A.R.

Radcliffe-Brown (1881—1955)
Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown was one of the most eminent anthropologists of the first half of
the twentieth century. He helped to develop and establish modern ‘social’ anthropology as a
generalizing, theoretical discipline.

The most notable of his many important contributions was his application to primitive societies
of some of the ideas of systems theory, which led to a revolution in the analysis and
interpretation of social relations. Radcliffe-Brown formed his theoretical approach as early as
1908 when, as a postgraduate student, he stated the requirements of a science of human
society.

He considered them to be three-fold:

(i) To treat social phenomena as natural facts and thus subject to discoverable necessary
conditions and laws;

(ii) To adhere to the methodology of the natural sciences;

(iii) To entertain only generalizations that can be tested and verified. He never departed from
these rules, although his conceptual thought developed steadily.

Instead of explaining social phenomena in historical or psychological terms, which he believed

to be impossible, Radcliffe-Brown explained them as persistent systems of adaptation,
cooptation, and integration. His main working hypothesis was that the life of a society can be
conceived of as a dynamic fiduciary system of inter-dependent elements, functionally consistent
with one another.

He had used the notion of “social structure” as early as 1914, though not in a well-defined
sense, as almost a doublet of ‘organisation’.
But gradually his ideas of ‘social structure’ underwent changes. In his final formulation,
structure refers to an arrangement of persons and organization, to an arrangement of activities.
At the same time, he substituted the concept of ‘social system’ for that of ‘culture’. All these
changes were connected.

Radcliffe-Brown’s social anthropology is best described by separating two main elements: a

general theory and a central theory. The general theory produced three connected sets of
questions.

The first set deals with static or morphological problems:

What kinds of societies are there?

What are their similarities and differences?

How are they to be classified and compared?

The second set deals with dynamic problems:

How do societies function?

How do they persist?

The third deals with developmental problems:

How do societies change their types?

How do new types come into existence?

What general laws relate to the changes?

The general theory dealing with these problems was borrowed from biology and bore the stain
of Spencer in its emphasis on three aspects of adaptation: ecological adaptation to the physical
environment; social adaptation, i.e., the institutional arrangements by which social order is
maintained; and the socialisation or ‘cultural adaptation’ of persons.

The central theory dealt with the determinants of social relations of all kinds. Radcliffe-Brown
phrased it in terms of the cooptation or fitting together or harmonisation of individual interests
or values that makes possible “relations of association”, i.e., socially established norms or
patterns of behaviour, and ‘social values’.

The two theories—the general theory and the central theory—are based on the idea that the life
of a society can be conceived and studied as a system of relations of association and that a
particular social structure is an arrangement of relations in which the interests or values of
different individuals and groups are coated within fiduciary ‘social values’ expressed as
institutional norms.
The idea of cooptation is fundamental to Radcliffe-Brown’s whole outlook. But the logical and
conceptual implications of the idea are not fully worked out, nor are the static and dynamic
aspects of the competitive process. What he did write is probably best viewed as only a sketch
for a ‘pure’ theory dealing with all classes of relations of association and all classes of
functioning systems or social structures.

While Radcliffe-Brown did not regard the study of social structure as the whole of anthropology,
he did consider it to be its most important branch. But he asserted that “the study of social
structure leads immediately to the study of interests or values as the determinant of social
relations”, and that a “social system can be conceived and studied as a system of values”.

Important works by Radcliffe-Brown

i. The Andaman Islanders (First publication, 1922)

ii. The Social Organisation of Australian Tribes (First publication, 1931)

Bronislaw Kaspar Malinowski (1884—1942)

B.K. Malinowski was a Polish-born social anthropologist whose professional training and career,
beginning in 1910, were based in England. Through his scientific activities, specially his
methodological innovations, he was a major contributor to the transformation of nineteenth
century speculative anthropology into a modern science of man.
As a field worker, a scholar, a theorist, and, above all, a brilliant and controversial teacher and
lecturer, he played a decisive part in the formation of the contemporary British school of social
anthropology.

He viewed anthropology as a field-oriented science in which theory and the search for general
laws must be based on intensive empirical research involving systematic observation and
detailed analyses of actual behaviour in living, on-going societies. His principal field-work was
carried out among the Papuo-Melanesian people of the Trobriand Islands, located off the coast
of New Guinea.

Malinowski regarded residence among the people under study, competent use of the native
language, observation of the small events of daily life as well as the large events affecting the
community, sensitivity to conflict and shades of opinion, and a consideration of each aspect
within the context of the whole culture as indispensable conditions to ethnographic work and,
indirectly, to the sound development of theory.

Malinowski’s primary scientific interest was in the study of culture as a universal phenomenon.
At the same time, he was interested in the development of a methodological framework that
would permit the systematic study of specific cultures and open the way to systematic cross-
cultural comparison.

For purposes of research and exposition, he treated each culture as a closed system and all
countries as essentially comparable. In other words, he treated the empirical study of a specific
culture as a contribution to the understanding of the universal phenomenon of culture.

Malinowski presented two axioms which must underlie every scientific theory of culture. First,
every culture must satisfy man’s biological needs, such as nutrition, procreation, protection
against damaging forces of climate, dangerous animals and men.

But culture must also provide for occasional relaxation and the regulation of growth. Second,
every cultural achievement is an instrumental enhancement of human physiology contributing
directly or indirectly to the satisfaction of a bodily need.

Malinowski was also the originator of the functionalist approach to the study of culture.
Although the idea of ‘function’ is a key concept throughout his work, the use of this term was
open-ended, exploratory, and subject to continued modification.

Until very recently, theoretical codification of the functional approach had not been developed
except by Malinowski. As propounded by Malinowski, the functional theory is applicable to the
study of social structure and cultural diversity.
The outline of this theory may be stated as follows: The maintenance and the possible
extension of a group and its social system as well as the persistence and the possible
improvement of the group’s culture are defined, at least implicitly, as the groups objectives or
goals.

Empirical study should reveal the functional requisites of a given system, that is, the conditions
under which these objectives can be achieved. It can then be shown that specific parts of the
social structure and culture of the group operate as mechanisms that satisfy (or do not satisfy)
the functional requisites. The following aspects may be considered in this connection.

First, universal functional needs can be met in different ways, as is evidenced by social and
cultural variation. In individual societies, particular procedures from a wide range of cultural
possibilities are ‘selected’.

Second, the number of such ‘choices’ is always limited, limited by the biological characteristics
of man and by his social and psychic needs. Hence the prevalence of independent and parallel
inventions in different societies.

Third, the range of ‘choice’ for a specific society is further limited by the interrelationship and, in
some measure, the interdependence of the choices themselves. For example, modern industrial
growth in traditionally agrarian societies no doubt limits, but does not determine, the number
and type of possible political and other institutional developments.

A major task of functional analysis is to discover the number and type of cultural possibilities
under diverse social conditions which exist in different societies, so as to determine the
functionalism of the societal organisation. This is the essence of Malinowski’s functional theory.

In addition to his study of culture and functionalist approach, reference must also be made to
his observations on magic, science and religion. In his handling of science, magic and religion,
he accepted essentially the traditional Western conception of a dual reality, viz., the reality of
the natural world, grounded in observation and rational procedures that lead to mastery over
nature, and supernatural reality, grounded in emotional needs that give rise to faith.

For example, Malinowski derived science not from magic but from man’s capacity to organise
knowledge, as demonstrated by Trobriand technical skills in gardening, ship-building, etc. In
contrast, he treated magic, which co-existed with these skills, as an organised response to a
sense of limitation and impotence in the face of danger, difficulty and frustration.

Again, he differentiated between magic and religion by defining magical systems as essentially
pragmatic in their aims and by defining religious systems as self- fulfilling rituals organised, for
example, around life’s crisis. It is also significant that he differentiated between the individual
character of religious experience and the social character of religious ritual.
Particularly illuminating is his discussion of the use of public magic among the Trobriand
Islanders as an initiating act in the organisation of stages of work. His book The Foundations of
Faith and Morals represents an attempt to apply hypotheses based on primitive cultures to the
problems of European societies.

Assessment’ of Malinowski:
It is exceedingly difficult to assess Malinowski’s place in Anthropology. In the subsequent year
since his death, much of his theoretical work has been bypassed. Some of his ideas that made
him a storm centre in the 1920s have been so fully incorporated into, anthropological thinking
that his exposition now appears unnecessarily didactic.

The stress on precision and solid empirical evidence in present-day anthropological researches
is mainly due to Malinowski’s breadth of vision which made this advance possible.

His method of institutional analysis made it possible for him to express, through a model,
certain core ideas of his theory, viz., the integrity of each culture; the complex interrelationship
of the society, the culture and the individual; the grounding of culture in the human organism
(in man’s needs and the individual; the grounding of culture in the human organism(in man’s
needs and capacities and in the individual as the carrier of culture); and the systematic nature
of culture as a phenomenon.

Malinowski’s theoretical framework is a major contribution. Today no anthropologist is,

however, prepared to make the dizzying leap from the particular to the universal that
characterized his attempt to create an effective methodology. There are essential intermediate
steps.

For example, these involve intensive studies of process within and across cultures and over
time. We also require fine-grained systematic comparison of intensively studied cultures and
cultural process.

Today the required tools have been devised and these tools make feasible more delicate and
systematic research. Malinowski’s search for an adequate methodology was a step toward
broadening the base of empirical research. For this, collaboration among all the relevant
sciences will be necessary. The study of culture is crucial to, but not in itself sufficient for, the
development of a science of man.

Important works by Malinowski:

1. The Dynamics of Culture Change

2. A Scientific Theory of Culture

3. Argonauts of the Western Pacific

4. The Family among the Australian Aborigines

5. The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia

6. Magic, Science and Religion

7. Crime and Custom in Savage Society

8. Myth in Primitive Psychology

9. The Foundation of Faith and Morals.

Tallcott Paksons (1920—1979)

In contrast to a fascination with the techniques of sociological inquiry, applied to small-scale,

and sometimes trivial, problems, there developed during the 1940s and 1950s a pre-occupation
with the construction of elaborate conceptual schemes. This is exemplified most fully in the
work of Talcott Parsons and his followers.

In his first book, The Structure of Social Action, Parsons expresses the view that action is the
basic unit which sociologists have to observe and consider. He attempts to postulate a general
theory of action. In his view, such a theory would provide a solution to “the Hobbesian
problem of social order by locating the springs and orientations of action in
reference to the normative aspects of social life”.
The Theory of action, as developed by Parsons. It was noted in the course of discussion that
pattern-variable scheme is one of the main innovations of Talcott Parsons.
Max Weber, who discerned for the first time the growing importance of rationalisation in the
modern era, feared that rationalisation could pervade the entire modern social fabric and
threaten all spontaneous human relations with destruction.

Parsons, however, argued that rationality as a principle had limits just as kinship values have.
He contended that kinship and personal relations will be maintained, cherished and protected in
the private sphere.

We may mention two main points about this approach which remains central to Parsons’
subsequent development of his theory. In the first place, despite their many differences, it is
argued that all stable societies have certain basic values in common, indicated by the pattern-
variables.

In extreme contrast to cultural relativism, Parsons believed in the cultural unity of man, and the
pattern-variables give a starting point for identifying important universals. Second, the major
differences between cultures are matters of degree, to be seen in the priorities and nuances
given to the same basic concerns.

While differences of degree are by no means unimportant, he argued that doctrines of unique
cultural spirits mislead by only identifying the dominant values and beliefs of a culture, ignoring
its lower priority values and over-particularizing their meanings.

Apart from the theory of social action, Parsons contributed substantially to the structural—
functional school of sociology. Mention may be made, in particular, to his four-function
paradigm. Some criticisms have been leveled against the sociological theories of Talcott
Parsons.

To begin with, it is argued that in his sociological theories, the element of physical coercion in
social relationships is almost entirely neglected. He emphasises an ‘equilibrium model’ of society
whereas a ‘conflict model’ would be more realistic.

Secondly, it is pointed out that “Parsons has been largely concerned with elucidating the
conceptual structure in the thought of the classical sociologists, and with elaborating new
concepts within the framework of his notion of ‘social action’. He has not, however, developed,
any comprehensive explanatory theory and his work has not given rise to a school of sociology
characterised by new kinds of explanation of social events”.
 Robert K. Merton (1910)

Robert K. Merton, the American Sociologist, with his customary perspicacity, has developed the
theories of the middle range. By way of illustrating his concept, he referred to certain social
phenomena the significance of which was not brought out or emphasized in earlier theories.

Merton defines ‘theories of the middle range’ as “theories that lie between the minor but
necessary working hypotheses that evolve in abundance during day-to-day research and, the
all-inclusive systematic efforts to develop a unified theory that will explain all the observed
uniformities of social behaviour, social organisation and social change”.

By way of elaboration of his thesis, he further observes:

“Middle-range theory is principally used in sociology to’ guide empirical inquiry. It is
intermediate to general theories of social systems which are too remote from particular classes
of social behaviour, organisation and change to account for what is observed and to those
detailed orderly descriptions of particulars that are not generalized at all. Middle-range theory
involves abstractions, of course, but they are close enough to observed data to be incorporated
in propositions that permit empirical testing. Middle-range theories deal with delimited aspects
of social phenomena as is indicated by their labels”.

He speaks of, by way of illustration, a theory of reference groups and relative deprivation, a
theory of role-conflict, etc.

The seminal ideas in such theories are characteristically simple. The theory of reference groups
and relative deprivation starts with the simple idea that people take the standards of significant
others as a basis for self-appraisal and evaluation. Some of the inferences drawn from this
simple idea are not consistent with common sense expectations based upon an unexamined set
of ‘self-evident’ assumptions.
For example, common sense suggests that a family or a group would suffer from a sense of
deprivation to the extent of the loss sustained by it in a mass disaster. This is based on an
unexamined assumption that the magnitude of objective loss is related directly and lineally to
the subjective appraisal of the loss.

But the theory of relative deprivation leads to an altogether different conclusion. According to
this theory, self-appraisal is not confined to one’s own experience only. On the contrary, it
depends upon people’s comparison of their own situation with that of other people perceived as
being comparable to themselves.

The theory, therefore, suggests that a group or a family may actually suffer heavy losses. But it
will fill less deprived if those, who are considered to be comparable, suffer more severe losses.
It is clear therefore, that this theory has not been logically derived from a single all-embracing
theory of social systems.

Similar is the case with the theory of reference group or the theory of role-set. These theories
start with very simple observable social phenomena and draw inferences which shed light on
the nature of the phenomena.

HARRIET MARTINEAU (1802-1876)

Harriet Martineau was born in 1802 in Norwich, England. She was the sixth of eight children
born to Elizabeth Rankin and Thomas Martineau. Thomas owned a textile mill, and Elizabeth
was the daughter of a sugar refiner and grocer, making the family economically stable and
wealthier than most British families at the time.
The Martineau family were descendants of French Huguenots who fled Catholic France for
Protestant England. The family practiced Unitarian faith and instilled the importance of
education and critical thinking in all of their children.

However, Elizabeth was also a strict believer in traditional gender roles, so while the Martineau
boys went to college, the girls did not and were expected to learn domestic work instead. This
would prove to be a formative life experience for Harriet, who bucked all traditional gender
expectations and wrote extensively about gender inequality.

Harriet Martineau, one of the earliest Western sociologists, was a self-taught expert in political
economic theory and wrote prolifically about the relations between politics, economics, morals,
and social life throughout her career. Her intellectual work was centered by a staunchly moral
perspective that stemmed from her Unitarian faith. She was fiercely critical of the inequality and
injustice faced by girls and women, slaves, wage slaves, and the working poor.

Martineau was one of the first women journalists, and also worked as a translator, speech
writer, and wrote acclaimed novels that invited readers to consider pressing social issues of the
day. Many of her ideas about political economy and society were presented in the form of
stories, making them appealing and accessible. She was known at the time for her keen ability
to explain complicated ideas in an easy-to-understand manner and should be considered one of
the first public sociologists.

MARTINEAU'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO SOCIOLOGY

Martineau’s key contribution to the field of sociology was her assertion that when studying
society, one must focus on all aspects of it. She emphasized the importance of examining
political, religious, and social institutions. Martineau believed that by studying society in this
way, one could deduce why inequality existed, particularly that faced by girls and women.

In her writing, she brought an early feminist perspective to bear on issues such as marriage,
children, home and religious life, and race relations.Her social theoretical perspective was often
focused on the moral stance of a populace and how it did or did not correspond to the social,
economic, and political relations of its society.Martineau measured progress in society by three
standards: the status of those who hold the least power in society, popular views of authority
and autonomy, and access to resources that allow the realization of autonomy and moral
action.She won numerous awards for her writing and was a rare successful and popular --
though controversial -- working woman writer during the Victorian era. She published over 50
books and over 2,000 articles in her lifetime. Her translation into English and revision
of Auguste Comte’s foundational sociological text, Cours de Philosophie Positive, was received
so well by readers and by Comte himself that he had Martineau’s English version translated
back to