{"id":609,"date":"2025-09-21T04:04:59","date_gmt":"2025-09-21T04:04:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/?page_id=609"},"modified":"2025-09-21T04:05:03","modified_gmt":"2025-09-21T04:05:03","slug":"6-0-anthropological-theories","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/6-0-anthropological-theories\/","title":{"rendered":"6.0: Anthropological Theories"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Basic &amp; Anthropological Theories<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Origin &amp; Why<\/strong> :- In the mid 19th Century with starting of the origin of the Cycle of exploration\u2192&nbsp; Conquest \u2192 Colonisation \u2192 Expose to a wide variety of Culture \u2192 Vast possession of data \u2192 Try\/efforts to <strong>explain variations &amp; diversity<\/strong> among cultures \u2192 development of cultural anthropology<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>What is Anthropological theory\/Thoughts -Theory is a reflection of\n<ul>\n<li>Author&#8217;s mind<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Time period in which it emerged.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Social Condition<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Different Anthropological Theories &#8211; <\/strong>Division Based on <strong>Time<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Classical Anthropological Thought (19th C &#038; Early 20th)\n<ul>\n<li>Classical Evolutionism (Tylor, Morgan &amp; Frazer)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Historical Particularism (Boas) ; Diffusionism (British, German &amp; American)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Functionalism (Malinowski) ; Structural-Functionlism (Radcliffe Brown)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Structuralism (L&#8217;evi &#8211; Strauss &amp; E. Leach )<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Modern Anthropological Thought (In Late 20th)\n<ul>\n<li>Culture personality (Benedict, Mead, linton, Kardiner &amp; Cora &#8211; Du Bois)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Neo evolutionism (childe, white, Steward,Sahlins &amp; Service)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Cultural Materialism (Harris )<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Significant change&nbsp; occur here<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Symbolic &amp; Interpretive Theories (Turner, Schneider &amp; Geertz)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Cognitive theories (Tyler, Conklin)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Post-Modernism in anthropology<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Organisation of Theories<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Introduction<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Historical Background<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>General aim<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Methodologies<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Basic Postulated to understand the theory<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Principal concept<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Accomplishment<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Point of Reaction<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Criticisms<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>conclusion<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Leading Figures&nbsp; &amp; their Key works (i.e source &amp; Bibliography)<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Tribes on which the study was done<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>As Change is deviation from Normal hence <strong>cultural change<\/strong> is change in <strong>existing culture. <\/strong>These theory is <strong>systemic study of culture<\/strong><strong>wrt<\/strong> to different aspect <strong>like change<\/strong> is studied with the help of <strong>3 theories<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Evolutionism<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Diffusionism<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Cultural Materialism&nbsp;<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Evolutionist School of Though<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Evolution can be defined as a process in which different forms are produced or developed orderly in system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/875ef24a-49ba-990a-241e-a08d1dd0d7a0\" alt=\"\"\/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Julian Steward <\/strong>provided a different typology of the Evolutionary School<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>based on the <strong><u>assumptions &amp; approaches employed<\/u><\/strong> in explaining cultural evolution by the school\n<ul>\n<li>Unilinear Model<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Universal Model<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Multilinear Model<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Classical Evolutionism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>CE is the first theory in anthro,originating in <strong>later half of 19th century<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Historical Background<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Evolutionism is intimately related to the emergence of anthropology. The root of evolutionism lie in other tradition i.e sociology &amp; biology. The disciple was heavily influenced by pre-Darwinian &amp; Darwinian thoughts.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Pre-Darwinian scholars <\/strong>include <strong>Augusta Comte, Herbert Spencer <\/strong>etc who existed in the after-math of French Revolution. They talked of <strong>Social Evolution <\/strong>for ex\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Augusta Comte<\/strong> gave 3 stages&nbsp; of progression like <strong>Theosophical \u2192 Metaphysical \u2192 Positivism<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Herbert Spenser <\/strong>gave 2 stages of society &amp; culture evolution e.g <strong>Military<\/strong> \u2192 <strong>Industrial society<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Their discussion was philosophical not give any kind of proof that\u2019s why they were not accepted in any scientific disciple.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>However they influenced the thought pattern of Darwinism.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Darwininan Thoery<\/strong> &#8211; <strong>origin of species by Natural Selection <\/strong>in 1859 was a major break through for the development of anthropology. Although it didn\u2019t discuss the evolution of society &amp; culture, it <strong>provided sufficient proof regarding the evolution of biological being<\/strong>. Therefore anthropological scholars believed that evolution must have taken place in society &amp; culture also. As a result evolution came into existence in anthropology in 1860.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Hence pre-Darwinian scholars &amp; darwinian are responsible for the emergence of evolution school in anthropology.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Meaning of <strong><u>Evolution &amp; Evolutionism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Evolution<\/strong> &#8211; It is a gradual process of change from simple to complex, homogeneity to heterogeneity &amp; from uncertainty to certainty.&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Evolutionism<\/strong> &#8211; means <strong>perspective to analyse the process of evolution<\/strong>. In other words. It is an interpretative strategy regarding evolution of society &amp; culture.&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>General Aim<\/u><\/strong> &#8211;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>To explain diversity among people of world &#8211; indicating stand i.e mankind was a unity &amp; not diversity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Primitive societies were ancestors of more modern &amp; civilised societies.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Basic premises\/ principles \/ Assumption<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Evolution is a <strong>gradual process of change<\/strong> &amp; not all of a sudden<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Evolution is a <strong>ceaseless process <\/strong>as env don\u2019t come to a half as far as society exists.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The idea of evolution can be <strong>applied to entire society<\/strong> or an institution or a cultural trait. And it evolve in<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>It includes tracing <\/em><strong><em>origin &amp; sequence of evolution of human society &amp; culture<\/em><\/strong><em>. That is the flashing Approaches of classical evolutionism<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Culture evolutions in <strong>unilinear<\/strong> &amp; sequential manner of evolution thr <strong>definite stages<\/strong> which is always <strong>progress<\/strong> hence is from <strong>stages of homogeneity to complex state of heterogeneity.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Psychic unity <\/strong>of Mankind explain +nce of cultural parallels.<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/6cb336df-3d88-5563-596d-ce157d5bc926\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>diversity in human culture<\/strong> arise b\/c differences in environments &amp; situations. So, acc to schools, are of <strong>2\u00b0 significance<\/strong> in the analysis of evolution of culture.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Tylor<\/u><\/strong> formulated <strong>concept of survivals<\/strong> to explain symbolic meaning of certain social customs, which has lost significance but had in past.&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Methodologies<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>data collection from <strong>secondary sources<\/strong> except <strong>LH Morgan(did fieldwork)<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>applied <strong>comparative method<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>to present the similarities in culture &amp; justify the fact that primitive cultures evolved into more formal civilised ones.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Even survivals were also compared to explain this fact<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>historical Explanation Method <\/strong>&#8211; help analysing cultural varieties &amp; is adopted to study &amp; justify the fact that human cultural had under gone progressive change<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Point of Reaction<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Countered degeneration theory of savagery<\/u><\/strong>(that primitive regressed from the civilised state)as an <strong>indication of the fall from grace<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Reaction within Evolutionist thought<\/u><\/strong>: particularly concerning of the <strong>most primitive stages of society<\/strong>. It was highly debated as the order of primitive promiscuity, patriarchy &amp; matriarchy.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Reactions to Evolutionism<\/u> : Karl Marx &amp; Engel <\/strong>extended Morgan\u2019s evolutionary scheme &amp; included further stages of cultural evolution in which <strong>monogamy, private property &amp; state<\/strong> (which were chiefly responsible for exploitation of the working class modern societies) would cease to exist &amp; <strong>communism<\/strong>of primitive society would once more come into being.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Principal concept<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Postulated evolutionary scheme of culture as a whole and also of social institutions<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/9a59282f-dbe0-dd01-f735-289727e9ff90\" alt=\"\"\/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Tribes on which the study was done<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Accomplishment<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>First theory in Anthropology<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Made anthropology an independent academic discipline<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whatever was the data available,they worked meticulously on it and attempted to draw convincing conclusions<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Left legacy<\/strong> which become an integral part of anthropological thought &#038; research methodology\n<ul>\n<li>Dictum that <strong>cultural phenomenon<\/strong> are to be studied in <strong>naturalistic<\/strong> fashion<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The premise of the <strong>Psychic unity of Mankind<\/strong> i.e that cultural differences b\/w groups are not due to differences in <strong>psychological equipment<\/strong> but due to differences in <strong>socio-cultural experience<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The use of <strong>comparative method as the surrogate<\/strong> for the surrogate for the experimental &amp; laboratory techniques of physical sciences.&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticisms<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; theory of social evolutionism was denounced by both modern &amp; post modern ear anthropologist<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>the theory of universal evolution based on psychic unity of mankind<strong>could not account<\/strong> for <strong>cultural variations &amp; differences<\/strong> so were disapproved by anthropologist like <strong>Franz Boas, Margret Mead<\/strong> &#038; other of American school\n<ul>\n<li>Polynesian chiefdoms showed complex political system , but with no trace of pottery &#8211; that bring Morgan\u2019s theory of evolution based on technological progress under scanner<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Even many different culture can develop in similar geographical setting &#8211; so assumption is wrong<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Wastermarck<\/strong> &#8211; simple societies have monogamy &amp; nuclear families but acc to evolutionist these features should be characteristic of civil society only.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Could not explain <strong>why some societies have regressed or even become extinct<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Unilinear and sequential manner of cultural evolution<strong>failed<\/strong> to explain why some societies have <strong>not passed through all the stages<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Lack of fieldwork &#038; adopting a weak method of study &#8211; so the\u00a0 follower of social evolutionary theory was referred by as \u201c<strong>Arm chair Anthropologist<\/strong>\u201d by Next gen. (<strong><u>Franz boas<\/u><\/strong>) who emphasised on primary data collection thr field work &#038; introduced empirical approach in anthropology.\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>James Frazier<\/u>\u2019<\/strong>s work <strong>Golden bough<\/strong> &#8211; was entirely based on secondary date &#8211; no filed work no direct interaction with people under study<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Used <strong>comparative method<\/strong> (based on mere encounter with other) to <strong>enhance greatness of anthropologist\u2019s own society.<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Equated contemporary primitive societies with prehistoric societies. But as evolution happened how can be they equated ?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>As reference point was the <strong>civilisation of the whites<\/strong> or considered Victoraina society as highest stages of development , these theories have been condemned as <strong><u>ethnocentric<\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Gordon Childe<\/u><\/strong>, an American diffusionist, criticised it for their neglect of <strong>human invention &amp; creativity<\/strong>. Evolutionists also <strong>overlooked diffusion &amp; migration.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Ignorance of other process of social change <\/strong>e.g diffusion of culture, so <strong>criticised by <u>Diffusionist<\/u>.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Criticised by functionalists -for&nbsp; <\/strong>indulging in congecturalism, as no evidence<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Criticism against Progressive Evolution<\/strong> &#8211; Evolution should be seen as change rather progressive or retrogressive.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Source &amp; Bibliography<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>conclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Thus classical evolutionism had its fair share of merits &amp; demerits. However being the first theory in anthropology it paved the way for future research<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Leading Figures&nbsp; &amp; their Key works<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Baron de Montesquieu<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>in his book <strong>De l\u2019 esprit des loix<\/strong> (The spirit of laws), a Comparative cross cultural study of legislative systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>proposed on evolutionary scheme consisting of 3 stages for society : Hunting or savagery, <strong>Herding or Barbarism, and civilisation<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Tylor &amp; Morgan also adopted this scheme.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>E.B Taylor<\/strong> (Edward Burnett Tylor)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>First British Professor of Anthropology, at the <strong>university of Oxford (1896)<\/strong> &#038;\n<ul>\n<li>was first professional anthropologist&nbsp;who was offered the post of curators in London museum<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He was one of the pioneers in systemic study of anthropology of world<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He also regarded as \u201c<strong>father of British Anthropology<\/strong>\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Worked on the theory of evolution of culture.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Contribution<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Evolutionary contribution\n<ul>\n<li>Proposed the theory of <strong>Unilinear Universal Evolution<\/strong> of society which state culture evolved from <strong>simple to complex<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>To evolutionary study thr his study on origin of religion<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Others includes <strong>origin &amp; evolution of plough<\/strong>,\n<ul>\n<li>Plough has evolved from a simple plain digging stick according to Taylor<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Contribution other than evolution\n<ul>\n<li>His <strong><u>definition of culture<\/u><\/strong> is very popular &#038; widely accepted. (Mainly remembered for it &#8211; first to define) <strong>1871<\/strong> in <strong>primitive culture<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>By his definition he ruled out the concept of <strong>genetic transmission<\/strong> of culture &amp; he focused on <strong>social transmission<\/strong> of culture.&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Study of happiness in society<\/u><\/strong> : linking Happiness with montesquieu\u2019s three stage classification of society\n<ul>\n<li>First to use montesquieu\u2019s&nbsp; classification.&nbsp; Accepted it but he didn\u2019t offered any details of stages as he was not interested in total Marco-cultural evolution.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>But he said classification should not be <strong>typo-technological <\/strong>&amp; linked with <strong>acceleration in happiness<\/strong> with <strong>civilisation marked by most happiness <\/strong>(not marked with writing)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>also related it with <strong>some moral qualities<\/strong> i.e \u2191 in <strong>morality<\/strong> as one moves from savagery to barbaric to civilised society.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Criticisms<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Such idea were totally rejected as happiness &amp; moral qualities are subjective in nature<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Psychological research shows that primitive people are much happier than modern one.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Also criticised for not giving detail analysis of these tree terms.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Statical study of anthropology<\/u><\/strong> ; highlighted its role in anthropology\n<ul>\n<li>282 societies date that time<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It proves to be very uself to <strong>compare different societies<\/strong> of the world to arrive to some universal conclusion<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>This method was used by <strong>G.P Murdock<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Books<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>&#8220;Mexico and Mexicans&#8221; (1861)<\/strong> &#8211; after exploration of <strong>peningrad caves<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>&#8220;Primitive culture&#8221; (1871)<\/strong> &#8211; completely devoted to origin &#038; evolution of religion\n<ul>\n<li>In it he coined the term <strong>Animism<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Taylor on culture History<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>his opinion; culture study = historical study &amp; Anthro= Study of man&#8217;s development in course of history.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In primitive culture he defined culture which till date is regard as the most complete definition of culture as \u201c<em>culture or civilisation, taken in it&#8217;s wide ethnographic sense, is that <\/em><strong><em>complex whole <\/em><\/strong><em>which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom &amp; any other capabilities and habits <\/em><strong><em>acquired<\/em><\/strong><em> by man as member of society&#8221; <\/em>(1871)\n<ul>\n<li>Acquired \u2192 thus part of <strong>social learning<\/strong> rather than biological heredity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>diff in culture dev \u2192 Not due to degeneration but due to <strong>progress<\/strong> in cultural knowledge.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>complex whole \u2192&nbsp; includes all socially leamed behivour, even if trivial.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Unilinear line of evolution<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Study of culture = historical study of man&#8217;s development in society, from <strong>Savagery \u2192 Barbarism \u2192 civilization.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Did not agree with <strong>Auguste Comte&#8217;s<\/strong> trio scheme of social evolution Viz <strong>Theological stage, Metaphysical s. &amp; Positive stage<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Taylor presented possible order of evolution, <strong>though not forced specific culture into any of 3 stages<\/strong>, though believed that <strong>victorian society<\/strong> achieved civilisation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Techniques used for such construction:\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Survivals<\/u><\/strong> : Various processes, customs &amp; opinions that persisted by force of habit even when they lost their utility and thus, remained proofs of earlier condition.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Basic idea of <strong><u>Taylor&#8217;s ethnological theory<\/u><\/strong> \u2192 <strong>Continuity<\/strong> of cultural history as invaving a process of development from lower to higher degree of culture<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Based on principle of <strong>psychic unity of mankind<\/strong>, Tylor explained the <strong>parallel evolutionary stages<\/strong> in different cultures <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/654201fc-de0a-b9b7-858f-bbd356c03285\"><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Taylor on Primitive Religion<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Began with defining religion as simple as &#8220;The Belief in Supernatural Being&#8221;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>All religious phenomena were taken out of their cultural settings<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>For Taylor, Religion was mainly <strong>attempt to understand events of human experience<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Began with premise &#8211; perhaps there was no religion ; so started system c\/l religion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Primitive man was <strong>inquisitive<\/strong> in nature &amp; <strong>sensitive<\/strong> to nature ; observed &amp; asked a large no of question.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>considering early man as \u201c<strong>Savage philosopher<\/strong>\u201d \u2192\u00a0 who does\u2019t possesed adequate knowledge to reason scientifically,\n<ul>\n<li>must&nbsp; have noted <strong>differences<\/strong> in living &amp; dead ;&nbsp; life &amp; <strong>phantom<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>After death \u2192 soul leaves body, but Sometimes appear in dreams, acting as if alive &#038; also had <strong>hallucinating<\/strong> experiences . Thus belief developed that human soul continued to exist even after life. So though of some kind of <strong>dual existence.<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>This belief extended to non living objects also (b\/c they also appeared in dreams)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Then primitive man started <strong>debating &amp; form this though process he arrived to a conclusion<\/strong> that existence is <strong>first bodily<\/strong> &amp; secondly in <strong>term of soul (anima)<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus, Acc. to tayor, early man&#8217;s belief that <strong>everything posses life &amp; soul <\/strong>was early phase of Religion called &#8220;<strong>Animism<\/strong>\u201d in which they worshiped plants &amp; animals<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Another belief<\/strong> \u2192 mobility of soul \u2192 Soul protected tribe \u2192 attempts to communicate with soul led to dev. of prayer &amp; active worship.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Spirits \u2192 in course of time \u2192 elevated to status of <strong>gods <\/strong>\u2192 each god controlling specific aspect of nature or life as soul exist every where \u2192 dev of <strong>Polytheism<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>As all gods were not imp.\u2192\u00a0 <strong>hierarchy of gods<\/strong> emerged > minor gods thrown back to background \u2192\u00a0 Rise of <strong>Monotheism<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Or \u201cNotion that although soul belong to diff entities ; in fact all those Souls are one.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Hence origin of religion is summaries as : <strong>animism (Totemism)<\/strong> \u2192 Polytheism \u2192 Monotheism <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/1e78cac1-da66-c65a-1bcc-d299119e57f1\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Criticism<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Relied on <strong>secondary sources<\/strong> of data.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>didn&#8217;t deal with Religion as a whole\n<ul>\n<li>only considered origin &amp; dev. of various beliefs.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Neglected <strong>Social dimension<\/strong> of religion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>As it accept primitive man as philosopher (hence c\/l as <strong>theory of&nbsp; savage philosopher<\/strong>\u201d &#8211; but critique couldn\u2019t accept primitive man as logical as accepted by <strong>Taylor<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Acc to criticisers he gave no scientific date<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Taylor on matriarchal form &amp; couvade<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Taylor: society passed from matriarchal to patriarchal.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>collected data from <strong>282 societies<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>On basis of this data he shouted correlation b\/w different institutions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>For ex. patrilineal Societies are often associated with patrilocal residence. He c\/l this type of r\/l <strong>adhesion.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Analysed post martial <strong>residence patterns <\/strong>&#038; cuftom of <strong>in-law avoidance<\/strong> \u2192 Concluded that <strong>matrineality &amp; matrilocality<\/strong> preceded P &#038; P.\n<ul>\n<li>Gave ex. of <strong>couvade<\/strong> : custom of men to imitate habits of women especially during <strong>pregnancy &amp; labour pains<\/strong>. which is not at all practised in matriarchal Society. But in <strong>patri-matrilinealty<\/strong> (20 societies in Taylor\u2019s study) stage societies &amp; few (8) partiarchal Sodleties as lost utility in patriarchal society).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Covade as <strong>cultural Survival<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/e5c34ffc-57be-5eed-6d6d-a1aff8bd2d5e\" alt=\"\"\/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Cultural Survivals<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Tylor explained survivals<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>as those processes, customs, &amp; opinions, which by compulsion of habit are carried forward into a new realm of society, and they thus continue as living ex of an earlier condition of a culture which at present has evolved into a new one.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Spencer\u2019s<\/u> theory of social evolution &amp; survival of the fittest<\/strong> was accentuated by <strong>Tylor\u2019s theory of cultural survivals.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>James Frazer<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Book\n<ul>\n<li>&#8220;<strong>Golden Bough&#8221; (1890)<\/strong> on the study of magic &#038; religion\n<ul>\n<li>Gave detailed description of religious beliefs of societies &amp; cultures from various parts of globe.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>&#8220;Totemism &amp; Exogamy&#8221; (1910)<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>&#8220;<strong>Folklore<\/strong> in old Testament (1911)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Contribution\n<ul>\n<li>Also offered <strong>theory pertaining to totemism<\/strong>. He wrote extensively i.e about 10 volumes in form of golden bough &amp; 4 volumes on \u201ctotemism &amp; exogamy\u201d in which he described theory of evolution of science &amp; totemism respectively.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Given 3 stages of development thr&nbsp; which all societies pass viz. <strong>Magic, Religion &amp; science<\/strong><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/b20b4576-c6dd-ee75-cca7-0938368e87cd\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>earliest society \u2192 dominated by <strong>Magic<\/strong> which viewed nature as &#8220;series of events occuring in an <strong>invariably<\/strong> order w\/o the Intervention of personal agency.\n<ul>\n<li><strong>2 principles<\/strong> &#8211; &#8220;law of similarity&#8221; &amp; &#8220;law of contact\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Law of Similarity<\/u><\/strong>&nbsp; \u2192 like produces like \u2192 magicians were convinced that they could control nature by imitating it. Ex&nbsp; rain \u2192 pour couter out, harm anyone &amp; doll.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Law of contact<\/u><\/strong> \u2192&nbsp; Connections remain in force even after seperation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>However, when human mind progressed, people realized that they <strong>were fairly helpless<\/strong> \u21d2 thus belief arose that some higher, non human powers ruled universe \u2192 birth of <strong>Religion<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Magicians turned priest \u2192 whose soul after death was worshipped as god.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Highest stages \u2192&nbsp; Science (as religion turned into illusion)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>criticism<\/u><\/strong> criticised by many including <strong>Malinowski<\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>though true that science appeared late, but primitive man was <strong>not wholly<\/strong> Ignorant of <strong>natural causation<\/strong> as Frazer sald.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ethnographic evidences: Magic &amp; Religion coexists in some societies. eg- Trobrianders.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Conclusion &#8211; Thus he didn\u2019t make any significant impact on evolutionary study at that time as by the time evolution was discredited b\/c of est of museums in diff parts of world &amp; commencement of filed work tradition in anthropology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Henry James Summer Mainel<\/strong><a href=\"tel:+9118221888\">(1822-1888<\/a>)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Books\n<ul>\n<li>&#8220;Ancient law&#8221; (1861)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>&#8220;Early History of Institutions&#8221; (1871)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>&#8220;Early law &amp; Custons&#8221; (1875).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Maine &amp; Law<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>in <strong>&#8220;Ancient Law&#8221; (1861)<\/strong> &#8211; examined some earliest ideas of mankind as reflected in ancient laws.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>attempted to study evolution of law in western world.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Applied method of reconstruction in collection of data on ancient law.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>study on Roman law \u2192 pointed out that older forms continued to exist as &#8220;<strong>legal fictions<\/strong>&#8221; and thus pointed Pointed out to earlier times when they were real functional laws.\n<ul>\n<li>Maine used this legal fictions as tool for reconstruction.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>thr method of reconstruction : found number of <strong>sequences of development<\/strong> specially from kinship to territorial org&#8221;, Status contract; civil law \u21d2 criminal law.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Thr it he<\/strong> established that the laws of the people are integrated with the social heritage particular to a society and negated the laws of universalism which was being postulated during the time.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Maine based his work on the ancient <strong>legal systems of Rome, Islamic law and the Brahmanical laws.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Maine &amp; Patriarchy<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Maine: Patriarchal family is original &amp; universal form of social life and that <strong>Patria potestas<\/strong> (absolute authority of Patriarch) base on which patriarchal family is based.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>absolute power of father- even of life &amp; death of wife, children, servents.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>as patriarchy earliest form of org in family\n<ul>\n<li>must have been form of political org.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Further, when groups began to unite around <strong>common land holdings <\/strong>\u2192 territorial notion developed \u2192 But <strong>patrilineal kinship<\/strong> remained organising Principle and societies thus remained <strong>Kinship based<\/strong> until dev. of nations where emerged concept of &#8220;territoriality&#8221;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>R.R. Marret <a href=\"tel:+9118661943\">(1866-1943<\/a>) &#8211; British<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>student of <strong>Taylor<\/strong>, wrote his biography.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>wrote on all works of Taylor, but deeply interested in study of primitive religion<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>in his book <strong>\u201cThe Threshold of Religion&#8221; (1909)<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>modified Taylor&#8217;s concept of Animism.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Argued that instead of soul, as suggested by Taylor, \u201c<strong>nature<\/strong>&#8221; guides <strong>destiny<\/strong> of primitive people.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>coined word <strong>Animatism<\/strong> in the context of his <strong>teleological theory of the evolution of religion<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Marett argues that certain cultures believe &#8220;people, animals, plants, &amp; inanimate objects were <strong>endowed<\/strong> with certain powers, which were both impersonal &amp; supernatural.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>John Ferguson Mclennan<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>special focus- marriages.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Book : \u201c<strong>Primitive Marriages<\/strong>&#8221; (1865) &#8211; endogamy, exogomy.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Mclennan &amp; bride capture<\/u><\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>MicLennan- attempted to explain social facts behind bride capture.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Conclusion &#8211; must be due to shortage of women.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Primitive people &#8211; <strong>female infanticide<\/strong>,\n<ul>\n<li>cruel, but functional necessity as groups were small. &amp; men were hunters &amp; food providers thus immature coaman were burden upon Subsistence economy.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>this shortages led to <strong>polyandry<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>dev. of polyandry provided more regulated form of <strong>promiscuity<\/strong> and in course of time <strong>fraternal polyandry <\/strong>emerged which gave rise to <strong>Patrilocality<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>evidence custom of <strong>Levirate<\/strong> (younger brother marry)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>McLennan: <strong>Matrilineality<\/strong> had <strong>preceded<\/strong><strong>patrilineality<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>His work accentuated Bachofen\u2019s view on mother right.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>L.H. Morgan <a href=\"tel:+9118181881\">(1818-1881<\/a>)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Regarded as <strong>father of American Anthropology <\/strong>&#8211;\n<ul>\n<li>He was adopted by one of the <strong>Iroquois clans <\/strong>&amp; named <strong>Tayadaowuhkuh<\/strong> \u201che who builds bridges\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Contribution<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>He contributed to evolution of society &amp; culture thought study of <strong>kinship terminology,<\/strong> whole <strong>society<\/strong>, <strong>marriage<\/strong> system &amp; <strong>political<\/strong> org.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Books<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>&#8220;<strong>Legue of Iroquois&#8221; (1851)<\/strong> &#8211;\u00a0 <strong>classificatory<\/strong> method of kinship Terminology\n<ul>\n<li>He introduced distinction b\/w <strong>classificatory &amp; descriptive Kinship<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of Human family&#8221; (1871) &#8211;<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>In it he described <strong><u>Evolution of Kinship terminology<\/u><\/strong>as follows .\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Classificatory Kinship Terminology (Lineal merging with collaterals) &#8211; 2 types<\/strong>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Malayan Type &#8211; <\/strong>lineal merging with all collaterals eg. mother, mother\u2019s sister, father\u2019s sister are called mother.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>North American Type &#8211; <\/strong>when lineal merge with some collaterals not all. E.g Only mother &amp; mother\u2019s sister is called mother.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Descriptive Kinship Terminology &#8211; <\/strong>different term for different kins e.g in North Indian kinship terminology such father &#8211; Papa, father\u2019s brother &#8211; Tao, Mother &#8211; Maa.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Evolution<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Malayan \u2192 North American \u2192 Descriptive kinship terminology<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>A Conjectural solution to origin of both \u2642\u2640classificatory system of Relationship<\/strong>&#8221; (1868)\n<ul>\n<li>traced history of <strong>human family<\/strong> (evolution of marriage)\u00a0 from Primitive sexual promisculty to modem Monogamy\n<ul>\n<li>Horde living in <strong><u>promiscuity<\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>sexual r\/l still b\/w bro &amp; sis : <strong>consaguineous m\u2019age<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Group m\u2019age (prohibited bro-sis r\/l) : <strong>Punaluan m\u2019age<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>loose relationship b\/w \u2642&amp; \u2640(Bombamic Stage) :<strong>Syndasmian m\u2019age<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Polygamy (\u2642 dominance) : <strong>Patriarchial m\u2019age<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Monogamy (<strong>both equal<\/strong>)&nbsp; &#8211; <strong>Monogamous M\u2019age<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>&#8220;<strong>Ancient Society&#8221; (1877)<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>divided all history into 3 main evolutionary stages of society\u00a0 : <strong>Savagery \u2192 Barbarism \u2192 civilisation<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>correlated by developments. economic &amp; intellectual development<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Explained changing dimension by introducing three sub stages each for savagery &amp; barbarism<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Tried to link the shift thr <strong>technological shifts <\/strong>like in\n<ul>\n<li>Savagery \u2192 use of fire, bow &amp;&nbsp; pottery<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Barbarism \u2192 begin with ceramic age ; to domestication&nbsp; of animals, agri &amp; metal working<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Civilisation \u2192 after invention of alphabets &amp; writing.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>he says that each of these periods has distinct culture &amp; exhibits a mode of life, special &amp; peculiar to itself.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus he attributed technological progress as the source behind <strong>social progress &amp; change (<\/strong><em>in institutions, org or ideologies)<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Unlikce Taylor, he assigned various known cultures to his framed stage of development.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ex : Lower savagery &#8211; does not exist >\n<ul>\n<li>Australian &amp; Polynesian \u2192 middle savagery<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>American Indians \u2192 lower barbarism<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Evolution of Political Org<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Societus<\/strong> (Political system depended on kinship) \u2192&nbsp; <strong>Civitus<\/strong> (political system independent of kinship)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/1d8e647f-b4a9-dd42-f90d-c28336f265a8\" alt=\"\"\/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Morgan\u2019s theory was important as it supported the conviction that <strong>materialistic factors<\/strong>\u2014economic and technological\u2014are decisive in shaping the fate of humanity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Achievement<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; he is one of the first few anthropologist who did some approximating field work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>method of <strong>analysis<\/strong> shows <strong>confusion<\/strong> b\/w <strong>Synchronic &amp; diachronic reconstructions<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>correlation of contemperory cultures in terms of his historical stages \u2192&nbsp; did not fit.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Not touched many aspects of culture e-g- Religion<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Based on secondary date<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Conjecturalism<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Johann Jacob Bachofen) <a href=\"tel:+9118151877\">(1815-1877<\/a>)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Contribution lies towards the <strong>advocation of mother right<\/strong>. In his work he associated the rule of women during the early stages of dev of society which later gave way to father rights.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Book &#8211; <strong>Das Mutterrecht<\/strong> (Mother rights, 1861)\n<ul>\n<li>like Morgan, Maine &amp; McLennan \u2192 believed that matrilineality preceded patrilineality<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>But his arguments were more mystical and speculative.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He proposed <strong>4 phases of cultural evolution<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Hatareism<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Wild nomadism<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Communistic<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Polyamorous<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Das Mutterecht<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>matriarchal <strong>lunar<\/strong> phase based on&nbsp;Agriculture<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>emergence of mystic cults &amp; law<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Dionysian<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>emergence Patriarchy<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>earlier traditions started to masculin,<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Apollonian<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>patriarchal Solar phase<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>eradication of all phases of matnarchy<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>emergence of modern civilisation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Scheme of evolution of human society<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Earliest period \u2192 &#8220;<strong>Hetarism<\/strong>&#8216; (sexual promiscuity)\n<ul>\n<li>women mere as sex objects<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>kinship line \u2192 through <strong>females<\/strong>) (becoz as random mating \u2192 impossible to trace father)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>later, Women revolted against submissiveness and managed to get upper hand in Social affairs \u21d2 Period of <strong>Amazonian&nbsp; Assertiveness<\/strong>&#8216; \u2192 evolution of <strong>mother Rights<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Thus acc to Bachofen: motherhood is source of human society, religion, morality, &amp; decorum<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>later, women tried of all these &amp; wanted husbands to take care for them&nbsp; \u2192&nbsp; evolution of father rights. (patriarch)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>he, like many evolutionist wanted to throw light on importance of evolution of social insti. &amp; for that, used &#8220;<strong>Historical method<\/strong>&#8220;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The beginning of 20th century brought the <strong>end to evolutionism\u2019s reign in cultural anthropology <\/strong>due to establishment of museums &amp; introduction of fieldwork tradition in anthropology. Boas pointed out that these 19th century scholars <strong>lacked sufficient date to <\/strong>formulae many useful generalisations. Thus, <strong>Historicism &amp; later functionalism<\/strong> were reaction to 19th century evolutionism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Neo Evolutionism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>According to <strong>Leslie White<\/strong> &#8211;&nbsp; <strong>Energy<\/strong> was the key component which humans beings learned to harness in the course of cultural evolution &amp; this energy conversion spurred cultural evolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Also called as<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>contemporary trend in evolutionary study<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>New theory of evolution<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Universal cultural evolution<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Historical Background<\/u>&nbsp; <\/strong>&#8211; Early 20th century anthropologist like <strong>Leslie white &amp; Julian H. Steward<\/strong> felt that <strong>evolution was a real fact<\/strong> &amp; societies become more complex over time. As&nbsp; According to <strong>Leslie White<\/strong>, Taylor was correct in every respect except for his methodology. So they attempted to <strong>overcome the failings<\/strong> of the classical evolutionary theorists in their <strong>researches &amp; methodological approaches&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>by incorporating the methodology of <strong>empiricism<\/strong> and also<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>trying to develop <strong>rational criteria of measuring evolution<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>General aim<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Neo evolutionist tried of 20th century tried to <strong>study evolution of culture<\/strong>&nbsp; unlike 19th century classical evolutionist, thr new research &amp; methodological approaches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>reaction against <strong>functionalism<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Methodology<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>all scholars conducted fieldwork &amp; followed an empirical approach.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Basic Postulated to understand the theory<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Believe that culture develops in the form of a parabolic curve <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/f3c99540-b7f9-746c-8f25-a714eb307cfd\">\n<ul>\n<li>A social institution in first born in specific form<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It then gradually develops in different form in different direction &amp; finally<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Moves towards its original direction but in new developed form<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Can be exemplified by the <strong>evolution of property<\/strong> which when stared off&nbsp; communal property, later evolved into private property &amp; finally goes into communal property on common ownership,<strong> but thr state<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>They consider both diffusion &amp; migration of culture traits<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Principal concepts \/ contribution<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Individual concepts<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>VG Childe<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>suggested <strong>4 fold evolutionary scheme<\/strong> &amp; substantiated evolutionary idea with archaeological findings &amp; periods<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Savagery&nbsp; \u2192&nbsp; Barbarism \u2192&nbsp; Higher Barbarism \u2192 Civilisation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>at each stage <strong>human aggressiveness towards their environment<\/strong> increased due to advancing technology<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>LA White<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>technological aspects determine cultural system \u2192 <strong>technological determinism<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>E*T=C<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>JH Steward<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>gave 3 fold classification of evolutionary approaches<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>gave <strong>cultural ecology model<\/strong>-culture change induced by adaption to the environment<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Sahlins &amp; Service<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>combined White&#8217;s and Steward&#8217;s approaches to give 2 types of evolutions-general &amp; specific<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Tribes on which the study was done<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Accomplishment<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Neo-evolutionists through empirical findings were able to address the shortcomings of 19th century classical evolutionism by following scientific &amp; technological approaches<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It was largely throught their efforts that evolutionary theory regained acceptance from 1960s onwards<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Point of Reaction<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticisms<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Leslie white\u2019s <\/strong>too much emphasis on the material dimension of life was criticised by <strong>Marshall Sahlin<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Besides individual shortcomings neo-evolutionists were criticised mainly <strong>by funtionalists<\/strong> for studying<strong> cultural traits in isolation<\/strong> and not as an integrated whole<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>C<\/u><u>onclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Despite the criticism they helped develop several new concepts in cultural studies thus paving the way for future research<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><u>Leading Figures&nbsp; &amp; their Key works<\/u><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>V.G Childe<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Introduction &#8211; Neo evolutionist who tried to study evolution from <strong>materialistic perspective<\/strong>. As he was an <strong>Australian Archeologist<\/strong>, made large no of excavations.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He <strong>divided archeological period<\/strong> into Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, copper age, bronzes age &#038; Iron Age.\n<ul>\n<li>Can seet the progress from one stage to another &amp; can arrive at conclusion<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Initially artifacts were of stone ; over period crude stone implement became smaller in shape &amp; size &amp; become more refined as gradually all these were replace by metal tools<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Books<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Man Makers himself (1936)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>What happened in History (1946)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Social Evolution (1951)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Scheme of Evolution :<\/strong> (<strong><u>Universal Evolution Scheme<\/u><\/strong>) described evolution in 3 major events : called them <strong><u>Revolutions<\/u><\/strong>\n<ol>\n<li>Invention of food production<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Urbanisation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Industrialisation<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>he <strong>substantiated<\/strong> evolutionary idea with <strong>archeological findings<\/strong> &#038; said one can relate each of the stage with particular kind of society. As he related\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Palaeolithic<\/strong> \u2192 Stone Age \u2192 Savagery<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Mesolithic \/ Neolithic<\/strong> \u2192 Mirco-tools&nbsp; &amp; Animal Domestication \u2192 Barbarism | <strong>1st Revolution : Rural Revolution<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Bronze Age<\/strong> \u2192 Metallurgy, Political institution institution, scripts \u2192 emergence of Civilisation | <strong>2nd Revolution : Urban Revolution<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He also opined that even during prehistoric period \u2192 migration took place &amp; thus cultural traits diffused from one place to other \u2192 thus believed upto some extent in principle of diffusion<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He attempted to apply <strong>Darwinian formula <\/strong>to cultural evolution \u2192\u00a0 He equated:\n<ul>\n<li>genetic variation \u21d2 technological inventions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Heredity \u21d2&nbsp; learning (transfer of traits)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Biological adaption \u21d2 cultural adaption<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Selection \u21d2 choices.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Migration \u21d2 diffusion of traits<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus he concluded that it&#8217;s a <strong>universal evolution<\/strong> taking place, with each stage having <strong>higher capability &amp; efficiency<\/strong> to <strong>utilise energy<\/strong> \u2192 it will head to increase in population i.e. <strong>index of evolution<\/strong> Ultimately leads to <strong>civilisation<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus he tried to explain classical theory of evolution with <strong>archeological<\/strong> remains and gave it name of neo evolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>Stages<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Period<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Characteristics<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Civilisation<\/td><td>Present<\/td><td>\u2022&nbsp;Progressive exploitation of env \u2022&nbsp;use of high technology<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><\/td><td>Early Bronze Age<\/td><td>\u2022&nbsp;con diff action of religion, writing &amp; math<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Barbarism<\/td><td>Copper Age<\/td><td>\u2022&nbsp;Use of simple tools, food production<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><\/td><td>Neolithic Age<\/td><td>\u2022 domestication of plant &amp; animals \u2022&nbsp;Population growth<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Savagery<\/td><td>Mesolithic<\/td><td>\u2022 Intensive food gathering, fishing<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><\/td><td>Palaeolithic<\/td><td>Crude tools, hunting gathering<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>too much reliance on archeological data to explain Cultural evolution.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Like Classical evolution,&nbsp; he too was <strong>not<\/strong> able to distinguish b\/w old hunters &amp; hunters and food gatherers of today<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Rejected idea of universal precedence of <strong>matriarchy<\/strong> w\/o giving much details<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Neglected non material aspects<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Comparison with darwinism seems <strong>deductive approach<\/strong> rather than inductive.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Also undermined innovation of human mind thereby <strong>dehumanizes<\/strong> it with psychic unity. of mankind.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Contributions<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>scientific methoddogy &amp; proofs given also sound possible, a considerable departure from early evolutionist.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>proponded new school of thought \u201cNeo evolutionism&#8221;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Interlinked various fields from archeology to biological evolution, giving holistic picture of evolution.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Thus he substantiated evolutionary idea with archaeological date. However data regarding only material culture was available. Therefore we should not evaluate the evolution of non-material culture &amp; We should talk only about material or economic aspect of man.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Julian Steward<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Steward, an american anthropologist who is best known as <strong>father of cultural ecology<\/strong>. One of leading <strong>Neo evolutionist<\/strong> In mid 20th century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>He conducted studies on social org of <strong>Peasant villages,<\/strong> ethnographic research on N. American <strong>Shoshanian Indians<\/strong> &amp; various S. American indians, was one of early proponent of <strong>area study.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Critic of Leslie <strong>white<\/strong> for considering environment&nbsp; as <strong>constant<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He was basically interested in <strong>particular evolution<\/strong> env rather than human society in general.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Steward\u2019s focus was mainly On cultural ecology i.e <strong>particular evolution<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Books &amp; Work<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Theory of Cultural Change (1955)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>origin of Agriculture\n<ul>\n<li>He described various sequences &amp; each one was motivated by <strong>ecological factors<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Shosonian Indian<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>In this study he the concept of r\/l b\/w culture &amp; environment<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Distinction b\/w 3 types of Evolution<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Julian Steward <\/strong>provided a different typology of the Evolutionary School<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>based on the <strong><u>assumptions &amp; approaches employed<\/u><\/strong> in explaining cultural evolution by the school<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>Unilinear Model<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Universal Model<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Multilinear Model<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>19th&nbsp; Cultural \/ classical Evolutionists like Morgan &amp; Tylor explained evolution as unilinear evolution.<\/td><td>Neo-evolutionist models of <strong>Lesslie White &amp; Gordon Childe<\/strong>.<\/td><td><strong>Julion Steward<\/strong>&#8216;s theory of <strong>parallel<\/strong> dev. It believe there are <strong>no&nbsp; one line<\/strong> of evolution, rather there are many lines, <strong>parallel<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Focus on evolution of&nbsp; Particular Culture<\/td><td>Cultural evolution <strong>of mankind as whole<\/strong>.&nbsp; B\/c obsession with various culture stage remains.<\/td><td>Emphasizes on Particular evolution (Specific &amp; Limited occurance) but in stages<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Successive dev. stages in one direction <\/strong>Simple stage of homogeneity \u2192 Complex stage of Heterogeneity ; <strong>same sequence<\/strong> all over world due to <strong>psychic unity of mankind<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>General evolution <\/strong>occurs thr <strong>successive<\/strong> stages.<\/td><td>Each one of these line has its own characteristics <strong>due to impact of env<\/strong>. And Env should not be treated as passive entity.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Always progressive<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>doesn&#8217;t <\/strong>think evolution is always <strong>progressive<\/strong>.<\/td><td><strong>doesn&#8217;t <\/strong>think evolution is always <strong>progressive<\/strong>.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>it disregards any cultural variation or diversity.<\/td><td>Discarded any variations &amp; distinct cultural traits as irrelevant.<\/td><td>it accepts cultural variation &amp; diversity ; <strong>Cultural Parrlels<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><\/td><td><\/td><td>Empirical than deductive<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Multi-evolutionary Theory<\/u><\/strong> in his \u201c<strong>Theory of cultural Change&#8217; (1955)<\/strong> propose this theory of parallel <strong>development<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>All cultures <strong>not passed thr<\/strong> same devlopmental Stagel, rather diff dev. stage <strong>due different environment \u2192<\/strong> thus particular env plays <strong>imp role<\/strong> as humans&nbsp; <strong>tries to adapt to envi<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>cultural evolution of diff. areas can be studied by choosing <strong>limited parallel <\/strong>of env &amp; Comparing with each other; i.e <strong>Cross culture analysis<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus, multilinear env is (methodology to study cultural change ) based on assumption that <strong>parallels<\/strong> occurs in cultural change &amp; it is concerned with <strong>determination of cultural laws<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Mulit-evolution As a Method<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Steward defined it as <strong>methodology<\/strong> concerned with regularity in social change &amp; establishing sequences of parallel dev &amp; studies them empirically , the goal of which is to develop cultural laws <strong>empirically<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Its methodology is based on <strong>Twin Concepts of Parallelism &amp; Causality.<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>The study of parallelism, involves a search for causality which has to be investigated in <strong>empirical reality<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The assumption (also the thesis) of steward is that societies that exist in the <strong>similar env &amp; with same tech<\/strong> would parallel one another in their form of political, economic &amp; other social org also.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus there <strong>exists an interaction b\/w env &amp; tech<\/strong> , &amp; tech is only variable in hands of env &amp; hence is definitely <strong>not an ultimate factor responsible<\/strong> for evolution.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus all these it lead to study of particular cultures &amp; then making <strong><u>cross cultural generalisation<\/u><\/strong> i.e how to <strong>combine particular with general.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Cultural Ecology<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>He says <strong>there are two ways in which ecology<\/strong> is treated in anthropology. These are:\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Human &amp; Social ecologist<\/strong> sought universal ecological principles &amp; relegated culture a secondary place.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Cultural anthropologists<\/strong> who offered historical explanation of culture for e.g. <strong>Kroeber<\/strong> said &#8211; \u201cculture derives from culture\u201d. He completely disregarded extra cultural factors namely env.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Steward disagreed with both the views<\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>first view is incomplete b\/c it gives low place to culture &amp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>second view also incomplete b\/c they disregard env.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The empirical reality tells us that <strong>culture cannot be seen independently of env &amp; env-changes b\/c of impact of culture<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Therefore critical problem is not to disregard any of the above views.As Acc to him principle mean of ecology is adaption to environment.&nbsp; So <strong>his method<\/strong> is c\/l as <strong>Cultural ecology<\/strong> i.e <strong>particular evolution<\/strong> which help him explain the r\/l &amp; <strong><u>make systematic cross -cross cultural generalisation<\/u><\/strong> ; as &#8211;&nbsp; Cultural ecology is <strong>science<\/strong> dealing with <strong>interrelation b\/w cultural system &amp; environment<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In his \u201cTheory of cultural change\u201d he <strong>proposed&nbsp; <\/strong>social org is <strong>reaction to environmental factor i.e <\/strong><strong>culture is induced by adaption to environment<\/strong>. <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/56b6c8a8-c06e-607e-1f7c-f0e7ce26875f\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Steward criticised <strong><u>white<\/u><\/strong> for treating envi. <strong>constant<\/strong> but he regarded env as very important factor in cultural change , as <strong>envi. is dynamic entity<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Methodology : Culture Core &amp; Superstructure<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Acc to cultural ecological model, <strong>not all features of a given habitat &amp; ecology are relevant to given <u>soci-culture system<\/u>&nbsp; <\/strong>nor all <strong>aspects of a it <\/strong>are affected or equally affected by man-env interaction.(Some <strong>more closely related<\/strong> than other parts to socio-cultural system).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>So only <strong>evolutionary aspects<\/strong> of sociocultural system to be analysed i.e c\/l <strong>cultural core <\/strong>by Steward.\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Technology of the system<\/u><\/strong> is basic component of core b\/c as in every r\/l b\/w culture &amp; env, the <strong>technology<\/strong> is required to <strong>exploit the env<\/strong> to fulfil the <strong>material needs<\/strong> \u21d2 <strong>r\/l, <\/strong>b\/w people &amp; Tech, are concerned with <strong>economic value<\/strong> that constitutes the <strong><u>economic &amp; subsistence<\/u><\/strong> activities.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus acc to <strong>Steward<\/strong>, <strong>core of culture<\/strong> is more closely related to economic &amp; subsistence activities &amp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Other institutions<\/strong> are r\/l to economic system as they are not directly related to env e.g. political, religious institutions etc. For these institutions, he used term <strong>superstructure<\/strong>.<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/3fafc8e9-ebd8-03e5-ac2b-823482b2aa39\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Cultural core shows how <strong>1\u00b0 institution of culture<\/strong> (tech, DoL) affects <strong>2\u00b0 Institution<\/strong> (social org, eco system, political system)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Piddocks<\/u><\/strong> too observed this in Potlach Study of <strong>Kwakiutl<\/strong> (N-American)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Hence at methodological level he explored relationship between man &amp; environment by <strong>studying economic system<\/strong>. Hence we study relation both other systems and economic system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Environment is even changing &amp; man has to survive in this condition. Hence he has to keep on changing the cultural materials, such as tools, equipment, weapons for destruction of material resources, <\/em><strong><em>for his survival<\/em><\/strong><em>. Thus over the period of time, <\/em><strong><em>society and culture evolved<\/em><\/strong><em>. According to Steward, society and culture evolve in a <\/em><strong><em>multilinear manner<\/em><\/strong><em>. He says that environment is <\/em><strong><em>not homogenous <\/em><\/strong><em>across the world. It varies from place to place. <\/em><strong><em>Hence differential environments lead to differential evolution of society and culture.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Change in env \u2192 Man need to adopt \u2192 change in cultural material \u2192 evolution of society &amp; culture<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Thus Steward\u2019s Methods was to<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol>\n<li>Document tech &amp; Methods used to exploit env for survival.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Examine pattern of human behaviour \/ Cultural pattern associated with exploitation of particular area \/ environment by means of particular tech.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Assess how the extent to which the above behaviour pattern affect other aspect of culture.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>e.g drought prone area have rainfall at Central place \u2192 thus religious system finds prominent emphasis on rain, which we may not find in good rainfall area.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>concept of <strong>multilinear evolutionism is<\/strong><strong>unexplained<\/strong> b\/c the question of the how many is multilinear still remains.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Marvin Harris<\/strong> criticised steward while not accepting Multilinear view, that (link b\/w ) cultural ecology (&amp; cultural materialism) is spurious (false or fake) &amp; the theory a \u201c<strong>core of confusion<\/strong>.\u201d&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Leslie white<\/strong> criticised steward for <strong>confusing History with evolution <\/strong>b\/c History is concerned with particulars(i.e fall into trap of historical particularise) , while <strong>evolution seeks to generalise<\/strong>.&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>criticised by <strong>his students<\/strong> who found that in many societies the direct relationship with env is not in the form of economic system rather it is in the form of religion.\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Roy Rappaport<\/strong> studied <strong>Tsembaga Maring tribe<\/strong> in <strong>Papua New Guinea of Melanesia<\/strong> and wrote a book c\/l&nbsp; &#8216;<strong>Pig for Ancestor<\/strong>.&#8217;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He found that there was direct r\/l b\/w <strong>religion &amp;&nbsp;environment<\/strong>. I.e rituals regulated the ecological cycle<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>concept of pig feast, in <\/strong>some societies in <strong>Melanesia<\/strong> &#8211;\u00a0Those who offer more pigs in feast won the <strong>title of big man in Melanesia<\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>religion had direct r\/l with env thr the process of pig feast which is a ritual in Melanesia, to commemorate their env.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>latent function<\/strong> of this practice is <strong>to regulate ecological cycle<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Hence it can be said that economic system cannot always be the core of culture. Other Institutions can also be a core of culture.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>But <strong>steward did not say that one should follow the strict order<\/strong> i.e. economic factor as core of culture. He said that we should look on those aspects which are directly linked with environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Later, cultural ecology was Central tenet in <strong><u>Procedural Archeology<\/u><\/strong> where archeologist understood cultural symbols &amp; related environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong>: Steward gave the concepts of <strong>cultural ecology &amp; multilinear evolution<\/strong> which make study of anthropology holistic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Leslie White\u2019s Technological Theory of Evolution<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Introduction &#8211;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Brought up under <strong>Boasian approach<\/strong>, but not satisfied with his quest for data.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>White, best known for his <strong>theories of evolution of culture &amp; scientific theory of culture<\/strong> that he called &#8220;<strong>culturology<\/strong>&#8220;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>influenced by writings of Taylor &#038; Morgan\n<ul>\n<li>identified that problem with them is that &#8211; they did not knew \u201c<strong>universal standard of measuring evolution\u201d<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>So <\/strong>he put forwards <strong>universal standard of measurement<\/strong> in terms of <strong>energy &amp; technology<\/strong>.&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Premises<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>given his scheme of evolution&nbsp; in his &#8220;<strong>science of culture<\/strong>\u201d (1949)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Evolution has definitely occurred at biological &amp; sociocultural world.&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Basic law of cultural evolution : culture evolves as <strong>amount of energy per capita <\/strong>per year increases.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Not interested in evolution of particular culture or institution \u2192 interested in most fundamental principle b\/c of which evolution occurs in culture i.e <strong>energy<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Societies as entities that evolved in relation to amount of <strong>energy captured<\/strong> &amp; <strong>harnessed<\/strong> by each member. This energy is directed towards <strong>production of resources<\/strong> for their survival.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>3 <strong>cultural subsystems <\/strong>: Technological, sociological and ideological\n<ul>\n<li>The way technology hamess energy devlopes sodological &amp; ideological system.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Energy can be measured in terms of harvesting per capita individual. With passes of <strong>time, quality &amp; quantity <\/strong>of energy harnessed increases.\n<ul>\n<li>Thus <strong>civilisation<\/strong> is not a stage marked by writing but it is Stage <strong>marked<\/strong> by <strong>increase in the amount of energy harnessed by individual.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Energy is not hamessed by itself, requires technology or set of techniques <strong>e.g-<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Hand axe \ud83e\ude93\n<ul>\n<li>Axe \u2192&nbsp; technique<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Manual force \u2192 energy.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus <strong>manual energy is harnessed<\/strong> with help of technique <strong>without technique the energy remains free floating<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus white hypotheses <strong>cultures s kind of behaviour<\/strong> &amp; behaviour is treated as a <strong>manipulation of energy<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Example \/ illustration<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>Stage<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Energy<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Characteristic<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Tools<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Energy Revolution<\/td><td>Nuclear Energy<\/td><td>Atomic Revolution<\/td><td><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Civilisation<\/td><td>Coal, Petroliyam<\/td><td>Industrial revolution, factory production<\/td><td>Machine Tools<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Barbarism<\/td><td>Muscle + Animal Energy<\/td><td>Animal &amp; plant domestication, Agricultural revolution, specialisation of labour<\/td><td>Plough, Plots<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Savagery<\/td><td>Muscle Energy<\/td><td>huting gathering, limited energy capture (1\/20th of HP per capita per year)<\/td><td>Stone tools<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/6109de1a-9826-ec0f-6146-97aadb1deeba\" alt=\"\"\/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Methodology<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Said<strong> Energy \u2717 Technology = Culture<\/strong> (give rise to)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>For this, we have to take into consideration <strong>three possibilities of energy<\/strong> for <strong>analysis of culture<\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>Low Energy \u2717 Low technology = Low culture i.e <strong>Tundra<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>High Energy \u2717 low technology = Low culture i.e <strong>Africa<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>High Energy \u2717 High technology = High culture i.e <strong>Western countries&nbsp;<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Laws of evolutions<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On the basis of technology &amp; energy White gave two laws of evolution, later merged into one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>1st law<\/u><\/strong>: Other things remaining equal the degree of cultural development varies directly as the <strong>amount of energy per capita per year harnessed<\/strong> &amp; put to a work<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>2nd law<\/u><\/strong> : Other things kept equal the degree of cultural development varies directly as <strong>efficiency of technological means<\/strong> with which the harnessed energy could be put to work.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>In the first law, the emphasis is on energy &amp; in the second law the emphasis is on technology. <strong>Both were combined by White and he gave the law of evolution which is law of cultural development<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>The Law of Cultural Development<\/u><\/strong>: When the amount of energy harnessed by man per capita per year is increased or as the efficiency of technological means of putting energy to work is increased or both the factors increased simultaneously then that is called cultural development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>He put much <strong>emphasis on technolog<\/strong>y that is why his theory is known as <strong>technological theory of evolution<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>But it does not mean that evolution of society does occur only on level of technology.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Rather emphasis is on harnessing energy by technological apparatus.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Critical evaluation of Leslie White<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Positive<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>White&#8217;s theory was quite convincing since it had shown that over a period of time there is an incremental growth in the quantity and quality of energy. Naturally one can say amount of energy harnessed in simple societies is far less than complex societies. Similarly technology has grown from simple to complex.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Criticism &#8211; However White was criticised<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>for giving a negligible place to the role of evolution of particular society as he talked of universal evolution of the world. That is why he is c\/l <strong>universal cultural evolutionist.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>To much emphasis on techno-economic factors.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He denied env, psychological &amp; historical factors<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Unable to explain why some culture go extinct.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>considered environmental factors as <strong>constant<\/strong>. But Julian Steward \u2192 imp role of env in cultural carnage his his culture ecology.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong>: Though White was criticised for ignoring particular culture &amp; environmental factor, his concept of energy &amp; technology gives clear idea about evolution of society &amp; culture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Sahalin &amp; Service\u2019s Contribution to Evolution<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Introduction : <strong>Marshall D. Sahalin<\/strong> &amp; <strong>Elaman Service <\/strong>were students &amp; colleagues of <strong>Steward &amp; White<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Sahlin<\/strong> is American scholar best known for <strong>ethnographic work among Pacific<\/strong> (Fiji &amp; Hawaii)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Service<\/strong>, American Cultural Scholar, researched at in American Indians, studied cultural <strong>evolution<\/strong> in <strong>Pragya<\/strong> &amp; studied cultures in <strong>Latin America &amp; Caribbean.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>General &amp; Specific Evolution : Premises<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>By <strong>reconciling<\/strong>white\u2019s view &amp; steward\u2019s view following an integrated <strong>bio cultural approach<\/strong>. They developed the concepts of <strong>General &amp; Specific evolution<\/strong> to fill gap of theory of White &amp; Steward.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Acc to them evolution in cultural sphere <strong>move simultaneously in 2 directions<\/strong>: <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/592a311b-230d-4476-3859-5b9d58363c51\">\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Specific Evolution<\/u><\/strong> &#8211;\u00a0 It <strong>creates diversity<\/strong> through <strong>adaptive modification<\/strong> (under the impact of env) (Steward\u2019s view)\n<ul>\n<li>As a result new forms originate from old ones.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It is <strong>sequence of particular cultures <\/strong>&amp; their lines of Development<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Implies <strong>phylogenetic classification<\/strong> concerned with line of dissent.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>General Evolution<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Evolution <strong>generates progress <\/strong>b\/c of which higher forms arise &#038; surpass lower forms. (White\u2019s view)\n<ul>\n<li>Successive emergence of <strong>new levels of all round Development<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Higher form surpass lower form.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>More emphasis on character of progress itself<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>These seems to be different but in reality <strong>they are aspects of same total process. Thus Ex<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>General Evolution \u21d2 H&amp;G \u2192 Agri \u2192 Industrial Revolution \u2192 Atomic age<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Specific Evolution \u21d2 Evolution of <strong>Indian Culture<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>In general evolutionary perspective,&nbsp; all diversity (Specific evolutions) merge into larger pattern that unfold in progressive fashion. Thus are aspect of same total process.&nbsp; <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/1bdc9cdf-ac22-0541-5afb-9812ee2bfa22\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Both of them considered evolution &amp; diffusion in order to explain the process of social change.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Sahlin &amp; Service considered keynote of specific evolution is the cultural diversity brought up by local factors such as environment, diffusion, invention etc.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Compare &amp; contract Evolutionism &amp; Neo-Evolutionism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Similarity<\/u><\/strong> : Both share common premise but they differ in all other aspects<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Evolution is a gradual process of change\n<ul>\n<li>from simple to complex,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>from homogeneity to heterogeneity and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>from uncertainty to certainty.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>This concept can be applied to a cultural trait, an institution or on a whole culture.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Evolution is a ceaseless process.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The job of anthropologist or evolutionist includes tracing origin and sequence of evolution of society and culture.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Differences<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>Features<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Classical Evolutionism<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Neo Evolutionism<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Nature of Studies<\/strong><\/td><td>\u2022&nbsp;Evolution of culture &amp; society \u2022&nbsp;synchronic (@ particular time in history<\/td><td>\u2022&nbsp;Rejuvenation of evolutionary studies\u2022&nbsp;diachronic(throughout time)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Historical Background<\/strong><\/td><td>Contribution of Pre-Darwinian scholars &amp; influence of Darwinism<\/td><td>Reaction against functionalism, inspired by CE<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Time Period<\/strong><\/td><td>Mid 19th century<\/td><td>3rd decade of 20th century<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Scholars<\/strong><\/td><td>British &#8211; Taylor, Frazer American &#8211; LH Morgan German &#8211; JJ Bachofen<\/td><td>British -VG Childe American &#8211; White, steward, Shalins &amp; service<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Evidence<\/strong><\/td><td>Study without any evidence<\/td><td>study with evidence&nbsp;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Date<\/strong><\/td><td>2\u00b0 date \/ No date imagination\/ <strong>conjecturalism<\/strong><\/td><td>Primary &amp; First hand data No imagination No Conjecturalism<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Idea of Diffusion<\/strong><\/td><td>Didn\u2019t considered<\/td><td>considered diffusion in the study of evolution<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Types of Evolution<\/strong><\/td><td>unilinear<\/td><td>Unilinear &#8211; Childe, white Multilinear &#8211; Steward General &amp; specific &#8211; Sahlins &amp; Service<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Cultural Diversity<\/strong><\/td><td>Absent due to unilinear evolution<\/td><td>Present b\/c of idea of multilinear evolution.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Concept of Psychic unity of mankind<\/strong><\/td><td>Accepted<\/td><td>Rejected<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Parallelism<\/strong><\/td><td>Comparative method (tribals with prehistoric)<\/td><td>din\u2019t use the comparative method<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Approach<\/strong><\/td><td>Ethnocentric (Victorian society is highest stage)<\/td><td><strong>Cultural Relativist<\/strong>(multilineal evolutionists)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Criticism<\/strong><\/td><td>Due to conjecturlism, psychic unity , lack of culture diversity, ethnocentric, ignoring functionalism &amp; diffusions&nbsp;<\/td><td>due to individual scholars\u2022&nbsp;white &#8211; macro-culturist, ignored env \u2022 Steward &#8211; core other than economic system&nbsp;<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Historical Particularism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Introduction &#8211; Historical Particularism is an approach <strong>popularised by Franz Boas<\/strong> which emerged as a reaction to classical evolutionism &amp; <strong>used for fieldwork <\/strong>to <strong>understand nature of culture &amp; change in particular culture &amp; people<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>bring out <strong>primary authentic date <\/strong>across world so that <strong>scientific generalisation of human behaviour would be possible<\/strong>.&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Historical Background &#8211;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Rejected<\/strong> classical evolution model of single unilinear evolution<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Need of Primary date<\/u><\/strong> : Geographer studied <strong>Eskimos <\/strong>(Buffin Island) \u2192 read works of classical evolution \u2192 stuffed from great paucity of date \u2192 Sweeping generalisation. Thus if science \u2192 true proper data<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Criticised<\/strong> psychic unity &#038; comparative method \u2192 which says same phenomena always furthers same cause. For example\n<ul>\n<li>Cause diff but result same : eg\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Navaljo tribe<\/strong> \u2192 fusion &amp; <strong>N W tribe (America) <\/strong>\u2192 fission.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Mask<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Criticised comparative methods<\/strong>1896 \u201c<strong>Limitation of comparitive method in Anthropology\u201d<\/strong> \u2192 <strong>Evolution is ubiquitous<\/strong> ; then how simple societies not changed<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Premises of HP<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>to understand culture &amp; to overcome empirical problems , one should undertake <strong>longitudinal ethnographies<\/strong> ;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He wanted to <strong>reconstruct their history<\/strong> ;\n<ul>\n<li>By having detailed data from many different cultures as a common frame of reference, individual culture traits may be singled out as being borrowed or invented. Crucial element of reconstitution of of history<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Stressed meticulous date collection &amp; organisation of ethnographic data on all different aspect of many different human societies.&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Detailed description of cultural group <strong>without comparison<\/strong> ; &amp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Don\u2019t generalises about cultural Development till sufficient data<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>General aim \/ Theme of study<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Only after collecting first hand data and then reconstruction of histories of particular cultures,can generalisation be made about cultural development as a whole<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Principal concept \/ Contribution<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Independent<\/strong> study of particular culture rather than cross cultural comparison<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>study societies\/culturies from their own perspective \u2192 approach c\/l as <strong>Cultural Relativism<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>respect their culture<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>no stages of evolution<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>no generalisations by anthropologists (as did by CE)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>do not believe in Unilineal evolution but believe in <strong>multilineal evolution<\/strong>(start and end anywhere)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus, Harris ; \u201c<strong>distinctive sense of in-distinctive curiosity<\/strong>\u201d \u2192 postpone generalisation till sufficing data &#8211; \u201c<strong>Pragmatic avoidance of theoretical synthesis<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Female \u24c5 should be introduced to collect data from diff perspective. Broad data analysis to form generalisation of certain traits. Generalisation can help in building \u201c<strong>Theory of Culture<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Methodologies<\/u><\/strong> ; Approaches to field work for data collection<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Comparative method replaced by historical method<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Great emphasis was given on collection of ethnographic data on all aspects of human society<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Studying local history\n<ul>\n<li>Not only written, but also oral<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Looking for local \/ particular culture, not universal culture \u2192 <strong>Historical particularism<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Long stay with locals<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Learn long language<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Role of respondents\n<ul>\n<li>Uneducated \u2192 transcribing date.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Educated \u2192 collect valuable data<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Role of <strong>Garrulous<\/strong> (Chatty, forthcoming) &amp; <strong>Reticent<\/strong> (marginal man, shy)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Role of Female \u24c5\n<ul>\n<li>Should be introduced to data collection from diff perspective<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>To convert partial view \u2192 compete view<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>As Simple societies are sexually segregated \u2192Male \u24c5 not able to communicate truly with females.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus inspired many many women \u24c5 \u2192 <strong>Mead, Benedict<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Four filed Method of Anthropology<\/u> : Boas<\/strong> also stressed the importance of all <strong>sub-filed<\/strong> of anthropology in <strong>reconstructing history<\/strong>. <strong><u>Ethnographic evidence<\/u><\/strong> must be used with <strong><u>linguistic evidence<\/u><\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Accomplishment<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>stressed that each culture is an integrated way of life,valid and meaningful in its own context<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>established fieldwork as firm necessity for anthropological research<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Historical particularism &amp; cultural relativism<\/strong> have basically oriented the anthropological analysis to specific cultural areas &amp; divergence therein from grand theories of evolution &amp; diffusion. &nbsp;&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Boas\u2019s Contribution<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Foundation of fieldwork in Anthropology<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Female point of view<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Language, responded<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Detailed study of American society<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No of concept E.g Culture (Zero in Math)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Cultural Relativism<\/strong> (own context)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Used <strong>psychic Unity<\/strong> to <strong>fight Racism<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticisms<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>For excessive &amp; un-required data collection led to data wastage &amp; broad theories.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Even data collection of entire world is grandiose task ; <strong>Wissler,,<\/strong> in particular, attacked boas\u2019s insistence on tireless collection of data<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No theory<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Furthermore, if the investigators were reluctant to generate broad theories on cultural dev &amp; change, what was the point of gathering so much detailed work ?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u> &#8211; <\/strong>Despite the criticisms, the school helped to establish 2 hallmarks of anthro &#8211;<strong>fieldwork approach &amp; cultural relativism<\/strong>. The emphasis on importance on the collection of data has <strong>paid dividends<\/strong> for modern scholars, also provided <strong>raw information<\/strong> for countless subsequent studies &amp; investigation, much of which would have been lost to time had \u201coral cultures\u201d not been recorded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Leading Figures&nbsp; &amp; their Key works (i.e source &amp; Bibliography)<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Boas\u2019 theories were carried on &amp; developed by Scholars who were contemporary with or studied under him at Columbia university. The imp of these included <strong>Alfred L. Kroeber, Ruth Benedict, Robert Louie, Paul Radin &amp; Edward Sapir<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Franz Boas<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Introduction &#8211; He is described as \u201c<strong>Darwin of Socio-Cultural Anthropology<\/strong>.\u201d Historical Particularism is an approach <strong>popularised by Franz Boas<\/strong> which emerged as a reaction to classical evolutionism &amp; <strong>used for fieldwork <\/strong>to <strong>understand nature of culture &amp; change in particular culture &amp; people<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Important Contribution of Franz Boas<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>As a Ethnographer &amp; cultural Anthropologist<\/u><\/strong> &#8211;\u00a0 As known as <strong>father of American \u24b6 <\/strong>, Boas did intense fieldwond among American tribe:\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Central Eskimos<\/u> :<\/strong> first expedition of Boas\n<ul>\n<li>Published a Book \ud83d\udcd5&nbsp; \u201c<strong>central Eskimo (1888)<\/strong>\u201d depicting all socio-eco- problems, archeology, folk tales, myths.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>kwakiut tribe<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; intense fieldwork.\n<ul>\n<li>special mention must be made of \u201c<strong>POTLATCH\u201d system<\/strong>. which Boas described with great care along with it&#8217;s degeneration in his book <strong>&#8220;The Kwakiutl Text&#8221;(1905)<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Book <strong><u>\u201c<\/u><u>The Mind of Primitive Man\u201d (1911)<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; <strong>Socio psychological approach<\/strong> to study tribal ethnography.\n<ul>\n<li>Later this <strong>psychological &amp; behavioural aspect<\/strong>s were picked up by his student <strong>Ruth Benedict<\/strong> who gave &#8216;<strong>culture personality school<\/strong>&#8220;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Idea of cultural Relativism<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>In his book \u201c<strong>Race, Language and Culture<\/strong>\u201d (1940) he advocated <strong>not to rank or judge one culture acc. to Std. of other another<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus opposed ethnocentric&#8217; stand taken by 19th centure classical evolutionist.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Boas and Historical Particularism<\/u> &#8211;<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Boas suggested that each culture has it&#8217;s <strong>own independent history<\/strong>, thus all groups cannot &amp; <strong>should not be compared in one scale of excellence<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>thus Boas in his work <strong>Limitations of Comparative methods in Anthropology<\/strong>(1896) , discarded comparative method<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Adopted Historical method\u201d as this should be based on particular geographical&nbsp; area in historical term, thus Boas called it as <strong>historical particularism.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Boas&#8217;s concept of Natural History Approach<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Boas: 2 approaches to understand social regularities\n<ul>\n<li>Natural History Approach<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Social Philosophical Approach.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Boas preferred NH approach that indicates <strong>knowledge of History<\/strong> for dealing with social problems.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He believed that History influences the philosophy and laws of philosophy are moulded with growth of history. Thus he talked about <strong>historical determinism<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Boas as folklorist<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Boas : folklore is an <strong>oral history<\/strong> of folk society. Folklore societies are generally <strong>religious oriented<\/strong> and have homogenous features. Thus, on basis of folklore, one an <strong>visualise origin &amp; function of that oral tradition<\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>1888- published folklores of tribes in washington State.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>1890- <strong>folk tales on American Indians.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>esta seperate research unit in Columbia. university.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Boas as physical Anthropologist<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Introduced concept of &#8220;<strong>Tempo-growth<\/strong>&#8221;\n<ul>\n<li>said that &#8216;tempo&#8217; of Individual changes till death &amp; varying growth.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>relationship b\/w growth of mind &amp; body<\/strong> was highlighted in his work &#8220;<strong>The Mind of Primitive People<\/strong>&#8221; (1911)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>studied <strong>impact of environment<\/strong> on cephalic Index<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>To sum up, Boas was father of American Anthropology who not only made original Contributions to dev. of world \u24b6 but also trained a band of anthropologist like <strong>Kroeber, Ruth Benedict, Malinowski, Brown<\/strong> who also distinguished themselves in this field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Diffusionism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Introduction- Diffusion &amp; Diffusionism<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Diffusion &#8211; Cultural borrowing ;\n<ul>\n<li>defined as a process by which a discrete cultural traits are transferred&nbsp; from place of origin(Central place) to other places (diffuse to diff area)&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thr Coming in contact &#8211; integration, trade, war or other contact.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Diffusionism &#8211; <strong>Interpretative strategy<\/strong> woven around idea of diffusion.\n<ul>\n<li>Process of analysis of socio-cultural change through cultural borrowing.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It emerged as <strong>anti-evolutionist school of Though<\/strong>, which is highly critical of the evolutionary School &amp; its premise psychic unity of mankind.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus, Diffusionism is an anthropological school of thought which attempted to understand nature of culture<strong>in terms of origin of culture traits and their spread from one society to another.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Schools of Thoughts &amp; Leading Figures\/ Scholars<\/u><\/strong> &#8211;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>based on nationally &amp; also the approaches \/ assumption chosen to explain diffusion, diffusionism is further classified into following three schools<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/6aaca551-b439-deb3-68ac-704159d1ce1f\" alt=\"\"\/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Subject Matter \/ Theme of Study<\/u><\/strong> -Ulitmate Goal to find out<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>how did culture evolve ?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Why there are cultural differences &amp; similarities<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Basic Premises \/ Assumption &#8211; Character of Diffusion<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Rejected CE concepts of unilinear &amp; sequential development of culture &amp; PUM<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Humans are <strong>mainly immitators<\/strong> than inventors<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Unequal inventiveness<\/strong> &#8211; i.e Important <strong>inventions are made only once at particular place(s)<\/strong> from where they <strong>spread<\/strong> to other places.This is known as <strong>cultural diffusion.<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Depends upon \u201cfavourable area\u201d<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Factors for spread of invention<\/strong> :\n<ul>\n<li>Migration \/ Displacement for <strong>better opportunities<\/strong> lead to <strong>cultural contact <\/strong>&#038; diffusion\n<ul>\n<li>Fertile land<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Pilgrimage<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Escape Calamities<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>War<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u2193 carrying capacity<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Lack of transport &amp; communication<\/strong><strong>faculties<\/strong> operate as obstacles in cultural diffusion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Any culture group <strong>adopt cultural trait<\/strong> of other if meaningful &amp; useful either socially or economically<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In course of diffusion, cultural traits may <strong>not remain in original form<\/strong>, but changes due to diff environments.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Process of diffusion always follow from developed culture into underdeveloped culture<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Borrowed traits<\/u><\/strong> sometimes get <strong>assimilated<\/strong>, but sometime <strong>responsible for many change.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Process of Diffusion<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Direct &amp; indirect<\/u><\/strong> : By German School <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/b85cae35-4200-5c03-12e2-e2ede02f1b4a\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Symmetrical<\/u><\/strong> (equal contribution : give &amp; take) &amp; <strong><u>Asymmetrical<\/u><\/strong> (Unequal)&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Active<\/u><\/strong>(lending of traits)\u00a0 &#038; <strong><u>Passive<\/u><\/strong> (receiving end)\n<ul>\n<li>Dilution &#8211; time &amp; space<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Reaction<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; depends on meaningfulness of trait \u2192 economically or socially.\n<ul>\n<li>Total rejection<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Total Acceptance<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Modification<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Methodology<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Empirical data from fieldwork<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>German diffusionist &#8211; used historical facts<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>American diffusionist &#8211; used <strong>cultural area approach &#8211; geography based<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Contribution \/ Concepts<\/u> : School wise<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/f8d50987-231c-9f4e-a5fe-227b9bba49dd\" alt=\"\"\/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Accomplishments<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>idea of diffusion is of great calue in several fields to explain spread od ideas and how they motivate innovations<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Requested into creation of concept of culture areas<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Though replaced in mid 19th c\u00b0 <strong>still has value in ethnological science<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Studies involving <strong>diffusion of ideas<\/strong> and how they affect and motivate innovations have been of great value in many other fields, such as agriculture, business studies, geography, history and rural sociology.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Acculturation studie<\/strong>s have helped to give insight into problems encountered when people from diverse cultures come into a dominant culture.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Studies could identify the problems of <strong>acculturation &amp; assimilation of a mortality individual<\/strong> on a group and how to establish better relationships b\/w various groups and the dominant society.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>criticised for narrow scope<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>German School -unable to explain how &amp; why diffusion takes place<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Americans School culture area -was criticised for difficulty in tracing cultural centres and margins of an area<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>CA can\u2019t be adopted where the distribution of people is characterised by social stratification.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>criticised for studying cultural traits in isolation and not as an integrated whole ; and can\u2019t explain world-wide diffusion of culture.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>To much emphasis on metrical culture<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Only emphasis on geographical area ignoring other aspects that also influence diffusion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Despite the criticisms,diffusionism introduced several new approaches and paved the way for future research in cultura studies<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Contemporary Relevance<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Diffusion helps in understanding processes such as interplay of Great and Little traditions and Sanskritization<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Differences between Cultural Evolution &amp; Cultural Diffusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>Features<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Cultural Evolution<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Cultural Diffusion<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Definition<\/strong><\/td><td>process of social &amp; cultural change in a definite direction from single to complex, homo to heterogeneity<\/td><td>process where cultural elements, complexes &amp; aspects pass from one group to another.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Nature<\/strong><\/td><td>is more complicated in nature as compared to diffusion<\/td><td>is simple in nature as compared to cultural evolution<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Process<\/strong><\/td><td>occurs by alteration or invention or diffusion or borrowing of cultural elements<\/td><td>it occurs by only by borrowing of cultural elements<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Aid<\/strong><\/td><td>May or mayn\u2019t aid diffusion<\/td><td>diffusion definitely aids evolution<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong><\/strong><\/td><td>Nature of evolution to change existing simpler items &amp; complexes in a society to more complex order.<\/td><td>Diffusion adds more new items to a culture or a society<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">British School of Diffusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Was pioneered by G.E Smith, W.J Perry &amp; W.H.R Rivers. It is further subdivided into<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Extreme School<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; 1st to study diffusion &amp; single source origin<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Rivers School <\/strong>&#8211; muliple source of diffusion<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Though as an whole, it is considered <strong>extreme diffusionist<\/strong> &amp; <strong>anti-evolutionist<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>As these scholars considered <strong>Egypt<\/strong> \ud83c\uddea\ud83c\uddec as <strong>cultural cradle of world<\/strong> (i.e one culture Centre) so -it is designated as <strong>Pan-Egyptian School or Heliocentric School <\/strong>from where culture traits diffused or migrated to rest of the parts of World.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Weakened of British School of Diffusion<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Anti -evolutionary stance<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Conviction on non-inventiveness of human mind<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Extremely biased &amp; heliocentric as didn\u2019t even consider non-Egyptian centers of civilisation at all.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ignored the analysis of non-material culture<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> : There&nbsp; narrow approach resulted in making this school of diffusionism short lived.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">G.Eliot Smith&nbsp;<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>anatomist, University of Cambridge.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>went egypt, observed civilization\n<ul>\n<li>found similarities b\/w <strong>egyption stone monuments<\/strong> with <strong>British megaliths<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Also, further \u2192 Mayan pyramid, Japenge Pagoda, Cambodian &amp; Balinese temple, American Indians burial mounds.<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/e94ebdd3-dc99-ebff-34d3-e86b517817ad\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>concluded<\/u><\/strong> all civilisation originated at <strong>Egypt<\/strong> \ud83c\uddea\ud83c\uddec&nbsp; &amp; Spread all over from 4000 B.C i.e Egypt is cradle of civilisation<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>&#8220;<strong>In the Beginning the origin of civilisation&#8221; (1928)<\/strong> &#8211; basic premises\n<ul>\n<li>Man uninventive &amp; Culture rises only at exceptionally favourable circumstances.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>such favourable circumstance\u2192 ancient egypt. Thus centre of diffusion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Civilisation is diluted<\/strong> when spread to outposts<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>similarities in culture by imitation only.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Smith&#8217;s scheme of diffusion<\/strong> &#8211;\u00a0 in his &#8221; <strong>The diffusion of cultures&#8221; (1933)<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Egyptians \u2192&nbsp; invented navigation \u21d2&nbsp; travelled far \u2192 spread culture \u2192&nbsp; diffusion<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">W.H.R. Rivers<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Introduction &#8211; Rivers, medical doctor by profession, was persuaded by extreme scheme of diffusion towards end of his life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Works of Rivers<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Torres Strait Expedition (1898)<\/strong> &#8211; analysed psychological capabilities of natives (particularly their pure sense acuity)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Monograph &#8220;<strong>The Toda&#8221; (1906) <\/strong>\u2192 we do not find any hind of scheme of diffusion In this work.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>in 1911, his lecture @ <strong>British Association at Portsmouth \u2192<\/strong> announced his amibition of diffusionism<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>&#8220;<strong>Disappearance of useful Art&#8221; (1912)<\/strong> &#8211; degeneration of traits + also focused on <strong>un-inventiveness<\/strong> of huma minds.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>&#8220;<strong>History of Melanesian Society&#8221; (1914)<\/strong>&#8211; here he gave proof of degeneration. He showed that present melanasians have <strong>no canoes<\/strong>, which must have been part of their <strong>survival<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>But, Rivers was not as successful to explain other phenomenons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>ex- In Austrelia \u2192 he noted 5 different types of burials in a small homogenous population within small geographical area\n<ul>\n<li>as simple&nbsp; uninventive aboriginel Could not develope so much variation by themselves \u2192 Rivers pointed out that <strong>Small successive migration<\/strong> had occured.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Nature of migration \u2192 Males came, who let go all their cultural traits except burial practices to which they were emotionally attached.&#8221;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus Rivers, along with perry &amp; Smith was convinced that inventiveness was rare and similarities in culture could be explained by imitation only.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>In \u201c<strong>History of Malenetian Society<\/strong>\u201d\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Gave basic postulates of diffusionism<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Man is basically uninventive.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>culture spreads thr migration &amp; diffusion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In process, some cultural traits may disappear or degenerate<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>list of factors influencing diffusion<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Presence of communication<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Need and desire of new trit<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Opposition to alien cultures<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>respect for new proponents.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>List of characteristics of diffusion<\/u><\/strong> (<em>write premises of diffusionism<\/em>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Austrian-German School of Diffusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Introduction &#8211; Opposed oversimplified evolutionary scheme put by classical Evolutionists, unlike Pro-Egyptian, German diffusionist estd. <strong>multiple form of dev of culture<\/strong>. The <strong>cultural historical movement<\/strong> (use of historical data to understand migration) came to known as <strong>Kulturkriese or &#8220;Culture Circle\/District\u201d. <\/strong>This school also questioned psychic unity of mankind &amp; inventive captivates of man. Though they majorly <strong>emphasised on migration rather than diffusion<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Considered more refined in approach &amp; methodology compared to counterpart British school.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>wasn\u2019t extremist &amp; completely anti-evolutionist<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Though propounded diffusionism, it also touched the evolutionary schemes.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Premises<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; <strong><u>Concept of culture Circles<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Rejected Egyptian theory &#8211; many Centre of origin.\n<ul>\n<li>development of culture occurs at <strong>several different places at several times<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Inventions &#038; discoveries were <strong>continuous processes<\/strong> and they reach to other areas by <strong>migration<\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>Thus, the German school has given importance, if not equal, to both evolution as well as diffusion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Culture spread<\/strong> &#8211; ripple of water.\n<ul>\n<li>Area close to centre \u2192 more elements of pure culture ;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Tends to deteriorate at periphery.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Each <strong><u>cultural trait complex<\/u><\/strong> had a circle or a district from where they migrated to other places. different <strong>cultural circles or districts <\/strong>develop at <strong>different places due to diffusion<\/strong>. Hence <strong>W. Schmidt<\/strong> \u2192 \u201c<strong>Culture Circle theory\u201d<\/strong><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/6603c1fc-170d-e42b-8103-933ca99255fb\"><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Analyses<\/strong> diffusion in <strong>time &amp; space<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Migration<\/strong> of a trait can be easily understood thr <strong>study of historical data<\/strong>. Hence this school aka&nbsp; <strong>Culture Historic-School<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thr <strong>scientific analysis<\/strong>, one can identify &amp; examine migration of <strong>different traits in different layers<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Theoretically against conjectural Study.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Concerned Material &amp; non material culture&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Important proponents in this school of anthropological thought<\/u><\/strong> were<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Frederick Ratzel,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Frietz Graebner and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Father William <strong>Schmidt<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Method of Study<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Two Criteria<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Criteria of Form <\/strong>&#8211;\n<ul>\n<li>given by <strong>Ratzel<\/strong>, discussed by <strong>Grabner<\/strong> &amp; called it <strong>Criteria of quality<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>When similarities\u2192 not explained on basis of nature, material or purpose \u2192 due to diffusion\n<ul>\n<li>Ratzel : not every similarity can be taken as proof of historical connection b\/c objects of material culture, in order to have utilities, must posses some characteristics. Ex &#8211; Arrow of spear must be pointed, paddle of canoe must have blade.\n<ul>\n<li>If however, there are similarities in other traits, unrelated to use \u2192 then evidence of historical connection. Ex &#8211; <strong>feathers \ud83e\udeb6 attached to spear<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Here \u24c5 had to eliminate all identical factor which may Cause <strong>similarities.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Ratzel <\/strong>applied this in his study of <strong>Mangoliya<\/strong> \ud83c\uddf2\ud83c\uddf3 &#8211; e.g Mongia \u2192 Lotus flower, as Buddhism symbol, originated in India.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Criteria of quantity<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Frobenius<\/strong>: \u201cGeographical statistics\u201d <strong><u>Graebner<\/u><\/strong> c\/l it <strong>criteria of quantity<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Similarity b\/w 2 culture \u2192 substantiated by <strong>no. of cultural items<\/strong> found together.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u2191&nbsp; in no. of similar items \u2192&nbsp; \u2191&nbsp; in similarity<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>German diffusionist made use of two tests &amp; applied to both material &amp; non material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Primary diffusion &amp; secondary diffusion- <\/u><\/strong>by <strong>Graebner<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>out of his 6 centre of cultures, &amp; (from oceania) <strong>Graebner<\/strong> argued Tasmanian &amp; as oldest &amp; thus typical ex. of primary diffusion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Also argues that element of complex occur probably over Australia b\/c of 2\u00b0 diffusion. e.g in oceania, Totemism was very rare. but now widely diffused..<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Weaknesses of German School<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>empirically not a single cultural circle could be established.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The <strong>premise<\/strong> that cultural differences enacted from four or five bands <strong>migrated<\/strong> to other areas is purely speculation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Some times, psuedo historical<\/strong>&#8211; they tried to avoid conjecturalism but they imagined<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>methodology<\/strong> was considered barren b\/c it <strong>did not completely explain the dynamics of culture change<\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>Basically being a descriptive method, it at best gave insight on spread of culture but <strong>overlooked reasons behind their acceptance, rejection and modification<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>never explained why diffusion &amp; migration take place but only focused on what diffusion is&#8230;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Lowie<\/strong>: German diffusion faced problem of degree of complexity i.e. could not show complexity of diffusion. e.g- catheter element in <strong>Kalahari Bushman<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>too much emphasis on &#8220;trait complex&#8221; too much on material cutture<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>talked about multiple dev. of culture&#8217; but didn\u2019t elaborated<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Derived impetus from \u201c<strong>museum methodology\u201d<\/strong> thus talked more about <strong>typology<\/strong> of traits <strong>rather than meaningful spread &amp; diffusion<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> : Improved upon Egyptian school, gave concept of multiple centre of origin of culture. Rejected Imagination &amp; gave imp. to material facts. But inadverently Imagined for which they were criticised<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Comparison b\/w British &amp; German School of Diffusionism<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Share common Historical background &amp; some common premises but they differ on many grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Similarities<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>emergence &#8211; as a reaction to classical evolutionism against its neglect of considering change in society.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Both said that diffusion &amp; evolution go hand in hand<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Common premises<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Unequal inventiveness of human mind<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Displacement of people for better opportunities leading to cultural contact &amp; diffusion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Differences<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>Features<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>British<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>German<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Nature<\/strong><\/td><td>Extreme diffusionism by Smith &amp; Perry, Rivers School<\/td><td>Multiple centres of diffusionism<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Source<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Heliocentric<\/strong> -acc to Smit &amp; Perry ; \u2022&nbsp;Multiple sources acc to Rivers<\/td><td>Multiple sources of Origin ; at server also times&nbsp;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Criteria<\/strong><\/td><td>No criteria<\/td><td>criteria of forms &amp; quantity<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>objectives<\/strong><\/td><td>to show &amp; trace unfettered path of diffusion from centre to parts of world<\/td><td>to demonstrate occurrence of diffusion<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Attention<\/strong><\/td><td>They paid attention to material culture&nbsp; &amp; not to non material<\/td><td>Paid attention to both<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Typology<\/strong><\/td><td>No typology<\/td><td>Made distinction b\/w two types of diffusion , direct\/primary &amp; indirect \/ secondary<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>R\/l with evolution<\/strong><\/td><td>Just gave importance to evolution (<em>some place mentioned as anti-evolutionist)<\/em><\/td><td>They <strong>tried to intercaste evolution &amp; diffusion<\/strong> of culture i.e they talk of socio-Cultural change from <strong>simple to complex <\/strong>&amp; also about <strong>diffusion of cultural traits.<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Friedrich Ratzel<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>originally a zodogist, who later turned to geography &amp; eventually to Anthropology.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>wrote many works on &#8220;<strong>anthropo-geograph<\/strong>y\u201d Thus, he is said to be founder of anthropo-geography discipline<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>German school: owes it&#8217;s origin to Ratzel.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Contributions<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Made <strong>distinction<\/strong> b\/w <strong><u>Territorial geography (TG)&nbsp; &amp; Social geography(SG)<\/u><\/strong>. Ratzel <strong>focussed on SG<\/strong>, particularly <strong>trait distribution<\/strong>. He was convinced that though environment play imp role, but <strong>people were more influenced by each other than climate.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He believed that \u24c5\u00a0 should discover from where <strong>traits came <\/strong>&#038; where they <strong>disappeared<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>He said: single cultural trait \u2192 diffused &amp; whole culture complex \u2192 <strong>transplant<\/strong> due to migration.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Criteria of form<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; He <strong>substantiated<\/strong> criteria of form by his <strong>Study on Mongdia &amp; Africa<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Mongolian people have adopted lotus as symbol of Buddhism, though lotus is essentially a Indian flower.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Thus it is said that he was influenced by Concept of <strong>adaptive radiation of biology<\/strong>, which he applied in study of history of cultural traits. He said that culture traits may become either Simplified or elaborated in diffusion \/ migration depend on local conditions &amp; relative level of technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Fritz Grabner<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Introduction : originally a museum curator in Germany, but emerged as main figure in German diffusionism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Works<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>&#8220;Method der Ethenologie&#8221; (1911)\u2192 highlighted methodological aspects. &#038; discussed\n<ul>\n<li>Ratzel&#8217;s criteria of form called it \u2192 <strong>criteria of quality<\/strong>&#8216;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Frobenius&#8217;s<\/strong> geographical statistics\u2019&nbsp; \u2192 <strong>criteria of quantity<\/strong>&#8220;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Scheme of diffusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Pointed out that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Early Man \u2192 invented basic of culture (Lang, tool) \u2192 Soon formed small bands isolated \u2192 dev. distinct culture \u2192&nbsp; with time, spread out to all directions \ud83e\udded<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Unlike pro Egyptians, he ested <strong>multiple development of cultures<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>studied <strong>oceania<\/strong> &#038; recognised 6 main succesive layers of culture\n<ul>\n<li>Tasmanian Culture (<strong>Ancient<\/strong>)&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>old Australian culture<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Totemic Culture<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Moiety complex<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Malenesian Bow Culture<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Polynesian culture (<strong>Recent<\/strong>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>said: as method of travel <strong>improved<\/strong> \u2192&nbsp; <strong>Influence<\/strong> of cultural centres <strong>increased<\/strong>. Hence he Believed that during thousand years of culture history \u2192 people have been exposed to various alien traits.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Graebner&#8217;s idea of 1\u00b0 &amp; 2\u00b0 diffusion<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Graebner: Tasmanian: ancient one \u2192 <strong>Primary<\/strong> center of diffusion\n<ul>\n<li>While spread of culture traits all over austrelia due to <strong>2\u00b0 diffusion<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In his &#8220;<strong>Ethnologie&#8217; (1923)<\/strong>: Totemism very rare in oceania, but it has widely diffused thr <strong>2\u00b0 diffusion.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Grabner also shows how borrowed elements acquire novel significance among recipients.\n<ul>\n<li>ex &#8211; <strong>lunar myths<\/strong> in oceania turned into <strong>vegetation<\/strong> myth.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>not clear from Graebnel&#8217;s analysis that how fundamental complexes are estd. as historical realities.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Some elements may very well arise independently<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>laid too much emphasis on material culture.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Complexity of actual events is too great to be described by interaction of Small no. of cultures.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> : The sum up, Graebner recognised Interrelation of cultural phenomena which is of great \u24b6 significance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Leo Frobenius<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Introduction ; one of students of Ratzel, took his teachers idea several steps ahead. He was of opinion: <strong>Migration<\/strong> was more <strong>Imp factor<\/strong> of explanation <strong>than diffusion<\/strong> in Study of <strong>cultural similarities<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Frobenius&#8217;s &#8216;Geographical statistics&#8217;<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>add on<\/strong> to &#8216;criteria of form&#8217;, in which frobenius added one more factor to no. of similarities \u2192 <strong>biological \/ developmental criterion<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He said, <strong>internal changes due to migration<\/strong> to needs to be taken into a\/c \u2192 b\/c as people migrate to new env \u2192&nbsp; <strong>their culture needs to be adjusted<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>also argued that <strong>some traits will change<\/strong>, while <strong>others with no utility will disappear<\/strong>. \u21d2 Thus he pointed out that not only similarities, but <strong>also differences related to ecological adaptions<\/strong> could become <strong>Indicators<\/strong> of historical connections.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He didn&#8217;t confine his research to material Culture, but also <strong>studied mythology study of similarity of myth<\/strong> in Indonesia &#038; Africa.\n<ul>\n<li>Indonesia \u2192 myths were all related &amp; formed an epic.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Africa \u2192 remained isolated.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus he believed that Indonesia have been homeland of those myths.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> : first to talk about differences of traits<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Father Wilhem Schmidt<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Bom In Austria, formed a big subschool of diffusion with father koppers known as &#8220;<strong>Vienna school of diffusion<\/strong>!\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Contributions<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>esta <strong>world famour research journal<\/strong> \u201c<strong><u>Anthropos<\/u><\/strong>\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>though influenced by evolutionism &#038; evolutionist like <strong>Bachofen, <\/strong>Schmidt <strong>differed<\/strong> from true sense of evolution.\n<ul>\n<li>ex- criticised Morgan&#8217;s universal parallelism &amp; unilinear ev.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Schmidt &amp; culture circle<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>criticised Graebner&#8217;s culture circle &amp; Tasmanian as oldest culture circle.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>claimed to have found earliest <strong><u>Culture circle<\/u><\/strong> in <strong>African Pygmy<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>distinguished 4 major grades in culture circle\n<ul>\n<li>Primitive<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Primary<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Secondary<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Tertiary<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Schmidt &amp; Religion &#8211; <\/strong>In his \u201c<strong>Origin of Idea of God&#8221; (1926-55) <\/strong>\u2192 tried to este origin of religion of <strong>pygimies<\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>Acc to him \u2192 earliest form of religion cous belief &amp; worship of &#8220;<strong>All father<\/strong>&#8216;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>later addition of other gods &amp;spirits for him was <strong>indication of degeneration<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; although lacked to personal fieldwork, but encouraged few schlors to take up fieldwork.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">American School of Diffusionism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>It was influenced by German school. Connecting link was <strong>Franz Boas. <\/strong>Boas &amp; his student <strong>Clark Wissler<\/strong> was supposed to <strong>advice on the display of exhibits<\/strong> of American Indians in Museum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Influenced by \u201c<strong>museum methodology<\/strong> &#8216; of German<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Accordingly, classified cultural element from <strong>same geographic area together<\/strong> &amp; observed :&nbsp; <strong>close areas = similar traits<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus origin of <strong>cultures Area<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>term first used by O.T. Mason, later by <strong>Kroeber<\/strong>,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>But <strong>Clark Wissler <\/strong>devloped it &amp; he said similarities in cultural areas are due to diffusion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Premises\/ Features of Culture Area<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>It can be defined as <strong>Geographical zone<\/strong> having no. of groups living together &amp; all these groups show <strong>cultural similarity<\/strong> when they are grouped together.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Each culture area has a centre, which&nbsp; <strong>wissler<\/strong>: \u201c<strong>culture centre<\/strong>\u201d<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/18a757c1-a190-593f-2356-2c190f9d832a\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Role of culture centre<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; control entire area politically &amp; socially. I.e economy, politics &amp; religion<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>At centre &#8211;\u00a0 <strong>all cultural traits appear<\/strong> &#038; greatest concentration of traits exists\n<ul>\n<li>dilute when spread outward.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Spread centrifugally, in all directions<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Diffusion b\/w two culture areas. &#8211;<strong>Not only within area, but b\/w areas<\/strong>.<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/44b01691-d647-6164-5a7a-c401f60a9434\"><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Construction of culture area<\/u><\/strong> : <strong><u>Food As criterion<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Clark wissler elaborated his concept of \u201c<strong>culture &amp; food Areas<\/strong>\u201d in his book <strong>\u201cMan &amp; Culture\u201d (1992)<\/strong> &#8211; took <strong>food as criteria<\/strong> as it influence other aspects of culture &amp; also related to env condition.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Divided native america into <strong>6 basic &#8216;food area&#8217;.<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Food Area &#8211; Cultural Area<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Caribou Area &#8211; Eskimos<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Bison area &#8211; Great Plains<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Salmon (fish) A. &#8211; N. Pacific coast to Plateau<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Wild sea Area &#8211; Californian<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Maize &#8211; E. Part of America<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Intensive&nbsp; agri -Indian group of S.E &amp; S.W America &amp; Peru<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>with tech \u2192 people of culture area&#8217; exploit their given envi. &amp; tech. is invented by driving force of their envi<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Since food represent envi:, which is one of basic need, people therefore invent cultural equipment accordingly. Thus food \u2192 criteria for culture Area.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; cultural areas can be charted out depending upon close <strong>economic or ecological similarities<\/strong>. wissler related each cultural area with ethnology archeology, Iang But relationship is more in terms of ecology or economic org. Also showed interconnectness of cultures by means of <strong>diffussion<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Age Area<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; <strong>Wissler<\/strong> drive it from cultural area \u2192&nbsp; to understand CA in historic perspective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>if a culture trait , found in wider area \u2192 inferred that ,has diffused long time ago \u2192 older element. I.e \u201c<strong>lesser the distribution newer is the element<\/strong>\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus wiser concluded &#8211; compete study of diffusion possible only when we <strong>combine time &amp; space<\/strong>. I.e CA &amp; AA<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Clark Wissler\u2019s Law of Diffusion<\/u><\/strong> -The Cultural Traits need to diffuse or spread outward in all direction from a point of origin in a pattern of concentric circles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Typology of diffussion by wissler<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Natural diffusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; long process, slow diffusion, no cultural imposition. e-g- Maize culture in US borrowed from Mexico.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Organised diffusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; quickly transmitted by organised agency thr imposition. <strong>e-g<\/strong>-military imposition on colony ; American Indians due to contact with americans.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Views on Psychic Unity<\/u> : <\/strong>American school of Diffusionism embraced psychic unity as an ideology. It was not used as an explanatory principle but as a tool to combat racism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticism &amp; Evaluation<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Evaluation \/ Positives &#8211;\n<ul>\n<li>wissler&#8217;s approcch more historical, combined with variables like economy, ecosystem.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Quite empirical<\/strong> \u2192&nbsp; as begins with CA in particular time which is not abstract.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Showed steps which should be taken for constructing CA.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Criticism of <strong><u>Culture Area Approach<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>CA Concept \u2192 static w\/o historical depth<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>too narrow \u2192&nbsp; as based on food what if another criteria taken into a\/c.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>CA \u2192 more to be method of classification preliminary to analytical studies, than actual theory of diffusion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Trait diffusing to all dirn from centre \u2192 NOT correct.\n<ul>\n<li>observed that diffusion often went in one dirn.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>today lost relevance due to transport &amp; Communication.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Emphasis on geographical areas ignoring other aspects that also influenced diffusion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; gave CA &amp; AA which strengthened theory of diffusionism but criticised for narrow application of theory.&amp; fault in definition&nbsp; of CA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Kroeber\u2019s Contribution To American Diffusionism<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Using the culture areas proposed by <strong>Otis T. Manson<\/strong>, Kroeber published his well known work book, \u201c<strong>Cultural &amp; Natural Areas of Native North American\u201d<\/strong>, 1939<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>He was More interested in understanding macro change. So did Not used culture area concept rather began with some <strong>Ideas regarding erise an fall of Civilisation<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He said<strong> : civilisation = cultural Complex<\/strong> which emerges from lot of borrowing from other cultures.\n<ul>\n<li><strong>borrowed elements <\/strong>are systematised, modified &amp; transferred so that they become chain of culture.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Diff. cultures are carried forward. They all evalve into civilization &#038; reach final point called <strong><u>cultural climax<\/u><\/strong>. Concept was very similar to wissler&#8217;s cultural centre.<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/03b8ab23-b9aa-a898-38b8-3065cfd1fc4e\">\n<ul>\n<li>New culture, which remains open for change emerges &amp; replace original civilisation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Hence Kroeber says that diffusion is exceedingly important for building a <strong>civilisation<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Krober\u2019s macro level approach have been substantiated with a no. Of ex\n<ul>\n<li>later substantiated by <strong>Robert Redfield<\/strong> who made distinction b\/w high &amp; low culture. = GT &amp; LT.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>found it very useful to study peasantry.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Regarded GT &amp;LT as two dimensions of civilian where GT= urban society, LT=rural peasant<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In Indian context, <strong>Milton Singer, McKim Marriot &amp; L.P Vidyarthi<\/strong> showed the nature of diffusion at different levels of Indian society.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Thus Kroeber used the concept of diffusion to explain his <strong>theory of rise &amp; fall of civilisation<\/strong>. Later this model was used in different cultures across the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Acculturation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Kroeber (1948)<\/u><\/strong> stated that acculturation comprises those changes in a culture brought about by another culture and will result in an increased similarity between the two cultures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>This type of a change <strong>may be reciprocal<\/strong>, however, very often the process is <strong>asymmetrical<\/strong>, and the<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>result is the <strong>absorption of one culture into the other<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>acculturation is gradual<\/strong> rather than abrupt.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>connection with process of diffusion : <\/strong>&nbsp; diffusion contributes to acculturation &amp;&nbsp; that acculturation necessarily involves diffusion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>separation b\/w the two processes<\/strong> : diffusion is a matter of what happens to the elements of a culture, whereas <strong>acculturation<\/strong> is a process of what happens to the whole culture.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Acculturation then, is the process of a systematic cultural change of a particular society carried out by an alien, dominant society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>This change is brought about under conditions of direct contact b\/w individuals of each society.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Relevance<\/strong>&nbsp; &#8211; Individuals of a foreign or minority culture learn the language, habits, and values of a standard or dominant culture by the cultural process of acculturation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Assimilation<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; process by which these individuals enter the social positions, as well as acquire the political, economic &amp; educational standards of the dominant culture<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>These individuals thr the <strong>social process of Assimilation<\/strong> become integrated within standard culture.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Accomplishments<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Acculturation studie<\/strong>s have helped to give insight into problems encountered when people from diverse cultures come into a dominant culture.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Studies could identify the problems of <strong>acculturation &amp; assimilation of a mortality individual<\/strong> on a group and how to establish better relationships b\/w various groups and the dominant society.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Functionalism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Each aspect of society depends on each other &amp; each contributes to the overall stability &amp; functioning of the society. When one part experiences a crisis, others must&nbsp; adapt to fill the void in some way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Functionalist analyses examine the social significance of phenomena, that is the purpose, they serve a particular society in maintaining the whole. I.e This approach points towards <strong><u>synchronic studies<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Two version of functionalism developed b\/w 1910 &amp; 1930<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Bio-cultural (or Psychological) Functionalism<\/strong> &#8211; approach advocated by <strong><u>Malinowski<\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Structural Functionalism &#8211; <\/strong>approach advanced by <strong><u>Radcliffe Brown<\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Historical background<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>It has it origin in sociological works of\u00a0 <strong><u>Emile Durkheim,<\/u> who <\/strong>especially interested in how social order is possible or how society remains relatively stale.\n<ul>\n<li>functioning of society is based on <strong>social facts<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Theory focus on <strong>Marco -level of social structure<\/strong> rather than micro-level of everyday life.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Later Malinowski &amp; Brown examined&nbsp; how these social facts operate in society.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>functionalism emerged as strong reaction against classical ev. &amp; diffusion<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>functionalists &#8211; evolution definitely taken place &#038; diffusion occured, But <strong>study of both in terms of spare &amp; time<\/strong> requires <strong>authentic data.<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Unfortunately &#8211; we don&#8217;t have data \u2192 we should shift from diachronic to <strong>Synchronic study (study of present)<\/strong>. &#8211; This study of present society \u2192 help in changing society by restructuring it.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Also help in administration to know characteristics of society.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Major Shift from speculative historical, diachronic study of culture &amp; cultural traits to a historical , synchronic study of Social institutions within bounded functioning society.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Premises of functionalism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>functionalism &#8211; <strong>study of how human society functions based on study of simple society<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Society \/ culture \u2192&nbsp; as a system<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Society \/culture \u2192 consist of parts. \u2192&nbsp; interdependent, interrelated, integrated.<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/57573827-2a06-95ab-b33e-d4846d1db4e1\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>change in one part \u2192 subsequent change in other \/ Affect&nbsp; functioning of other.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>S\/C cannot be reduced to any one part.\n<ul>\n<li>Greater than mere summation of parts.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Assign equal imp. to all parts. \u2192 all should be studied in system of r\/l.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Study of society \u2192 here show thus <strong>fieldwork<\/strong> &#8211; central method of inquiry in functionalism.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Accomplishments<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Declining by 1970s, but their contribution still constitute to inspire \u24b6<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Functionally analyses gave value to social institutions by considering them not as mere customs , but as active &amp; integrated parts of social system<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Contributed to <strong>shift<\/strong> in the assumption of ethnology from a concern with <strong>isolated&nbsp; traits<\/strong> to the interpretation of social life.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Contributed to concept of culture the notion that traditional usages, whatever their origin, have been shaped by the requirement that human being must live together in harmony, &amp; the demands of interpersonal r\/ls are therefore a causative force in culture.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Important methodologically contributions.\n<ul>\n<li>Emphasis on <strong>intensive field work<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Investigation of functional interrelationship of customs &amp; institutions provides a <strong>readymade Framework<\/strong> for the <strong>collection of information<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Functional methodology &#8211; savage customs are superstitious, &amp; that savage societies are chaotic, in essence that savage societies are \u201c<strong>savage<\/strong>\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Interactionist theories<\/strong> criticized functionalism for failing to conceptualize adequately the complex nature of actors and the process of interaction.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Marxist theory<\/strong> argued against <strong>functionalist&#8217;s conservatism<\/strong> and the static nature of analysis that emphasized the contribution of social phenomena to the maintenance of the status quo.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Advocates of theory construction<\/strong> questioned the utility of excessively classificatory or typological theories that pigeonholed phenomena in term of their functions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>for its negligence of the historical process and for its presupposition that societies are in a state of equilibrium.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Functional analysis has also been criticized for being circular; needs are postulated on the basis of existing institutions, that are in turn used to explain their existence.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Furthermore, functionalism&#8217;s <strong>anti-historic approach<\/strong> made it impossible to examine social processes, <strong>rejection of psychology<\/strong> made it impossible to e to understand attitudes and sentiments, and the <strong>rejection of culture<\/strong> led to lack of recognition of the ecological contest.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Bio-cultural \/&nbsp;Psychological Functionalism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Malinowski <strong>defined<\/strong> functionalism as the <strong>theory of transformation of organic i.e individual needs into derived cultural necessities &amp; imperatives<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>He&nbsp; suggested all individuals have <strong>physiological\/biological<\/strong> needs&nbsp; &amp; the social institutions develop to meet these needs.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>There are also culturally derived needs &amp; <strong>four basic needs<\/strong> (economic, social control, education &amp; political org) require <strong>institutional devices<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Each institution has personnel, a charter, a set of norms, activities, technology &amp; a function.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Satisfaction of these need<\/strong><strong><u>transformed<\/u><\/strong> the cultural instrumental activity into an <strong><u>acquired drive<\/u><\/strong> through psychological reinforcement.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus acc to his view &#8211; <strong>Culture should be understood as a mean to an end i.e instrumentally or functionally<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Brief History<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Given by Malinowski&nbsp; &#8211; Native \u2192 Poland, studied \u2192 psychology.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>T.B. \u2192 Austrelia \u2192 frazel&#8217;s &#8216;Golden Baugh\u2019 &#8211; Thus changed discipline.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>WWI \u2192 PNG \u2192 field study on <strong>Tobriand islanders<\/strong> w\/o translater.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>family amongts Austrelian Aborigins\u2019 \u2192 Theory of <strong>Bio-Cultural Functionalism<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Theory of functionalism in terms of &#8216;needs.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Premises of bio cultural functionalism<\/u><\/strong> : Roots in \u201c<strong>The Family among Austrelian Aborigines<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>He suggested All &#8216;individuals&nbsp; \u2192 have&nbsp; Needs.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Needs \u2192 primarily biological<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Needs \u2192&nbsp; satisfied by cultural mechanism<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>When primary meeds satisfied \u2192 others arise thr <strong>psychological reinforcement<\/strong> Thus, culture > <strong>Need satisfying &amp; fulfilling mechanism<\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>If individual&nbsp; needs full filled \u2192&nbsp; Society&#8217;s needs fulfilled..<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/9f4cbc33-cd35-7f91-a5db-4f8287c71e03\"><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Malinowski related <strong>psychological &amp; social function <\/strong>to biological ones thus core of his theory : <strong>function serving biological needs.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>As he gave importance to individual&nbsp;Needs \u2192 <strong>Psychological functionalism<\/strong>&#8220;.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>&amp; Needs \u2192&nbsp; Biological,&nbsp; satisfied by \u2192&nbsp; cultural thus : <strong>biocultural functionalism.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Methodology<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; (write <strong>Theory of Need &amp; Theory of Function<\/strong>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>In his \u201c<strong>A scientific Theory of Culture\u201d (1944)<\/strong> Malinowski reiterated his conviction that <strong>functional method of investigation<\/strong> is best suited to give <strong>picture of cultural realities<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Understating behaviour in terms of the motivation of individuals, including both rational, scientifically \u201cvalidated behaviour &amp; \u201cirrational\u201d, ritual, magical or religious behaviour.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Recognising the interconnectedness of the different items which constituted a \u201cculture\u201d to form some kind of system<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Understating a particular item by identify its function in the current contemporary operation of culture<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Thus, he gave \u201c<strong>Theory of Needs<\/strong>&#8221; in his &#8220;<strong>a scientific theory of culture &amp; other essays<\/strong>&#8221; \u2192&nbsp; first discussed vital sequence of life \u2192 then delineated basic needs of individual , which require organised, collective responses from the <strong>member of society. <\/strong><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/535cf4cc-76de-8ad4-ca12-e82bb62cad5e\"><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Evaluation<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>No other @ \u2192 given much imp to biology<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Very scientific framework for study of cultural dynamics.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>first to use <strong>idea of systematic approach<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>sociologist became interested in his writings as they said \u2192&nbsp; idea of system came from Malinowski<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Not explained \u201cchange in society\u201d\n<ul>\n<li>predominantly concerned with social order or solidarity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>regarded change as `purely adoptive&#8217; in nature.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Merton<\/u><\/strong> criticised Brown for ignoring conflict in his history &#8211;\u00a0 i.e the negative effects of cultural items.\n<ul>\n<li>conflicts as disrupting social order<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>E. Durkheim \u21d2&nbsp; type of social sickness<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Dogmatic\n<ul>\n<li>whatsoever exists \u2192&nbsp; functional. otherwise society \u2192 cease to exist.. &#8211; thus became teleological.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Not generated <strong>hypothesis<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>whatsoever exists has the role \u2192 Thus conservatism? justified Status quo.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Because of this \u2192 loosing grip rise of new evolutionism.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Too focused on Individual needs &amp; not on social function<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Unable to explain <strong>cultural variation <\/strong>if need of individuals are same everywhere \u2192 diff ways of fulfilling same needs<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Doesn\u2019t explain why certain <strong><u>specific cultural patterns<\/u><\/strong> arise to fulfil a need that might be fulfilled just as easily by any alternative possibility.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Overemphasised bio &amp; psychological needs &amp; <strong>neglected<\/strong><strong>structural concept of society.&nbsp;<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Malinowski termed any <strong>attempt to study culture traits in isolation<\/strong> as <strong>non-scientific<\/strong>. But, highly criticised by \u24c5 , as Kroeber said can be studied in isolation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; To sum up, Mali. functionalism studied culturee as a whole, &amp; correlated cultural forms with bio, pscho &amp; social needs &amp; imperatives. Thus gave very scientific approach. And lead to development of holistic view in anthropology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Bronislaw Malinowski <a href=\"tel:+9118841942\">(1884-1942<\/a>)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Introduction -was one of founding father of British social anthropology.&nbsp; Bom in Germany, Malinowski was intially a <strong>physicist, mathematician<\/strong> &amp; Philosophy. who turned later to Anthropolgy under influence of \u201c<strong>The Golden Bough&#8217; of Frazer.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Books<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Argonauts of the western Pacific<\/strong>\u201d 1942<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Scientific theory of culture &amp; other essays<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>The Family among Austrelian Aborigines<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>A scientific Theory of Culture\u201d (1944)<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Description of Trobriand Social life &#8211; Most comprehensive in world ethnography&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Contributions<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>The concept of <strong><u>Sociological Paternity<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; In areas of Kinship &amp; Marriage<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Idea of Myth as Social Charter<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; in area of magic ritual lang &amp; myth<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Concept of Reciprocity<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; in <strong>economic anthropology<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Fieldwork method<\/u> &#8211; <\/strong>his 3 expeditions to <strong>New Guinea<\/strong>, to study <strong>Trobiand Islanders<\/strong>, revolutionised fieldwoork method.\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Local Language<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Malinowski prefered to Collect data in <strong>local languages<\/strong> &#038; thus learn native\n<ul>\n<li>which he did in his 2nd visit to <strong>Maily of Toulon Island<\/strong> (NG)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Fieldwork methods<\/u> &#8211;<\/strong> used methods as participant observer, &#8220;<strong>statistic documentation of concrete evidences<\/strong>&#8221; \u2192\u00a0 collection of concrete cases, genealogies, village census, maps.\n<ul>\n<li>He also considered it <strong>crucial<\/strong> to consider the observable differences b\/w norms &#038; action,\n<ul>\n<li>I.e what people say they do &amp; what they actually do.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Ethnographic diary<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; raised problem of Personal equation of observer<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Kula system<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Studied in <strong>trobiand islanders<\/strong>, this was most significant work by malinowski which point out <strong>complete interlinkage<\/strong> b\/w <strong>economic, social myths, magic &amp; traditions<\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>Ceremonial exchange system<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In his book \u201c<strong>Argonauts of the western Pacific<\/strong>\u201d 1992 <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/c8156e6e-3c73-8445-dd76-804762c75541\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>This later proved to be supportive to idea that <strong>economy in simple society<\/strong> lies in <strong>social matrix<\/strong>, thus origin of <strong>substantivist school.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Malinowski&#8217;s concept of culture<\/u> &#8211; <\/strong>defined culture\u00a0 as &#8220;Culture comprises inherited artefacts, goods, technical process, Ideas, habits and values\u201d\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Integration theory of Malinowski<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Culture trait Should not be studied in isolation, but to Integrative manner,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Imperative theory<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; imperative conditions which must be fulfilled to ensure community survival.\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Instrumental Imperative<\/strong> &#8211; Eco, org, Primitive law, edu<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Integrative Imperative<\/strong> \u2192 Magic Religion, Art<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Malinowski&#8217;s Theory of Needs<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>In his work \u201cScientific theory of culture &amp; other essay\u201d &#8211;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>ToN is broad conception of biological &amp; cultural determinants of human behaviour.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Malinowski&nbsp; presented 3 kinds of needs:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/535cf4cc-76de-8ad4-ca12-e82bb62cad5e\" alt=\"\"\/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>7 biological needs\/Imperatives \u2192<\/strong> essential for bio survival &amp; satisfied thr cultural mechanism <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/21595106-1cf2-8cae-7971-c1688c2ba1a5\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>4 Instrumental \/ Derived Needs\/Imperatives <\/strong>&#8211; social needs required to maintain cultural apparatus, regulate behaviour, socialisation etc\u00a0 &#8211; &#038; these are seen by Malinowski as responses to the <strong>problem of adaptation<\/strong> posed by the basic psychosocial needs of man. These <strong>response are<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Economic Institution<\/u><\/strong> &#8211;&nbsp; cultural apparatus required to produce, distribute &amp; consume &#8211; consumer goods<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Political Institution<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Define Authority within Institution &amp; equine with power<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Social Control<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Codify &amp; regulate human behaviour (laws, customs) in terms of actions &amp; sanctions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Education<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Maintain, review &amp; transmits Human material \u2192 with full knowledge of total tradition.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Integrative or Synthetic of Symbolic Imperatives\/Needs<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>All institution above must be integrated i.e integrative needs ; i.e concerned with integration of diff parts<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Essential character of social life by which habits \u2192 custom, Parental care \u2192 deliberate training ; impulses \u2192 values<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>These result in creation of systems of sciences, magic, myth, religion &#038; art.\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Science<\/strong> &#8211; serve to organise &amp; integrate human activities<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Myth<\/strong> &#8211; enhances social tradition by endowing it with Wisdom &amp; thus promoting appropriate social behaviour<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Religion<\/strong> &#8211; promotes Individual security &#038; social cohesion by sanctifying cooperative existence\n<ul>\n<li>Norms<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Values<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Art<\/strong> &#8211; Satisfies the craving of human organism for <strong>sensual impressions<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Criticism of ToN<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Malinowski never provided&nbsp; hierarchy of basic derived &amp; integrative needs.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>not adequately dealt with complex form of Std. of living<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>not cleared stated r\/l b\/w his needs. &amp; blological survival of individual &amp; group.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Not relevant in contemporary \u24b6<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; can provide avenue with which vital social problems before humanity can be approached.\n<ul>\n<li>Though he assumed basic of every society as biological system but doesn\u2019t reduced everything to biological needs.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Malinowski&#8217;s Theory of Function<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Malinowski opined that all cultural components have <strong>functions<\/strong> to perform. Thus, he interpreted culture in terms of function &amp; thus became Champion of functional school.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Integrative theory of culture<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; cultural trait, which is functionless, would not surive &#038; thus no cultural Survival. One trait is integrated to other &#038; thus if disturbed, it paralyses other. Thus, all traits in culture are interconnected.\n<ul>\n<li>Ex &#8211; Kula Ring &#8211; Economic, social, Political &amp; Social<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Charter<\/strong>&#8211; Malinowski demonstrated his scheme of functionalism <strong>thr charter<\/strong> i.e Aim &#038; purpose of society.<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/dad18904-47c1-6172-a0e8-705dbdad6a4d\">\n<ul>\n<li>Malinowski said : first aim of every society \/ Institution&nbsp; \u2192&nbsp; <strong>SURVIVAL <\/strong>(i.e continuing life &amp; normality of an organism)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>defined ; <strong>charter of an institution<\/strong> \u2192&nbsp; as system of values for the pursuit of which human beings organise.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Personnel<\/strong> \u2192 group organised on different principle of authority &amp; <strong>division of function<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Values \/ Norms<\/strong> inspire personnel for <strong>material apparatus<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Which create <strong>activities<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Activities finally lead to a <strong>function<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Function as Primary basis of Differentiation within culture<\/u> &#8211; <\/strong>i.e institution differ in that they are organised around different functions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Malinowski&#8217;s ethnolinguistic theory&#8221; &amp; &#8220;pragmasemantics\u201d<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>In his paper \u201c<strong>classificatory Particles in Language of kiniwina<\/strong>\u201d (1926)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Said : Meaning of word lies in <strong>situational context <\/strong>(thus <strong>lang<\/strong> as <strong>mode of behaviour<\/strong> &amp; it&#8217;s culturally determined meaning.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He also said that \u201c<strong>Mental states<\/strong> of member of Community receive certain <strong>stamp<\/strong>, certain stereotype by very <strong><u>Vehicle of thought\ud83d\ude97<\/u><\/strong> i.e. by languages.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He developed his <strong><u>theory of language<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0 while studying <strong><u>Trobriand Islanders\u2019 magical formulae<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0 \u2192 believed that Islanders have belief in power of words\n<ul>\n<li>magical words \u2192 impact on ritual of Islanders,\u2192&nbsp; Belief \u2192&nbsp; Control of nature by magic \u2192 thus thus influence their culture &amp; lives<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>thus Malinowski : Meaning of Lang&nbsp; = <strong>pragmatic function ; <\/strong>Thus <strong>Meaning of word lies in it&#8217;s use<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>thus study of words \/sentences not in isolation, but in situational Context.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; With Radcliffe Brown, Malinowski pushed for a paradigm shift in British anthropology, a change from the speculative, historical to a historical study of social institutions. This theoretical shift gave rise to functionalism &amp; est. filed-work as the constitutive experience of social anthropology.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Structural Functionalism<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Radcliffe brown<\/u><\/strong> suggested that a <strong><u>society<\/u><\/strong> is system of relationships maintaining itself through <strong>cybernetic feedback<\/strong>, while <strong><u>institutions<\/u><\/strong> are <strong>orderly set of relationships<\/strong> whose <strong>function<\/strong> is to <strong>maintain the society as a system<\/strong>. I.e<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Acc to Radcliffe Brown, function is \u201cThe contribution an institution makes to maintenance of social structure.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>As <strong>concept of structure <\/strong>is wedded with <strong>concept of function<\/strong>, this school is came to be known as <strong><u>Structural Functional School<\/u><\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In his <strong>opinion<\/strong>theory of society in terms of social structure has noting in common with theory of culture &amp; biological need<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Unlike Malinowski\u2019s emphasis on individual &#8211; Radcliffe brown believed that the individual were replaceable, transient occupants of social roles.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Historical Background<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; R.C. Brown \u2192 student of rivers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Studied <strong>Andamanese tribe<\/strong> \u2192 Saw them practicising <strong>Nuclear family &amp;&nbsp; Monogamy<\/strong> despite being of savage \u2192&nbsp; Thus contrast with Morgan&#8217;s clam<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Result&nbsp; \u2192&nbsp; Brown quits evolutionism<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He \u2192 found explanation by diffusionist \u2192 conjecturalism<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus, later \u2192 influenced by <strong>functionalist School of sociology in france<\/strong> &#8211; Comte,&nbsp; Simon &amp; Durkheim<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Result \u2192 started studying society &#8220;here&#8221; and &#8220;now&#8221;. i.e <strong>Synchronic study<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>This knowledge can be applied to\n<ul>\n<li>Administration<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Socio-Economic development<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus R.C. Brown \u2192 founding father of functionalism in Britain<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>First work: \u201c <strong>The Andamanese Islander&#8221;<\/strong> \u2192 beginning of Anthropological functioning in Britain.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Premises of Brown&#8217;s functionalism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>R.C. Brown influence of E. Durkheim but not followed all his ideas. however, structural fun&#8221; approch \u2192 extension of Durkheim\u2019s idea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Sociological explanation about society\n<ul>\n<li>casual historical explanation \u2192 like evolution &amp; diffusionism \u2192 require authentic historical data<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Functional explanation \u2192&nbsp; if casual historical explanation didn&#8217;t work\/ applied.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Durkheim \u2192 functionalism: contribution a part makes to whole for maintenance &#038; welfare of society.\n<ul>\n<li>Contribution for continuation of society.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>why part work \u2192 to meet &#8216;needs of society \u2192 thus continuation of society.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>R.C. Brown &#8211; Broadly agreed.\n<ul>\n<li>&#8220;But &#8216;need&#8221; \u2192 too biological ; thus <strong>necessary condition of existence<\/strong>&#8221; appropriate for social needs. &#8211;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Diff parts \u2192 work to satisfy NCO<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>one of necessary condition is <strong>integration<\/strong> of society<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Work of \u24c5 \u2192 study part from view of contribution they make in social integration. <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/676364b6-a527-4260-2c49-9b2d61a99f4e\"><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Methodology \/ Approach<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Durkheim : Organism analogy\n<ul>\n<li>Interlinked &amp; integrated parts \u2192 <strong>social Morphology<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Activity of Parts \u2192 <strong>Social Physiology<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Brown didn\u2019t agree with term as too biological ; Thus\n<ul>\n<li>Social Morphology \u21d2 <strong>Social Structure<\/strong> : Arrangement of Persons in r\/l to each other<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Social Physiology \u21d2 <strong>Social Function : <\/strong>contribution of SS in maintenance of&nbsp; social continuity.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Add here social structure + social r\/l &amp; social structure points from value added notes \ud83d\udcdd<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Though dev on organism analogy \u2192 Brown said at places, organism analogy breaks down.&nbsp; Ex &#8211; structure of organism can be studied even when not functioning ; but society only when functioning<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus <strong><u>Brown<\/u><\/strong>: social structure cannot be studied when people are not functioning. (Thus <strong>continuity<\/strong> of social group is an imp factor for existence of S. Structure)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Ie.<strong> Structure &amp; function are Inseparable<\/strong>. That&#8217;s why his approach is&nbsp; called <strong>Structural Functionalism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticism of RCB&#8217;s functionalism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>It was alleged that concept of SS was more or less, wartime concept<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>many \u24c5&nbsp; especially American \u24c5 , almost <strong>omitted<\/strong> word SS in their writings (Kroeber, Linton)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>RCB <strong>totally disapproved <\/strong>word &#8220;<strong>culture<\/strong>&#8216; thus strongly opposed by <strong>culturologists<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>RCB was not a good field worker considered as good theoretician, but.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>difficult to determine if custom \/ practice is truly functional in service of maintaining SS<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Assumption that <strong>every social item makes +ve contribution<\/strong> is criticized by many \u24c5&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Historical aspects are ignored.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Does not explain cultural variation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Merton<\/strong> criticised Brown for ignoring conflict in his history ie the negative effects of social items<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>unable to explain existence of cultural variation<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Radcliffe Brown (1881-1955)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>He was founding father of structural functionalism. During his <strong>moral science studies<\/strong> in <strong>Cambridge<\/strong> he was nicknamed as <strong>Anarchy Brown<\/strong> due to his political interests &amp; affiliations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>History<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Conducted field work in Andaman island &amp; Western Australia<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Contrition<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>He was particularly focused on the institution of kinship &amp; descent &amp; suggested that, at least in tribal societies they determined the charter of family org, politics, economic &amp; inter-group Relations.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>RB&#8217;s theory of social structure<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>1st time used concept&nbsp; in 1919<\/u><\/strong> while delivering lecture on social \u24b6&nbsp; in <strong>Birmingham<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>refers <strong>structure<\/strong> as arrangement of Parts or components related to one other. The <strong>Social structure<\/strong> \u2192 ultimate components are human beings \u2192 thus <strong>arrangement of Persons in institutionalised roles &amp; relationships wrt each other.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Brown illustrated concept by citing example of <strong>tribes of <\/strong>W<strong>estern Australia<\/strong><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/94f793f6-b0b5-1907-4de4-526510316af0\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>There is <strong>continuous existence of horde<\/strong>: members are replaced due to death &amp; birth <strong>Thus continuity of social group<\/strong> imp factor for existence of social structure.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Social Institution<\/u> (S.I) &#8211; <\/strong>Brown defined Social institution as <strong>socially established norms or patterns of behaviour<\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>Institution Provide <strong>status &amp; role<\/strong>s which are guided by the norms &amp; values of those institutions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus according to RCB &#8211; Social structure has to be described by the institutions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>RCB\u2018s Concept of Function<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; function is \u201cThe contribution an institution makes to maintenance of social structure.\u201d\n<ul>\n<li>As <strong>concept of structure <\/strong>is wedded with <strong>concept of function<\/strong>, this school is came to be known as <strong><u>Structural Functional School<\/u><\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He used an <strong>analogy<\/strong> b\/w <strong>social life &amp; organic life <\/strong>to explain this concept.\n<ul>\n<li>emphasis on examining the contribution of phenomena maintaining social order , which reflects <strong><u>influence<\/u><\/strong> of <strong><u>French sociologist Emile Durkheim<\/u><\/strong>, &amp; his disregard for individual needs, is <strong>apparent in this analogy.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Like the biological organism<\/strong>, the continuity of <strong>social structure<\/strong> is not destroyed by change in units (cells)\u00a0 ; unaffected by individual\u2019s life, SS is maintained by<strong> social life<\/strong>, which consists of <strong>activities &amp; interactions<\/strong> of individual human beings &#038; organised groups into which they are united.\n<ul>\n<li>Thus social life of community, function of recurrent activity, makes contribution to <strong>structural continuity<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Structural continuity<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; SS undergoes change, but there is an underlying Continuity in relative Constance &#8211; Brown called it \u201cStructural Continuity.\u201d\n<ul>\n<li>Since individuals &amp; groups , constitutions the SS constantly change, <strong>structural continuity, is dynamic<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In it matter(individual) changes , the form (supplied by <strong>S.I<\/strong>)&nbsp; remains the same<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Types of Social Structure<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Actual Social Structure<\/u><\/strong>\u2192 Social r\/l&nbsp; that change from yr to yr, day to day<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>General Social Structure<\/u><\/strong> \u2192 relatively constant over long period of time.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Co-Relations with importance&nbsp; of Iang, Religion &amp; economics with SS<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Language &amp; social structure<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>RUB: existence of <strong>speech community<\/strong> &amp; their <strong>Sizes<\/strong> are features of social structure. There is, very general r\/l b\/w SS &amp; Iang&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>However, RUB also points out that <strong>special characteristics<\/strong> of particular lang (<strong>vocabulary, phenolgy, etc<\/strong>) are not related to SS &amp; thus <strong>can be studied w\/o reference SS.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Social structure &amp; Economic institution<\/u><\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>RUB suggested that members of society carry out <strong>apportionment of activities<\/strong> (i.e. Division of Labour) b\/c they provide some sort of <strong>gratifications<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Economic system is studied in 2 aspects\n<ul>\n<li>as mechanism of exchange of G&amp;S<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>as relation b\/w people who maintains this system<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>latter view is subject matter of social \u24b6&nbsp; &amp; thus <strong>integrated aspect of social structure.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Social relations &amp; Social Structure<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>RUB: Social r\/l are <strong>purposive<\/strong> and are result from\n<ul>\n<li>Similarity of interests<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>mutual Interests<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>or combo of both<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>as group of person may have <strong>common interest in observance of law<\/strong> &amp; law has a social value, thus social r\/l are subject matter of SS.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Religion &amp; Social structure<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>RCB : <strong>Ritual values<\/strong>, which consists of Rites, Rituals &amp; Myths can be studied in tems of Religion <strong>which holds society together<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Acc to him, best way to understand religion is thr <strong>rites &amp; rituals<\/strong> not beliefs.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>As <strong>ritual values<\/strong> binds member of society together study of Religion is imp in SS.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Despite the criticisms the school is of huge contemporary relevance,It has given us a <strong>conceptual framework<\/strong> on the basis of which observation and explanation of social events is possible scientifically,like for instance,origin of marriage<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Compare &amp; Contrast Functionalism &amp; Structural Functionalism<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Radcliffe Brown &amp; Malinowski both belonged to school of functionalism in anthropology. Yet, they differ from each other in approach, premises &amp; methodology of their thoughts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Similarities<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Common historical background of functionalism as a reaction to evolution &amp; diffusionism<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Both (scholars)&nbsp; were influenced by functionalism in contemporary sociology.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Common premises of functionalism\n<ul>\n<li>both conceptualise culture &amp; as an integrated &amp; interrelated system of parts<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Change in one part of society brings about change in other parts.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>both describe the different parts of a society &amp; their relationship through <strong>organic analogy<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Both stress that cultural institutions exist to fulfil vital functions<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>(scholars) opposed diachronic studies and were <strong>supporters of synchronic studies<\/strong>,even while using the comparative method<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Both (scholar) emphasised on fieldwork<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Differences<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>Context<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Functionalism<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Structural Functionalism<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Introduction<\/td><td>Functionalism is a school of thought propounded by <strong>Bronislaw Malinowski <\/strong>in 1920s<\/td><td>Structural Functionalism is a school of thought propounded by <strong>Radcliffe Brown<\/strong> in 1920s<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Leading Figures<\/td><td>Bronislaw Malinowski<\/td><td>Radcliffe Brown<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Subject Matter<\/td><td>deals more prominently&nbsp; with culture&nbsp;<\/td><td>deals with society<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Concept<\/td><td>\u2022 institutions operate to fulfill biological and psychological needs of an individual and society\u2022 there 3 \/4 types of needs-&gt; In his book Scientific Theory of Culture(1944)<\/td><td>\u2022&nbsp;suggests that institutions reflect socially established norms &amp;&nbsp; patterns of behavior\u2022&nbsp;Institutions thus define and control social structures with their role being to maintain the unity and continuity of society<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Example<\/strong> (function of institutions of m\u2019age ) from <strong>Perspective<\/strong><\/td><td>is to fulfill sexual and reproductive needs of human<\/td><td>is to <strong>protect the mother-child combine<\/strong> through a permanent association of a man thus leading to the continuity of the society<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Sociocultural&nbsp; laws<\/td><td>is not concerned with discovery of socio-cultural laws<\/td><td>concerned with discovery of socio-cultural laws<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Common Conclusion<\/u> &#8211; <\/strong>Despite the differences both schools have contributed immensely to cultural studies.They have led to the development of holistic view in anthro,along with gicing a conceptual framework to explain social events scientifically<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Structuralism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Introduction &#8211; Structuralism is an anthropological school of thought that originated in 1930s.Its main proponents include <strong>Claude-Levi Strauss and Edmund Leach. <\/strong>It is set of principles for studying the <strong>mental superstructure.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Historical Background<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; <strong>social Structure<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>term social structure &#8211; coined by <strong>Herbert Spencer<\/strong>, a French sociologist in his book &#8216;<strong>principles of sociology<\/strong>.&#8217; He spoke of structure of society as present in <strong>organic and inorganic things.<\/strong> He gives of building&nbsp; &amp; also-organism analogy.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Later on <strong>Emile Durkheim<\/strong>, also used <strong>organism analogy <\/strong>for showing social structure. &#8211; society as an organism &amp;&nbsp; preferred term <strong>social morphology<\/strong>. His idea was borrowed and modified by <strong>A.R.R. Brown<\/strong>,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>acc to <strong>brown<\/strong> it is concerned with <strong>interrelatedness of parts<\/strong> &amp; there is <strong>no consensus<\/strong> what these parts are.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>As per all inclusive views, social structure consists of institutions, groups etc. i.e. virtually every aspect which are components of society for e.g. <strong>Robert McIver<\/strong> said that society has large number of components but certain components are more important than others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>About the issue of parts, several scholars considered parts of society differently as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>A.R.R. Brown &#8211; parts are interpersonal relations<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Evans Pritchard &#8211; says parts are group<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Mainforte : social structure should be defined as all classes of social relations&#8217; which are found in all societies but we must incorporate time in terms of social structure. Hence Mainforte is very popularly known for &#8216;Time Social Structure&#8217;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Nadel-Parts are role<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Another debate &#8211; <strong>whether social structure was empirical reality or abstract<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>R. Brown<\/strong> considered social structure as empirical reality whereas<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Claude L. Strauss<\/strong> regarded social structure as an abstract model or idea.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Aim of Structuralism<\/u><\/strong> : search for deep structures &amp; find out orderly principles that are underlying any culture \u2192&nbsp; thus unravel human mind<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Thus its, aim is <strong>qualitatively<\/strong> different from other approaches\n<ul>\n<li>Ex. Difference in approach of study by functionalism &amp; structuralism<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>is also to cut across the boundaries of traditional disciplines &amp; to promote inter-disciplinary approach.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Basic Premises \/ Assumption<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>objective of structuralism to search for deep, innate, orderly principle underlining analysis to discover any system. Thus unravel the <strong>human mind<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Society has <strong>basic structure<\/strong> &#8211; which <strong>varie<\/strong> from society to society due to <strong>permutations &amp; combinations<\/strong> of elements of basic structure.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The <strong>basic structure<\/strong> of society \u21d2 <strong>Mind<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Job of structuralist \u2192 <strong>unfold various layers human mind.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Human thought &amp; culture based on universal human tendency to observe <strong>binary opposition<\/strong> in world.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Culture is an attempt to reconcile B.O. e.g Birth &amp; death &#8211; Religion<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Cross cultural analysis to discover those structures of though (<strong>Deep structure<\/strong>) those structures, of thought<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Universality<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; exists in deep Structure.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>so we have to understand <strong>how mind has been structured.<\/strong> So we study its products.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The products of mind may be language, myth, totem etc. There must be some kind of similarity in human mind so that same products are generated.\n<ul>\n<li>Ex similar myths are found in different regions of world completely unrelated where elements of diffusion are ruled out<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>There for their is uniformity in human mind &amp; this must be due to psychic unity of mankind.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Schools\/ Types<\/u> &amp; <u>Scholars<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Structuralism<\/strong> &#8211; Levi Strauss<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Neo- structuralism<\/strong> &#8211; Edmund Leach<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Methodology<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>heavily applied methods of <strong>structural linguistics<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Principle of Binary opposition<\/strong> -their essential techniques to analyse social realitie\n<ul>\n<li>Eg : Strauss study on kinship(<strong>Alliance theory<\/strong>) &amp; Leach study of <strong>traffic signals<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In it, structures are models, the formal properties of which can be compared independently.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The <strong>task of structuralist<\/strong> is to <strong><u>identify &amp; isolate levels of reality<\/u><\/strong> (in terms of ideal types &amp; statistical models)&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The essential value of these studies is construction of models, compare their properties &amp; explains.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Language as Model<\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Contribution \/Concepts<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Structuralism as an analytical model<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Structural Linguistics<\/u> &#8211; <u>Language as a Mode<\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Levi Strauss<\/strong> -concerned with establishing facts true about human mind,rather than about any particular society<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Edmund Leach<\/strong> -applied structural analysis to particular societies &amp; institutions<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>criticised for being over dependent on observer<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Cultural Relativists<\/u><\/strong><strong>criticised<\/strong> it for depicting human thought as uniform &amp; invariable &amp; i.e <strong>lack of concern <\/strong>with human <strong>individuality<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Structural analysis doesn\u2019t allow external validation i.e can\u2019t be subjected to scientific scrutiny.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>This <strong>synchronic approach<\/strong>, which advocates a <strong>psychic unity of all human minds<\/strong>, has been criticised b\/c it doesn\u2019t a\/c individual human action historically<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He didn\u2019t talk about social change &#8211; so was criticised<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Despite the criticism the elements of structural methodology continue to be used in symbolic &amp; cognitive anthro even today<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Levi Strauss<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Introduction &#8211; Born in <strong>Belgium<\/strong>, but of French origin, Strauss was <strong>French<\/strong><strong>Origin, <\/strong>Strauss was French structural anthropologist. <strong>Structuralism<\/strong>, Acc to him, is study of human society.&nbsp; &amp; Acc to him, the <strong>study of language &amp; formation of words<\/strong> was essential to know the socials structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Premises of Structuralism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>concepts &amp; Contributions<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Structuralism as an analytical model<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Structuralism assumes the universality of human thought to explain the deep structure or its underlying meaning. Thus Structuralism is a set of principles to study <strong>mental superstructure<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Strauss discovered that one of the most common means of classifying is by using binary opposition<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>his concept of structure <strong>differs from R.C. Brown<\/strong>. Though he agrees with Brown that &#8216;<strong>structure<\/strong>\u00a0 is ordered arrangement of parts&#8217;, But differs in <strong>aim<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Brown <\/strong>&#8211; examine ss to discover social function<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Strauss <\/strong>&#8211; discover human thought process.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Strauss<\/strong> talked about diff kinds of theoretical models. A str is a model which fulfils certain specified criteria &#038; exhibits the characteristics of a system\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Conscious Model<\/u><\/strong> &#8211;&nbsp; Not much dept<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Unconscious Model<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Much depth which can be found in various studies like <strong>Myth<\/strong>)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Mechanical Model<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; No diff b\/w <strong>scale of Model<\/strong> &#038; <strong>scale of social phenomena.<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>are qualitative rules of behaviour supported by <strong>social sanctions<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>E.g<\/strong> Prescriptive m&#8217;age rules ,&nbsp; model of law or kinship in primitive society in which unions are generated on the bassi of certain defused principles.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Statistical Model<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; much diff in scale of model &#038; scale of social phenomena ;\n<ul>\n<li>statistical average of individual behaviour<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>eg<\/strong>-preferential medet rulles many choices &#8211; thus difficult to Put into a model, kinship in our society b\/c m\u2019age are not governed by set of generative rules but by diverse factors like change, social mobility, social class etc.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Structural Linguistics<\/u> &#8211; <u>Language as a Model<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>He says Society can be be conceptualised as communication, therefor he emphasised on lang.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>he drawn most imp methodological tool from Linguistic, with particular reference to <strong>phonemics<\/strong>, Under Influence of <strong>Prague school of linguistics<\/strong>, he <strong><u>proposed<\/u><\/strong> that to study linguistic to <strong>discover<\/strong><strong><u>rules<\/u><\/strong> (or <strong>grammar<\/strong>) acc. to which <strong>phonemes (words-<\/strong> units of lang<strong>)<\/strong>&nbsp; are arranged.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He applied this model to society. Acc. to him, we must find out <strong>units of society<\/strong>, <strong>rules acc. to which units are arranged<\/strong>. Thus he proposes Construction of society on model of Iang.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He used this model to <strong>kinship terminology,<\/strong> b\/c theory are linguistic terms &amp; can be analysed with linguistic models.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Acc.to\u00a0 <strong>Levi<\/strong><strong>strauss<\/strong>, structural linguistics is based on <strong><u>4 operations<\/u><\/strong> &#038; while studying the language , the <strong>linguist<\/strong><strong>should<\/strong>\n<ol>\n<li>transverse attentions from conscious to subconscious level as it is product of mind.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>shouldn&#8217;t<\/strong> consider <strong>linguistic terms<\/strong> as <strong>isolated<\/strong> entities but rather need to <strong>find relation<\/strong> b\/w them<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>try to <strong>discover general laws<\/strong> -so that they can be applicable to society as a whole<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Language should be studied as a system<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Likewise<\/strong> there are <strong>4 basic operations in study of society as below<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Like phoneme, Kin terms are also having elements of meaning<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>When they are integrated to system, only then they acquire meaning i.e one kin term is related to another.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Kinship system is build by the mind on the level of subconscious thought.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>All lead to conclude that the observable phenomena results from action of laws which are General.&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Study of Myths<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Functionalism<\/strong> is also interested in study of muth but ; approach- how muth contributes to functioning of society . But for <strong>structuralism<\/strong> it is &#8211; how it is <strong>structured &amp; what does it mean<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Strauss&#8217;s study of <strong>unconscious mind<\/strong> led him to study of myth. Myth is activity of human mind which is <strong>least<\/strong> concemed with functional necessities.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Acc to him myth is the production of mind in the same way as rule of m\u2019age, cooking dressing etc are production of mind.&nbsp; &#8211; so we have to understand how mind has been structured. So we study its products.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In his <strong>\u201cThe structural study of Myth\u201d (1963) <\/strong>Strauss propose to analyze myth by breaking down into it&#8217;s basic constituent elements, <strong>mythemes<\/strong> &amp; relationship b\/w them is <strong>examined<\/strong>. They represent <strong>Nature-culture dichotomy.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In his \u201c<strong>The Raw &amp; the Cooked&#8217; (1969)<\/strong> he andlysed 167. 5. American &amp; 600 Indian myths. He demonstrated that their <strong>underlying structure<\/strong><strong>show significant similarities<\/strong>. Thus such similarities in far fetched societies show some <strong>similarity of though in human mind.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Study of kinship<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>In his \u201c<strong>The Elementary structures of kinship\u201d (1949)<\/strong> he proposes to analyse kinship based on <strong>reciprocity &amp; exchange<\/strong> thr <strong>marital bonds<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He says: <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/c1f16021-e308-7699-18c2-0c1e0219b788\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus, binary opposition b\/w Kinship groups, i.e transformation of binary oppo. b\/w kh <strong><u>Self Vs other<\/u><\/strong>, is mediated by <strong><u>exchange of women<\/u><\/strong>. In structuralism, b.o. is part of <strong>integrated system of logically connected categories<\/strong> of meaning that structure social activity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Reciprocal \u2192\u00a0 two types\n<ul>\n<li>Restricted<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Generalised<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Universality to Incest Taboo<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>\u201cThe Tolemism<\/u>&#8220;<\/strong>\u00a0 &#8211; Key \ud83d\udd11 Work\n<ul>\n<li>critique of evolutionary, Historical particularist &amp; functionalist approach to Totemism.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Studied totemic phenomenon, not <strong>totemism<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Defined totemism as r\/l b\/w 2 series: <strong>natural &amp; cultural. <\/strong>Both series have 2 methods of existence as below:<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/7bd91377-ab29-29c9-5050-a2bd29c9b1ea\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In case of totemism, Strauss was deeply influenced by R.C.Brown&#8217;s <strong>second theory of totemism<\/strong>:<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>For strauss, <strong>binary opposition<\/strong> that formed <strong>structure of mind<\/strong>, were\n<ul>\n<li>Nature<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>culture<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Study of primitive Mind<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>In his \u201c<strong>The&nbsp; Savage Mind<\/strong>\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>At <strong>unconscious level \u21d2 <\/strong>Human mind works on a <strong>logic<\/strong> that is <strong>universal<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Primitive are thus not inferior to westerns<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Evaluation<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Levi strauss<\/strong> wanted to construct <strong>universal<\/strong><strong>proposition<\/strong> of human mind. <strong>British anthropologist<\/strong> analyse that it is very diffult to construct universal law.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He did <strong>not<\/strong> talk about social change. So, structuralism lost it&#8217;s imp. to emerging fields like applied &amp; action anthropology<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>His undue emphasis on binary opposition was criticised by some.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Though structuralism is useful to give <strong>limited generalisation<\/strong> &amp; <strong>study of human mind.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Douglas<\/strong> used &amp; <strong>structuralism<\/strong> at local level.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It influenced literature, since literature is also production of mind.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211;&nbsp; in spite of criticism, contributed to structurall Study of society which is imp to study various socio-cultural phenomenon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Edmund Leach on Social Structure<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>He was <strong>opposed to synchronic functionalism<\/strong>. He <strong>dealt with change<\/strong> w\/o abanding useful notions of structure &amp; function<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Levi Strauss<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; used structuralism to understand universal structures of human thought.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Edmund leach<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; used structuralism to <strong>understand (local \/ regional) structures<\/strong> &#038; Study how they changed over time. E.g his studies in <strong>Burma &amp; Ceylon<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Thus sometimes <strong>leach&#8217;s structuralism<\/strong> known as <strong><u>Neo-structuralism<\/u><\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Social Structure Model<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As far as it is , He was very Similar to Strauss &#8211; <strong>logical construct in minds of Anthropologist \u21d2 <\/strong>social structure<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, the concept of models, scales &amp; distinctions b\/w them is unclear. Leach tried to explain the problem by taking resort to <strong>Jural rules<\/strong> (mechanical model) &amp; <strong>statistical norms&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>2 types of model<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Mechanical &#8211; calls it <strong>Jural Rules , <\/strong>are qualitative rules of behaviour supported by social sanctions<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Statistical &#8211; calls it <strong>statistica norms, <\/strong>statistical average of individual behaviour<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Analytical value of Models<\/u><\/strong> &#8211;\n<ul>\n<li><strong>for leach<\/strong> \u2192 <strong>statistical norms<\/strong> must have <strong>priority over jural rules<\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>Statistical norms \u2192 No coercive&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Jural norms \u2192 coercive.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>for strauss, both have equal <strong>analytical value<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus this distinction of Leach doesn\u2019t solve the problem b\/c the r\/l b\/w them is not resolved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Wrt to Levis Strauss<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Though admired the work of Levistrauss\n<ul>\n<li>But criticised his myth study in his (leach\u2019s) &#8211; Genesis of Myth<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Criticised \u201cStructural analysis of kinship done by Levi Strauss\n<ul>\n<li>On basis of his FW in higher <strong>Burma &amp; Ceylon<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u>&nbsp; <\/strong>&#8211; E. leach was <strong>Link B\/w British Structural Functionalism &amp; French Structuralism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Tried to incorporate both in his work.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Compare &amp; Contrast B\/w Radcliffe Brown &amp; Levi Strauss<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Similarities<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Both Levi &#038; RCB agreed that structure is ordered arrangement of parts, However\n<ul>\n<li>Brown \u2192 examine SS to discover social functions<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Levi \u2192 Un-revival human though process<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Both adopted scientific approach to study society.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Differences<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>Feature<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Radcliffe Brown<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Levi Strauss<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>School of Though<\/strong><\/td><td>structural Functionalism<\/td><td>Structuralism<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Focus of study<\/strong><\/td><td>social level<\/td><td>Psychological level<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Basic Premise<\/strong><\/td><td>\u2022 Social Structure composed of parts \u2022&nbsp;each part stands in relation with other \u2022&nbsp;Parts perform social function that help in overall sustenance of&nbsp; Social structure<\/td><td>\u2022 cross cultural analysis to discover deep structures of human mind \u2022&nbsp;human mind works on binary contractions with universal logic of duality \u2022 culture \u2192 tool to resolve B.O<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>social Structure&nbsp; Reality or Virtuality&nbsp; &nbsp;<\/strong><\/td><td>SS is <strong>concrete reality<\/strong> which is observable, empirical &amp; can be studied by methods of natural &amp; biological sciences<\/td><td>Ss in no <strong>reality, <\/strong>Social Relations are reality which are observable&nbsp;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Way of Study&nbsp;<\/strong><\/td><td>Organic Approach in study of social institution<\/td><td>Linguistic Study to study of society<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Approach<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Teleological Approach<\/strong> in study of social institution<\/td><td><strong>Psychological approach <\/strong>to study social phenomena Ex. Myth \u2192 helps to discovers human mind<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Function<\/strong><\/td><td>Everything exists for a purpose<\/td><td>Everything need not exists for definite purpose<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Study of Kinship<\/strong><\/td><td>Descent theory to study kinship<\/td><td>Alliance Theory to study kinship<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Reasoning<\/strong><\/td><td>Inductive Reasoning<\/td><td>Deductive Reasoning<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Post Structuralism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Grew as a reaction to the critique of structuralism. Were very much influenced by structuralist. However, the works of post-structuralists has more reflective quality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Scholar<\/u><\/strong>&nbsp; &#8211;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Pierre Bourdieu<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Concept<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Acc to Pierre Bourdieu, structure is production of human creation, even though the participants may not be conscious of the structure.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Unlike universality of human though process of structuralist, Bourdieu propose that dominant though process are a product of society &amp; determine how people act.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Methodology<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>in these Methods, the person describing the Though processes of people of another culture may be reduced to just that &#8211; description.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Interpretations other\u2019s though is more or less disallowed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Culture &amp; Personality<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Culture Personality School originated in 1920s after WWI with an aim to study relationship b\/w culture &amp; personality by an <strong>anthropo- psychological approach <\/strong>(born out of Sigmund Freud\u2019s psycho-analysis)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>The pioneers of the school were influence by <strong>Gestalt Psychology and Malinowski&#8217;s theory of Cultural evolution<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Aim to study<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>To examine inter -relationship b\/w culture &amp; personality by an <strong>anthropo- psychological approach<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>I.e <\/strong>it is the study of cultures as it in embodied in the personality of individual members<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Historical Background<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>reactions against 19th century classical evolutionism &amp; diffusionism<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>against the hierarchical evolutionary system (SBC)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>tried to understand psychological aspects of individual and culture<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Research interest emerged in USA after WWI to know influence of culture on individual or group personality.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Schools &amp; Thoughts : Leading Figures &amp; Scholars<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Personality Influences Culture<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>aqdvocated by <strong>Ruth Benedict<\/strong> (<strong>Patterns of Culture 1934<\/strong>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Culture influences Personality<\/u><\/strong> &#8211;\n<ul>\n<li>given by <strong>Margaret Mead<\/strong> (<strong>Coming of Age in Samoa 1928<\/strong>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Both influence each other ie both are interactive\n<ul>\n<li>given by <strong>Ralph Linton, Abraham Kardiner, Cora du bois<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Basic Premises \/ Assumption<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>The cultural practices of people are reflection of their personality<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Differences in personalities of peoples are b\/c of differences in cultures<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Culture influences to a great extent the personality traits of the people<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Every individual \u2192 Unique personality + they&nbsp; <strong>share a common personality<\/strong> as a member of same nation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Meaning &amp; Features of Personality<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Personality<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; integrative, dynamics &amp; organisation of Physical, mental &amp; social quality of individual.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>But his definition \u2192 not adequate to understand personality \u2192 thus better to study thr set of features\n<ul>\n<li>It is not rooted to bodily structure alone<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>P &#8211; individual Unit<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>P &#8211; Neither good nor bad, but unique<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>P &#8211; refers to persistent quality of an individual<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>P &#8211; acquired or learned<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>P &#8211; individual as well as collective<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Factors Affecting<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Temperament<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Attitude<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Aptitude<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Physiology<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Interest<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Morphology<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Need Values<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Relation b\/w Culture &amp; Personality<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Culture &#8211; determine type of personality in particular group\n<ul>\n<li>Teaches individual to behave in society in systemic way<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Individual adopts culture by\n<ul>\n<li>Acculturation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Assimilation<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Some American \u24c5 distinguish <strong><u>Individual Personality<\/u><\/strong> &#038; <strong><u>collective Personality<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Study of Individual Personality- <strong>Psychology<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Study of collective Personality &#8211; <strong>Anthropology<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Time of Learning &#8211; early years of children \u2192 Most imp \u2192 shapes personality. Thus \u24c5\u00a0 intensive study of <strong>Child training<\/strong> in different societies (e.g Brest Feeding, Mode of Punishment, toilet training) e.g\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Erik Ericson<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; study of \u2018<strong>Siona Indians<\/strong>\u2019 (i.e American Red Indians)\n<ul>\n<li>Treat children with great indulgence fed only when hungry<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>But when behaved improperly \u2192 pick children soon \u2192 punishes \u2192 child cries \u2192 then only fed.\n<ul>\n<li>He believes this makes child stronger<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Strict Toilet Practice in Japan<\/strong> \u2192 Mares children mentally very strong<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Kanjar Tribe In Indian <\/strong>\u2192 teaches children to steal (MP, Western UP, Eastern Rajesthan)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Swaddling Practice in Russia<\/strong> &#8211; by <strong>Geoffrey Gorer<\/strong> in his \u201c<strong>The People of Great Russia<\/strong>\u201d (1949)\n<ul>\n<li>Children \u2192 tied to strip streak of cloth &amp; kept in cradle \u2192 Immovable \u2192 this makes children aggressive<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Methodology<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Extensive Fieldwork &amp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Psycho-analysis<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Contribution\/ Concepts<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Ruth Benedict<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Culture Patterns<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Genius of culture<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>National Character Studies<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Margaret Mead<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Study on Personality\n<ul>\n<li>Adolescent personality &#8211; Samoans<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Childhood Personality &#8211; Manus Society<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Manus Society -3 societies(AMT)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>National Character Studies<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Ralph Linton<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Covert &amp; Overt Culture<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Types of Personalities 4<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Kardiner<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Kardiner&#8217;s Psycho Dynamic Approach<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Basic Personality<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>KarCora du bois<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Modal Personality<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Accomplishments<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>developed new methods &#038; technique for qualitative data collection <strong>Eg<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Content Analysis Method<\/strong> by <strong><u>Benedict<\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Photographic Techniques<\/strong> by <strong><u>Mead<\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Promoted interdisciplinary approach to study society<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>their studies on national character was of immense value during wars and later to understand countries and their people<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Concepts like culture pattern,basic personality and modal personality gave new insights in understanding influence of culture on human behavior i.e <strong>linking anthropology &amp; psychology \u2192 <\/strong>from this bridge wealth of info \u2192 distributed across disciplines<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Culture &amp; Personality structures have greatly limited the number of racist, hierarchical description of culture types that were common in the early part of 20th century.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Through these studies, we have began to realise that <strong>humans are basically the same<\/strong> &amp; that <strong>we as a whole are evolving<\/strong>, instead of a series of stages of culture or society.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>criticised for narrowing role played by cultural institutions by relegating it to merely shaping of personality<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; It was instrumental in paving the way for future work on cultural studies<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Approaches<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Configurational Approach<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; <strong>Ruth Benedict &amp; Margaret Mead<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Basic Personality Structure Approach<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; jointly by <strong>Abraham Kardiner &amp; Ralph Linton<\/strong> in response to Configurational Approach<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Modal Personality Approach<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Brain child of <strong>Cora Dubois<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Ruth Benedict<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Benedict, a worthy pupil of worthy teacher <strong>Franz Baas<\/strong>, made significant contribution to enrich word anthropology. And was a culture personality scholar.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Acc to Benedict, Culture is <strong>analogous to an individual <\/strong>in that it is more of less a consistent pattern of though &amp; action. Hence any analysis of culture requires a <strong>psychological approach.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Configurational Approach, <\/strong>-analyse the impact of personality on culture.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Books<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Famous monograph &#8211; Pattern of Culture<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Chrysanthenum &amp; the Sword (1946)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Historical Background<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>She was not interested in generalising human society as a whole i.e didn\u2019t believe in similarity of culture.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>So to understand the <strong>way culture is patterned, <\/strong>She gave concept of \u201c<strong>Culture pattern<\/strong>\u201d in her book named \u201c<strong>Pattern of Culture<\/strong>\u201d &amp; also to study the effect of culture on personality.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Personality<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; integrative, dynamics &amp; organisation of Physical, mental &amp; social quality of individual.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>But his definition \u2192 not adequate to understand personality \u2192 thus <strong>Pattern necessity to understand function<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Concept of Culture Pattern<\/u> &#8211; Configurational Approach<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Though she <strong>didn\u2019t gave the term<\/strong> \u2018Culture Pattern\u2019 which is given by <strong>Kroeber<\/strong>, but she provided <strong>Methodological Model<\/strong> for studying human culture in term of patterns rather than <strong>social content<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In her \u201c<strong>Patterns of Culture (1934)<\/strong>, She proposed that All basic institution, which are part of culture <strong>tend to mirror<\/strong> overall Pattern of that culture.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>She says that every culture consists of <strong>culture traits. <\/strong>They are grounded into a <strong>complex &amp; <\/strong>all these cultural complexes when <strong>integrated<\/strong> in functional whole they form a <strong>cultural pattern<\/strong>. <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/d5efc146-2335-5ca8-c46c-e51dc8fd30c7\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Many <strong>cultural patterns<\/strong>integrate themselves into a <strong>functional whole<\/strong> they form a <strong>special design of a whole culture <\/strong>which is c\/l <strong>Configuration of Culture.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The integration of culture is on the basis of tendency seen in all aspect of culture. This tendency is called by <strong>Benedict<\/strong>\u00a0 \u201d<strong>special Genius of culture<\/strong><strong>\u201d<\/strong>that\u00a0 brings about <strong><u>Integration<\/u><\/strong> of society &#038; define it&#8217;s general nature.\n<ul>\n<li><strong><em>two types of geniuses<\/em><\/strong><em> found in human society &#8211;<\/em>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Apollonian &#8211; in this pattern, one will see existence of peace, discipline &amp; kindness<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Dionysian &#8211; characterised by great deal of changes &amp; aggressiveness.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>These two mold the personality of the members of their group. Thus it will lead to formation of special cultural characteristics for the group concerted. In this way personality influences&nbsp; culture<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Benedict emphasised that <strong>culture<\/strong> must be taken as whole, one each one integrated on it&#8217;s own principles. The <strong>cultural pattern <\/strong>are cause of <strong>personality<\/strong> shared by all members of culture.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Example (Not to Quote) &#8211; Indian Culture pattern can be divided into large <\/em><strong><em>no. of traits such as dowry, age at marriage etc<\/em><\/strong><em>.<\/em>\n<ul>\n<li><em>these traits can be grouped in <\/em><strong><em>complex of Marriage<\/em><\/strong><em>.<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><em>Complex of Joint Family<\/em><\/strong><em> &#8211; traits common property, common residence, common kitchen etc<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Similarly other institutions or complexes like religion, political system, and economic activities are also made of their individual traits.<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>When these cultural complexes are linked together, what emerges is called &#8216;culture pattern&#8217; by Benedict.<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>When we speak of Indian culture we talk of cultural pattern which is the cause of personality shared by all the members of a culture.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Methodology<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>In her cross-cultural studies, she looked at various societies &amp; described them in terms of their \u201c<strong>basic personality configuration<\/strong>\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Based on her Field Work she wrote book, \u201c<strong>A comparative study of no of Cultures<\/strong>\u201d she depicted her studies on 2 North American groups : <strong>Zuni Indians <\/strong>south west USA &amp; <strong>Kwakiutl Indians <\/strong>of NW coast &#8211; &amp; said one can broadly discus two kind of pattern in study of Amrican Tribes : <strong>Apollonian &amp; Dionysian<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>Feature<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Apollonian<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Dionysian<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Term Origin<\/strong><\/td><td>this personality k\/n after the name of Sun \u2600\ufe0f god \u2018Apollo\u2019 who is regarded as \u2018God of Peace\u2019.<\/td><td>It is named after Greek god \u2018Dionysius\u2019 &#8211; ruthless, leading a luxurious life, drink lot<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Personality&nbsp; characteristic<\/strong><\/td><td>\u2022&nbsp;Docile Personality, \u2022&nbsp;&nbsp;very co-operative \u2022 don\u2019t seek to express individuality<\/td><td>\u2022&nbsp;Frenzied outlook \u2022&nbsp;Very Excessive \u2022 Individuality &amp; competitive &amp; aggressive<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Unity<\/strong><\/td><td>Person who sought to blend in group no superiority<\/td><td>Ambitious &amp; striving<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Child Training<\/strong><\/td><td>Designed to suppress individuality&nbsp;<\/td><td>Individuality in every aspect \u2192 promote individual achievement&nbsp;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Marriage<\/strong><\/td><td>Relatively casual<\/td><td>Tremendous celebration<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Leadership<\/strong><\/td><td>was declined wherever possible, accepted only with great reluctance<\/td><td>contact struggle of power<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>special Position of Power<\/strong><\/td><td>Delegated to group ex &#8211; medicine society rather than medicine \uc637<\/td><td>to person Ex &#8211; Shaman<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Death<\/strong><\/td><td>Little focus on mourning<\/td><td>major event much mourning.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Example<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Zuni south west USA<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>Kwakiutl of N. America<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus, her study suggest how numerous aspects give example of life in culture <strong>reinforce basic pattern of culture. <\/strong>Acc. to her, these are not the only patterns, but individual are like to follow one of such celeb patterns. Her main point was to <strong>recognise Cultural differences as valid<\/strong>, and not to impose our own morals &amp; values on people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Benedict<\/strong> was of interest to study <strong><u>effect of personality on culture<\/u><\/strong> .Thus she observes <strong>culture<\/strong> as \u2018<strong>personality with large<\/strong>\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>National Character Study By Benedict<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Morris oppler<\/strong>&#8211; her belief that every cutture has pattern of itself, which affects all parts of society is incorrect. we must look at &#8220;plurality of themes&#8217; of culture, (not only two bases of cultural integration)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Clyde Kluckhohn<\/u><\/strong> there exist distination &#8211; between <strong><u>Configuration<\/u><\/strong> &amp; <strong><u>pattern<\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Very narrow patterns of personality.m<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Rich Contribution&nbsp; to theory as well as methods. Her work certainly laid down the foundation of different kinds of personalities which emerged under the impact of culture. She was also supported by <strong>Margaret Mead<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Margaret Mead<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Introduction -most well known lady anthropologist in world. Student of <strong>Boas &amp; Benedict<\/strong>, she laid foundation of <strong><u>culture-personality school<\/u><\/strong> (along with Benedict)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Historical Background<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>She along with Benedict began with the <strong>configurational approach<\/strong>&nbsp; her book \u2018<strong>Coming of age in Samoa<\/strong>\u2019 reveal this fact.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>She thr her work <strong>Sex &amp; Temperament in Three Primitive societies\u201d<\/strong>explains the impact of culture on the personality formation. She opines that it is culture which shapes the personality of group..<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Books \/Work<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Coming of Age of Samoa<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Sex &amp; Temperament in Three Primitive societies<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>tribes of New Guinea<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Study of Personality structure<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Mead argued : Culture of an area or nation is depicted in formation of personality of individual. Thus , She was interested in study of \u201c<strong>Personality Structure<\/strong>\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Case Studies<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>In her First book:\u00a0 \u201c<strong>Coming of Age in Samoa\u201d (1928)<\/strong> where she studied <strong>Adolescent stress<\/strong> &#038; it&#8217;s Reason whether <strong>biological or cultural.<\/strong> She found that for somans, bodily changes are <strong>inevitable<\/strong>, thus society allows <strong>premarital sex<\/strong> and facts of <strong>birth, sex, death<\/strong> are not hidden from children. Thus, <strong>No crisis<\/strong> of Adolscence in samoa as in USA.\n<ul>\n<li>She concluded: human nature is not rigid &amp; unyielding rather it is product of culture.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In her The \u201c<strong>Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies\u201d<\/strong> (1935) she compared: <strong>3 societies (tribes of New Guinea)&nbsp; &amp; central values<\/strong> around which cutture was woven\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Arapesh<\/strong> \u2192&nbsp; food &amp; children<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Tshambole<\/strong> \u2192&nbsp; Art<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Mundugumor<\/strong> \u2192&nbsp; Competition<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>also observed range of temperament from submissive to oppressive<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>conclusion<\/strong> &#8211; each culture has central value ground which social life is centered.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Though these three lives in same geographical area, represent diff personality structures b\/c culture are different. (Diff has diff socialisation process)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Compared personality of children of <strong>manus society<\/strong> who were observed to be lacking in <strong>creativity &amp; expression<\/strong> as compared to American.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>She concluded that <strong>difference in personality arises from diff. in cultural Practices<\/strong>, <strong>interactions<\/strong> b\/w members of Society &amp; norms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>That\u2019s why interaction b\/w people differ along with tehrir behaviour.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>After study of the impact of the process of socialisation of children &amp; behaviour of adult of <strong><u>Samoa<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; she opined that <strong>socialisation process<\/strong> is mediated by <strong>close personal relations<\/strong> of child with adult. Mediation thr <strong>symbolic modes of community<\/strong> play a role Thus, it may said that individual must acheive Some kind of <strong>patterned integration<\/strong> which may be called as <strong>personality structure.<\/strong> While structure may take various forms,&nbsp; <strong>content elements<\/strong> which are characteristics of personality structure are <strong>generic<\/strong> sense. Thus, <strong>culture becomes part of individual<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Evaluation<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Her work was more ethnographic in nature<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>She tried to show that personality of people differ from each other due to cultural practices.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Thus Mead&#8217;s theory of personality was&nbsp; widely&nbsp; accepted by \u24c5&nbsp; as one of belt theoretical models to study society, culture &amp; Individual. Her thesis that personality is an attributed which human nature acquires the <strong>participation<\/strong><strong>in given culture<\/strong> is considered as best model to cultural- personality studies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><em>Mead Researched national character of England &amp; compared it to US.&nbsp;<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Mead determined that in each society the norm for interaction b\/w the sexes differed leading to many misunderstandings b\/w the two otherwise similar cultures.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">National Character Study<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Introduction &#8211; NCS, as per <strong>Mead<\/strong>, is attempt to delineate <strong>regularities<\/strong> in character among members of national group attributable to factors of shared nationality &amp; institutional correlation\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>There are types of culture &amp; personality studies that was developed during a <strong>WWII<\/strong> times with some <strong>political bias.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>This involves the identification of people, ethnicity &amp; races according to specific, indomitable cultural characteristics.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Purpose of NCS<\/u> &#8211;<\/strong>to guide govt &amp; military policy, to further co-op among wartime allies, &amp; to plan for a post war world.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>National character study<\/u><\/strong> : Technique<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Study utilise premises of field of Personality &amp; cultures. As most imp resources for national building is people, are backbone &amp; give distinct character.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Historically, 2 distinguishing feature &#8211;\n<ul>\n<li>Group of person with shared social character (nationals) is selected.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If society less accessible \u2192 then <strong>less<\/strong> direct methods of research have to use.\n<ul>\n<li>In addition (if societies to study literate &amp; mass means of communication, novels, cartoons &amp; NP articles &amp; photographs ) &#8211; systemic analysis &#8211; for recurrent themes or other clues<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Case Studies<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Ruth Benedict &amp; NCS<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Asked by US office of war information during <strong>WWII<\/strong> to undertake research on enemy nations\n<ul>\n<li>selected Japan as first target &amp; wrote <strong>\u201cThe chrysanthemum and the sword&#8217; (1946)<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>used \u201c<strong>content Analysis method<\/strong>&#8216; and <strong>fieldwoork-at-distance method<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>I.e largely through indirect method rather than by travelling to those countries \u2192 so sometime c\/l \u201c<strong>Studies of culture at distance<\/strong>\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Mead &amp; Metraux<\/u><\/strong> &#8211;\n<ul>\n<li>on r\/l b\/w British &amp; American in WWII<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>On Germany wrt Post war Problems<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Geoffrey Gover<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>wrote \u201c<strong>The people of Great Russia : A Psychological Study &#8221; (1949)<\/strong> in which the hypothesized that Russiam technique of <strong>swaddling<\/strong> their infants led them to devlop personalities that are <strong>cold and distant<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Margaret Mead &amp; NCS<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201c<strong>And keep Your Powder Dry : An anthropologist looks at America (1942)<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Acc to her, NCS \u2192 focussed on <strong>how<\/strong> human beings <strong>embody their culture<\/strong>.<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/a0e0fb1b-76ac-d408-67b1-02a373a23707\"><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Assumptions in NCS<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Psychic unity of mankind<\/strong> -No known differences among diff races.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Cultures<\/strong> have systematic aspects.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Human culture \u2192 Historically patterned system of Community which influences personalities<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Human culture \u2192 have holistic characteristics<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Cultures \u2192<\/strong> inherited \/ carried to successive generations \u2192&nbsp; perpetuation &amp; reintegration of cultural form.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Though unique, but cultures shows comparable features when cross cultural categorise are applied to them.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Acc to Mead<\/strong> NCS must take into al considerations of degree of local govt, regionalisation, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Contribution to National Character Studies<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>to show that, socialisation continued beyond infancy &amp; early childhood &amp; national discourses could have an effect on personal character<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Contribution to the modern anthropological understanding of the rise of nations &amp; international relations.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticisms<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>methods suitable for small simple societies are not applicable to complex modern society.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Psychologist <strong>Klineberg (1944) : <\/strong>Difficult to integrated diff sections in cultural character.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Sampling problems in Anthropological study.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>National character studies in the war &amp; post war periods were subsequently criticised by scholars for their <strong>homogeneity &amp; over -generalisation<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Swaddling hypothesis of Geoffrey Gorer\u2019s was regarded as unworkable, simplistic &amp; hastily determined<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Ralph Linton<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Introduction &#8211; Famous \u24c5&nbsp; who began as archeologist, but shifted to <strong>cultural \u24b6<\/strong>. Primarily interested in personality structure, social &amp; cultural processes &amp; material culture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Theoretical Contribution<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Core periphery hypothesis<\/u><\/strong><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/478026d7-423f-91fe-8979-8124bec49cee\">\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Culture<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Overt<\/strong> \u2192 which is seen &#038;public\n<ul>\n<li>Material Culture &#8211; including tools, artefacts , houses etc<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Kinaesthetical culture &#8211; consisting of behaviour among people<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Covert<\/strong> \u2192 hidden, people unaware of\n<ul>\n<li>everything is hidden in <strong>Psychological aspect or element <\/strong>which gives <strong>real meaning to culture. I.e it is Cultural core <\/strong>consisting of <strong>Central Values<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>It consists of values, ideas, norms &amp; beliefs etc &#8211; which are not seen<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Have to be <strong>inferred from human behaviour<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It is around this core, <strong>entire personality<\/strong> is build up.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Benedict called this core \u2192 cultural complex &amp; cultural pattern<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Linton notes 3 <strong>types of culture<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Real culture<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; (Actual behaviour)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Ideal Culture <\/u><\/strong>(philosophical &amp;&nbsp; tradition culture)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Cultural construct<\/u><\/strong> (what is written on cultural elements)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He believes every culture is centred ground <strong>CORE<\/strong> around which personality is build up\n<ul>\n<li>if core affected \u2192 culture disintegrates<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>changes in superstructure \u2192 more acceptable.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus, this hypothesis is very imp study of social change.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Evaluation<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; theoretical work based on abstract , introduced <strong>psycho-dynamism<\/strong> to school of culture &amp; personality.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Personality<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>In his \u201c<strong>The Cultural Background of Personality&#8217; (1945) <\/strong>he defines personality as \u201corganised aggregate of psychological process &amp; stages pertaining to individual\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He believes personality to be <strong>organised aggregates of habits <\/strong>\u2192 thus tried to examine from <strong>functional point of view.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>3 stages in personality structure<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>dev of behavioural responses to situations<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>reduction of these responses to habitual forms<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>production of already estal habitual forms.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He suggest that, there is <strong>aggregate of needs in society<\/strong> \u21d2 to satisfy this \u21d2 individual has to make response in stimulus way => also as <strong><u>Stimulus Response<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Suggested 3 ways of making responses\n<ul>\n<li>Imitation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Trial &amp; Error<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Intellectual Method<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Classified Responses<\/u><\/strong> as\n<ul>\n<li>Emergent Response<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Established Response<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Also as\n<ul>\n<li>Specific Response<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Generalised Response<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Concepts by Linton<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Basic culture<\/strong><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/671f8666-3cfd-ce1b-07ad-4e2950bbdf92\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Status Personality <\/strong><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/20224ee6-965c-a2c9-1fb7-dff3a53618e4\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Social Inventor <\/strong><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/a35baf4d-6e13-4023-7523-8435157d6601\"><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Status &amp; Role<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>given by <strong>Linton in 1936<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Role, Acc to Him = rules of behaviour appropriate to given status or social position\n<ul>\n<li>Definition useful in <strong>functional analysis<\/strong> with <strong>synchronic framework<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Criterium for Role (prescribed by linton)\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Ascribed<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>By birth<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Based on age, sex, kinship, caste, class<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Achieved<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Based on qualities \/ capacities<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Need to significant training or efforts<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Linton points out <strong>Role conflicts<\/strong> due to <strong>conditions of disjunction<\/strong> ie. when interacting members of role pair category have learnt diff roles &#038; have <strong>diff expectations<\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>becoming increasily frequent in complex Societies are traditional roles are challenged.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Simple Societies \u2192&nbsp; ascribed roles.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>modem societies \u2192&nbsp; acheived roles.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Thus due to treatment of culture &amp; personality in very sound a scientific manner, Linton introduced <strong>psycho-dynamism<\/strong> in C-P school.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Abraham Kardiner &#8211; Basic personality school<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Kardiner in his book \u201c<strong>The psychological Frontiers of society<\/strong>\u201d says In a given culture, there is same kind of uniformity in Child rearing practices. Therefore individuals brought up in same child rearing practices have common personality. He called it Basic Personality School.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Background of Abraham<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>psychiatrist &amp; psycho analyst<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>studied under <strong>Sigmund Freud<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>concept of &#8216;Basic Personality&#8217; \u2192 very popular<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>best known for his <strong>pychodynamic<\/strong> approach to stud C &amp; P<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Talked about <strong>inseparability &amp; interdependence<\/strong> of C&amp;P.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Historical Background of Base Personality Approach<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Developed jointly by <strong>Abraham Kardiner &amp; Ralph Linton<\/strong>, in response to configuration approach.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It mean that in every culture, there are common characteristics of personality among all members of group, which is the basic personality type of the groups\n<ul>\n<li>It <strong>outcome<\/strong> of <strong><u>cultural influences on the individual<\/u><\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Basic Personality<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>In his \u201c<strong>The Psychological Frontiers of society\u201d (1945) <\/strong>Kardiner said that we should speak of common personality<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Common personality shared by people people &#8211; who are product of same kind of <strong>socialisation<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Adoptive psychological skilll shared by all or most members of society \u2192 Basic personality<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Constituents of Basic personality &#8211; <strong>ideal, Idea, Ego, Superego<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>emphasised on <strong><u>childhood experience<\/u><\/strong>&nbsp; &amp; <strong><u>cultural determinants<\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Since <strong>Basic personality<\/strong> \u2192 product induced by in society&#8217;s members by <strong>specific institutional forms<\/strong> in each society, the form, content style of coping with problems changes from society to society.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>in culture \u2192 some uniformity in child rearing practices \u2192 thus common personality&nbsp; i.e <strong>Basic personality type.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Primary &amp; secondary institution<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>kardiner <\/strong>divided the institutional aspect of culture into two categories &#8211; 1\u00b0 &amp; 2\u00b0<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Primary institution<\/strong> \u2192 those elements have most influence on shaping basic P. (<strong>Structures)<\/strong> of society&#8217;s members.\n<ul>\n<li><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Institution that directly impacts <strong>socialization<\/strong> Practices &amp; <strong>child rearing <\/strong>&amp; cornered with <strong>disciplining, gratifying &amp; inhibiting <\/strong>the child . Is considered to be most influential in creating BP. Since Early rearing most influential in creating Base personality.&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>It\u2019s Elements<\/strong> &#8211; Family, serval process of refinement.\n<ul>\n<li>E.g Sanskars among Hindus<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Secondary Institution \u2192 <\/strong>Aka <strong>Projective Systems<\/strong> &#8211; those which satisfy the needs created by primary institutions. Or Product of basic personality itself\n<ul>\n<li>(Manifested thr ) Includes taboo system, beliefs system, mythology, fake lore, ethic<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>collective fantacy products of subjectively shared wishes, needs and conflicts.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Kardiner argued \u2192 Basic Personality would mould contents &amp; meaning of projective systems.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The <strong>basic personality express<\/strong> itself in the group\u2019s ideologies, in emotional &amp; cognitive orientation to life &amp; death.&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He has present <strong><u>Dynamic model<\/u><\/strong>for study of basic P type &#8211;<strong>serve to explain the cultural change<\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>If&nbsp; changes in primary institution&nbsp; \u2192 Secondary institution also changes.<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/526d03ca-bf1b-7da6-c037-8ad58e9718cb\"><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>thus due to similarity in cultural Practices \u2192 we can speak of <strong>national character&#8217;<\/strong> which makes people in one context different from others<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Case study<\/u> &#8211; <\/strong>In Morquesean society&nbsp; In Polynesian,<strong> kardiner<\/strong> observed that primary institution like family, m&#8217;age, etc are responsible for formation B.P of which is reflected in 2\u00b0 institution like myth, Religion, folklore. <strong>Ex<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Scarce resource &amp; periodic starvation \u2192&nbsp; Population control method like \u2640infanticide \u2192 fraternal polyandry \u2192 formation of BP of bearing grudge against woman b\/c neglection in childhood by mother + Type of m\u2019age \u2192 reflected in type of literature depicting woman as villainous.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>plausibly explained on existence of cultural insti.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>failed to explain differences b\/w 1\u00b0 &amp; 2\u00b0 institution.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>did not discuss &#8216;cultural functions in totality.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No answer to differences in societies. i.e patrilinear &amp; matrilinear, some&nbsp; Societies practising cross cousin mage, others not.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Cora-Du Bois &#8211; Model Personality Approach<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Model personality approach was the <strong>brain child of Cora Dubois<\/strong> &#8211; in response to the criticism of her earlier work that included basis personality structures. She was heavily influenced by work Kardiner &amp; Linton, she <strong>modified to great extent<\/strong> their notion of basic personality structure with her <strong>modal personality theory.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Cultural \u24c5&nbsp; interested in C-P school.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Best known for her study &#8211; <strong><u>people of Alor (1944) of Indonesia<\/u><\/strong>\u2192 dev. concept of <strong>model personality<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Model personality assumes that <strong>certain personality structure is the most frequently occurring within society<\/strong>. But this is <strong>not common to all<\/strong> members of society. <em>Quote example<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>She applied (utilises)\u00a0 number of approaches to her works such as\n<ul>\n<li>Participant observation , Projective Tests (The Rorschach &amp; TAT, especially ) , Along with Life biographies &#8211;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>creating stronger basis for personality types due to use of statistics to back up conclusions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Once the modal personality is established through tests, it becomes relatively easy to relate its feature to dominant social pattern&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Historical Background<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>during WWII &#8211; impossible to do fieldwork ; but need of psychological profile fo enemy. Hence <strong>projective technique<\/strong> &#8211; <strong>study of culture at distance.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Many used this approach like &#8211; Ruth Benedict, Cora-du-Bois etc<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>This approach utilises <strong>projective test along with life histories<\/strong>, creating a stronger basis for personality types due to the use of statistics to back up conclusion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Model personality<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>worked on &#8216;Alor&#8217; in Indonesia &#038; collected\n<ul>\n<li>traditional ethnographic data<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>8 lengthy biographies<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>children&#8217;s drawings<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Projective Technique<\/strong> &#8211;&nbsp; Later gave all this data \u24c5 like <strong>kardiner, Emil oberholzer<\/strong> \u2192 Not told source of data. Thus these specialist worked &#8216;blind&#8221;.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Results of all these specialist \u2192 Showed great correspondence. E.g All noted about Alor\n<ul>\n<li>Shallowness in emotional life<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>suspiciousness&#8230;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>apathy<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>insecurity<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>These conclusions were made by pulling all results. She called it \u201c<strong>Model Personality<\/strong>\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>while Basic P. \u2192 inferred from cultural&nbsp; data model ; P \u2192 directly derived from testing<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus, with model Personality, she showed that while there are <strong>individual variations<\/strong> in culture, but each&nbsp; <strong>culture favours dev. of particular type of&nbsp; Personality<\/strong>, which will be most common within that cutture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Sexual Division of Labour &amp; adores Personality<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Dubois observed that sexual DoL affected personality in Abrs.\n<ul>\n<li>\u2642 &#8211; rear Pigs &amp; involved in distribution of pork &amp; other meats<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u2640 &#8211; Involved in agriculture &amp; Food gathering<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>So, \u2640 \u2192 in Tedious time consuming \u2192 Child Ignored \u2192 Taken care by father &amp; brother \u2192 Frustration, anxiety &amp; distrustful individual \u2192 No commitment&nbsp; in relationship<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Evaluation<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>following this, many \u24c5\u00a0 used this <strong>Projective technique. <\/strong>Eg.\n<ul>\n<li>Kroeber, G. Foster \u2192 personality of peasant.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Oscar lewis \u2192 personality of POW in Maxico<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Many Anthropologist studied the psychology of marshal race I.e Rajput \/ Kshatriya<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Reduced <strong>impressionistic<\/strong> qualities of earlier studies.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Model P. \u2192 true reflection of people in culture<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Criticism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Anthony wallace<\/strong>, <strong>Bert kaplan<\/strong> found her result very neat But <strong>not satisfactory.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>kaplan questioned existence of model P. in any society.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Discrepancies found in b\/w statistical averages &amp; actual individual performance (by wallace &amp; kaplan).&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong>&#8211; Dubois, heavily influenced by work Kardiner &amp; Linton,&nbsp; brought a new level of competency to culture &amp; personality structure. Her experience as an ethnographer &amp; psychologist provided valuable link in the chain of thought of the culture &amp; personality schools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Cultural Materialism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>originated in 1920s<\/strong> as reaction against idealism, structuralism &amp; cultural relativism, who neglected &amp; rejected Comparison in the different cultures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Historical Background<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Tradition of CM can be traced back to <strong>Leslie white &amp; Julian steward<\/strong> with (Cultural) ecological approach also focusing on how surrounding impact culture.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Marvin Harris<\/u><\/strong>, American anthropologist historian <strong>gave his theory of CM<\/strong> in \u201c<strong>The Rise of Anthropological Theories\u201d (1968)<\/strong>. In his fieldwork in <strong>Mozambique<\/strong>, he shifted focus of study from <strong>ideological features<\/strong> to <strong>behavioural features<\/strong> of culture.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Historical Background of Marvin Harris<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>He was an American Anthropologist &amp; Historian<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Harris was influenced by <strong>Historic &amp; dialectical materialism<\/strong> of Marx &amp; Hegel<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Main Aim \/ Theme of Study<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Acc to Harris<\/strong> is to create pan human science of society of man whose findings can be accepted on logical &amp; evidential grounds by pan human community.&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>to explain sociocultural change on basis of change in material culture as &#8211;&nbsp; technological &amp; economic aspects play primary role in shaping the society through productive(economic) &amp; reproductive(demographic) systems for e.g women\u2019s Role in post world war USA.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Cultural Materialism : Assumption \/ Premise<\/u> &#8211; <\/strong>Marvin Harris states that : Human have need like food, water procreation. The <strong>way human being chooses to organise these needs for their fulfilment gives rise to culture<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Methodology<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Fieldwork in <strong>Mozambique<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Relies on <strong>ETIC approach<\/strong> of cultural study as Harris says that it makes it more scientific,generalised and realistic<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It focuses on those entities &amp; events that are <strong>obseravable &amp; quantifiable<\/strong>, and can be my studied using operations that can be replicated.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It seek to explain the organizational aspects of politics &amp; economy &amp; ideological suit &amp; symbolic aspects of society as a result of combination of variables relating to basic ideological needs of a society.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Concept of CM<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>In his books Harris<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>tried to explain cultural similarities &amp; differences<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>and also gave models for cultural change within a society<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>in his <strong>Fieldwork in Mozambique <\/strong>\u2192&nbsp; he shifted focus of study from ideological features to behavioral features of culture<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Etic approach<\/u><\/strong> necessary to examine observable &amp; quantifiable aspects of culture.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Acc tp Harris Societal Framework<\/strong> dependes on 3 factors\/ aspects:<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/2a9fda0c-9994-a8f4-09df-8610bf42d078\">\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Infrastructure<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Physical \/ material realities \/ aspect<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Consists of Harris idea of cultural core<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Tech for survival, economy for production &amp;&nbsp;demography -system of Reproduction&nbsp; dominate &amp; determine other facets of culture.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Structure<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>grows out of infrastructure &amp;&nbsp; grows on social relations (kinship,descent,patterns of descent etc) \u2192&nbsp;&nbsp; all indicate organisational aspects of culture<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Superstructure<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>ideological &amp; symbolic aspects of society &amp; religion (religion,myth,rituals etc)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>they indicate the behavior and mental patterns of the society like punishment,art etc<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Relation<\/strong> among above 3 factors is <strong>unidirectional<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Driving force<\/u><\/strong> behind cultural change \u2192 <strong>satisfaction<\/strong> of basic needs of prod\u2019n &amp; Reprod\u2019n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Priority of Infrastructure<\/u> &#8211; <\/strong>frastructure\/material aspects mould &#038; influence structure &#038; super structure\n<ul>\n<li>out of the above 3 it is the infra which will determine structure and super-structure(religion &amp; ideology) <strong>e.g<\/strong> Hindu prohibition of killing of cattle.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Examples<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Cow slaughter taboo in India<\/u><\/strong> \/ <strong><u>Sacred cow&#8221; in India<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Harris came to testify his hypothesis of CM In India<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Taboo of cow slaughter = superstructure arising from <strong>economic need<\/strong> of preserving cow.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Farmers believe that cow never die as they are sacred.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus, preservation of cow is <strong>eco necessity (Infrastructure)<\/strong> which brings change in In <strong>religias belief (superstructure)<\/strong> to accomodate intra. need.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Maxin Morgolis<\/strong> \u2192 study of woman in USA.\n<ul>\n<li>1950 ;&nbsp; ideology \u2192 duty of women \u2192&nbsp; home (emic approach)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>1980s ; \u2640 entered workforce in large no.\n<ul>\n<li>B\/c <strong>economic necessity<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>result \u2192&nbsp; increased productive &amp; Reproductive Capacity of us household.<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/60297336-18c6-e015-5a86-953dc47fcb06\"><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Harris\u2019 example of materiastic perspective on fall of USSR <\/strong>\u2192\n<ul>\n<li>Neighbouring state of Rusia thought that Russia as Prospering on their contribution<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus infrastructure requirement of State demanded disintegration resulting in fall of superstructure l.e. communism<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Achievements\/contribution to Anthropological Studies<\/u><\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Made Anthropology more scientific\n<ul>\n<li>Rather than relying on natives solely Harris urged analyst to use emperical and replicable methods.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Use\/importance of etic view &#8211; to understand situation holistically.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Cultural change &#8211; study across <strong>space &amp; temporal boundaries<\/strong> to get \u201c<strong>universal nomothetic theories<\/strong>\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Influence on other braches\n<ul>\n<li>ex &#8211; <strong>Archeology<\/strong>: <strong>Willian Rathje<\/strong> in his <strong>Garbage project<\/strong> in <strong>Arizona<\/strong> excavated landfills to study difference b\/w stated &#038; adual alcohol consumption\n<ul>\n<li>found huge discrepancy in data.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus importance of etic view to find Observation overlooked by emic view.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>influenced American school especially <strong>chicago school <\/strong>to take 3rd world Studies \u2192&nbsp; influence on <strong>LP. vidyarthi<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>shifted focus of study from ideological features to behavioral features<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Smithsonian magzine<\/strong> tagged Harris as cone of most controversial \u24c5&nbsp; alive&#8217; for his sweeping overgeneralisations.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It was termed as <strong>Vulgar materialism<\/strong>&#8216; by marxist &#038; J. friedman\n<ul>\n<li>Reason : b\/c of its empirical approach to cultural change is too simple and straight forward and as Harris suggested unidirectional change<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>idealist<\/strong>: Materialistic view is ethnocentric<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>structuralism<\/strong>: emic view is key to understand Cultural change &amp; behaviour of members of native society.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>post modemist<\/strong> : rejects materialism as a whole due to negliance of relativism.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Works like <strong>Rappaport&#8217;s &#8216;Rig for the Ancestors(1968)&#8217;<\/strong> prove that superstructure elements like religion also equally impact infrastructure &amp; structure<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Despite the criticisms,the theory helped challenge anthropologists to adopt more scientific approaches to explain cultural phenomenon<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Symbolism &amp; Interpretative Theory<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Symbolic anthropology is a school of thought emerged in America that seeks to study how people understand their surroundings through symbols &amp; their interpretation. Most imp scholar being <strong>Geertz, Turner &amp; Schneider<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Historical Background<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; came as a reaction to<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Structuralism<\/strong> -though used symbols but not emphasised on symbolism\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Geertz<\/strong> in \u201c<strong>Cerebral Savage : on work of Claude Levi Strauss<\/strong>\u201d &#8211; criticised structuralism as downplayed role of individual actors in their analysis<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whereas symbolic Anthropology believed in \u2018<strong>Actor-centric interpretation\u2019<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Materialism<\/strong> -ignored symbols &amp; mental term<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Marxism<\/strong> &#8211; based on western assumption of materialism &amp; eco needs<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Edmond leach<\/strong> made a <strong>distinction b\/w sign and symbol<\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>Sign refers to <strong>empirical connection<\/strong> b\/w two entities e.g. fire and smoke.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Symbol is an <strong>arbitrary connection<\/strong> b\/w two things e.g. killing Ravan by Ram on day of Dashehera.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Leading Figures &amp; School of Though<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; all three belonging to <strong>university of Chicago<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Symbolic Approach &#8211; <u>Vitore Turner<\/u> : School of Turner<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Acc to him &#8211; symbols initiate social action ie Every culture has some symbols and these symbols instigate some social action<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Influenced by Emile Durkheim<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Main Aim<\/strong> &#8211; Study how symbols operate within the society<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Subject Matter <\/strong>&#8211; interested in <strong>operations of society<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Interpretative Approach &#8211; <u>Clifford Geertz<\/u> : School of Geertz<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Acc to him &#8211; Humans are in need of symbolic sources of illumination to orient themselves wrt particular culture<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Influenced by Max Weber<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Main aim<\/strong> &#8211; Study the manner in which symbols shape the ways that social actors see, feel &amp; think about the world<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Subject Matter&nbsp; &#8211; <\/strong>Interested in <strong>operation of culture<\/strong> rather than the ways in which symbols operate in a social process. &amp; how symbols relates to one another<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Both &#8211; <strong><u>David Schneider<\/u><\/strong> &#8211;&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Symbolic Anthropology : Theme of Study<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>studies the way people understand their surroundings as well as <strong>actions and utterances <\/strong>of other members of the society<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>studies <strong>symbols &amp; processes like myth &amp; ritual<\/strong> by which humans assign meanings to symbols to solve fundamental questions of human social life<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>views <strong>culture<\/strong> as independent system of meanings deciphered by interpreting symbols and rituals<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Basic Premises<\/u> &#8211; <\/strong>major premises governing symbolic anthropology<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Acc. to Geertz : humans are in need of Symbolic \u201c<strong><u>Source of illumination<\/u><\/strong>\u201d to orient themselves <strong>wrt<\/strong> particular culture \u2192 <strong><u>Interpretative Approach<\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Acc. to Turner :&nbsp; symbol initiate social action \u2192&nbsp; <strong>symbolic Approach<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Acc to Leslie White &#8211; Man is a symbolic animal\n<ul>\n<li><strong>beliefs<\/strong>, however unintelligible, become comprehensible when understood as part of a cultural system of meaning<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Actions<\/strong> are guided by symbolic interpretation i.e allowing symbolism to aid in interpreting ideal as well as material activities<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Methodology<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>based on <strong>cross cultural comparision<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>major change from science based approach to <strong>literary based approach<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>focus largely on <strong>culture as a whole<\/strong> rather than isolated parts<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Contribution \/ Concept<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Turner&#8217;s Social Drama concept<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>symbols produce transformation,which exert determinable influences inclining people and groups to action.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Turner called this as social drama<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Geertz Approach to study of symbols<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>symbols operate as vehicles of culture<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A simple must not be studied in itself but for what it reveals about culture<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Thick Description<\/u> given by Geertz<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>to describe his interpretative approach<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Thick description &#8211; <\/strong>is the interpretation of <strong>what the natives are thinkinh <\/strong>(the mental processes and reasoning of natives) made by an outsider(ethnographer) who cannot think like a native but is guided by anthropological theory<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Hermeneutics<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Geertz used hermeneutics in his studies of symbol systems to try to understand the ways that people \u201cunderstand and act in social, religious, and economic contexts \u201d\n<ul>\n<li>Eg : <strong>Balinese cockfight<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Accomplishments<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Turn in anthropology towards the issues of <strong>cultures &amp; interpretation <\/strong>rather than development of grand theories<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Geertz main contribution : changing orientation of American \u24c5 to view culture<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The theory helped anthropology to grow out of the bounds\/turn to sources outside of traditional boundaries such as philosophy,sociology<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Main goal was to <strong>understand culture in a practical way<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Geertz main emphasis on studying culture <strong>from the perspective of the actors<\/strong> who are guided by the cultures (EMIC view ie actor center view of Geertz)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Tuner\u2019s major contribution &#8211; how symbols operate<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>by <strong>Marxist<\/strong> &#8211; no attempt to explain system of symbolism instead major focus\/overemphasis on individual symbols<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Talai Asad<\/strong> attacked <strong>Dualism<\/strong> in Geertz&#8217;s approach about external symbols and internal dispositions<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Cultural ecologists<\/strong> &#8211; attacked symbolic anthropology for their unscientific &amp; unverifiable interpretations<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Since different anthropologist view symbols in different ways, it was attacked being too subjective.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u> &#8211; <\/strong>They gave a new dimension to study of culture thus making cultural studies more holistic manner and oriented towards cultural berears. Emic approach helped to interpret culture <strong><u>\u201cThr natives eyes.\u201d<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Clifford Geertz<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>In his &#8216;The <strong>interpretation of culture&#8217; (1973)<\/strong>, Geertz said to analyse culture <strong>not<\/strong> by experimental science in search of law, but by interpretative method in search of meaning.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Culture expressed by <strong>external symbols <\/strong>that society uses rather than being locked inside people&#8217;s heads.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Societies use symbols to express worldview value orientation, ethos.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>For <strong>Geertz symbols<\/strong> are &#8220;<strong><u>vehicles of culture<\/u><\/strong>&#8221; &amp; thus studies Symbol in what they revedl about culture. His main Interest was manner in which social actor &#8216;thinks, feels, see &#8216;about the world.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Concepts \/ Contribution<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Geertz concept of Cultural text<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Culture is like literary text that can be analyzed for meaning as ethnographer interprete It.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Thick Description<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; description of particular form of communication used ; as each symbol in culture has serval meaning attached to it &#038; each meaning can be understood in context.\n<ul>\n<li>The term by introduced by philosopher <strong>Gilbert Ryle<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Geertz used this to explain <strong>aim of interpretive anthro<\/strong><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/aad4ed9b-fae1-a82e-828c-598852ebdfd5\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It is interpretation of what natives are thinking , made by outsider who can\u2019t think like native, but guided \u24b6 by theories.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>To illustrate, Geertz uses <strong><u>Gilbert Ryle&#8217;s example <\/u><\/strong>of diff b\/w &#8220;<strong>wink &amp; &#8216;blink<\/strong>\u201d though physical morm of both = same cultural interpretation = diff.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Such interpretations \u2192 produces <strong>stratified hierarchy of meaningful structures.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Hermeneutics<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Geertz used it to understand ways that people &#8220;understand and act in social, religious &#038; economic Context&#8221; <strong>ex<\/strong> &#8211; <strong>Balinese Cockfighting.<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Art form representing various aspects of social life &#8211; hierarchy, Competition, starters arrangements.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Case Study<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>\u201cDeep Play : Noes on Balinese CockFight<\/strong>\u201d eassy in the book \u201c<strong>The interpretation of cultures<\/strong>\u201d\n<ul>\n<li>It addresses the symbolism &amp; social dynamics of cockfighting in Balinese culture.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>employing the method of <strong>thick description, Geertz <\/strong>inscribed the phenomenon of cockfighting into a detailed context, envisaging it as a cultural phenomenon that represents a \u201c<strong>simulation of social matrix<\/strong>\u201d and reveals the <strong>non-obvious hierarchies<\/strong> that pervade the entire society.\n<ul>\n<li>Ex, women &amp; young &amp; socially disadvantaged people are not allowed to attend cockfights,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>while the main players are the most respected and politically involved members of the community.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The actual cockfight is a <strong>human competition<\/strong>, delegated to animals, where the winner gets <strong>respect &amp; admiration <\/strong>from the others, while <strong>money&nbsp; is secondary<\/strong>.&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the cock in <strong>Bali<\/strong> symbolizes masculinity, and the rules of <strong>cockfights<\/strong> in every village are passed down through generations along with other legal traditions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Victor Turner<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Influenced by <strong>Structural functional School.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Turned to ritual symbolism during his studies of <strong><u>Ndeumbu Villages of Zambia \ud83c\uddff\ud83c\uddf2<\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Not interested in symbol as &#8220;vehicle of culture&#8221;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>studied symbols as &#8220;<strong>operation in social process<\/strong>.\u201d\n<ul>\n<li>Symbolic expression of social meaning lie at <strong>centre of human relationship.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Symbol <strong>instigate social action<\/strong> &amp; exert influence on persons &amp; groups for inclining to action.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Symbols, thus <strong>produce social transformation<\/strong> which tie people in society to society&#8217;s norms \u2192 thus <strong>resolve conflicts<\/strong>, <strong>aid changing,<\/strong> Status of actors.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Contribution\/ Concept<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Social Drama<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Concept by turner to study dialectic of social transformation &amp; continuity<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Social Drama spontaneous a unit of social process &amp; fact of everyone&#8217;s experience in every human society.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Occur within group that shares values &amp; interest<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Can be broken into 4\u00a0 acts.<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/bd3394d5-daee-a56e-a18b-005b54cf7c25\">\n<ol>\n<li>Rupture of social r\/l<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Crisis that cannot be handled by normal strategies<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Re-est of social r\/l<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Reintegration ( return to status quo) Or alteration in social r\/l (schism)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>He dev concept of Social Drama to a\/c for <strong>symbolism of conflict &amp; crisis resolution among<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Turner\u2019s Concept of Symbol<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Acc to him, symbol of diff kind coherently bound into meaningful part of culture. Ex &#8211; In Ndembu Society, child is given white sap of particular tree as milk which <strong>symbolises<\/strong><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/49a7b11e-5ba8-ce06-17cd-5cb65ebd2016\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus each symbol serves as symbol for other<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>There is <strong>logical progression<\/strong> : from <strong>material symbols<\/strong> \u2192 <strong>action symbols<\/strong> \u2192 <strong>Institutional<\/strong> symbol<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">David Schneider<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>No Complete break from structuralism as by Geertz &amp; Tumer, Rather <strong>modified<\/strong> Levi strauss&#8217;s idea&nbsp; of culture as set of relationships,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>defined <strong>culture system as \u201ca series of of symbols<\/strong> and as \u201csomething which stands from something else. ( contrast to other elaborate definitions)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Regularity in behaviour<\/u><\/strong>&#8211; Not necessarily culture can be inferred from regular pattern of behaviour.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>interested in connections b\/w &#8211;<strong><u>cultural symbols<\/u><\/strong> &#038; <strong><u>observable events<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Strove to identify the symbols &amp; meanings that governed rules of society&#8230;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Symbol \u2192 something that stands for something else<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>was interested in r\/l b\/w cultural symbols &amp; observable events \u2192 strive to identify symbols that govemed rule of society.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Contribution\/ Concept<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Schnedider\u2019s Taxonomical Approach<\/u> &#8211;<\/strong> culture is system of serval classes of symbols (eco, political ) \u2192 all these are interrelated &amp; their totality represent culture.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Cognitive Theory<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Andrade<\/strong> defined <strong>cognitive anthropology<\/strong> as the study of relationships b\/w society &amp; human thought\u201d. I.e provides a link b\/w human thought process &amp; physical &amp; ideational aspects of culture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>aka <strong>Ethnoscience or New Ethnography &#8211; <\/strong>as the problem of ethnography validity was tackled through linguistic ( Etic &amp; Emic), with the discovery of the phoneme, anthropologist got the opportunity to understand the culture in native language.&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Historical Background<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Rooted in Franz boas\u2019s cultural relativism &#038; influenced by Anthropological Linguistics, closely aligned to psychological investigation.\n<ul>\n<li>He ecouraged the investigations in tribal categories of sense &amp; perception.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>emerged in USA in <strong>1950s<\/strong> as a critic to the then existing traditional ethnography ,questioning the methods of it &#8211; &amp; ethnographers sought <strong>emic point of view.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>they were inspired from <strong>Sapir-Whork hypothesis<\/strong> on how language shaped peoples perceptions<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Initially focused on \u2018<strong>Folk Taxonomies<\/strong>\u201d in 1960s &amp; 1970s<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Most recently ; developed with growth of <strong>Schema Theory <\/strong>&amp; development of <strong>consensus theory<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Leading Figures<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Stephen Tyler<\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Harold Conklin<\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Schools \/ Types<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Ethno-scientists<\/strong> focus on making ethnographs more scientific &amp; replicable<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Theme of Study<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>They study the ways in which people conceive &amp; think about event &amp; objects in the world<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Not only who different people organise culture but also how they utilise culture.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Contemporary CA. Attempts to access the organising principles that underline &amp; motivate human behaviour.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Basic Premises \/ Assumption<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Closely <strong>linked to psychology<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Study of how particular group categories &amp; reasons about basic nature of cognitive process.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>There are <strong>universal cognitive processes<\/strong> -they explain the innate structure of human brain<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Psychic Unity of Mankind<\/strong>-concept given by <strong>Adolf Bastian<\/strong> is generally accepted in CA<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Remove <strong>ethnographer bias<\/strong> fro research process<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Methodology<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>adopted <strong>EMIC<\/strong> approach-to discover &#8216;native&#8217;s point of view&#8217;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>gave huge importance to study of <strong>symbols especially language<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>rigorous elicitation procedures &amp; controlled questioning of native speakers<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Objective of Study : the way material phenomenon is in human mind.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>use of different method<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Old<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Feature Models<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Folk Taxonomies<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Configurational Recording<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>New<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Pile Sort Method<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Item by item matrix<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Triad Method<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Most imp methodology- <strong>study of linguistic<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Contribution \/ Concepts<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Culture is composed of logical rules based on ideas that can be accessed in the human mind<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Stephen Tyler<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>humans simplify their chaotic world through classification<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>each culture has its own classification categories to make sense of their reality<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Eg : study of Koyas<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Harold Conklin<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>People construct their world in terms of their culture<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Culture as a cognitive system<\/strong> helps them segregate significant from non-significant and decide the <strong>course of action<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Eg : study of Hanunoo Colour Categories(1955)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Accomplishments<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>provided detailed &amp; reliable description of cultural representation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>challenged idea of monolithic cultures<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>revealed some inner aspects of human mind<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Provided bridge b\/w culture &amp; functioning of mind.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>development of <strong>cultural methodologies<\/strong> that are valid &amp; reliable representations of human thought<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>brought the concept of <strong>New Ethnoscience <\/strong>ie more importance to emic perspectivez<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Keesing<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; CA not able to move beyond analysis of artificially simplified &amp; trivial domains<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Universal agreement on how to find culture in min is yet to emerge<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Not applicable to non-verbal behaviour<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>can hardly reach generalisation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The approach is deemed to be too abstract<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u> &#8211; <\/strong>Despite the above criticisms Cognitive Anthropology is an important attempt to move more closer to actual native world and perceptions which lead to emergence of<strong> New Ethnoscience. It is <\/strong>concerned with <strong><u>Emic Interpretation<\/u><\/strong> of meaning. It helps to understand how meaning is acquired by people i.e learning process&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Harold Conklin<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>American anthropologist who conducted extensive <strong><u>ethno-ecological&amp; linguistic field research<\/u><\/strong> in <strong>SE Asia<\/strong> (particularly Philippines) and was <strong>pioneer of ethnoscience.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>specially interested in <strong>linguistic &amp; ecology<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Studied <strong>Harunoo tribe <\/strong>&amp; <strong>Ifugao (N. Luzon)<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Imp. contribution to study of <strong>kinship Termindogy<\/strong> in his &#8220;<strong>Ethnogenealogical method&#8221; (1969)<\/strong> and &#8220;<strong>Lexicographical Treatment of folk Taxonomien&#8221; (1969)<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>His study on <strong>color perception<\/strong> in <strong>Hanunoo<\/strong> dows\n<ul>\n<li>study from early <strong>ethnoscientific<\/strong> approach.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Colour categorisation<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Among&nbsp; <strong>Hanunoo<\/strong>, to prove whether <strong>Sapir-Whork hypothesis <\/strong>is true or not. In his study, he interview students about colour &amp; related back how that colour associate with things that exist in their daily lives.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Identified that <strong>language<\/strong> one speaks will provide linguistic constructs &amp; lexical categories, thus largely influencing <strong>perception of world.&nbsp;<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Found out <\/strong>that difference in manner in which diff lang classify colour code.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Conklin came up <strong>oppositions dichotomy,<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Light vs Dark<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Dryness vs Wetness<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Also 3rd opposition \u2192&nbsp; related with colourless substance ; often associated with manufacture goods.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Also noticed <strong>diff. vocabulary<\/strong> in lang based on speaker (Men lang differed from woman)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Colkin concluded that what appear <strong><u>colour confusion<\/u><\/strong> at first may be result from inadequate knowledge of internal structure of colour system &amp; from failure to distinguish sharply b\/w sensory reception &amp; perceptual categorisation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Thus proposes that our colour perception is not about how many words we havae but rather the ways in which colour are perceive in our social structure.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conklin\u2019s Linguistic Study<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Used <strong>Sapir &amp; whorf hypothesis<\/strong> in r\/l with lang &amp; though<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Came up with ideal that <strong>lang<\/strong> is not just tool of commutation, but rather a way people communicate base on their perception of world.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Concepts by Harold Condition<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Culture as ideation system<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; culture is system of knowledge that reveals how material phenomenon are organised in <strong>minds of people<\/strong> &amp; transmitted as Khouredge from generation to generation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Common design<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; each culturels ideational system i.e, unique set of concepts, rules, Categories. At the same time, <strong>common<\/strong> deign to all culture exist.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Language of culture<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; culture as a Cognitive system can be understood by examining interrelation b\/w Language &#038; sultare.\n<ul>\n<li>If lang &#8211;&nbsp; conceptual code underlying speed<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Then culture &#8211; conceptual code underlying <strong>behaviour<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Stephen A. Tyler<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Concepts \/ Theories<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Cognitive \u24b6<\/u><\/strong> &#8211;&nbsp; study of r\/l b\/w human culture &amp; human thought.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Concept of culture<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Acc to him, culture is <strong>mental construct<\/strong>. It is cognitive org of <strong>material phenomenon<\/strong>. i.e. they reveal how things, events, behaviour emotions are organised in mind of human being.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Real Culture<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Acc. to Tyler, real culture exists only in minds of culture bearers. Each society has it&#8217;s own mental map of culture.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Cultural differences in cognitive org <\/u><\/strong>culture differs from each other in their cognitive org of material phenomena.\n<ul>\n<li>Tyler&#8217;s ex &#8211; <strong>Americans<\/strong> can distinguish b\/w dew, fog, ice &amp; snow whereas <strong>koyas of s.India cannot<\/strong>. However, koyds can recognise 7 types of bamboo, but americans know only 1.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Intellectual variation<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; culture differs in terms of organizing classes of Phenomenon even within themselves. Thus intellectual vanation.\n<ul>\n<li>example &#8211; American women names more Colour than american men..<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Post Modernism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Post Modernism is a school\/tradition of thought in anthropology that tried to find <strong>scientific theory<\/strong> of cultural evolution \/ functioning, which actually <strong>dehumanises <\/strong>the human society<strong>. It is basically a critic of science.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Historical Background<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>originated as theoretical perspective&nbsp; 1980s as a b\/c <strong>subjectivity in interpretations of different cultures. <\/strong>(modernism -induces rationalism, started with renaissance in Europe(14-16th century<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Anthropologist like <strong>James Clifford, Stephens &amp; Michel Foucault <\/strong>criticised the subjectivity in study of anthropology<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Foucault<\/strong> argued that those in political power were able to shape the way accepted truth is defined.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Criticised<\/strong> &#8211; FW &#8211; Ethnography, Science , Literary Sources&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Main Thinkers<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>in 1970s a group of <strong><u>post Structuralist<\/u><\/strong> in France, developed radical critique fo modern philosophy, came to known as Post &#8211; Modern notable among theme<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Jacques Derrida<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; French philosopher best known for developing form of <strong>semiotic analysis <\/strong>known as <strong>\u2018Deconstruction\u2019<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Undermined language of presence or <strong>metaphysics<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Michel Foucault<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Father of post Structuralism&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>James Clifford<\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Schools \/ Types<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; Post modernists have been divided into two very broad camps, skeptics &amp; Affirmatives<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong><u>Skeptics<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Against every theory<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Call for complete rejection of theories.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Affirmatives<\/u><\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Less rigid<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Call for Transformation of Existing Theories<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Basic Premises of PM<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>True objectivity is impossible, including in anthropological studies &#038; ethnography\n<ul>\n<li>Considered \u24b6 texts written in personal biases include by social &amp; political contexts<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Clifford Geertz \u2192 \u24b6 Writings are themselves interpretations &amp; 2nd &amp; 3rd ones to boot \u2192 Thus criticised disposition of \u24b6ist who conducting ethnographies &amp; writing grand theories.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>is a critic of science (due to <strong>subjective interpretation<\/strong> of culture in anthropology)of other schools on accounts\/ grounds &#8211;\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Ideological level<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Science is tool in hands of those in power &amp; position in society-utilise it in their benefit rather than human upliftment<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Eg : colonial powers used Anthropological understanding to further exploit communities as in case of <strong>Swasi tribe<\/strong>(South Africa)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Epistemological level<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>means method of gathering data <\/strong>i.e subjectivity of human object, anthropology can\u2019t be science.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>criticises <strong>participant observation <\/strong>method as questions the objectivity of data<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>consider data collected by anthropologists have their own biases<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Eg :Restudies conducted on <strong><u>Trobriand islanders<\/u><\/strong> highlighted that Malinowski neglected role of women played in society.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Restudies of Derek Freeman<\/strong> on Samoa after <strong>Margaret Mead<\/strong> highlighted subjectivity &amp; misplace arguments by Margaret Mead<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Post modernist view of Society <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/2b0450bd-3de0-d18c-dc84-e3a34e83d474\"><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Post modernism is suspicious of authoritative definition &amp; singular narrative of any event.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>PM concentrates on the tensions of differences &amp; similarity erupting from globalisation process.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Primary Tenants of PM<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Elevation<\/strong> of Text and language as fundamental phenomena of existance<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>application of <strong>literary analysis <\/strong>to all phenomena<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Questioning<\/strong> of reality and representation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Critic of meta narratives<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Argument against method and evaluation<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>General critic of western institutions &amp; knowledge<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Focus upon power relations and hegemony<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Cultural relativism \u2192 No objectivity w\/o this<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Methodology<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; 2 distinct methodologies are associated with this school<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol>\n<li><strong><u>Deconstruction<\/u> &#8211; demystification<\/strong> of texts to reveal what what is not explicit or what has been repressed. (Vincent Crapanzano)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Intuitive Interpretation<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; introspection based on individuals own understanding&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><u>Humanising Process<\/u><\/strong> of data collection (post Structuralism)\n<ul>\n<li>Says that data should not be tried to fit into pre-decided structural understanding of mind&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Focus on process of field work<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Accomplishments<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Critical Examination of Ethnographic Explanation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>led to <strong>heightened sensitivity <\/strong>within anthro to data collection<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Demystification<\/strong> -uncovered &amp; criticised epistemeological &amp; ideological motivations in social sciences<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Polyvocality<\/strong> -were against single narrative of any event supported thought of Polyvocality -any event can be looked from <strong>multiple angles &amp; multiple views<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Reaction from \u24b6<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>increased intradepartmental competition &amp; debate in anthropology field<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Anthropologist tried to relocate their methods&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Criticism<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Melford Spiro<\/strong> argues that <strong>without scientific method<\/strong> anthro will become dubious &amp; intellectually irresponsible<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Roy d&#8217;Andrade<\/strong> said that <strong>objectivity is possible and is not dehumanising<\/strong> i.e complete value neutral ethnography is impossible but should tried as much as possible.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>If Extreme relativism<\/strong> and if no one accepts single truth\/wrong then there will be chaos in the society &amp; will lead to <strong>nihilism, <\/strong>which is not desirable for Anthropology<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Undermines importance of university human rights, being extreme cultural Relativist in nature&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Conclusion<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Despite the above criticisms Post Modernism is an important anthropological perspective as it lead to giving anthro <strong>multiple views like polyvocality<\/strong> which tried to make anthro include native point of view and helping anthro to evolve as an holistic discipline<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Despite the criticisms the theory had a profound impact on anthropology.It has led to <strong>re-examination of the vary nature of ethnographical enquiry,along with heightened sensitivity in data collection<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>It<\/strong> can be concluded with spiro\u2019s argument that intellectual knowledge give power which comes up with responsibility to build empathy toward other &amp; utilise it for human upliftment, to solve the caution of PM.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Contemporary Relevance<\/u><\/strong> &#8211; As they support freedom, they are in support of homosexuals, feminism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Michel Foucault<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Was French philosopher who attempted to show that basic idea about how people think of permanent truths of human nature &amp; society change through the course of history.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Foucault\u2018s <strong>study of power &amp; its shifting Pattern<\/strong> is fundamental concept of postmodernism.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Basic &amp; Anthropological Theories Significant change&nbsp; occur here As Change is deviation from Normal hence&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v22.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>6.0: Anthropological Theories - Observing The Mortals<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/6-0-anthropological-theories\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"6.0: Anthropological Theories - Observing The Mortals\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Basic &amp; Anthropological Theories Significant change&nbsp; occur here As Change is deviation from Normal hence&hellip;\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/6-0-anthropological-theories\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Observing The Mortals\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100083666613359\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-09-21T04:05:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/875ef24a-49ba-990a-241e-a08d1dd0d7a0\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Othemortals\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"128 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/6-0-anthropological-theories\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/6-0-anthropological-theories\/\",\"name\":\"6.0: Anthropological Theories - Observing The Mortals\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-09-21T04:04:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-09-21T04:05:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/6-0-anthropological-theories\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/6-0-anthropological-theories\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/6-0-anthropological-theories\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"6.0: Anthropological Theories\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/\",\"name\":\"Observing The Mortals\",\"description\":\"Observing Mortals, Understanding Humanity\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Observing The Mortals\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/cropped-Observing-The-Mortals.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/cropped-Observing-The-Mortals.png\",\"width\":409,\"height\":263,\"caption\":\"Observing The Mortals\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100083666613359\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/Othemortals\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/observingthemortals\/\",\"https:\/\/t.me\/AnthropologyforNETJRF\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"6.0: Anthropological Theories - Observing The Mortals","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/6-0-anthropological-theories\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"6.0: Anthropological Theories - Observing The Mortals","og_description":"Basic &amp; Anthropological Theories Significant change&nbsp; occur here As Change is deviation from Normal hence&hellip;","og_url":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/6-0-anthropological-theories\/","og_site_name":"Observing The Mortals","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100083666613359","article_modified_time":"2025-09-21T04:05:03+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/public.www.evernote.com\/resources\/s696\/875ef24a-49ba-990a-241e-a08d1dd0d7a0"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_site":"@Othemortals","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"128 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/6-0-anthropological-theories\/","url":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/6-0-anthropological-theories\/","name":"6.0: Anthropological Theories - Observing The Mortals","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-09-21T04:04:59+00:00","dateModified":"2025-09-21T04:05:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/6-0-anthropological-theories\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/6-0-anthropological-theories\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/6-0-anthropological-theories\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"6.0: Anthropological Theories"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/","name":"Observing The Mortals","description":"Observing Mortals, Understanding Humanity","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/#organization","name":"Observing The Mortals","url":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/cropped-Observing-The-Mortals.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/cropped-Observing-The-Mortals.png","width":409,"height":263,"caption":"Observing The Mortals"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100083666613359","https:\/\/twitter.com\/Othemortals","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/observingthemortals\/","https:\/\/t.me\/AnthropologyforNETJRF"]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/609"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=609"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/609\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":610,"href":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/609\/revisions\/610"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.observingthemortals.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=609"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}