ࡱ> ^`]q`0HYbjbjqPqP.f::Tl,0-n,,,,,,,$.h19,www9,,w,w,)|[+ 3w=iF_*,-00-q*11$[+1[+N0~r9,9, 0-wwwwD  A History of Anthropology: Chapter 3  Four Founding Fathers Introduction: End 19th century: cultural globalisation, cultural imperialism, colonialism ! evolutionist theories give a legitimation for  superior western culture Authoritarian, conformist, evolutionist Begin 20th century: Modernity/modernism: ambivalent view on truth, morality and progress More liberal and tolerant thought (cfr. 18th century - Enlightenment) WW I: 4 founding fathers [in what follows 4ff] of anthropology: Franz BOAS (USA) Bronislaw MALINOWSKI (Britain) Alfred RADCLIFFE-BROWN (Britain) Marcel MAUSS (France) ! caused modern, largely non-evolutionist revolution in respectively American, British and French anthropological thinking. German tradition remains: diffusionism ! 4ff no shared programme, significant methodological & theoretical differences ! evolutionism had failed, but evolutionists (Morgan, Tylor) established basic parameters of anthropological discipline Boas and historical particularism: Influence from German diffusionism (critical to evolutionism) Development of theory = sufficient empirical grounding ! collect and systematize detailed data on particular cultures ! theoretical generalisations (but with great care) Four-field-approach: linguistics, physical anthropology, archaeology, cultural anthropology (! France, Britain: not specialized, but generalistic approach) Field work: Inuit, Kwakiutl, NW coast of America, short, repeated visits, teamwork CULTURAL anthropology (USA): culture = everything mankind has created, including society (material phenomena, social conditions, symbolic meaning) (cfr. definition Tylor) (! Britain: SOCIAL anthropology: sociologically (social structure, norms, statuses, social interactions) & comparative) HISTORICAL PARTICULARISM: historical reconstruction, every culture its own values & unique history (like Bastian) (NOT evolutionist), intrinsic value of plurality of cultural practices (NOT only function ! Britain) CULTURAL RELATIVISM: methodically & morally METHODOLOGICAL INDIVIDUALISM: unique circumstances generate particular cultures ! cautious in generalisation, comparison (artificial similarities) ! particular example rather than general scheme Influence on American anthropology: Lowie, Sapir, Benedict, Mead & Malinowski and the Trobriand islanders: Originally: psychology & economics, Seligman (London School of Economics) Society = understand holistically, unity of intertwined parts, analysis = synchronous (NOT historical ! Boas) Field work: New Guinea, Trobriand Islands, participant observation PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION: did not invent  field work , but new fieldwork method = live with, participate in activities  no fact too trivial to record (detail)  NOT wider historical, regional approach (! Mauss, Boas) Work:  Argonauts of the Western Pacific !  Kula-trade connected with other institutions as politic leadership, domestic economics, kinship, rank ! holistic, intertwined Cultures = NOT primitive or simple, but complex & multifaceted, just  different ! NOT single trait comparison, but holistic, context & interconnections FUNCTIONALISM:  All social practices and institutions were functional in the sense that they fit together in a functioning whole, which they contributed to maintaining. But unlike the other functionalists who followed Durkheim, Malinowski saw individuals, not society, as the systems ultimate goal. Institutions existed for people, not vice versa, and it was their [individual] needs, ultimately their biological needs, that was the prime motor of social stability and change. ! individual biological needs ! functional social practices and institutions to satisfy those needs ! practices and institutions in holistic system = society = also METHODOLOGICAL INDIVIDUALISM (! collectivist Durkheimians) Similarity to Boas: methodological individualism, Germanic influence, scepticism towards high-flying and generalising theories, anti-evolutionary Difference with Boas: no historical reconstruction Similarity to Radcliffe-Brown: anti-evolutionary, anti-historical Difference with Radcliffe-Brown: no big theories, individualist (! collectivist, society structure = structural functionalism) Influence on Evans-Pritchard, Fortes, Firth, Richards, Leach, Schapera Radcliffe-Brown s natural science of society: Influence from Durkheim Field work: Andaman islands Work:  6xz|4 ^   3 d e  T ǿrfr^^^M h&M>h&M>56\]mH sH h5kmH sH h42^h42^H*mH sH  h5kh42^56\]mH sH h42^mH sH  h42^h ?56\]mH sH h ?h ?H*mH sH h ?mH sH h42^h42^5>*\mH sH h\?mH sH "h\?h5W5CJ \aJ mH sH (h\?h\?56CJ \]aJ mH sH "h\?h\?5CJ \aJ mH sH z| e  ( M g F klgd&M> L<^L`h&M>mH sH h56\]mH sH hmH sH hJH"mH sH h*w56\]mH sH  h0kh0k56\]mH sH h0kmH sH h0k56\]mH sH  h&M>h&M>56\]mH sH h&M>h&M>5>*\mH sH h&M>mH sH  h5kh5k56\]mH sH h5kmH sH  h&M>h5k56\]mH sH b "rhp#& & FgdnB  & Fgd]H & Fgd;L & Fgdg & FgdJP & Fgdgd & Fgdim & Fgd? & Fgd & Fgd&M>w>LP "r0H^Ѳ{og_gNFNFNhJPmH sH  hJPhJP56\]mH sH hgmH sH hmH sH h5>*\mH sH h56\]mH sH h mH sH  himhim56\]mH sH himmH sH hJH"mH sH hJH"56\]mH sH  h*wh*w56\]mH sH h*wmH sH h*w56\]mH sH  h?h?56\]mH sH h?mH sH 48fh  6"(hrzpLX  @ Q ɸɎɎɎɎɟɸɸɆuuuuddd hDch;L56\]mH sH  h;Lh;L56\]mH sH h;LmH sH  hshg56\]mH sH hg56\]mH sH hghJPmH sH  hghg56\]mH sH hgmH sH hJP56\]mH sH hmH sH  hJPhJP56\]mH sH hJPmH sH 'Q ^ x ?!L!Q!"":#J####^$q$$&&&&&*','.'''ν~me]eUFeh'Jh'J5>*\mH sH h'JmH sH hcmH sH h mH sH  h h 56\]mH sH hnB mH sH hOmH sH hEmH sH h]H56\]mH sH  h]Hh]H56\]mH sH h]HmH sH  h]HhA@56\]mH sH hA@mH sH  hDchDc56\]mH sH  hDch;L56\]mH sH h;LmH sH &,'.''''&<X>AD EEEEEEDFFG\GGG"H$a$gdlgd. & Fgdc & Fgd. & Fgd  & Fgd$gd'J & FgdnB ''''''(<$<&<T<t<<<<=8=N=r=t===>V>X>~>>>>>p??????6@@AAAA(B,BLBBB߼ߒߒߒ߼shK56\]mH sH  hKhK56\]mH sH  hKh 56\]mH sH  h.h.56\]mH sH h.mH sH hKmH sH h h mH sH Uh 56\]mH sH h mH sH h'JmH sH  h h 56\]mH sH -Andaman Islanders Durkheimian ethnography: individual as product of society, collectivism  finding abstract structural principles and socially integrating mechanisms ! social cohesion NOT culture (= what people think, do and believe), but society structure (= forces that hold everything together) Scientific approach:  Society is bound together by a structure of juridical rules, social statuses and moral norms, which circumscribe and regulate behaviour. Social structure exists independently of the individual actors who reproduce it. Actual persons and their relationships are mere instantiations of the structure, and the ultimate goal of the anthropologist is to discover its governing principles, beneath the veneer of empirically existing situations. STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM: social structure (see above) exists (=cause) of subsystems (=institutions) which contribute to the maintenance of the social structure (=function)  cause of institutions = function of institutions (tautology/backward reasoning) e.g.: KINSHIP = key institution to maintain social structure (for Radcliffe-Brown) Anti-historical, institutions are functional today (= Malinowksi) Influence on Evans-Pritchard, Fortes (after influence Malinowski) British anthropology: 2 lineages: Functionalism Structural functionalism Malinowski Radcliffe-Brown Functional institutions Scientific, determining structure Individual (needs) Collective (society) Holistic Holistic Anti-historical Anti-historical London School of Economics Oxford Participant observation Kinshipology!!! empirical ethnographic detail!!! Maus and the search for total social phenomena: Influence from Durkheim (Mauss uncle), (Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown, Boas) Durkheimian: holistic, social organism, integrated whole 3 levels of anthropology: ETHNOGRAPHY: detailed study of customs, beliefs, social life ETHNOLOGY: empirically based craft of regional comparison ANTHROPOLOGY: philosophically informed theoretical endeavour to generalise about humanity and society (based on ethnography & ethnology) Field work: no field work, but stress on methodology Classify societies & discover structural features common to different societal types General understanding of social life (! Boas particularism) Historical (! British anti-historicalism) Work:  The Gift ! gift/countergift = total prestations which embody range of relationships and express very essence of society (and evoke/need a whole range of institutions: kinship, religion, economy & ) Influence on French anthropology (Lvi-Strauss, Dumont, Van Gennep, Lvy-Bruhl), Anglo-American anthropology (Evans-Pritchard) Anthropology in 1930: parallels and divergences: By 1930: diffusionism & speculative armchair anthropology still flourishing (Frazer)  emergence of  new anthropologists in national traditions (USA, Britain, France)  start  modern anthropology Many similarities: Detailed study of customs in relation to total culture (no isolation of cultural traits) Holistic science (study culture/society in context) Society is system Many differences: Methods, theory, institutional organisation Cultural history & synchronic studies (Boas, Mauss  Diffusionism / NOT Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown   unscientific  only synchronic) Large, comparative sociological project (Radcliffe-Brown, Mauss) ! less sociological, comparative science (Boas) / no comparison at all (Malinowski) ! French Durkheimian influence on former 2 - German diffusionist influence on latter 2 Methodological collectivism (R-B, Mauss) ! Particularism/individualism (Malinowski, Boas) Critiques: Boas: distrust of generalisation  Malinowski: too much detail  Radcliffe-Brown: too coherent, incompatible with facts BB8CCDDDDDDEEE E2EEEEEEFDFFFG\G"HDHPHTHZHzHHߵߗ~ߗߗsh]UhhlmH sH hlhcmH sH hlhlmH sH hlhlmH sH hlhl5\mH sH hl5\mH sH hlmH sH hcmH sH hc56\]mH sH hchcmH sH h.56\]mH sH  h.h.56\]mH sH h.mH sH  hKhK56\]mH sH hKmH sH  "HzHHHII(J\LL>NOPP:QRRST*TNTTU & FgdP & FgdP & FgdT(gden & FgdB & Fgdegd.`gdl$a$gdlHHHIN^N`NNNNNOOOOOٲooo hshs56\]mH sH hsmH sH hs56\]mH sH  hBhB56\]mH sH hBhBmH sH hB56\]mH sH hBmH sH  hBhe56\]mH sH hemH sH hehe5>*\mH sH hlmH sH hcmH sH )OOPP:QRRRRR>SXS\StSSSSTT(T*TJTLTNTTTTTTTUUUU*\mH sH henmH sH hsmH sH hshsmH sH %VVWWWWXBXTXXXdXXXXXFYHYh+hcmH sH h)v8mH sH  h)v8h)v856\]mH sH h+mH sH hcmH sH  hchc56\]mH sH UWBXHY & Fgdc,1h. A!"#$% J@J StandaardCJ_HaJmHnHsHtHLA@L Standaardalinea-lettertypeVi@V Standaardtabel4 l4a .k@. Geen lijstf=>L e(Mg Z4z$ n  < +E^.'(TuCo F`Q5GY S00000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0G 0G 0G 0G 0T wQ 'BHOVHY-/01&"HUHY.2HY<_|^^""|___<`|```B'J;LOJPwU42^e0k5k +\?A@Dc?cim ?enE5Wg]Hcs$*w@Dggkkkk k k 22pp@p p@pp$@pppp@@p"pH@p&p<UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial;SimSun[SO?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"qcfkF99!24 2Q KX)?\?2<A History of Anthropology: Chapter 3  Four Founding FathersStevenSteven$      Oh+'0( 8D d p |@A History of Anthropology: Chapter 3 Four Founding FathersSteven Normal.dotSteven23Microsoft Office Word@$MQ@<@Ww=՜.+,0$ hp|  9 =A History of Anthropology: Chapter 3 Four Founding Fathers Titel  !"#$%&'()*+,-./012356789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLNOPQRSTVWXYZ[\_Root Entry F`tDw=a1Table41WordDocument.fSummaryInformation(MDocumentSummaryInformation8UCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word-document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q