African whites, the existence of pass laws, low wages for Africans, malnutrition in the reserves, dilemmas of chieftainship, eroding agriculture in the reserves, and so on.

Gluckman devised a view being adopted from Durkheim and Radcliffe-Brown that a society follows a moral order that manages itself even in the situation of conflicts amongst its members who in order to fulfill their own self desires and rebel against the symbols of social constraint. His view was different from that of Radcliffe-Brown as he supported the view that a society has to contain certain dominant and harsh conflicts within it. He founded that rituals can maintain social order because they have in them the functional mechanisms which maintains harmony to be reinstated after breaches of the social order have occurred. Departing from the approaches of Evans-Pritchard and Fortes of emphasizing the existence of stable cognitive structures and balanced opposition of social units, Gluckman chose to observe the individual. There he realized that the rules by which people are expected to live and function are often contradictory and ambiguous. People thus find themselves at odds with themselves as well as with their social relationships and ultimately with society.

6. Principal Concepts

6.1 Cross-Cutting Ties/ Cross-Cutting Alliances: The principle of cross-cutting ties depends on the assumption that conflicts are inevitable in social systems and may actually serve towards the maintenance of these social systems. Groups have an inherent tendency to break apart and then become bound by cross-cutting alliances. In this way, conflicts in one set of relationships are assimilated and compensated for in the resulting alliances. The quarrels are thus directed through the medium of alliances and allegiances.

6.2 The Dominant Cleavage: Gluckman developed the principle of Dominant Cleavage in a series of hypothesis he put forth that explained the cultural expression of social movements of politically opposed groups in interethnic relations. The dominant cleavage is thus is the most apparent cleavage between two groups. In a changing system there may be other cleavages concerning the two groups involved, e.g. within the groups, however the groups will place greater value on their individual endo – cultures. In this way they are able to expressively emphasize the dominant cleavage and downplay any of their internal conflicts.

6.3 Intercalary Roles (Inter-hierarchical Roles): The intercalary role provides, under the circumstances of alien or foreign rule, intermediate connections between two multifarious sets of political connections. In one way, the intercalary role represents the state, characterized by bureaucratic habits and dogma enmeshed in impersonal relationships. In the meantime, the role is profoundly involved in the complexly layered relationships within the localized political community. The classic example of an inter-hierarchical role is the village headman. He serves as a ‘middle man’ subordinate to his higher command, the state, and simultaneously representative of his village’s needs. He is caught between the demands of the state and the demands of his villagers.

6.4 The Social Drama and its Proccessual Form: “In short, the processional form of the social drama may be formulated as (1) breach; (2) crisis; (3) redressive mechanism; (4) re-integration or recognition of schism (Turner, 1957).” Turner developed his notion of the social drama from the work of the social psychologist, Kurt Lewin. In other words, Turner noted a particular pattern in which conflicts take on the form of social dramas. Initially there is a breach of the peace, which results in a crisis or conflict. The conflict is culturally addressed through either a ritual or a socially sanctioned process (going to a court of law). After such redressive mechanisms take place the system is reinforced by the assertion of common values and peace is restored by the recognition of the initial cleavage.

6.5 Redressive or Adjustive Mechanisms: Redressive or Adjustive mechanisms usually take the form of personal or informal mediation, formal or legal arbitration, or in cases resulting in a crisis, the performance of a public ritual. These mechanisms are mobilized to seal the rupture caused by conflict. The parties under conflict may introduce certain rules of common conflict which results in the hierarchy of societal values.

6.6 Repetitive and Changing Social Systems: In every society there exists enough amount of tension. Also there is lots of ambivalence with co-operation and contrasting struggle. The social systems are repetitively changing and developing. In a repetitive system particular conflicts are not by alterations in the order of offices, but by changes in the persons occupying these offices.

6.7 Repetitive Change: Gluckman used this term to differentiate between transformation, change of the system, and repetitive change, processes reproducing the system. Bailey’s definition of repetitive change is similar to Gluckman’s. He argued that repetitive change, also known as social circulation or dynamics, ensures that environmental disturbances, such as death, do not result in the collapse of the social structure. Every society has rules governing which groups or roles people are born into, and who will succeed certain statuses when one member moves out. The cyclic process of the passage through roles by individuals in the society constitutes the notion of repetitive change according to Gluckman.

6.8 Situational Analysis: In similar situations similar sort of processes operate, but each one has its variability. Situational analysis forms one of the main impetuses of Gluckman’s methodological and theoretical orientations. Situational analysis or events centered analysis involves the description of actual events and practices by social actors. Gluckman asserts that the function and structure of the system can better be understood by the way social actors put it to use in real life. In this way the inherent inconsistencies and contradiction within the system are brought out in the analysis. Gluckman stressed the importance of looking for comparisons in the patterns of action in actual cases or events.

6.9 Situational Selection: In situational selection the actor chooses from a selection of beliefs one belief for a particular situation and another possibly contradictory belief in a different situation. This selection of beliefs is based on the actor’s differing roles in both situations. Inconsistencies observed in the beliefs of actors can be thus resolved using the principle of situational selection. The actors are mainly acting in accord with their social role and adjusting their beliefs for the situation.

6.10 The Social Field: Gluckman developed the idea of the social field in order to deal with conceptual boundaries within anthropology limiting researchers from comprehending fundamental dimensions of social and cultural processes in addition to processes of change and transformation. The structure of the social field consists not solely of spatial relations and the “framework of persisting relationships” which anthropologists often call “structural,” but also the “directed entities” at any point in time that operative in that field. Directed entities are the goal-oriented activities employed by individuals and/or groups, in pursuit of their present and future interests or aims.

7. Criticisms

Gluckman’s equilibrium model concept has been widely criticized. Kapferer suggests that Gluckman “confused positivist and anti-historical concepts of equilibrium with structural processes internal to cultural and political orders which are reproductive and transformational of them over time. The Structural-Functional paradigm used by Manchester anthropologists has been criticized mainly because it fell out of ‘fashionable thinking.’ “The paradigm became exhausted in its general theoretical interest; it missed too much, was too tied to the status quo, and suffered from being applied too often to the microhistories of village life, mainly the passing moments of micropolitics, such as the petty squabbles of headman and their rivalrous relatives” (Werbner 1987).

Manchester School has come under some criticism for the tendency of these researchers to have ambiguous political orientations. Notably, the early work of Manchester demonstrates a Marxist bent. Some of these scholars allied themselves with socialist, liberal political movements. This position could be difficult for anthropologists to openly maintain given their intermediate positions in the colonial context (funded by the British, working with Africans. Van Teefflen notes the importance of a face of neutrality for anthropologists to effectively negotiate their working circumstances (1980).

References:

• Gluckman, M. 1955. Custom and conflict in Africa.Oxford.Basil Backwell.
• Kapferer, B.1987. The Anthropology of Max Gluckman. Social Analysis 22 (2-19)
• Turner, V.1957. Schism and Continuity in African Society: a Study of Ndembu Village Life. Manchester. Manchester University Press.
• Van Teeffelen, T.1980. The Manchester School in Africa and Israel: A Critique. In Stanley Diamond (ed.) Anthropology: Ancestors and Heirs. New York: Mouton Publishers.
• Werbner, R P. 1984. The Manchester School in South-Central Africa. Annual Review of Anthropology 13:157-185.