Radcliffe Brown:

UNIT 1 RADCLIFFE-BROWN: STRUCTURAL Structural

FUNCTIONALISM
Functionalism

Structure

1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Intellectual Climate and Influences
1.2.1 The Field-work Tradition
1.2.2 The Durkheimian Tradition : Radcliffe-Brown’s ‘Conversion’
1.3 The Concept of Social Structure in Radcliffe-Brown’s Work
1.3.1 Social Structure and Social Organisation
1.3.2 Social Structure and Institutions
1.3.3 Structural Continuity and Structural Form
1.4 The Structural System in Western Australia
1.4.1 The Territorial Basis
1.4.2 The Tribe
1.4.3 The Moieties
1.4.4 The Totemic Group
1.5 Let Us Sum Up
1.6 References
1.7 Specimen Answers to Check Your Progress

1.0 OBJECTIVES
After studying this Unit, you should be able to:

• Mention the major intellectual influences which helped shape Radcliffe-

Brown’s brand of social anthropology;
• Describe the concept of social structure and related concepts elaborated by
Radcliffe-Brown
• See how these abstract concepts assume concrete shape through a case study
presented by Radcliffe-Brown.

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Block one of our course on Sociological Thinkers II looks at some of the early
sociologist who have contributed significantly in conceptualising and theorising
on the concepts of structure, function and their interrelations in studying society.


Adopted from IGNOU Course Material: Unit 25 of ESO 13 with modifications by
Prof. Kiranmayi Bhushi, IGNOU
13
Function, System In this unit we discuss in detail the work of Radcliffe-Brown and his exposition
and Structure
of structural functionalism. Radcliffe-Brown according to Adam Kuper (1973:51)
“.…. brought a more rigorous battery of concepts to the aid of the new
fieldworkers.” It is precisely one of these rigorous concepts that we will study in
this unit, namely, the concept of social structure.
To make our task easier, we will first briefly trace the intellectual climate
influences, which contributed to shaping Radcliffe Brown’s brand of social
anthropology. This will be the first section. In the second section, the major
theme of this unit will be described, namely, Radcliffe-Brown’s understanding of
social structure. The third and final section will focus on a case study. We will
briefly describe some structural features of tribes in Western Australia which
were studied by Radcliffe-Brown. This will help clarify abstract ideas through
concrete examples.

1.2 INTELLECTUAL CLIMATE AND INFLUENCES

Modern social anthropology, as Jain (1989: 1) puts it, is woven from the twin
strands of the fact-finding, empirical ethnographic tradition, on the one hand and
the ‘holistic’, analytical tradition on the other. The former is represented by
British and American anthropology, the latter by French social anthropology
which was profoundly influenced by Emile Durkheim. Let’s look briefly at the
intellectual climate of British Social Anthropology where fieldwork tradition
began to inform the study of societies.

In the early twentieth century, detailed studies of particular societies resulted in

the publication of several ethnographic monographs (A detailed Elective course
BSOE 144 is dedicated to the Ethnographic Tradition in Sociology and Social
Anthropology, you may want to check the course on Egyankosh if you have not
opted for it). These studies created the space for a new discipline - Social
Anthropology - in Britain. Social anthropology and sociology are closely related
subjects. The findings of social anthropology, largely derived from the studies of
non-Western societies, are of general relevance to the study of all types of
societies. This is the reason why the growth of social anthropology in the 1920s
and 1930s contributed to significant advances in sociological thought. Social
anthropology’s emphasis, under the leadership of Bronislaw Malinowski, on
studying societies on the basis of first hand observation became a turning point in
the development of sociological theory. It was so because social anthropologists
insisted that ethnographic account must be based on the study of a chosen society
through personal visits, lasting a year or more. In addition, they claimed that
societies ought to be studied for their own sake and they criticised those who
studied primitive cultures only to reconstruct the history of humankind.

Dominant among the ethnographers during the early twentieth century were those
who followed the Malinowskian tradition of collecting first-hand information
about primitive societies. Malinowski, as their leader, opposed both the
14 evolutionists and the diffusionists and went ahead with the task of establishing
social anthropology as an alternative way of studying human societies. Let us Radcliffe Brown:
Structural
now discuss how the new found interest in collecting data based on first-hand Functionalism
observation paved the way for the development of new ways of studying human
societies. Later the method of data collection came to be known as participant
observation by living among the people to be studied. Early practitioners of this
method chose to study primitive societies by focussing on all aspects of a
particular tribe.

Social anthropology as practised by Radcliffe-Brown bears the stamp of both

these traditions. Let us first consider the impact of the fieldwork tradition on
Radcliffe-Brown’s work.

1.2.1 The Field-work Tradition

Cambridge University, England, where Radcliffe-Brown studied, was going

through, during his time, an extremely creative and productive intellectual phase.
Teachers and students freely shared and challenged each other’s views.
Radcliffe-Brown became the first student of Anthropology under the mentorship
of W.H.R. Rivers in 1904. Rivers and Haddon had participated in the famous
‘Torres Straits’ expedition. Under the guidance of Rivers and Haddon, Radcliffe-
Brown was initiated into fieldwork. His first field studies (1906-08) dealt with
the Andaman Islanders. He thus became a part of the new, empiricist tradition of
British scientific anthropology. This was a major formative influence, which was
to persist throughout his career.

Emile Durkheim’s path-breaking work, The Elementary Forms of the Religious

Life (1912), had a profound impact on some British scholars. Radcliffe-Brown
was one of them. Let us now go on to see why he was so attracted to the
Durkheimian perspective.

1.2.2 The Durkheimian Tradition: Radcliffe-Brown’s ‘Conversion’

The contributions of Emile Durkheim have been systematically described to you

in our Sociological Thinkers 1 course. The Durkheimian tradition, in the words
of Adam Kuper (1975: 54), offered “...scientific method, the conviction that
social life was orderly and susceptible to rigorous analysis, a certain detachment
from individual passions...” Durkheim was optimistic that human beings would
be able to lead a life that was both individual and social, in a properly organised
society, i.e. a society based on ‘organic solidarity’ (see Glossary).

As you know, Durkheim advocated the study of ‘social facts’ in a sociological

manner. He spoke of studying these facts objectively, without preconceived
notions. In his view, society was basically a moral order. The concept of the
‘collective conscience’ was an important part of his work. Durkheim wanted to
develop sociology on the lines of the natural sciences i.e. as an ‘objective’,
rigorous science. All these ideas attracted Radcliffe-Brown. Durkheimian
sociology combined with Radcliffe-Brown’s admiration for the natural sciences
resulted in his ideas about the ideal society of the future. 15
Function, System In a nutshell, the impact of the Durkheimian tradition marked a shift in emphasis
and Structure
in Radcliffe-Brown’s work. The ‘ethnographer’ became a ‘sociologist’. From
mere gathering of descriptive, ethnographic information, an attempt was made by
Radcliffe-Brown to analyse this information using sociological concepts. He tried
to organise his data on comprehensive, theoretical lines. We will now go on to
examine an important concept developed by Radcliffe- Brown, namely, the
concept of social structure. In the meanwhile, let’s have a brief look at his
biographical sketch, following which we will attempt the check your progress
exercise.
Box 1.1 Radcliffe Brown
Alfred Reginald
Radcliffe-Brown (17
January 1881 –
24 October 1955) was
an English social
anthropologist who
developed the theory of
structural
functionalism. He was
educated at King
Edward's School,
Birmingham, and
Trinity College,
Cambridge (B.A., 1905;
M.A., 1909) He studied
psychology under
W. H. R. Rivers who,
(pic credit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index. with A. C. Haddon, led
php?curid=4303425) him toward social
anthropology. Under the latter's influence, he travelled to the Andaman
Islands (1906–1908) and Western Australia (1910–1912, with biologist and
writer E. L. Grant Watson and Australian writer Daisy Bates) to conduct
fieldwork into the workings of the societies there.
His time in the Andaman Islands and Western Australia were the basis of his
later books The Andaman Islanders (1922) and The Social Organization of
Australian Tribes (1930).

Check Your Progress 1

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answers.
ii) Check your progress with those answers given at the end of the unit.
1) ………and …….. had participated in the famous ‘Torres Straits’ expedition.
2) Radcliffe-Brown’s first field study was in ……………………..
3) Radcliffe-Brown was attracted to the rigorous conceptual contribution of
16 …………..
 Radcliffe Brown:
1.3 THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN Structural
RADCLIFFE-BROWN’S WORK Functionalism

According to Radcliffe-Brown, the basic requirement of any science is a body of

coherent concepts. These concepts are to be denoted by technical terms that are
accepted and used in the same sense by all the students of the subject. For
instance, physicists use terms like ‘atom’, ‘molecule’, ‘combustion’ etc.

The meanings and usages of these terms do not change from student to student.
Can the same thing be said about sociology and social anthropology? Radcliffe-
Brown points out that in anthropological literature, the same word is used in the
same sense by different writers and many terms are used without precise
definition. This shows the immaturity of the science.

He says that confused, unscientific thinking may be avoided by constantly

keeping in mind a clear picture of the nature of the empirical reality to be studied.
All concepts and theories must be linked to this reality. According to Radcliffe-
Brown (1958: 167), “the empirical reality with which social anthropology has to
deal, by description, by analysis and in comparative studies is the process of
social life of a certain limited region during a certain period of time”. What does
this “process of social life” consist of? Well, it involves the various actions of
human beings, particularly joint actions and interactions. For example, in rural
Indian society, we could speak of agricultural activities as ‘joint actions’. The
activities of youth clubs, women’s organisations, co-operative societies etc. also
imply joint actions.

To provide a description of social life, the social anthropologist must identify

certain general features. For example, when a sociologist studies agricultural
activities in rural India, he/she will try to derive its general features. How, when
and by whom are these activities performed? How do various persons co-operate
and interact during the processes of sowing, transplanting, harvesting, threshing
and marketing the produce? Some general features that the sociologist could
identify could include the composition of agricultural labour, the role played by
women and so on. It is these generalised descriptions which constitute the data of
the science. These may be obtained through various methods – participant
observation, historical records etc.

Do these general features remain the same over time? Well, different features
may change at different rates. Taking the example given above, we can see that
agricultural activities have exhibited a number of changes over the years. The
availability of agricultural labour has declined to some extent. Unlike in the past,
they resist brutal exploitation. Increasingly, machines, fertilizers, pesticides etc.
are being used. Despite these changes, we can still say that in most parts of the
country, women continue to do backbreaking work on the field without getting
due recognition for it. Any anthropological description, which accounts for
changes over a period of time, is termed a ‘diachronic’ description. A
‘synchronic’ description, on the other hand, refers to the features of social life at
a particular period of time. 17
Function, System Rigorous, clear concepts will, according to Radcliffe-Brown, help social
and Structure
anthropology to develop as a distinctive science; it enables generalisations based
on synchronic and diachronic explanations of social life. In this context, the
concept of social structure becomes an important one, helping us to see the entire
web of social relationships in a systematic way. Thus, we can gain insights into
the way society works and stays integrated.

1.3.1 Social Structure and Social Organisation

As Radcliffe-Brown (1958: 168) puts it, “the concept of structure refers to an
arrangement of parts or components related to one another in some sort of larger
unity.” Thus, the structure of the human body at first appears as an arrangement
of various tissues and organs. If we go deeper, it is ultimately an arrangement of
cells and fluids.

In social structure, the basic elements are human beings or persons involved in
social life. The arrangement of persons in relation to each other is the social
structure. For instance, persons in our country are arranged into castes. Thus
caste is a structural feature of Indian social life. The structure of a family is the
relation of parents, children, grandparents etc. with each other. Hence, for
Radcliffe-Brown, structure is not an abstraction but empirical reality itself. It
must be noted that Radcliffe-Brown’s conception of social structure differs from
that of other social anthropologists. You may read more about the diverse uses of
this concept in Box 1.2.

How does one seek out the structural features of social life? Radcliffe-Brown
says we must look out for social groups of all kinds, and examine their structure.
Within groups, people are arranged in terms of classes, categories, castes etc. A
most important structural feature, in Radcliffe-Brown’s opinion, is the
arrangement of people into dyadic relationships or person-to-person
relationships, e.g. master-servant or mother’s brother or sister’s son. A social
structure is fully apparent during inter-group interactions, and interpersonal
interactions. Having had a preliminary look at the concept of social structure, let
us see what Radcliffe-Brown meant by social organisation. Structure, as we have
seen, refers to arrangements of persons. Organisation refers to arrangements of
activities. For instance, whilst studying this Block you have organised your
activities, i.e. reading a particular section, attempting the exercises, referring to
Glossary whenever necessary etc. This is organisation at the individual level.
Social organisation is for Radcliffe-Brown (1958: 169) “the arrangement of
activities of two or more persons adjusted to give a united combined activity”.
For instance, a cricket team consists of bowlers, bat-persons, field persons and a
wicket-keeper whose combined activities make the game possible.

18
Box 1.2 The Concept of Social Structure Radcliffe Brown:
Structural
Functionalism
In the decade following World War II, the concept of social structure became
very fashionable in social anthropology. The concept has a long history,
though, and has been used by scholars in different senses.

i) The original English meaning of the word structure refers to building

constructions. The concept of structure in the sense of building or
construction can be discerned in early Marxist literature. Marx spoke of
the relations of production as constituting the economic ‘structure’. Marx
and Engels were profoundly influenced by the evolutionist Morgan
whose book Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity (1871) may be
described as the first anthropological study of social structure.

ii) By the 16th century the word structure came to be used in anatomy.
Herbert Spencer, who had an anatomical image of society in mind,
brought the terms ‘structure’ and ‘function’ into sociology. This image is
also to be found in the work of Durkheim from whom Radcliffe-Brown
drew many of his ideas. Following Radcliffe-Brown a number of British
scholars like Evans-Pritchard, Fortes and Forde concentrated on certain
formal aspects of, society like the political structure and kinship structure.

iii) Another dimension of the concept of structure can be seen in the work of
the French structuralist Levi-Strauss. His view of structure has been
drawn from linguistics and denotes an abstract, analytical model against
which empirical systems are compared. Certain patterns or regularities
are then discerned and explained.

Radcliffe-Brown illustrates the concepts of structure and organisation with

reference to a modern army. To begin with, the structure consists of arrangement
of persons into groups: divisions, regiments, companies etc. These groups have
an internal arrangement of their own, namely ranks. Thus we have corporals,
majors, colonels, brigadiers etc.

The organisation of the army or arrangement of activities can be seen in the

allocation of various activities to various persons and groups. Manning the
borders of the land, helping the Government during times of national calamity
etc. are some of the activities of an army.

Complete Activity 1 and try to inter relate the concept of social structure.

Activity 1

Study any one of the following in terms of their social structure and social
organization, (i) hospital, (ii) a village panchayat, (iii) a municipal
corporation. Write a note of about two pages and compare it, if possible, with
the notes of other students in your Study Centre.

19
Function, System 1.3.2 Social Structure and Institutions
and Structure
One of the basic premises underlying a social relationship (which, as we have
seen, is the building block of social structure) is the expectation that persons will
conform to certain norms or rules. An institution refers to an established, socially
recognised system of norms and behaviour patterns concerned with some aspect
of social life. A society’s family-related institutions, for example, set down
acceptable patterns of behaviour to which family members are expected to
conform. In our society, a child is expected to show respect to the parents; the
parents are expected to support and care for the child as well as aged members of
the family and so on.
Institutions, in Radcliffe-Brown’s (1958:175) words, “define for a person how he
is expected to behave, and also how he may expect others to behave”. Of course,
individuals do violate these rules from time to time and various sanctions exist to
cope with deviations. According to Radcliffe- Brown, social structure has to be
described in terms of the institutions, which regulate the relationships between
persons or groups. As he puts it, “the structural features of social life of a
particular region consist of all those continuing arrangements of persons in
institutional relationships, which are exhibited in the actions, and interactions that
in their totality make up the social life.” (1958: 175).

1.3.3 Structural Continuity and Structural Form

If, as Radcliffe-Brown describes it, social structure refers to an arrangement of
persons, we could conclude that once the persons die or disappear, structure must
also disappear. This, however, is not the case. Individuals may come and go, but
structure persists or continues. For example, social groups, classes, castes, have
an ever-changing membership. They lose members by death and gain new ones
by birth. For example, the Lok Sabha may lose members who may die, resign, or
lose the next election, but they will soon be replaced by new ones. A tribal chief
may die, but soon a successor takes his place. At this stage, we must highlight the
distinction made by Radcliffe-Brown between social structure and structural
form.
As we have seen above, the social structure is always in a state of flux.
Individuals are born and die, the composition of society is ever-changing.
Radcliffe-Brown argues that although social structures are in flux, the structural
form is comparatively stable. This structural form is reflected in the ‘social
usages’ or norms widely observed. These social usages persist, even though
persons come and go. The stability of this structural form depends on how well
integrated its parts are (e.g. family, educational system, political system etc.) and
the performance by these parts of the special tasks necessary to maintain it. For
instance, the special task of the family is the rearing and socialisation of children.
Educational institutions impart training, the political system is concerned with
governance. These tasks refer to ‘functions’ of the parts of the system. As a word
of caution it may be said that Radcliffe-Brown’s distinction between social
structure and social form is not made absolutely clear even in his own writings,
20 where the latter comes out as synonymous with social organisation.
 Radcliffe Brown:
In a nutshell, ‘social structure’, an important social anthropological concept Structural
developed by Radcliffe-Brown, refers to empirically observable phenomena, Functionalism

namely, arrangements or relationships of the members of a society. There is an

organisational aspect as well, which refers to a pattern of arranging the activities
people engage in. Social structure involves institutions, which define socially
acceptable rules and modes of inter personal behaviour. Social structure is
constantly in a state of flux, but the structural form an abstract concept taking
into account social usages is relatively stable. Its stability depends on how
effectively its component parts carry out their ‘functions’.

Thus far, we have been talking about social structure in a rather abstract way.
The best way to make these ideas crystal clear is through an example. Radcliffe-
Brown’s field studies took him to various parts of the world from the Andaman
Islands to Africa and to Australia. We will now focus upon the structural system
of the tribes of the Western Australia as studied by Radcliffe-Brown. This will
clearly demonstrate to you how social relationships help to build up the social
structure.

Before going to the next section complete Check Your Progress 2.

Check Your Progress 2

Note: i) Answer the following questions in two sentences each.
ii) Check your progress with those answers given at the end of the unit.
1) What did Radcliffe-brown mean by ‘Social Structure’ and ‘Social
Organisation’?
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
2) What are social ‘institutions’? Give an example.
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
3) Mark whether the following statements are True (T) or False (F).
a) People never violate institutions. (T/F)
b) The social structure is extremely stable whilst structural (T/F)
form is in a permanent state of flux.
c) According to Radcliffe-Brown, social anthropology can become (T/F)
a science only when it develops rigorous concepts.

21
Function, System
and Structure 1.4 THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM IN WESTERN
AUSTRALIA
Let us look some of bases of the social structure of these tribes as systematically
set down by Radcliffe-Brown.

1.4.1 The Territorial Basis

The essential basis of the structure of Western Australian tribal society, says
Radcliffe-Brown, was the division of the country into numerous distinct
territories. Each male belonged to his distinct territory from birth to death. His
sons and their sons inherited this territorial identity. The men connected to a
particular territory formed a “clan”, which was of basic importance in the social
structure. Where did women fit in? Well, girls belonged to their fathers’ clans.
Clan exogamy being a strict rule, they married men from other clans to which
they then belonged.
The men of a clan, along with their wives and children formed a ‘horde’, which
was identified by its distinct territory. The horde was an economically self-
sufficient and politically autonomous unit. Elders held authority. Its total
population was small, usually not more than 50 persons.
The horde was sub-divided into families, of the nuclear type. Each family had its
own home, hearth and food supply and was dominated by the male. It dissolved
upon his death. Even though the family was temporary, the clan was a permanent
group. The horde, however, was in a state of flux. The male members were its
nucleus, but females married out and new ones married into the horde. Briefly,
the ‘clan’ consists of the men identified with a particular territory. The ‘horde’
refers to the men of a clan along with their wives and children, the wives having
earlier been members of their fathers’ clans.

1.4.2 The Tribe

A number of clans having similar customs and language formed a linguistic

community or tribe. Radcliffe-Brown points out that unlike some other regions,
these tribes were not politically united, nor did they come together for collective
action. Different hordes and tribes had an important link, namely, the kinship
structure. As Radcliffe-Brown puts it, the kinship structure was “...a complex
arrangement of dyadic, person-to-person, relationships. A particular man was
closely connected through his mother with her clan and its members. He could
always visit their territory and live with the horde though he was not and could
not become a member of the clan. Different members of a single clan were
connected in this way with different other clans”. Similarly, a man had relations
with his grandmother’s clan, his wife’s clan and would probably keep in touch
with the clans his sisters had married into. Thus, the kinship structure involved a
large number and range of social relationships.

22
1.4.3 The Moieties Radcliffe Brown:
Structural
Functionalism
Read this sub-section very slowly and carefully because it may be unfamiliar and
confusing. The society Radcliffe-Brown was speaking of, namely, western
Australian tribes society was divided into two ‘moieties’. Moieties are the two
broad divisions into which society is divided. Each clan belongs to either one of
them. These moieties may be referred to as I and II. Further, society is divided
into two alternating generation divisions. Let us call them ‘x’ and ‘y’. If your
father belongs to generation ‘x’, then you will be part of ‘y’ and your children
will be ‘x’ and so on. Therefore, a clan always consists of persons of both
divisions. Society is thus divided into four “sections”, namely, Ix, ly, IIx and IIy.
Radcliffe-Brown mentions some of the names given to these sections, e.g.
Banaka, Burong, Karimera and Paldjeri.
In accordance with the tribal laws, a man must find a wife in the opposite moiety
in the same generation division, thus a man of Iy must find a wife from IIy. For
example, in the Kareira tribe, a man from Banaka section can only marry a
Burong woman.

Activity 2
Select any five of your married relatives (e.g., mother, brother, sister,
mother’s brother’s son/daughter, father’s brother’s son/daughter etc.) How
were their mates selected? Is there any relationship between the families
concerned? Write down your filings, and compare them, if possible, with the
notes of other students at your Study Centre.

1.4.4 The Totemic Group

Another basis of social structure is the totem. The totemic object is regarded as
the common ancestor of clan members.
Each clan has its own sacred totem-centres, myths, rites and ceremonies. The
totem lends solidarity and persistence. Radcliffe-Brown shows how some totemic
ceremonies (e.g. those for the initiation of boys) in fact lead to the co-operation
of a number of clans. These meetings of friendly clans mark out the religious
structure of society. Co-operation during ceremonies also implies some amount
of political unity, as these clans have forgotten any existing differences and have
co-operated on the basis of mutual trust and friendship.
What can we conclude from the above section? We can say that the structural
description provided by Radcliffe-Brown reveals a number of important things.
Structural description must take into consideration not just social groups (e.g.
family, clan, horde) but also the entire gamut of socially fixed dyadic
relationships, as has been done by Radcliffe-Brown in the description of the
kinship system of the Australian aborigines which you have just read about.
Radcliffe-Brown’s concept of social structure, though sometimes criticized as
being too general has been ably used by him in his studies. By focusing on the
formal aspects of social life, i.e., the way social life is built up or constructed, he
provides a valuable corrective to the extremely personal kind of description given
by Malinowski. 23
Function, System Indeed, the work of these two men who disliked each other intensely is in fact
and Structure
complementary. As Adam Kuper puts (1973: 51) it, “some saw Radcliffe-Brown
as the classic to Malinowski’s romantic”.
It is now time to complete Check Your Progress 3.

Check Your Progress 3

Match the following items.

a) Burong i) Linguistic community

b) Tribe ii) Economic and political self-sufficiency
c) Clan iii) Territorial identity
d) Horde iv) Kaieira tribe

1.5 LET US SUM UP

The theme of this unit was the concept of social structure, as described by A.R.
Radcliffe-Brown. We began with a brief look at the intellectual influences, which
helped shape his distinctive brand of social anthropology. We focused on the
impact on Radcliffe-Brown of the fieldwork and Durkheimian traditions.

Moving to the main theme, i.e., social structure, we defined social structure and
social organisation. We then spoke of social institutions, which are an important
component of structural description. We then considered how social structure,
though in a state of flux, has continuity. In this connection, we spoke of structural
form as well.

In order to make these new ideas clear, we moved onto a structural description of
some Western Australian tribes studied by Radcliffe-Brown. We saw some of the
bases of structural arrangements like territory, tribes, moiety, and totem.

1.6 REFERENCES
Kuper, A. (1973). Anthropology And Anthropologists: The Modern British
School. Routledge. Radcliffe-Brown, A.R., 1958.Social Structure. In M.N.
Srinivas (ed.). Method in Social Anthropology. University of Chicago Press:
Chicago.

1.7 SPECIMEN ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS
Check Your Progress 1
1) Rivers and Haddon
2) Andaman Islands
3) Durkheim
24
Check Your Progress 2 Radcliffe Brown:
Structural
Functionalism
1) By ‘social structure’, Radcliffe-Brown referred to patterns of social
relationships entered into by individuals or persons in a society. By ‘social
organisation’, he referred to the arrangements of the activities undertaken by
a group.
2) Social institutions are socially prescribed ways and rules of behaviour
involving the expectations of persons entering into an interaction, e.g. in a
classroom, teacher is expected to give a lesson; students are expected to pay
attention.
3) a) F
b) F
c) T

Check Your Progress 3

a) iv)
b) i)
c) iii)
d) ii)

25