Introduction of Social Anthropology:
The scope of Social Anthropology is vast, it has widened as the subject has developed. Right from its beginning till the end of Second World War, Social anthropology has limited scope but later it has required an over-arching and comprehensive scope.
History of Social Anthropology
The expression “social anthropology” came into vogue in Britain in the early part of the 20th century. In 1908, Sir James Frazer coined the expression when he was delivering a lecture in Liverpool University. According to Leach (1982), the founding fathers of social anthropology were: Lewis Henry Morgan (3877) in USA, Emile Durkheim (1895) in France and Max Weber (1919-1923) in Germany. Taking Morgan’s monumental work “Ancient Society: Researches in Line or Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization” as the guiding spirit, the British scholars cultivated Social Anthropology on scientific lines. The focus of attention was on society. As such Social Anthropology evolved In England and from there it diffused to the rest of the world.
Limited Scope:
Social Anthropology began as a science or primitive societies otherwise known as tribal, non-literate, simple, non-industrial or lowly societies. According lo Frazer (1908), the scope of social anthropology covers “beliefs, rituals, and ways of life, thought patterns of the primitive peoples”. In the words of Malinowski (1926), social anthropology is a “branch of sociology” restricting itself to the study of primitive societies. On the other hand, Radcliff-Brown preferred to call Social Anthropology as “comparative sociology” or ” the comparative theoretical study of forms of social life among the primitive peoples” and explained that even though it ‘studies society”, it involves “ the study of culture also” because “culture is an epiphenomenon of social life”, Evans-Pritchard (1951) regarded Social Anthropology as a branch of sociological studies “which chiefly devotes itself to the study of primitive societies”.
Nadel (1951) emphasized that social anthropology studies “the primitives, their cultures, their social life”. Similarly, Piddington (1952) viewed that social anthropology deals with the “culture of primitive communities”. Thus the scope of Social Anthropology before World War- II was limited to the study of primitive societies and cultures.
Widened Scope:
The scope of Social Anthropology widened in the second quarter of the 20th century. The reviews of Murdock (1951) on the researches hitherto conducted by social anthropologists revealed that social anthropology gamed wider scope between 1930 and l950.Seventeen years later, Joseph Greenberg (1968) identified “the actual stages through which the scope of social anthropology evolved”. First, it was concerned with the intensive study of primitive societies and cultures. Secondly, it dealt with the peasants in villages and with the peasants interacting with towns and cities. Finally it broadened its interests by studying the urban communities, the acculturated groups in non-western societies and the larger units such as nation-states besides applying the-research results to practical situations like industry, agricultural development and health services. As Srivastava (1990) rightly pointed out: ’till today, the interest of social anthropology in primitive society continues”‘, but “ to say that social anthropology even in contemporary times is only concerned with primitive societies amounts to drawing an outdated caricature of the discipline”. Today, the scope of social anthropology examines primitive, peasant and urban societies all over the world.
According to Walter Goldschmidt ( 1968), Foster (1972) and others, the scope of social anthropology today centers round several themes: (a) the study of modern adaptations of primitive societies and cultures, especially the problem of their integration with the modem world: (b) the study of peasant societies throughout the world especially the problem of their integration with the wider world; (c) the study of modern society or the study of one’s own society; (d) the study of specific institutions of modem society; (e) the study of national character ; and (f) the study of freedom, peace, war, human rights, gender relations, ethnic relations, development of communities, regions and nations, and international relations. Thus, through thc expression or its scope and the proliferation of themes of study, social anthropology within half of a century after its emergence acquired its identity in terms of universal appeal and applicability ofils results Evans-Pritchard (1968) was emphatic of the universal scope of social anthropology when he defined it as the study of “institutionalized social behavior in terms of family, Kinship systems, political order, legal procedures, religious custom and the relations between the contemporary or historical societies about which there is adequate data”.
Firth (1967) also expressed the same opinion when he said that “Social anthropology aims at understanding and explaining the diversity of human behavior by a comparative study of social relationships and processes over as a wide range of societies as possible. The social relationships studied are primarily those that are standardized or institutionalized, that are in which people are regularly concerned as the family, marriage and kinship, complexes of the economic and political organization, social control (including law),morality, ritual and religion.
Ideally, social anthropology is widely held as a science of society in time and space but In reality it studies cultural practices also. Long ago Frazer (1908), Radcliffe-Brown (1939) and Nadel (1951) stated this fact in clear terms. But Evans-Priichard (1951) said that social anthropology pays attention to the social relationships of people rather “than to the details of its cultural expression”. On the other hand, Levt-Strauss (1963), John Beattie (1964) and Leach (19S3) emphasized that even though the concern of social anthropology is only social life It continues to study society as well as culture because both are inseparable entities and inextricably interwoven with each other.
While examining the social life, it shows how a body of social relations exists amongst humans and how this body of social relations binds humans into corporate entities; and while examining the cultural aspect, it examines how culture acts as a design for living and how its material and non-material items guide humans in their endeavor to establish reciprocal social relations and facilitate collective corporate living (Srivastava: 1990).
Accordingly, social anthropology includes several branches and sub-branches to deal with both society and culture (Hoebel and Weaver: 1979).
Branches:
Social anthropology has apportioned its subject-matter between two major branches, namely ethnography and comparative ethnography. Ethnography is the descriptive account of a particular society given on the basis of fieldwork. It not only supplies raw material to socio anthropology, but also forms the building block of social anthropology. It is ideographic and synchronic. On the other hand, comparative ethnography is analytical, synchronic or diachronic, nomothetic and generalizing- It cultivates every aspect of society and culture as a branch of study. All such branches come under topical specializations. Similarly it also nurtures area- studies pertaining to the ethnographic zones of the world.The focus of attention of each arca-spccialization is on a total understanding of the society and culture within that area. Both the topical and area specializations revolve round theory building about society and culture.
Research Strategy:
In order to have such a broad coverage of primitive, peasant and urban societies, socio anthropology has adopted a research strategy in terms of six approaches:(a) the field work approach ( the process of collecting information by ‘‘participant observation” and by “going native temporarily”); (b) the holistic approach (understanding the total social- cultural realm in terms of its component parts and the parts in relation to the total social-cultural realm); (c) the comparative approach (cross-cultural coverage to know the full range of human behavior and the regularities governing the human behavior); (d) the systems and processes approach (breaking down the social and cultural systems into sub-systems and studying each sub-system in isolation and all sub-systems in their interrelation in order to have an integrated totality of knowledge of the social and cultural systems); (e) the emic and etic approach ( focus on folk view and scientist’s view to have a complete understanding of the social and cultural phenomena studied); and (f) the case study approach (an in-depth study of individuals, groups and events in the communities chosen for field work)
On the basis of its research results social anthropology derives the principles, regularities or laws underlying the social and cultural aspects of humankind- This becomes the theory of social anthropology. As it applies its research results to practical situations to solve the problems of different societies it acquires applied character. Thus socio anthropology stands as a pure as well as a utilitarian study of human society.