Key terminalogy: Social Structure , Social Organizations , Social Institutions , Structural Form , Function
Q. Comparison of understanding of social structure by R.C Brown and Levi-Strauss
The Structural Functionalism of R.C Brown wrote in his book Structure and Function in Primitive Society, 1971.
- In the structural-functionalist approach, to the study of society, social structure is one of the core concepts
- This approach is founded on the analogy between a society and an organism, which gained credence when it was presented in a scientific way, modelled on the natural science methods of biology.
iii) Radcliffe-Brown defined social structure as “an arrangement of parts of components related to one another in some sort of a larger unity”. It is “an arrangement of persons in relationships institutionally defined and regulated”. He has described the “institutionally defined and regulated” relationship as that between the King and his subject, between husband and wife, etc. Thus relationships within society are ordered by various mores and norms.
a) Social Morphology and Social Physiology
He has related the concept of social structure to the concept of social function. Concept of function, according to him is the “contribution which a partial activity makes to the total activity of which it is a part” . This concept involves the notion of a structure consisting of a set of relations amongst unit entities. The continuity of the structure is maintained by a life-process made up of the activities of the constituent units. He called the structural aspect of society Social Morphology, and the functional aspect of society Social Physiology.
b) Dyadic Relations
Radcliffe-Brown’s definition deals with all social relations of person to person which he calls dyadic relations, such as, between a father and son, or a mother’s brother and his sister’s son. He says that in an Australian tribe the whole social structure, is based on a network of person to person type of relations, which are established through genealogical connections. He includes under social structure, the differentiation of individuals and classes by their social role, for example, the differential social positions of master and servant, of ruler and the ruled, etc.
He distinguished between structure as an actually existing concrete reality empirically given and structural form. Just like the cells of an organism die out and are renewed, so also the individual members of society die and are replaced by new people born. Yet, the form of body remains same and so does the form of the social structure. Even during wars and revolutions, not all the framework of society is destroyed. For example, family institution is not only found universally but persists in all societies in spite of all changes.
c) Spatial Aspect of Social Structure
Society as an object of study is difficult to conceive of. According to Radcliffe-Brown , we do not often find a society or community which is absolutely isolated and having no contact with the outside world. In the contemporary period, we find the network of social relations extending throughout the world, having no clear-cut boundary as such. Thus, for example in the case of India we do not know whether India as a whole is “a society” or whether the several religious groups, linguistic groups, tribal groups, etc. are distinct societies. Therefore, we have to define, first of all, the unit of study and compare it with other units of suitable size to study the structural system as it appears in and around that region. This is the spatial aspect of social structure which can vary from a village or family to a whole nation or the world, depending upon the unit of study.
d) Social Laws
Law, economic institution, education, moral ideas, values, etc. are the complex mechanisms by which a social structure exits and persists. Most of the primitive institutions, values and belief appear in quite a new light if seen in relations to the social structure. For example, the ‘Potlach’ system of the Indians of the north-west America, appeared to the Canadian politicians as a wasteful foolishness. But for the social anthropologist it was a machinery for maintaining the social structure of lineages, clans and moieties, with which was combined an arrangement of rank defined by privileges. There are many other customs which appear ridiculous, but which perform tension removing functions in simple societies. Law is the mechanism by which the social structure is maintained, social relations between persons and social groups are defined, restored and maintained. The system of law of a society can only be fully understood if it is studied in relation to the social structure and vice versa.
e) Interests and Values in Society
The study of social structure leads immediately to the study of interests or values in terms of which social relations are defined. “A social relation”, according to Radcliffe-Brown “exists between two or more individuals when there is some adjustment of their respective interests by convergence of interests, or by limitation of conflicts that might arise from divergence of interests”. A social relation is not just similarity of interests, but is also based on mutual interests of persons in one another. The social solidarity results when two or more people have same goals and they cooperate with each other to achieve those goals.
f) Social Institutions
The study of social structure leads to the understanding of the network of social roles and, therefore, of social behaviour. Society reacts through its sanctions, in a positive or a negative way, to social behaviour. Sanctions maintain a given standard of social life. This include social laws, besides the norms, values, customs etc. of the society. The norms of society function through the social institutions of the society. Radcliffe- Brown has defined social institution as a social group which observes certain norms of conduct. The institution of a society, therefore, provides social ordering to interactions of persons in social relationship. This has two aspects, one is in terms of the social structure where it provides the norms to relationships, as within a family. The other aspect is the group or class, in which persons interact briefly or casually. An example of the first case, is the behaviour of a father in the family, of a doctor in the clinic, etc. The second case is that of the behaviour of a neighbour, a friend, etc. Thus, according to Radcliffe-Brown, institutions, being standardised modes of behaviour, constitute the machinery by which a social structure maintains its existence and continuity.
In spite of his extensive explanations regarding the concept of social structure, Radcliffe-Brown has been accused of being too general. Amongst others, Raymond Firth criticised his analysis of social structure “for not making a distinction between the ephemeral, i.e., short-lived and enduring elements in social activity and also for making it impossible to distinguish the idea of the structure of the society from that of the totality of the society itself” .
Extra Notes:
THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN RADCLIFFE-BROWN’S WORK
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. 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.
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.
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.
How does one seek out the structural features of social life? RadcliffeBrown 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 RadcliffeBrown’s opinion, is the arrangement of people into dyadic relationships or person-to-person relationships, e.g. master-servant or mother’s brothersister’s son. A social structure is fully apparent during inter-group interactions, and interpersonal interactions.
Structure, as we have seen, refers to arrangements of persons. Organisation refers to arrangements of activities. 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, fieldpersons and a wicket-keeper whose combined activities make the game possible.
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.
Social Structure and Institutions
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 RadcliffeBrown, 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).
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. 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, where the latter comes out as synonymous with social organisation.
In a nutshell, ‘social structure’, an important social anthropological concept developed by Radcliffe-Brown, refers to empirically observable phenomena, 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.
Case Study: 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.
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.
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 at tribe level 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.
The Moieties
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 ly must find a wife from IIy. For example, in the Kareira tribe, a man from Banaka section can only marry a Burong woman.
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.
Origin of concept of Social Structure – Just for Knowledge
The Concept of Social Structure
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 RadcliffeBrown 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.
THE CONCEPT OF FUNCTION
The concept of function is an important one in the science of biology. The various parts or components that make up the structure of a living organism have a definite role to play in maintaining it, in keeping it alive and healthy.
R.C Brown assumes that human societies must fulfil certain basic conditions so that they may exist. Just as the animal must breathe, eat, excrete and reproduce, so must the social organism carry out certain activities. These ‘necessary conditions for existence’ can, according to Radcliffe-Brown, be discovered by the proper kind of scientific enquiry. Let us now elaborate the connection between structure and function as described by Radcliffe-Brown.
Structure and Function
How do structure and function interact in the case of living organisms? The process by which the structure of the organism is maintained, is called ‘life’. The life-process involves the activities and interactions of the various cells and organs that make up the organism. In other words, it is the functioning of the various constituent parts of the organism that help maintain the structure. If our lungs or stomachs or hearts were to suddenly stop functioning, what would happen to the structure of our bodies? It would collapse and we would die. As Radcliffe-Brown (1971: 179) puts it, “….the life of an organism is conceived as the functioning of its structure. It is through and by the continuity of the functioning that the continuity of the structure is preserved” Let us turn now from organic to social life. The continuity of the social structure is maintained by the process of social life. Social life consists of the activities and interaction of various human beings and of the groups of which they are a part. Social life, in other words refers to the way in which the social structure functions. The function of any recurrent social activity is the part it plays in maintaining the continuity of the social structure. For example, marriage is a recurrent social activity. Through marriage, individuals of the opposite sex are brought together and society legitimises their sexual relationship. Children may be born and new members are added to society. Thus, by providing a socially acceptable outlet for sexual relations and providing a legitimate way through which society obtains new members, marriage contributes or performs a function in maintaining social structure. In Radcliffe-Brown’s (1971: 180) own words, “the concept of function ……thus involves the notion of a structure consisting of a set of relations amongst unit entities, the continuity of the structure being maintained by a life process made up of the activities of the constituent units”
Let us further emphasise the interconnections between social structure and function. Radcliffe-Brown points out that in the case of an animal organism, structure can to some extent be observed independent of function e g , we can study the human skeleton in terms of the way in which the bones are arranged, their differing shapes and sizes etc, without considering their function. But in studying human society ‘structure’ and ‘function’ cannot be separated. According to Radcliffe-Brown (1971: 181), “Some of the features of social structure, such as the geographical distribution of individuals and groups can be directly observed, but most of the social relations which, in their totality constitute the structure, such as relations of father and son, buyer and seller, ruler and subject, cannot be observed except in the social activities in which the relations are functioning”. In other words, ‘social morphology’ (i.e. the study of the kinds of social structure, their similarities, differences and classification) and ‘social physiology’ (the study of the way social structures function) are interdependent for Radcliffe-Brown.
Functional Unity
the function of social usage or activity refers to the contribution it makes to the functioning of the total social system. This implies that the social system has a certain kind of unity, which Radcliffe-Brown terms as ‘functional unity’. By this he means a condition in which all the parts of the social system work together in a harmonious, consistent fashion i.e. without producing persistent conflicts which cannot be resolved or regulated. For instance, if we take up the example of Indian society in Pre-British India, we may say that the various parts of the social system, e.g. village organisation, caste, joint family etc. worked together in a consistent fashion. They complemented each other and contributed to maintaining the existing social structure.
We have so far been restricting our discussion to the positive functions of social institutions, namely, their role in maintaining the social structure. Let us now turn to the possibility of dysfunction as described by RadcliffeBrown.
‘Eunomia’ and ‘Dysnomia’
The science of pathology deals with the problem of organic dysfunction, in other words, disease, when some part of the organism fails to perform its function adequately, disease results, which, if unchecked, may lead to death. In the case of organic structures, we can identify strictly objective criteria which can help us to distinguish disease from health, or pathological from normal. For instance, we can say that if the body temperature of an individual rises above 98° Fahrenheit, he/she is ill, or if the stomach secretes more than a certain amount of acid, the individual might suffer from ulcers. In other words, we can diagnose disease on the basis of certain standards or rules. Radcliffe-Brown points out that an attempt to apply the notion of health and disease to society and the state was made by the Greeks of the fifth century B.C. They distinguished ‘eunomia’ (good order, social health) from ‘dysnomia’ (disorder, social ill-health). In the nineteenth century, Durkheim tried to understand social pathology with the help of the concept of ‘anomie’. Radcliffe-Brown too adopts the terms ‘eunomia’ and ‘dysnomia’. He points out that societies’ do not fall ill and die in the same sense as animals do, and accepts that it is not possible to have definite, objective criteria to determine the ‘health’ of society, because the science of human society, according to him, is not mature enough to do so. For Radcliffe-Brown, the eunomia of a society refers to the harmonious working together of its parts or, in other words, functional unity or inner consistency of the system. Dysnomia, on the other hand is a condition of functional disunity or inconsistency. A society thrown into a state of dysnomia rarely dies, but instead struggles towards a new state of eunomia or social health. In the process, it might even change its structural type.
These concepts in Radcliffe-Brown’s view are particularly relevant for social anthropologists who in the course of their investigations come across tribes whose social structures have been thrown into disarray with the onslaught of the outside world, particularly Western domination.
The Historical Method and the Functional Method
Radcliffe-Brown mentions two methods for the interpretation of cultural materials, namely, the historical and functional methods. The historical method concentrates on the process of historical development of a culture, in other words, on how the culture has come to be what it is.
This method is useful only when the society to be studied has historical records. In the case of primitive societies with no historical records, this method proves deficient. The result may be conjectural or speculative history in other words, guesswork. This is not a particularly useful exercise. The functional method of interpretation, says Radcliffe- Brown, rests on the assumption that culture is an integrated system. Each element of the culture has specific function to perform in the life of the community. This method assumes that there are certain general laws of function, which are valid for all human societies and tries to discover and verify these laws with the help of logical, scientific methods.
It must be noted that Radcliffe-Brown sees both these methods as complementary in sociological investigations. He does not discard the historical method but points out its limitations in studying primitive societies. We have just seen how Radcliffe-Brown conceptualises social functions as the contribution made by the constituents of the social structure to maintaining the life and health of the society. We have studied the notion of ‘functional unity’, ‘eunomia’, ‘dysnomia’ and the use of the functional method in social-anthropological investigation. Let us now take a look at how Radcliffe-Brown uses the concept of function in studying actual social realities. We will focus upon the function of ‘ceremonial weeping’ amongst the Andaman Islanders, the study of totemism, kinship in primitive societies and on the relationship between the mother’s brother and sister’s son in certain primitive communities.
SOME EXAMPLES OF RADCLIFFEBROWN’S STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM
Radcliffe-Brown is more than just a ‘functionalist’, he is a ‘structural functionalist’. By this we mean that he is concerned not just with the way customs and social institutions fulfil certain needs or conditions of existence. He is also concerned with the connection between social relationships of various kinds. His method of structural-functionalism is best understood through some examples. Note how he combines in the following examples the use of the concepts of social structure and function in arriving at explanation. In his work, the Andaman Islanders, Radcliffe-Brown (1933: 230) writes: “Every custom and belief plays some determinate part in the social life of the community, just as every organ of a living body plays some part in the general life of the organism”. It is against this background that you will be able to understand how he explains ceremonial weeping amongst the Andaman Islanders. For more details about, the Andaman Islanders listen to the audio-programme on Radcliffe-Brown.
Ceremonial Weeping in the Andaman Islands
Andamanese ceremonies are marked by formal weeping. Andamanese weep, ceremonially on a number of occasions, e.g. when friends and relatives are reunited after a long separation, after a death, during marriage and initiation ceremonies, peace making ceremonies and so on. Radcliffe-Brown holds that the purpose underlying all ceremonials is the expression and transmission of sentiments, which help to regulate individual, behaviour in conformity with the needs of society. Hence, Radcliffe-Brown emphasises the importance of probing the meaning of the custom. How is this to be done? Well, in the first place, one can take account of the explanations of the various members of society. Further, one can compare the different contexts or situations in which the custom appears, and abstract its real significance. Formal weeping, Radcliffe-Brown concludes, takes place in situations in which social relations which have been disturbed or interrupted are about to he resumed. Fur instance, when long-lost friends meet, ceremonial weeping marks the fact that the long separation is over, and the friendship will resume once more. Similarly, ceremonial weeping at funerals marks the final departure of the deceased. Soon, life will have to go on as usual; the normal relations and activities will be resumed in this manner, ceremonial weeping has definite role or function to play in the life of that society. We shall now discuss how Radcliffe-Brown views totemism as a way of expressing the structure of relationships.
The Study of Totemism
totemism refers to the way in which human beings relate themselves to some natural object from which they claim descent. In the words of Kuper (1975: 74), “In totemism a specific group within a society adopts a ritual attitude towards a natural species or object”. Durkheim argues that totemism is a way in which collective sentiments are expressed and ritualised through symbolism, and this symbolisation helps to maintain group solidarity. But Durkheim does not touch upon a crucial question, namely, why are natural objects selected as totems?
This is precisely what Radcliffe-Brown tries to explore. He observes in his Australian field-studies that some tribes in New South Wales are divided into two exogamous moieties. These are named after two birds, the eaglehawk and crow. Eaglehawk men marry crow women and vice-versa. Other such dual divisions have been found in Australia which are also named after pairs of birds or animals. These pairs of birds or animals are represented in myths as being opponents in a conflict. Despite this opposition, there is also some kind of fundamental similarity or resemblance. In the case of eaglehawk and crow, both are meat-eating birds. Interestingly enough, the relationship between moieties too is one of alliance and competition; they are paired and opposed at one and the same time.
Thus, Radcliffe-Brown sees totemism as more than just a technique of maintaining group solidarity, (i.e., its function) but also as a way in which the social opposition between groups is expressed (i.e., the structure of relationships). He has thus laid the foundation for much of the future work undertaken by structuralists who use the notion of ‘opposition’ to provide interesting interpretations of social usages. The work of Levi-Strauss may be cited in this context.
Kinship in Primitive Societies
The study of kinship is Radcliffe-Brown’s specialisation. His work in this area is path breaking for two reasons: a) Earlier studies of kinship were basically exercises in speculation and conjectural history, e.g. the theories of ‘primitive promiscuity’ (see unit 22). Radcliffe-Brown tries to make sense of kinship systems in terms their contemporary relevence for the concerned societies. b) Since the kinship system provided the major organisational principle for most primitive communities, it is imperative to understand its 72 Max Weber principles. By focussing on this topic, Radcliffe- Brown contributes a great deal in helping students of social anthropology understand the peoples they studied.
Radcliffe-Brown is not merely interested in the usages, which shape the relationships between kin, but also in the terms used to denote kin, i.e., kinship terminology. Further, he concentrates on ‘classificatory’ systems of kinship terminology, wherein kin outside the circle of family are also classified along with members of the family. For example, mother’s sister, though outside the circle of the patrilineal family, is nonetheless classified as ‘mother’, Radcliffe-Brown identifies three basic principles of the classificatory system of kinship terminology. These are, a) The unity of the sibling group — Here, brothers and sisters share a feeling of solidarity and were treated as a unit by outsiders. My mother’s sister is also addressed as ‘mother’, my mother’s brother is like a ‘male mother’ (see sub-section 25.3.4). b) The unity of the lineage group — A lineage refers to the descendants in a line (traced either through male or female) of a single ancestor. Like siblings, lineage members show solidarity and are treated as a single unit by outsiders. c) The ‘generation principle’ — It is observed that in all kinship systems, there is a certain distance or tension between members of succeeding generations. For example, my mother has to socialise me, hence she will try to discipline or control me. However, as RadcliffeBrown points out, members of alternating generations (grandparents and grandchildren) tend to share easy and friendly relationships. In many societies it is believed that the grandchild replaces the grandparent in the social system. Kinship terminology in some cases (e.g. the Hawaiian systems – see Keywords for details) use generational combinations and oppositions to classify kin.
Although studying kinship terminology certainly provided interesting insights into the way kinship worked, Radcliffe-Brown did not neglect the social relationships that were the building-blocks of the kinship system. These relationships were shaped by solidarity and opposition. A reflection of this can be clearly seen in ‘joking relationships’ in which RadcliffeBrown was very much interested. What is a ‘joking relationship’? It is a relaxed and friendly relationship between kin marked by an exchange of jokes (often with sexual overtones) and friendly insults. Junod (1912-13), in his report on the Thonga of Mozambique, describes the joking relationship between a man and his mother’s father. Radcliffe-Brown, dismissing Junod’s conjectural explanation of the phenomenon, focussed on the relationship between mother’s brother and sister’s son (see Radcliffe-Brown’s Structure and Function in Primitive Society, 1971). He chose to locate the problem of joking relationships in the context of alliance between members of socially separated groups. Joking relationships serve to protect the delicate relationships between persons who are bound together in one set of ties and yet separated by other ties for example, members of different lineages are socially separated.
from each other. But if they marry each other, they are also allied. Joking thus is one way of defusing the tensions of certain delicate relationships. Another response is avoidance or extreme respect. In Radcliffe-Brown’s own words, “I once asked an Australian native why he had to avoid his mother-in-law, and his reply was because she is my best friend in the world; she has given me my wife. The mutual respect between son-in-law and parents-in-law is a mode of friendship. It prevents conflict that might arise through divergence of interest”.
In a nutshell, Radcliffe-Brown gave a new impetus to kinship studies by firmly rejecting speculative hypothesis and focussing upon the structure of social relationships in the kinship network and the way these operated in balancing tensions and integrating society. We will now briefly discuss Radcliffe-Brown’s special interest in the relationship between mother’s brother and sister’s son in some primitive communities.
The Mother’s Brother
Let us now examine his treatment of the role of the mother’s brother (referred to as ‘mama’ in many Indian languages) in some primitive communities. This is an excellent example of Radcliffe-Brown’s structural functional method. In a number of primitive communities, like the Bathonga group of Eastern Africa, the Nama Hottentots of South Africa and the Friendly Islanders of Tonga, the mother’s brother and the sister’s son are observed to share a particularly warm and affectionate relationship. The nephew is permitted to take many liberties with his maternal uncle who in turn takes special care of him, makes sacrifices on behalf of the nephew when the latter is ill, and leaves a share of his property and sometimes even one of his wives for the nephew to claim. Radcliffe-Brown says (1971:17), “It is a mistake to suppose that we can understand the institutions of society by studying them in isolation, without regard to other institutions with which they seems to be correlated”. He identifies another affectionate relationship that seems correlated to the one between maternal uncle and nephew. He points out (1971: 17) that “the custom of allowing the sister’s son to take liberties with his mother’s brother seems to be generally accompanied with an obligation of particular respect and obedience to the father’s sister… His father’s sister is sacred to him; her word is his law; and one of the greatest offences of which he could be guilty would be to show himself lacking in respect to her”.
Radcliffe-Brown points out that in most primitive societies, kinship regulates the social relationships of individuals. Various patterns of behaviour are associated with these relationships, and these follow stable and definite patterns. But if we display different kinds of behaviour towards every single relative, things could get very complicated, especially if the number of relatives is very large. This difficulty, says Radcliffe-Brown, is avoided in primitive societies by a system of classification. Different kinds of relatives are clubbed together into a limited number of categories. The most commonly used principle of classification is that of the equivalence of brothers. In other words, if an individual stands in a particular relationship to a man, the same kind of relationship exists with the man’s brother, the same is the case with a woman and her sister. Hence, the father’s brother is regarded as a sort of father and his sons are like the individual’s brothers. Similarly, mother’s sisters are like other mothers and their children are like brothers and sisters. How do the father’s sister and mother’s brother fit in? The three communities earlier mentioned are patriarchal. The father is regarded with awe and fear, the mother with tenderness and affection. In keeping with this trend, the father’s sister is given much respect and reverence and the mother’s brother affection and tenderness. In a word, the paternal aunt is a sort of ‘female father’ whilst the maternal uncle is a ‘male mother’. This explanation derives from the notion of ‘extension of sentiments’. By this we mean that the sentiments expressed towards the mother extend to and include her brother, and the same is the case with the father’s sister. How does Radcliffe-Brown explain this sort of classification? In his own words, (1971: 25) “in primitive society there is a strongly marked tendency to merge the individual in the group to which he or she belongs. The result of this in relation to kinship is a tendency to extend to all the members of a group a certain type of behaviour which has its origin in a relationship to one particular member of the group” In a nutshell, Radcliffe-Brown studies the role of the maternal uncle in primitive societies in terms of correlated institutionalised relationships. This is the essence of functionalist methodology.
The Structuralist Point of View
Claude Levi-Strauss of France is one of the major structuralists, who has given a distinct meaning to the concept of social structure. According to him the term “social structure” has nothing to do with empirical reality but it should deal with models which are built after it. Thus, Levi-Strauss says that social structure “can by no means be reduced to the ensemble of social relations to be described in a given society.” This model building on the basis of existing social relations will help one to clarify the difference between the two closely-related concepts of social structure and social relations.
He says that it will be enough to state that social relations, consist of the raw materials out of which the models making up the social structure are built. Therefore, he believes that social structure cannot claim a field of its own among others, in the study of societies. It is rather a method to be applied to any kind of social studies. It is similar to the structural analysis which is current in other disciplines like linguistics ,literature, political science, etc.
Applying the structuralist method, Louis Dumont (1970) in the study of caste system in India, shows that it is based on the fundamental social principle of hierarchy. He says that the principle of hierarchy, is the core of the caste system, and is opposed to the principle of equality. In this system, man as the member of society is given more importance than the individual. Here the concepts of the individual, freedom, and equality of mankind are relatively less important. These ideals of individualism, freedom and equality are negated by the three basic features of caste system, such as heredity, hierarchy and endogamy. Like Levi-Strauss, Louis Dumont too has used the kinship system, to explain many of his views regarding the structuralist approach.