UNIT 9 THEORIES OF STRUCTURE AND

FUNCTION
Contents
9.0 Introduction
9.1 Functionalism and Structural-FunctionalApproach
9.2 Structuralism
9.3 Conflict Theories
9.4 Summary
9.5 References
9.6 Answers to Check Your Progress

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
The learners in this unit shall be acquainted with the approaches that have been used
by anthropologists in the study of society and culture:
 functionalism and structural-functionalism;
 structuralism; and
 conflict theories.

9.0 INTRODUCTION
In the earlier unit we had discussed the classical theories, some defunct and some
being revived for the study of society and culture. The classical theories like
evolutionism and diffusion gave way to the understanding of the society from the
context of here and now. Taking this argument forward in this unit, the focus would
be on the theories of function and structure.

9.1 FUNCTIONALISMAND STRUCTURAL-

FUNCTIONAL APPROACH
Functionalism is the name of an approach, a method, to undertake the study of a
society. It subscribes to the idea that a society is a whole (or a system) of
interconnected parts, where each part contributes to the maintenance of the whole.
The job assigned to the investigator is to discover the contribution of each part of
society to the whole and how societyworks together as an ‘ordered arrangement of
parts’. The parts of society are roles, groups, institutions, associations, and
organisations; and each one of them carries out a set of duties assigned to it. Because
of the contribution each part makes to the whole, which the society is, that it is able
to exist.
Functionalism believes that for the survivaland continuation of anysociety, a minimal
level of order is essential. The order comes when different parts of a society carry
out the work they are supposed to do. In this way, they contribute to the emergence

Contributor: Professor Vinay Kumar Srivastava, Former Professor and Head, Department
of Anthropology, University of Delhi. Currently Director, Anthropological Survey of India. 121
Theoretical Perspectives of order. When the needs of a society and the individual that comprise it are fulfilled,
which happens because of the coordinated working of its parts, order is bound to
result.
As a distinct approach, as a way of looking at and analysing society, functionalism
emerged first in social anthropologyinearlytwentieth century, and later in sociology,
beginning in the 1930s. However, its roots are as ancient as the concept of organic
analogy, used in the philosophyofAntiquitybyPlato (B.C. 428/7-345/7) andAristotle
(B.C. 384-322). Organic analogy is a way of conceptualising and understanding
society as an organism – as an organism has parts, so does society, and as these
parts are interconnected, so are the parts of society.
The term ‘functionalism’ is generally associated with the work of the Poland-born,
British anthropologist, Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942). In course of time,Alfred
Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955), another British anthropologist, argued in favour of
the term‘structural-functional approach’. TheAmerican sociologist, Talcott Parsons
(1902-1979) called the approach ‘structural-functionalism’. In its long history of
more than two hundred years, starting from the French thinkers of early nineteenth-
century to the newer developments in functional approach under the name of neo-
functionalism, functionalism has witnessed the emergence of a number of subsidiary
approaches, but all of them share certain ideas in common. Theyare all concerned
with the ‘problem of order’ – how does order come in society and how society is
able to endure over time.
Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), the French sociologist, is not a ‘functionalist’ in the
sense in whichthis termis used for the approach that the British social anthropologists,
Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski have espoused. Durkheim does not use the term
‘functionalism’, althoughhe defines the concept of social function. One comes across
in Durkheim’s works a fine coexistence of the diachronic (genetic, evolutionary, and
historical) and the synchronic (society ‘here and now’) approaches to the study of
society, but it is quite clear that the study of the contemporary society occupies a
preferred place in his writings. For instance, in his celebrated study of religion, he
begins with a consideration ofAustralian totemism as the most elementary form of
religious life, but he does not start speculating it as the earliest form and then, as his
predecessors had done, offering theories to explain it. He is rather more concerned
with the structure and function of totemism and how its study can help us in
understanding the place of religion in complex societies. This emphasis on the study
of synchronous (or ‘present’) societies exerted a tremendous impact onlater scholars.
The beginning of the twentieth centurysaw the continuation of the old evolutionary
approach and also, its gradual decline. It also witnessed the rise of functionalism.
Adam Kuper (1941- ) thinks that 1922 was the ‘year of wonder’(annus mirabilis)
of functionalism, for in this year were published two monographs that substantiated
the functional approach. One was byRadcliffe-Brown titled The Andaman Islanders,
and the other, by Malinowski, titled Argonauts of the Western Pacific. The impact
of anthropological functionalism was felt in other disciplines, particularly sociology.
Although there were scholars – such as Kingsley Davis (1908-1997) – who saw
nothing new in functional approachbecause theythought that sociologists had always
been doing what functionalists wanted them to do, there were others (such as Talcott
Parsons) who were clearlyimpressed with the writings of functional anthropologists.
As a result of the writings of these people, functionalism emerged as an extremely
important approach, holding its sway till the late 1960s and the early 1970s. In its
history of about 150 years, functionalism has come to comprise a number of variants
122
and foci. However, pointed differences exist between different functionalists.
 Theories of Structure and
Reflection Function
Notwithstanding their differences, it seems that all functionalists share the
following five propositions:
1. Society (or culture) is a system like any other system, such as solar
system, mechanical system, atomic system, chemical system, or organic
system.
2. As a system, society (or culture) consists of parts (like, institutions,
groups, roles, associations, organisations), which are interconnected,
interrelated, and interdependent.
3. Each part performs its own function – it makes its own contribution to
the whole society (or culture) – and also, it functions in relationship
with other parts.
4. A change in one part brings about a change in other parts, or at least
influences the functioning of other parts, because all the parts are
closely connected.
5. The entire society or culture – for which we can use the term ‘whole’
– is greater than the mere summation of parts. It cannot be reduced to
any part, or no part can explain the whole. A society (or culture) has
its own identity, its own ‘consciousness’, or in Durkheim’s words,
‘collective consciousness’.

The first approach in social anthropologyfor the analysis ofsocietywas evolutionary.

During the second half of the nineteenth century, almost every anthropologist was
concerned with two issues. First, how was the institution (or, cultural practice, trait)
established in the first place? What has been its origin? Second, what are the various
stages through whichit has passed to reach its contemporarystate?Both the questions
were important and relevant, but in the absence of authentic data, the early (or,
‘classical’) evolutionists extravagantly indulged in speculations and conjectures,
imagining the causes (or, the factors) that gave rise to institutions and the stages of
their evolution. Most of the evolutionists – barring a few possible exceptions, such
as Lewis H. Morgan (1818-1881) and Edward B. Tylor (1832-1917) – had not
themselves collected anydata on which theybased their generalisations. They almost
completely relied upon the information that travelers, missionaries, colonial officers,
and soldiers, who were in touch with the non-Western societies, provided, knowing
full well that much of these data might be biased, exaggerated, incomplete, and
incorrect. Because they themselves did not carry out any fieldwork, they earned the
notorious title of ‘arm-chair anthropologists’.
Both the founders of the British functional approach (Radcliffe-Brown and
Malinowski) were vehemently critical of the nineteenth-century evolutionism.
Radcliffe-Brown said that it was based on ‘conjectural history’, a term we used
earlier, and not ‘authentic history’. It was ‘pseudo-historical’, thus devoid of a
scientific value. For Malinowski, classical evolutionism was a ‘limbo of conjectural
reconstructions’. With the works of these scholars came a shift from:
1. arm-chair anthropologyto fieldwork-based studies;
2. the study of the origin and stages of evolution of society and its institutions
(diachronic studies) to society ‘here and now’ (synchronic studies);
3. the study of the entire societies and cultures (macro approach) to the study of
particular societies, especially the small-scale societies (micro approach); and 123
Theoretical Perspectives 4. an understanding of society confined to a theoretical level to putting the
knowledge of society ‘here and now’ to practical use, to bring about desired
changes insociety. Rather than remaining just an ‘academic studyof the oddities
of society’ – different and bizarre customs and practices – the knowledge we
have acquired should be used for improving upon the conditions of people, for
improving uponthe relations of localpeople with the outside world. Incidentally,
Malinowski called this concern of anthropology ‘practical anthropology’.
The scholars who later came to be known as ‘functionalists’ sought to shift the focus
of their study from ‘what societywas’ to ‘what societyis’, and this studyshould be
carried out not by speculative methods, but by living with people in their natural
habitats and learning from them, from the field.
It was not against the processes of evolution and diffusion that the functionalists
leveled their criticism, for they knew that they were important processes of change.
In fact, both Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski thought that after theywere through
most of their important fieldwork-based studies, theywould take up the study of the
processes of evolution and diffusion. What theywere against was a studyof the past
through ‘imaginative history’ rather than one based on facts. If authentic documents
were available about societies, they must readily be used for some insights into
change. But the functionalists noted that these documents were not available about
‘primitive and pre-literate’ societies, therefore we would not have anyknowledge of
the development of social institutions among them. Instead of speculating how they
have evolved, we should study ‘what they are’, using the scientific methods of
observation, comparison, and arriving at generalisations.
Check Your Progress 1
1. Which century saw the emergence of Functionalism as a distinct approach in
anthropology?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
2. What is organic analogy?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
3. Name the anthropologist with whom the term ‘functionalism’ is associated with.
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................
124
4. Who defined the concept of ‘social function’ and ‘collective consciousness’? Theories of Structure and
Function
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................

9.2 STRUCTURALISM
The term ‘structuralism’ refers to an approach in anthropology concerned with the
study of the structures underlying the social and cultural facts that are collected
during the course of a fieldwork study or from the alreadyavailable information in
archives, museums, and libraries. In other words, if the functional approach regards
fieldwork, the first hand study of a society, as the main method of data collection,
structuralism submits that the data for analysis can come from other sources. The
approach can be used on what is properly called the ‘secondary data’.
Structuralism had its origin in the study of languages, particularly in the work of a
French linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). One of the observations the
linguists (those who studythe language, its structure and function) have made is that
people are able to speak a language correctly, according to its norms, even when
they do not know its grammar. It was an exemplary work of the colonial scholars
and missionaries who unraveled the grammar of these unwritten languages. They
also prepared their dictionaries, and also helped in developing their scripts, although
they were invariablyfrom the scripts in which the colonial scholars wrote. Thus, for
example, the script in which the Naga dialects were written up was Roman, as the
scholars who worked on them were English-speaking.
In other words, the people had created their respective languages, having a hidden
grammar, of which they did not have any knowledge. It was left to the scholars
working on these languages to discover their grammars.As a language has a grammar,
of which the people are unaware, in a similar way, the institutions of society have
their underlying aspects, which we may call ‘structures’. Those who bear these
institutions, customs and beliefs, and live through them, do not know what these
underlying structures are. It is left to the anthropologists to discover them. So, those
anthropologists who devoted their skill to discovering the underlying structures (or
‘unconscious structure’, because people are not aware of them) called themselves
‘structuralists’, having been influenced by the French linguistic structuralism. If for
functionalism, the analogytaken for understanding and explanationwas of organism
(thus, ‘organic analogy’), for structuralism, it was of language. If functionalism was
influenced by biological science, structuralism was by linguistics.
To summarise, the approach to discover the underlying structure ofa language came
to be called the ‘structural linguistics’in the discipline of linguistics. In anthropology,
the approach to discover the underlying structure of society, of which people are
unaware, was called structuralism, the chief exponent of which was Claude Lévi-
Strauss (1908-2009). His name was almost used interchangeablywith structuralism,
for he was the sole, the giant, advocate of this approach. The point we wish to put
forth is that for Britishfunctionalism, wehave two names, of Malinowskiand Radcliffe-
Brown; for American functionalism, we have the names of Parsons and Robert K.
Merton (1910-2003); but for structuralism, we have just one name: Lévi-Strauss.
All thosescholars who followed himwere his admirer-critics, who made some changes
to his approach, here and there. They were not the independent proponents of 125
Theoretical Perspectives structuralism. These scholars who modified structuralismcame to be known as ‘neo-
structuralists’. The names prominent in this list are of Edmund R. Leach (1910-
1989), Mary Douglas (1921-2007), T.O. Beidelman (1931- ), and even, Louis
Dumont (1911-1998) (who worked on Indian caste system).
Structuralism did not conflict with the earlier approaches that were popular in
anthropology. It believed that there were other, equally important, ways of
understanding society. Societies have undoubtedlyevolved over time. It is mandatory
on our part to know their origin and the stages through which they have passed. So
is the fact that each societyhas to work for the survival of its members. The question
that functionalisminvestigated about the actual working of societyand how its parts
hang together is equally important. In a similar way is the fact that human beings in
their long history of survival on this planet have migrated from one geographical
space to another, carrying with them their culture, depositing it at another place, and
also, learning from their hosts. The approach called diffusionism is as significant for
understanding human life as are the other.
Thus, there are different ways of studying human societyand culture. One such way
is to take up an institution for study, find out its components, examine the way in
which theymake up the whole, and the design or pattern that thus results. By doing
this, we have moved to an understanding of its structure. Thus, socialstructure is not
given; it is not an empirical entity as said by Radcliffe-Brown. Social structure is an
abstraction from the observable reality, but it cannot be reduced to that. It is a
model that the anthropologists create fromtheir field study, primarilyfor the purpose
of study. Social structure thus is a methodological devise.
To take an example: each kinship system has its own rules of regulating blood ties,
sex and marriage. Besides the basic kin terms – for the mother or the father – that
mayhave across-cultural similarity– eachsocietyhas its own host ofterms. Sometimes
different relatives are called by the same terms, and sometimes, by different terms.
Rules of marriage differ from one society to another; so do the types. The point is
that as the societies are enormouslydiverse, so are their institutions. But structuralism
would submit that regardless of their diversitytheywould all have the same structure,
built on certain universal principles. In his first major work, on kinship, titled The
Elementary Structures of Kinship, Lévi-Strauss showed that it is the principle of
the ‘exchange of women’ which is universal, irrespective of the descent system that
is followed, which results in two models.
The first is when women are exchanged between two groups, over generations. It is
the practice of ‘sister exchange’, where those who give their women to the other
group are the same who receive women from the group to which they give. Thus, in
Lévi-Strauss’s terms, the wife-givers and wife-takers are the same people. Thus, a
symmetry is established. The other model is based on the principle of asymmetry.
Here, a group (say, A) receives women as spouses from group B, but transfers its
women (sisters) to group C. In this case, wife-givers to a group are different from
the wife-takers. Lévi-Strauss called the first, the system of sister-exchange, ‘balanced
reciprocity’, which is an exchange between two groups (Ato B, B toA).The second
is where endless groups are annexed to the system of exchange (A to B, B to C, C
to D, D to n…, from n to A) and the system closes when the women from the final
group return to the first group (from n to A). This model is called the ‘generalised
exchange.’ If the British anthropology stressed the descent relations (from father to
son, from mother to daughter) for understanding kinship, Lévi-Strauss became a
proponent of the idea that marriage established relationship between groups. In
126
French, the word ‘alliance’ means ‘marriage’, so Lévi-Strauss came to be known Theories of Structure and
Function
as an ‘alliance theorist’.
The structuralist tries to discover the structure of the entire society. That is why, the
critics saythat Lévi-Strauss was interested in the ‘global structure’. Such an ambition
bypasses (or ignores) the diversity ofhuman living. Moreover, societies change over
a length of time. The change may be slow, gradual, and imperceptible. With an
accumulation ofthese small changes, a new stage comes into being. The structuralist
did not incorporate the historical progression of societies in their analyses. That was
the reason, why structuralism came to be called ‘a-historical’. Although the
structuralists claimed that their method could be used for the analysis of everyaspect
of society, Lévi-Strauss confined his work to the study of kinship, totemism, and
myths. In fact, he devoted a major portion of his life to the study of myths; he
founded what has come be called the ‘science of mythology’. In the context of the
application ofstructuralism to the studyof different institutions ofhuman society, one
of the issues was how to use this method for the study of economic and political
relations, the impact of globalisation on the lives of people, the relations of oppression
and subjugation.
With the coming of the interpretive approach in anthropology, structuralism became
less popular. However, it succeeded in making an inroad in literature and art history,
especially in the studies of aesthetics and cultural products. As said in the beginning,
structuralism impressed some British anthropologists, but they were doubtful of its
‘cosmic ambitions’. They thought that the best application of structuralism would be
on a limited area, at a more regional level. This was a humbler approach for which
the term ‘neo-structuralism’ is used.
Check Your Progress 2
5. What does a structuralist do?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
6. ‘Structuralism had its origin in the study of languages.’ State whether this
statement is true or false.
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
7. Who was the chief exponent of structuralism?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

127
Theoretical Perspectives 8. Name the anthropologists a. British and b. American associated with
Functionalism.
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................
9. Name some of the scholars who worked on ‘neo-structuralism’.
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................
10. Who gave the concepts of ‘balanced reciprocity’ and ‘generalised reciprocity’?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................

9.3 CONFLICT THEORIES

Conflict theory is an ‘umbrella term’, which includes the writings of a number of
theorists who focused on the study of the ‘relations of conflict’, not only from the
disciplines from social anthropology and sociology, but also from the other social
sciences and humanities. Some of them trace their academic genealogy from Karl
Marx (1818-1883), the German social thinker, well known for his approach called
‘dialectical and historical materialism’ and the ‘theoryof revolution’. Others go back
to the political thinkers such as Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Hobbes (1588-1679).
Others think that the theory of conflict can be built up independent of Marx’s
contribution. However, most writers think that Marx’s writings on conflict have been
truly insightful and must be given a closer look irrespective of the fact whether the
society under study has a class stratification or not.
All conflict theorists agree that conflict is a general social form that should not be
limited to just episodes of violence. It is because in a common parlance, conflict is
usually concerned as synonymous with war. For social scientists, every society,
including the simple ones, has conflict inone form or the other. It maybe in the form
of dissents and disagreements, verbal duels and abusive behaviour, mentalor physical
violence, protests and uprisings, rebel movements and revolutions. It should not be
thought that each of these types is a closed one, because one form of conflict may
over time progress into another. For instance, an instance of dissent may aggravate
into bloodshed. The universality of conflict is well expressed in a statement from the
work of Ralf Dahrendorf (1929-2009): ‘The absence of conflict is an abnormality.’
Georg Simmel (1858-1918) similarly situated conflict at the centre of social life.
The term ‘conflict’ may have come into vogue in the second half of the twentieth
century, but the idea of conflict goes back in time. It was mentioned previously that
Marx, a nineteenth centurythinker, assigned a prominent place to conflict in changing
society. The popular statement that ‘conflict is the engine of progress’, follows from
the work of Marx. Going earlier in time, it was in the writings of Henri de Saint-
128 Simon (1760-1825), a French scholar, that one finds two ideas: first, the conflict
between the interests of the ‘industrialists’ and ‘workers’; and second, each stage Theories of Structure and
Function
carries in it the ‘germs of its own destruction’, because of which change occurs in
society. Experts say that these ideas of Saint-Simon, along with that of the others,
particularly G.W.F. Hegel(1770-1831), greatlyinfluenced Marx inshaping his theory.
No disagreement exists with respect to the idea that every society tries to maintain
order and cohesiveness (the idea of ‘social stability’) and also change over time
(‘social dynamics’). One of the initiators of change is conflict. Conflict exposes the
problems which surface in running the society smoothly. These problems must be
resolved, otherwise the working of society will be affected, thus obstructing the
fulfillment of its members’ needs. The resolution of these conflicts brings about a
change in society, leading to the emergence of order. However, the order thus
established is short-lived. With the passage of time, new crises surface, posing another
round ofconflicting situations, whichdemand resolution. Thought in this way, conflict
is, in the words of Lewis Coser (1913-2003), a ‘normal and functional part of
human life’. Further, he said: ‘Conflict is instinctual for us. We find it everywhere in
human society.’
The value of conflict as an important process of change got an impetus in Charles
Darwin’s (1809-1882) 1859 book titled On the Origin of Species, where it was
argued that the competition between members of the same species is so intense that
only those who are fit are able to survive and those unfit are eliminated. For Darwin,
‘struggle for existence’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ are the ways in which conflict is
expressed in the biological world. Some scholars, while not adopting Darwin’s views,
have developed the idea of conflict between ethnic groups. For example, a nineteenth-
century scholar, Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838-1909) spoke of the ‘struggle of the
races’.
By mid-nineteenth century, both the concepts of order and conflict received almost
an equal importance from the social scientists. However, some of them from France
thought that during the Revolution (1798-1799) so much of social disorganisation
has taken place that in case we lend further support to the idea of revolution, which
is an intensification of conflict, the situation which is so delicate would become a
matter of grave concern. Thus, they – which included the founder of sociology,
Auguste Comte (1798-1857) –opposed the idea of revolution, and later, the thesis
Marx put forth was that revolution is the prime mover of change. Durkheim held the
same view as did Comte, and so he opposed the socialist thoughts. The result was
that the theory of conflict was graduallyeclipsed. This led to a strengthening of the
theory of order – ‘how does consensus come in society’ rather than ‘how does it
change’.
The functionaltheorystarted making its appearance, as we saw earlier, inthe beginning
of the twentieth century. Durkheim’s two books – Division of Labour in Society
(1893) and The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1915) – explained
persuasively how division of labour and totemism (an example of the ‘elementary
religion’, as we saw earlier) contributed to social solidarity. And, when it was weak
or absent, what resulted was an increase in suicide rate. For these situations of
sudden change or where norms broke down and new norms had not made their
appearance, Durkheim used the word ‘anomie’. It was a state of ‘social illness’,
causing volcanoes of disruption.
Anthropological fieldworkers initiallyconcentrated onstudies ofsmallsocieties, which
were largely cut off from the wider world. Hence, the pace of change among them
was remarkably less than what it was in well-connected societies, where cultural 129
Theoretical Perspectives diffusion played an important role inspeeding up change. Because the small societies
had a strong system of norms and values, and people abided bythem, the probability
of violation of rules was far less. Thus, order seemed to prevail. These societies
appeared changeless. Such a situation misguided the anthropologists to think that
these societies were conflict-free. When Tylor, the British anthropologist, expressed
surprise on seeing no policeman in Mexican villages he had visited, the instant
interpretation was that theywere free from contra-normative actions. The argument
put forth was that there were societies in the world which did not require the
mechanisms of law and order because there was no infringement ofrules. The logical
conclusion was that conflict was not a worthy field of study. We should direct our
attention to the study of order. It was the triumph of the functional theory.
Whilst conflict found a respectable place in sociology much earlier, since its concern
was with modern societies where conflict abounded and was open, the entry of
conflict studies was delayed in anthropology, because one functional study after
another was tilting in favour of social harmony and equilibrium. Even when there
were indications that conflict was precipitating in small communities because of
asymmetrical culturalcontacts, attention was scarcelypaid to its study. For instance,
Malinowski in his Trobriand study noted that with the advent of missionaries in their
land, their youth dormitories were gradually disappearing, because the missionaries
were critical of such institutions. But Malinowski did not study the kind of conflict
that was brewing in the societybecause of colonisation.
In anthropological studies of conflict, Gluckman’s (1911-1978) work occupies an
important place. He noted that besides the conflicting situations as being introduced
from outside, the tribal societies have their contexts of disagreements and conflicts.
For example, when a ruler becomes a tyrant, and the people are unable to tolerate
the oppressive rule, they start protesting, demanding his replacement. These
movements are not for a change in the system, but only of the incumbent of the
office, in thiscase, the ruler. These social movements are knownas ‘rebel movements’;
and are different from revolutions, which demands a total change in the system. An
important lesson we learn from these studies is that tribal communities were far from
being placid and free from conflict. This once again supports the universality of
conflict in human society.
At this juncture, the functional theory stages a comeback by asking: If conflict is
universal as has been found through a number of field studies, then it must be
performing some functions. Here, we may refer to Coser’s ideas. He says that
conflict ensures the maintenance of a group and its cohesion withinits boundaries. It
also prevents its members from leaving. For substantiating these ideas, empirical
studies of the situations of conflict need to be carried out.

Check Your Progress 3

11. Name the scholars whose works influenced Marx.

............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................

............................................................................................................
130
12. Give the two ideas propounded by Henri de Saint-Simon. Theories of Structure and
Function
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
13. State how according to Darwin, conflict is expressed in the biological world.
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
14. Name the scholar who worked on the ‘struggle of races’.
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
15. What is ‘rebel movement’ according to Gluckman?
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................

9.4 SUMMARY
This unit provides an overview of the three main approaches in anthropology. The
functional approach, which has several sub-types, tries to explain how order comes
in society. It submits that unless there is order, society will not be able to survive.
The functionalapproach had its beginning in the nineteenth-century, especiallyin the
discipline of sociology, but in anthropology, it became a powerfulmethod to explain
the working of society and culture in early twentieth-century. Structuralism is an
approach which came to anthropology in mid-twentieth century from the field of
linguistics. The main proponent ofthis approach was Claude Lévi-Strauss, the French
anthropologist. Structuralism is concerned with discovering the underlying structure
of society. It believes that regardless of the diversity of human living, there is a
common structure that all societies share. Conflict theory submits that society is
always in a state of dynamism, and one of the processes that contributes to this is
conflict. Like the functional theory, it also has an early beginning. One of its early
proponents was Henri de Saint-Simon. However, Marx developed the idea, with
the result that most of the variants of conflict theory have been influenced by his
writings.

9.5 REFERENCES
Anderson, S. K. (2007). Conflict Theory. In Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Barnard, Alan. (2000). History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Harris, Marvin. (1968). Rise of Anthropological Theory. New York: Crowell. 131
Theoretical Perspectives
9.6 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
1. Twentieth century
2. see section 9.1. for detailed explanation.
3. Bronislaw Malinowski
4. Émile Durkheim
5. See section 9.2 for detailed explanation.
6. True
7. Claude Lévi-Strauss
8. British anthropologists were Bronislaw Malinowski andA.R. Radcliffe-Brown.
American anthropologists were Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton.
9. Edmund R. Leach, Mary Douglas, T.O. Beidelman and Louis Dumont.
10. Claude Lévi-Strauss
11. Henri de Saint and G.W.F. Hegel.
12. see section 9.3 for details.
13. a. struggle for survival and b. survival of the fittest.
14. Ludwig Gumplowicz
15. see section 9.3 for details.

132