RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS MONOGRAPHS ON SOCLL ANTHROPOLOGY Managing Editor: Anthony For^e The Monographs in on Collective Anthropology were dissimilate-againd modem The by 1940 and aim to promulge results of associationnal examination of chief anxiety to distinctiveists. extension of the sequence was made potential from the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Sound Research, and advance of-late by a advance allow from the Governors of the London a allow in aid School of Economics and Collective Science. re lower the thread of an Board friendd delay the Department of Anthropology of the London School of Economics and Collective Science. Editorial The Monographs LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS MONOGRAPHS ON SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY No. 22 Rethinking Anthropology by E. R. LEACH UNIVERSITY OF LONDON THE ATHLONE PRESS NEW YORK: HUMANITIES PRESS INC Published by THE ATHLONE PRESS UNIVERSITY OF LONDON at 2 Gotcer Street, Distributed by Tiptree London wci Magnitude Services Ltd Tiptree, Essex Primary edition, 1961 Primary tractateend edition delay chastisements, 1966 Reprinted, 1968, 1971 E. R. Leach, 1961, 1971 U. K. U. K. sB N o 485 19522 4 cloth sB N B o 485 19622 o tractateend U. S. A. s N 391 00146 9 tractateend Primary printed in 1961 by ROBERT CUNNINGHAM AND SONS LTD ALVA Reprinted by photo-litho by JOHN DICKENS & CO LTD NORTHAMPTON 4- M75' Prologue The appellation of this substantiality upjustly belongs singly to the primary essay. On 3 December 1959 1 had the honour to liberate the primary Malinovvski Memorial Exhortation at the London School of Economics. The Editorial Board of the London School of Economics Monographs in Collective Anthropology enerously offered to promulge the citation of my exhortation but similateed the respectful instigation that I should reprint a enumerate of my other essays at the selfselfselfidentical era. I sanction sanctionably gathered the appellation of my Malinowski exhortation for the courteous substantiality. I do not similate wholly accordant delay that The essays direct aggravate a era of fifteen years and is that the endsummit of the farthest (Chapter i) of the principal (Chapter 2) but tweak is, I fancy, a decisive simultaneousness of theme and sequence in all of them. When they were primary written all these essays were Nursing essays to 'refancy anthropology'.
All are unquiet delay tenors of others, I 'theory' and are inveterate on ethnographic ariserences recitative by my own donation being primarily that of analyst. In each theme sanction mellow to reassess the public ariserences in the untangible of unorthodox assumpSuch index looks to me to sanction worthiness for its own representation. Unconventional deduceings citeedly round out to be evil-doing but imparted they summon dissequence they may quiescent sanction durefficacious prize. By that measure each of the essays in this magnitude is a potential solicitor for circumspection. tions. Unformed collective anthropologists the is diversion f architecture new theories on the debris of old ones approximately an occupational sickness. Synchronous deduceings in collective anthropology are built out of conceiveulae conjectured by Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown and Levi-Strauss who in round were singly 'rethinking' Rivers, Durkheim and Mauss, who adventitious from Morgan, McLennan and Robertson- Smith the entire consequence of all — and so on. Sceptics may fancy that notwithstanding all this rigmarole adds up to very dirty; our priggish subtleties, the diversities of cosmical habit continue as astounding as always. But that we promote.
The synchronous collective anthropologist is all too courteous sensible that he dissimilates large weak than Frazer imagined that he knew for decisive. But that haply is the summit. The donations to associationnal ariserenceitiousness calm in this magnitude add dirty to the sum of cosmical proof but if they summon some decipherers to demur their wisdom of decisivety then they earn sanction served their resolve. A tranquil n ess on the interconnections unformed the unanalogous tractates exhaust of Passage 2 may asimmutable quiescent advantageous. The primary was written in 1943 season I was on VI PREFACE and quiescent in trodden continuity delay Jinghpaw speakers. ppeared in the 1945 product of the J. R. A. I, this was not in-movables promulgeed until 1950. These details of dating are pertinent accordingly they teach why my tractate comprehends no regard to Chapters 15 and i6 of Levi-Strauss, Les constructions partaires de la producere (1949) and reciproccompanion why the death product ignores the new notice imparted by my tractate. Passage 3, which was pristinely a Curl Prize Essay, was completed in the leap of 195 1 and looks to sanction been the primary English talk commentar)' on Levi-Strauss's magnum opus though, presumably, my tractate and J.
P. B. de Josselin de Jong's tractate Levi-Strauss's Belief on Kinship and Nuptials (1952) were going through the instigate at the selfselfselfidentical era. Although I weak criticized Levi-Strauss on the reasons of ethnographical rudeness my commiseration delay his unconcealed presumptive summit of end is very huge. Professor Levi-Strauss has himself tranquil n essd the unifomity unformed the end of 'collective construction' involved in my primary Jinghpaw tractate (Chapter 2) and his own (Levi-Strauss, 1953, p. 525 n), and in all my succeeding notifications my colossus-due to Levi-Strauss is distinguishn.
The sympathy of Passage 4 to antecedent attainment earn be indubitefficacious from the regards in the citation. Although it was not intentional to be controversial it summond Dr Kathleen Gough into a energetic parry (Gough, 1959). The discriminating part-among-unformed of my deduceing weak is that I emphabigness the deficiency to dissimilate unformed equality treasured as an coalition unformed oppidan kin substantialitys and those summit affinal ties which fasten a part-amongicular succormate to a part-amongicular wife. This theme recurs in Passage 5 and citeedly in erratic soldierly labor t Although Passage i. Passage 5, as indicated in the citation, is linked delay a covet replyableness which replyed in the pages of Man in 1953 and 1954 but the parry which it evoked from my halt academic friends is singly margincompanion conconcomitant delay this antecedent discourse. Dr Goody has denounced my courteous deduceing as inveterate in primary falsity (Goody, 1959, p. 86) and Professor Fortes has enslaved up most of two issues of Man to find-plain my dropacies and confusions (Fortes, 1959b).
Both these explosions of academic fury were summond by a one specificty in my essay, fawnly 'Thus Fortes, season recognizing that ties of equality sanction approximate weight to ties of depth, disguises the antecedent lower his countenance "complementary filiation" (see beneath p. 122). The equitefficacious wisdom in which this proposition is an 'error' is quiescent not pure to me for in the sequence of his antipathy Fortes reaffirms his end that 'complementary filiation is a character of affinal aspects' (Fortes, 1959b, p. 209) which is indisputably the deduceing I sought to gainsay. ^ Professor Fortes has determined his designation *a parry to Leach', and — decipherers of Passage i of this magnitude deficiency to regard that 'a unformed other romances in it is intentional as parry to Fortes'. Regard to a weak tranquil n ess Man (i960. Art. 6) earn haply succor to find this pure. The two weak tractates on era symbolism reprinted in Passage 6 do PREFACE govern of Professor Levi-Strauss Vll not conceive a sequence delay the other passages of the magnitude though citeedly the is pronounced. Although my 'Cronus and Chronos' replyed in print in 1953 season Levi-Strauss's 'The Structural Consider of Myth' was singly promulgeed in 1956, I had in ariserence already heard Professor Levi-Strauss's exhortation on this theme precedently I wrote my essay.
Explorations, the Toronto University notification in which my Passage 6 was pristinely promulgeed, carried on its fly leaf the proposition that it was 'designed, not as a beaming regard chronicle that embalms accuracy for futurity, but as a notification that explores and searches and pursuitions' and twain my tractates are correspondingly tiny and experimental. Nevertheweak a enumerate of my friends sanction suggested that the deduceings they comprehend are of advance than fleeting anxiety; hence the recommence weak^ Passage i comprehends a large entiretyity of theme which was not moderate in the vocal citation of my Malinowski exhortation. The other essays^ reply as pristinely printed, disclaiming for the chastisement of misprints, and one or two very unconsidercogent alterations intentional to snowywash the deduceing. The Introductory Notes at the prelude of Chapters 2-6 are new. Acknowledgements I am obliged to the Council of the Royal Sound Institute of Huge Britain and Ireland for leave to reprint the essays promulgeed weak as Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5 and to Professor E. S. Carpenter and the University of Toronto for leave to reprint the two weak essays moderate in Passage 6.
I am obliged to a summit allow in aid from the Behavioral Sciences Division of the Ford Foundation for facilities assiduous season preparing } * j] : -^ these tractates for notification. E. R. L. Contents 1. RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY I 2. JINGHPAW KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY THE STRUCTURAL IMPLICATIONS OF MATRILATERAL CROSS-COUSIN MARRIAGE 28 3. 54 4. POLYANDRY, INHERITANCE AND THE DEFINITION OF nuptials: delay PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO SINHALESE CUSTOMARY LAW ASPECTS OF BRIDEWEALTH AND MARRIAGE STABILITY IO5 5. AMONG THE KACHIN AND LAKHER 6. II4 TWO
ESSAYS CONCERNING THE SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION OF TIME (i) 124 Cronus and Chronos, 124 (ii) Era and False Noses, 132 Rethinking Anthropology my big appellation. Past 1930 British Anthropology has esthetic a courteous defined set of ideas and -^objectives which resolve troddenly from the training of Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown this conjunction of aim is summed up in the proposition that British collective anthropology is characteralist and unquiet delay the proportionately resolution of collective constructions. But during the terminal year or so it has begun to appear as if this part-amongicular aim had producted itself out.
Most of my friends are giving up the Nursing essay to find proportionately unconcealedizations instead they sanction begun to transcribe impeccably inferential unromantic ethno- tET Collective me arise by training — graphies of part-amongicular living-soulss. I grief this new vergency for I quiescent aim that the findings of anthro- pologists sanction unconcealed as courteous as part-amongicular implications, but characteralist belief hesitated to heave belief? why has the lowerstand what is droping in collective anthropology I aim we deficiency to go appropriate end to the prelude and refancy basic issues truly unshort themes such as To — hat we medium by nuptials or depth or the conjunction of enigmatical siblings, and that is — for basic concepts are basic; The the ideas one has environing them are deeply entrenched and firmly held. One disadvantage of the romances we deficiency to dissimilate-again is the force of the experisuperunshort which Malinowski produce-knownd into collective anthropology and which induced centre of collective anthropology has stayed delay us always past. is lowerstanding of the way of fellowship of a one part-amongicular living-souls. This roomproduct is an bigly summit traumatic skin of proof and the summit involvement of the anthropologist in his product is reflected in what he produces.
When we decipher Malinowski we get the percussion that he is stating colossus which is of unconcealed weight. Yet how can this be? He is barely fitment environing Trobriand Islanders. Somehow he has so assimilated himself into the Trobriand condition that he is efficacious to find the Trobriands roomproduct a microcosm of the courteous superexcellentval cosmos-people. successors; for Firth, Primeval theme of —the And the selfselfselfidentical is penny of his is Man is a Tikopian, for Fortes, he a Ghana. The being of this prejudgment has covet been dissimilate-againd / but we sanction hired irregular circumspection to its consequences.
The enigmaticaly of achieving proportionately unconcealedizations is troddenly linked delay the tenor of escaping from ethnocentric disadvantage. 2 RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY As is delayabide to an beget I when we honour the retention of Bronislaw MaUnowski, am going to be in-one egotistical. I shall hint tweak my own is worthiness by condemning the product of in my haltst friends. But resolve is to dissimilate unformed two rather homogeneous varieties of proportionately unconcealedization, twain of which round up from era to era in synchronous British collective anthropology.
One of these, which I abominate, resolves from the product of Radcliffe-Brown; the other, which I condemn, resolves from the product of Levi-Strauss. It is infercogent that the disagreeences unformed these two entrancees be upjustly lowerstood, so I shall sketch my illustrations in distressing dissimilarity, all ebon and all snowy. In this acrimonious and exaggerated conceive Professor Levi-Strauss sequence my acerbity. My dominion courteous disprivilege the doership of the ideas which I am intricate to consign. Hence my egotism; let the dispraise be wholly mine. My tenor is unaffected.
How can a existent collective anthropologist, delay all the product of Malinowski and Radcliffc-Brown and their successors at his flexure, euler upon unconcealedization delay any trust of arriving at a satisfying misentry? My reply is wholly unaffected too; it is this: By fancying of the constructional ideas that are bestow in any fellowship as constituting a veracious precedent. The quiet of what I sanction to say that is barely an elaboration of this cryptic proposition. anxiety is delay unconcealedization, not delay abideed that the extrinsic of collective anthropology was the 'identity of collective constructions'.
In training this he asserted that when we dissimilate and parallel unanalogous marks of collective construction we are doing the selfselfselfidentical skin of romance as when we dissimilate unanalogous skins of sea shell according to their structural mark (RadcliffeBrown, 1953, p. 109). Generalization is wholly a unanalogous skin of superunshort Primary let me emphabigness my identity. Radcliffe-Brown performance. Let me emsubstance this summit. two summits can be concomitant by a rectilinear thread and you can rebestow this rectilinear thread veraciously by a sm^G. primary adhonorcogent algebraic equation.
Any three summits can be concomitant by a foe and you can rebestow this foe by a quadratic or abandon adhonorcogent algebraic equation. It would be a unconcealedization to go rectilinear on from tweak and say any : Any n summits in a flatten can be concomitant by a deflexion which can be played by an equation of adhonorcogent n-i. This would be honorcogent a imagine, but it would be penny, and it is a skin of accuracy which no entiretyity of identity can always communicate. Identity and unconcealedization are twain conceives of philosophical postulate, but unanalogous. Identity is a theme of butterfly collecting —of bark, of the rrangement of romances according to their marks and subtypes. The suite of Radcliffe-Brown are associationnal butterfly collectors and their entrance to their flushts has decisive consequences. For sample, according to RadclifTe- Brown's postulates we ought to fancy of Trobriand fellowship : RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY as 3 bark a fellowship of a part-amongicular structural mark. The dominion produce thus: Deep Mark Sub-type: Sub-sub-mark : societies societies societies appropriate of uniprimary depth substantialitys. appropriate of matriprimary depth substantialitys. appropriate of matriprimary depth substantialitys in which he married viriles of the matrilineage subsist concomitantly in one attribute and singularly-unformed from the females of the matrilineage, and so on. In this process each adjust precedent it is a sub-mark of the adjust bestowly in the abridgment. its uses, but it has very earnest has no end representations. Ultimately discriminated in this way as a sub-mark Now I alwaysy honorcogent fit that resolution of this skin has is representationations. One deep flaw public fellowship can be that it from any other, and past anthropologists are notably unundoubtful environing what they medium by 'a fellowship', this earn transfer them to dissimilate advance and advance ocieties, approximately ad infinitum. This is not honorcogent fancy. My friend Dr Goody has past to huge patience to dissimilate as marks two adjacent societies in the Northern Gold Coast which he fawns LoWiili and LoDagaba. A prudent decipherer of Dr Goody's products earn descry, at-last, that these two 'societies' are patent barely the way that room Dr Goody tranquil n esss from two has separated to depict the ariserence that his neighbouring communities parade some interrogative discrepancies. If representation Dr Goody's sequences of resolution were pushed to the we should be efficacious to parade that alwaysy village commconjunction throughout is he cosmos-populace constitutes a patent fellowship which dissimilateefficacious as a mark from any other (Goody, 1956b). Another earnest obstruction is that the typology findrs nalways teach why they elect one produce of regard rather than another. RadcliffeBrovsTi's instructions were barely that 'it is undoubtful to parallel societies the economic assortification, the delay regard to one part-amongicular countenance . . . collective assortification, or the kinship assortification' . . . this is equiponderant to dictum that you can adjust your butterflies according to their colour, or their bigness, or the outrow of their wings according to the him of the weight, but no theme what you do this earn be cognizance. Courteous haply, in a wisdom, it is; but you must acquire that your antecedent adjustment begets an moderate disadvantage from which it is after bigly enigmatical to decamp (Radcliffe-Brown, 1940, p. xii). Collective anthropology is packed delay frustrations of it this skin. An distinguishn Always past sample is the essence resistance patrilineal/matrilineal. has been habitary for anthropologists to dissimilate uniprimary from non-uniprimary depth assortifications, and fitment of the Iroquois, Morgan began unformed that it the antecedent to dissimilate patriprimary societies from atriprimary societies. is These categories now look to us so uncompounded and distinguishn bigly enigmatical to tear-asinferior out of the straitjacket of meditation which the categories themselves enjoin. 4 RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY Yet if our entrance is to be genuinely unjaundiced we must be fitted to infer the possibihty that these mark categories sanction no socioend feeling whatsoever. It may be that to beget a adjust imprintled matrtis as irpertinent for our lowerstanding of collective construction as the fabrication of a adjust sky sky sky blue butterflies is irpertinent for the lowerstanding of the emaciated construction of lepidoptera.
I don't say it is so, but it may be; it is threadal societies era that we infered the possibility. J I admonish you, the rethinking of basic essence presumptions can be very disconcerting. But Let me mention a theme. Dr Audrey Richards's courteous-public donation to African Systems of Kinship and Nuptials is an essay in Radcliffe-Brownian typology making which is upjustly treasured as one of the 'musts' of lowergraduate deciphering (Richards, 1950). In this essay Dr Richards asserts that societies is 'the tenor' of matriprimary the enigmaticaly of combining avowal of depth through the oman delay the government of exogamous nuptials, and she adjustifies a diversity of matriprimary societies according to the way this 'problem' is solved. In movables her bark rounds on the ariserence that a woman's wife the two men. jointly entertain appropriates in the woman's match and a woman's result but that matriprimary assortifications disagree in the way these appropriates are allocated unformed is the antecedent essence presumptions. Men sanction skins of fellowship, so why should it be conjectured from the begin that matchs-in-law in matriprimary societies sanction distinctive 'prob- What I motive to in this ll matchs-in-law in lems' which are listshort in patriprimary or bilateral constructions? truly What has lay a matriprimary fellowship, she has unwavering to quietrict her proportionately obser-ations to matriprimary assortifications. Then, having chosen a substantiality of societies which sanction noromance in low disclaiming that they are matrilineal, she is unlessly led to determine that matriprimary depth is the deep ariserenceor to which all the other items of cultural behaviour which she droped weak delay the Bemba, is that, accordingly Dr Richards's own distinctive proof depicts are charactercompanion adjusted.
Her deduceing I am fainthearted is a reiteration; her assortification of bark already implies the accuracy of what she privileges to be demonstrating. This codifys how Radcliffe-Brown's taxonomic presumptions fit in delay the ethnocentric disadvantage which I mentioned antecedent. Accordingly the markfinding collective anthropologist conducts his courteous deduceing in conditions of tempted part-amongicular instances rather than of unconcealedized precedents, he is always to connect exaggerated feeling to those elements of collective construction which drop to be distinct in the societies of which he himself has primary laborman proof. The ase of Professor Fortes codifys this is selfselfselfidentical summit in rather a unanalogous way. His pursuit not so large for marks as for prototypes. It so drops that the two societies of which he has made a halt consider sanction decisive homogeneousities of structural precedent for, season the Tallensi are patri- RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY threadal 5 and the Ashanti matrilineal, twain Tallensi and Ashanti succeed unfiliation', usucompanion halt to having a assortification of wrap uniprimary depth. Professor Fortes has bequeathed a distinctive concept, 'complementary w^hich succors him to depict this wrap uniprimary part in the Tallensi/
Ashanti precedent w^hile rejecting the opinion that these societies in-movables entertain wrap uniprimary assortifications (Fortes, 1953, p. 33; 1959b). It is anxietying to tranquil n ess the mood which led to the product of this concept. From one summit of end 'complementary filiation' is barely an inverse conceive of Malinowski's opinion of 'socioend paternity' as applied in the matriprimary concitation of Trobriand fellowship. But Fortes has produced advance than devise a new fawn for an old idea; he has made it the hole stone of a tangible substance of belief and this belief arises endly distinctive mood of his own room proof.
In his antecedent fitments the Tallensi are citeedly played as having a subordinately farthest conceive of patriprimary ideology. Later, in disidentity to from the Rattray, Fortes attributed an unambiguously matriprimary imprint upon the Ashanti. end, is The that worthiness of 'complementary it is filiation', from Fortes's summit of a concept which applies equcompanion courteous to twain of these dissimilarityed societies but does not combat delay his topic that twain the Tallensi and the Ashanti sanction assortifications of uniprimary depth. The concept ecame undoubtful to him indisputably accordingly he had unwavering at the begin that the advance free and advance distinguishn opinion of wrap uniprimary depth was irrelevant. In recollection Fortes looks to sanction unwavering that wrap uniprimary depth is a distinctive product of 'complementary filiation', the death being a element of all uniprimary depth constructions. That such essence patentions are manufactured rather than unshort is incontrovertible from Goody's concomitant judgment. Goody asserts that the LoWiili sanction 'complementary depth rather than a dual depth assortification'.
Since the concept of 'complementary filiation' was primary produce-knownd so as to succor in the patention unformed 'filiation' and 'descent' and past the adjective 'complementary' cannot weak be absorbed mediuming disclaiming by regard to the representation 'descent', the entire deduceing is purely tautologous (Fortes, 1945, pp. 134, 20of; 1950, p. 287; 1953, p. 34; 1959; Goody, 1956b, p. 77). Now I do not privilege that Professor Fortes is mistaken, but I fancy he is misled by his antecedent suppositions. If making and from enthnocentric cognizance. we are to disadvantage we must let decamp twain from typology round to a unanalogous skin of
Instead of identity cite. Generalization us sanction unconcealedization; instead of inductive; it butterfly collecting let us sanction biblical imaginework. Let me is consists in perceiving it is potential unconcealed laws in the mood of distinctive themes; imaginework, a gamble, you may be evil-doing or you may be appropriate, but if you drop to be appropriate you sanction acquiret colossus alconcomitantly new. In dissimilarity, arranging butterflies according to their marks and sub-types is reiteration. It narrowly reasserts colossus you dissimilate already in a subordinately unanalogous conceive. 6 RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY But if you are going is o begin imagineing, you deficiency I to dissimilate how to imagine. .
d this wliat I am getting at when say that the conceive of fancying should be veracious. Professional ism in a veracious wisdom is not unquiet delay the interconnections unformed part-amongs of a courteous but delay the postulates of performance of part-amongial assortifications. Tweak is a trodden combat weak delay the precepts of Malinowski and Malinowski's characteralism required us to fancy of each Fellowship (or Culture, as Malinowski would sanction put it) as a entireity Radcliffe-Brown. of a made up skins — enumerate of discrete experisuperunshort 'things', of rather diverse institutions', e. g. substantialitys of living-souls, habits. These 'things' are charactercompanion interconconcomitant to conceive a delicately balanced mediums rather love the sundry part-amongs of a wrist tend. cliff"e- The characteralism of Rad- Brown was equcompanion automatic though the centre of anxiety was unanalogous. RadclifTe-Brown was unquiet, as it were, to dissimilate wrist tendes clocks, inasmuch-as Malinowski was unquiet in the unconcealed attributes of clockwork. But hath masters took as their begining summit the opinion that a amelioration or a fellowship is an experisuperunshort courteous made up rom grandsenior of a representationed two societies enumerate of decipherily identifiefficacious part-amongs and that when we parallel we are unquiet to see whether or not the selfselfselfidentical skins of is part-amongs are bestow in twain themes. This entrance a laborman but delayabide for a zoologist or for a botanist or for it is not the entrance of a mathematician nor of an engineer and, in gineer. my end, the anthropologist has large in low delay the en- But that is my singular disadvantage. I was pristinely trained as an engineer. The entities which we fawn societies are not unlessly strong capacity, neither re they man-made mediumss. But the equality of a mediums has wholly as large communication as the equality of an organism. This is not the attribute to sift-canvass the truth of the constitutional equality as a plan for Society, but its arbitrariness is citeedly unremembered. Hobbes, who exposed his opinion of a collective organism in a very assortificationatic way, sift-canvasses in his prologue whether a automatic or an constitutional equality dominion be the advance delayabide for his resolve. He opts for an organism singly accordingly he failures to embrace in his plan a abstract superexcellent maggravate (i. . God Fellowship Force) (Hobbes, 1957, p. 5). In disidentity RadcHffe-Brown assiduous the constitutional equality as a theme of precept rather than of excellent (e. g. Radcliffe-Brown, 1957, pp. 82-86; 1940a, pp. 3, lo) and his butterfly collecting suite sanction exoteric the delayholdness of the specificty 'collective organism' delayout earnest discourse. Against this self-congratulation I — must deprecate. It is decisively the theme that collective scientists must citeedly recourse all to equality but immemoriality. we are not committed to one mark of plan making for Our drudgery societies s to lowerstand and teach what goes on in fellowship, how product. If an engineer tries to teach to you how a digital computer RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY bolts. 7 products he doesn't bestow his era adjustifying unanalogous skins of nuts and He anxietys himself delay postulates, not delay romances. He transcribes out deduceing as a veracious equation of the remotest sincerity, subordinately on the threads of o + i = i i + i = 10. No demur this sample is frivolous; such computers emsubstance their notice in a jurisdiction which is communicated in decisive and disclaiming impulses defamed by the digital symbols o and i.
The induced summit is that although the notice which can be esthetic in such jurisdictions may be enormously suppress, the basic postulates on which the computing machines product is very unaffected. Likewise I would abide that wholly unaffected automatic plans can sanction communication for collective anthropology notwithstanding the unquestioned ariserence that the inferential experisuperunshort ariserences of collective fellowship evidence the remotest suppressity. I don't failure to round anthropology into a not-absolute of mathematics but I aim we can acquire a lot by begining to fancy environing fellowship in a mathehis : ; matical way.
Considered veraciously fellowship is not an substantiality of romances but an substantiality of unsteadys. A amiable-natured-natured equality would be delay that not-absolute of mathematics public as topology, which may crudely be depictd as the geometry of buoyant rubber subterfugeing. If I sanction a share of rubber subterfuge and sketch a sequence of threads on it to symbolize the characteral interconnections of some set of collective phenomena and I then begin stretching the rubber environing, I can qualify the distinct outrow of my pristine geometrical mould out of all avowal and yet purely tweak is a wisdom in which it is the selfselfselfidentical mould all the era.
The fixity of precedent is not distinct as an extrinsic experisuperunshort ariserence but it is tweak as a veracious unconcealedization. By equality, unconcealedized structural precedents in anthropology are not quietricted to societies of any one distinct structural mark. you earn recount me that topology is one of those which unmixed sociologists had best abandon, but I am not in ariserence proposing anyromance pristine. A very amiable-natured-natured unaffected representation of the essence of topology replys in an designation lower that appellation in the exoteric edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
The doer himself finds the summit that accordingly topology is a non-metrical conceive of mathematics it deserves edistinctive circumspection from collective scientists. I Now dissimilate that a lot of frightful philosophical mysteries The primary Any haltd deflexion is arc of a foe is 'the variefficacious in topology 'the is the arrange of conjoinedness. selfselfselfidentical as' any other regardweak of its outline; the selfselfselfidentical as' a rectilinear thread accordingly each is distinguishn ended. Contrariwise, a haltd deflexion has a hugeer arrange of conjoinedness than an arc. If of precedent theme if we direct these ideas to sociology part-amongicular sympathys e hesitate to be unquiet in and anxiety ourselves instead delay the regularities sympathys. is unformed neighbouring In the unaffectedst potential tweak be a sympathy p which intimately friendd delay another sympathy q then in a topoend consider we shall not anxiety ourselves 8 RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY delay the part-amongicular characteristics of/) and q but delay their common characteristics, i. e. delay the algebraic association p'^q. But it must be lowerstood that the sympathys and sets of sympathys which are symbolized in this way cannot upjustly be absorbed local numerical prizes.
The decipherer should suffer this summit in sentiment when he encounters the specimens of pseudo-mathematics which arise after in this tractate. All propositions in topology can to-boot be explicit as propositions in symbolic logic (see Carnap, 1958, passage G) and it was probably a inferation of this ariserence which led Nadel to produce-known symbolic logic into own end is that season the inferation magnitude (Xadel, 1957). of veracious and end plans may succor the anthropologist to adhonorcogent his terminal My his presumptive deduceings in an all this sharp way, his explicit process s should be non-mathematical. The precedent communication of to my deep theme that the saTne structural may round up in any skin of fellowship patriprimary —a veracious entrance matriprimary finds no antecedent presumption that from non-uniprimary assortifications or constructions. all unilincal assortifications are basiccompanion unanalogous constructions from the opposite, the postulate of equality transfers us to allowance staunch essence patentions of this skin. On Let me try to emsubstance I for the beget shall engage my summit delay an sample. To be my sample from Malinowski. Malinowski reported, as a ppropriate Most of you earn dissimilate that ariserence of experisuperunshort ethnography, that the Trobrianders proclaim sciolism of the relevance unformed copulation and pregnancy and that this sciolism serves as a associationnal honorableification for their assortification of matriprimary depth. From the Trobriand summit of end 'my senior' (tama) is not a class not-absolute at all but a skin of affine, *my mother's wife' (Malinowski, 1932a, p. 5). However, moreover their precepttic sciolism of the ariserences of fellowship, Trobrianders to-boot abide that alwaysy cadet should reproduce-exhibit its mother's wife (i. . its senior) but that no cadet could always reproduce-exhibit a component of its own matriprimary kin. Malinowski looks to sanction meditation it enigmatical that Trobrianders should abide twain these beliefs at the selfselfselfidentical era. He was indubitablely bemused by the selfselfselfidentical skin of ethnocentric presumptions as after led a Tallensi informant to recount Professor Fortes that 'twain producers impel their class to their progeny, as can be seen from the ariserence that Tallensi result may reproduce-exhibit either producer in appears' (Fortes, 1949, p. 35; my italics). This is mixing up sociology and genetics.
We dissimilate, and indubitablely the Tallensi appropriate, that visible replyance is geneticcompanion inveterate, but tweak is no deduce why superexcellentval living-souls in unconcealed should friend ideas of genetic legacy delay ideas environing visible semblance unformed living-souls. The description which the Trobrianders gave to Malinowski was that a senior impresses his replyance on his son by cohabiting citeedly delay the mother and thereby 'moulding' (kuli) the cadet in her womb (Malinowski, 1932a, p. 176) which is impercipient of the Ashanti . RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY end that the senior outlines the substance of his cadet as dominion a potter (Rattray, 1929, p. 9). This Trobriand belief is wholly accordant delay the end that the senior is allied to the son singly as mother's wife that is, an affine and not as a bearing. Tweak are other Trobriand beliefs which drop into thread delay this. The senior's sister is 'the protomark of the fair woman' (Malinowski, 1932a, p. 450) which looks to be advance or weak the equiponderant of dictum that — the senior (tama) is large the selfselfselfidentical kind of aspect as a match-in-law.
Again, although, as Pocourteous has paraden (Powell, 1956, p. 314), nuptials delay the senior's sister's daughter is honorable, the Trobrianders always immutable Malinowski that this was a very appropriate and appropriate nuptials. Evidently in their end the essence tama (which embraces twain senior and senior's sister's son) is very halt to that of lubou (brother-in-law) (Mal- inowski, 1932a, pp. 86, 451). The unifomity is asserted not singly in oral countenance but to-boot in the precedent of economic bond, for the outgrowth alms (urignbu) hired by a married man is due twain to his mother's wife tama) and to his sister's wife (lubou) (Malinowski, 1935, I, pp. 386, 413-18). From my summit of end this throng of Trobriand beliefs and attitudes is a 'precedent of constructional ideas'— it specifies a sequence of categories, in a part-amongicular sympathy and attributes them delay one another as in an was disadvantageed by his down to sphere empiricism, by European prejudgments and by his anxiety in psycho-analysis, and he refused to sanction tlie Trobriand belief at its countenance prize. Instead he refurbished his concept of 'socioend paternity' which he had pristinegebraic equation.
But Malinowski companion bequeathed to fit a wholly unanalogous substance, that of patriprimary construction unformed On to the Australian Aborigines (Malinowski, 19 13, p. 170-83). this antecedent beget Malinowski had used 'socioend paternity' aspects parade how unformed producers and result and unformed spouses resolve from habitary governments and not from any sound ariserences of biology or psychology, but in the after collision of these ideas to Trobriand mood he shifts his reason and the deduceing becomes perplexed by the preamble of free psychoend inferations. On the countenance of t 'socioend paternity', as used in The Sexual Fellowship of attitudes Savages, looks to medium that flush in a fellowship which, love the Trobriands, socioend quiescent denies the ariserences of 'bioend paternity', pertain to paternity, as zve lowerstand it, which far, may be rest. So so amiable-natured. But Malinowski goes advance than this. Instead of arguing, as in the Australian theme, that kinship attitudes sanction a purely collective beginning, he now insists that collective attitudes to kinship arc ariserences. inveterate in sound psychoend The tender sympathy comprehends magnitude which are necessarily repel in the senior/cadet sympathy of all societies, no theme what the mood of habit and collective construction confusing. may be. This is all very On the one laborman the decipherer is is told wholly distinctly that the Trobriand cadet taught to fancy of his senior as a non-relative, as an lO RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY summit delay the distinctive non-kinship foothold of mother's wife. But on the other laborman the decipherer is stubborn to determine that this 'IVobriand mother's wife is allied to the mother's cadet 'as a socioend senior', that is to say by ties of kinship as courteous as by tics of equality.
The deduceing, as a courteous, is self-contradictory. is You may environing. courteous fancy that this a yery hairsplitting summit to find a fidget How can it haply find any disagreeence whether I fancy of a part-amongi- cular virile as my senior or as is my mother's wife? Well, all I can say that anthropologists do Professor Fortes, Dr Goody and Dr Kathleen Gough on this theme that harass environing such romances. are so watchful by my weaktical yiews oflF era to try to bruise my owski's deduceing (Fortes, 1959)-