Soviet and Western Anthropology 9780231890991

Citation preview

Soviet and Western Anthropology

Soviet and Western Anthropology edited by

ERNEST GELLNER

with an introduction by

MEYER FORTES

Columbia University Press

New York

1980

Copyright © 1980 by the Wenner-Gren Foundation All rights reserved Published in 1980 in the United States of America by Columbia University Press

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: Soviet and western anthropology. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Ethnology—Russia—Addresses, essays, lectures. 2. Communism and anthropology-Addresses, essays, lectures. 3. Anthropology-Russia-Addresses, essays, lectures. I. Gellner, Ernest. GN308.3.R9S66 1980 30Γ.947 80-11676 ISBN 0-231-05120-4

Printed in Great Britain

CONTENTS List of c o n t r i b u t o r s

vii

Preface

ix

Introduction

xix

Parti: Marxism,anthropology,history M. Godelier T h e e m e r g e n c e of M a r x i s m in a n t h r o p o l o g y in France

3

Tu. Petrova-Averkieva Historicism in Soviet e t h n o g r a p h i c science

19

Tu. 1. Semenov T h e theory of socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s a n d world history

29

E. Gellner A R u s s i a n M a r x i s t philosophy of history

59

Part Π: The distinctiveness of the primitive A.I. Pershits E t h n o g r a p h i c reconstruction of the history of primitive society

85

J. Woodburn H u n t e r s a n d gatherers t o d a y a n d reconstruction of the past

95

J. Goody T h o u g h t a n d writing

119

L. Krader T h e origins of t h e state a m o n g the n o m a d s of Asia

135

Part ΙΠ: The distinctiveness of the contemporary world Tu. Bromley T h e object a n d t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r of e t h n o g r a p h y

151

T. Dragadze T h e place o f ' e t h n o s ' theory in Soviet a n t h r o p o l o g y

161

L. Drobizheva E t h n i c sociology of p r e s e n t - d a y life

171

T. Shanin T h e conceptual r e a p p e a r a n c e of p e a s a n t r y in AngloSaxon social science

181

vi

Soviet and Western Anthropology

Part IV: Anthropology and psychology M. Fortes Anthropology and the psychological disciplines

195

I.S. Kon Et hnography and psychology

217

Part V: Anthropology and religion V. Basilov The study of religions in Soviet ethnographic science

231

C. Humphrey Theories of North Asian shamanism

243

Part VI: Concepts and methods 5. Arutyonov Ethnography and linguistics

257

V.l. Kozlov Ethnography and demography

265

J. Pouillon Structure and structuralism

275

Index

283

List of

Contributors

S. Arutyonov, Institute of E t h n o g r a p h y , Academy of Sciences of the U S S R , Moscow V. Basilov, Institute of E t h n o g r a p h y , Academy of Sciences of the U S S R , Moscow. Yu. Bromley, Institute of E t h n o g r a p h y , A c a d e m y of Sciences of the U S S R , Moscow. T . D r a g a d z e , Sociology D e p a r t m e n t , University of Leeds. L. Drobizheva, Institute of E t h n o g r a p h y , A c a d e m y of Sciences of the U S S R , Moscow. M e y e r Fortes, King's College, University of C a m b r i d g e . E. Gellner, Philosophy D e p a r t m e n t , L o n d o n School of Economics. M . Godelier, L a b o r a t o i r e d ' A n t h r o p o l o g i e Sociale, Collège de France, Paris. J. Goody, St J o h n ' s College, University of C a m b r i d g e . C. H u m p h r e y , King's College, University of C a m b r i d g e . I. Kon, Institute of E t h n o g r a p h y , A c a d e m y of Sciences of the U S S R , Leningrad. V. Kozlov, Institute of E t h n o g r a p h y , Academy of Sciences of the U S S R , Moscow. L. K r a d e r , Institut für Ethnologie, Freie Universität Berlin. A. Pershits, Institute of E t h n o g r a p h y , A c a d e m y of Sciences of the U S S R , Moscow. Yu. Petrova-Averkieva, Institute of E t h n o g r a p h y , A c a d e m y of Sciences of the U S S R , M o s c o w ; Editor of Sovietskaia Etnografia. J . Pouillon, L a b o r a t o i r e d'Anthropologie Sociale, Collège de France, Paris ; Editor of L'Homme. Yu. Semenov, M o s c o w Physical-Technical Institute. T . S h a n i n , Sociology D e p a r t m e n t , University of M a n c h e s t e r . J. W o o d b u r n , Social Anthropology D e p a r t m e n t , L o n d o n School of Economics.

Preface M e y e r F o r t e s ' I n t r o d u c t i o n deals m o s t effectively w i t h t h e r e l e v a n c e of Soviet social a n t h r o p o l o g y for its w e s t e r n c o u n t e r p a r t s . But t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e s c h o l a r l y a n d i n t e l l e c t u a l activities w h i c h t a k e p l a c e in t h e Soviet U n i o n u n d e r t h e title of etnografia, a n d w h i c h c a n b e t r e a t e d as t h e a p p r o x i m a t e e q u i v a l e n t of social or c u l t u r a l a n t h r o p o l o g y in t h e W e s t , is not e x h a u s t e d by its r e l e v a n c e for a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s , i m p o r t a n t t h o u g h t h i s is. Soviet etnografia is a l s o p r o f o u n d l y significant in o t h e r ways. It reflects or e x p r e s s e s t h e m a n n e r in w h i c h t h e intellectuals of t h e Soviet U n i o n t h i n k a b o u t s o m e of t h e d e e p e s t p r o b l e m s w i t h i n t h e i r o w n society, a n d a b o u t its p l a c e in t h e s c h e m e of t h i n g s a n d in w o r l d history. T h e h a n d ling of s u c h issues c a n o n l y b e d e s c r i b e d as f u n d a m e n t a l social t h o u g h t . S u c h t h o u g h t is n e i t h e r a b s e n t n o r m o n o l i t h i c w i t h i n t h e Soviet U n i o n . T h e i d e a s e x p r e s s e d b y m e m b e r s of t h e Soviet d e l e g a t i o n to t h e s m a l l c o n f e r e n c e at B u r g W a r t e n s t e i n in 1976 c o n s t i t u t e a s a m p l e of it. P r e cisely h o w r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t h e s a m p l e w a s , is a q u e s t i o n w h i c h will n o d o u b t be a n s w e r e d v a r i o u s l y by d i f f e r e n t e x p e r t s in t h e c u l t u r a l life of t h e U S S R , in t h e light of t h e i r a s s e s s m e n t of Soviet intellectual t r e n d s . But t h e r e is n o d o u b t in m y m i n d w h a t e v e r b u t t h a t it is a n i m p o r t a n t s a m p l e . S o is t h e set of c o n t r i b u t i o n s b y t h e w e s t e r n p a r t i c i p a n t s : b u t I d o not c o m m e n t o n t h e s e . A r t i c u l a t e d as t h e y a r e in a n i d i o m to w h i c h t h e r e a d e r is well h a b i t u a t e d , t h e y a r e m o r e t h a n a b l e to convey t h e i r m e a n i n g w i t h o u t risk of m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . It is m y i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h e best f u n d a m e n t a l social t h o u g h t in t h e U S S R is to be f o u n d in social a n t h r o p o l o g y a n d in h i s t o r y ; a n d t h a t t h e r e is r a t h e r m o r e of it in t h e s e a r e a s t h a n in s o m e o t h e r disciplines. If this i m p r e s s i o n is j u s t i f i e d , t h e r e m a y b e v a r i o u s e x p l a n a t i o n s for it. It m a y be t h a t p h i l o s o p h y is t o o a b s t r a c t , a n d sociology too c o n c r e t e a n d e m p i r i c a l , to p r o v i d e a n i d i o m for t h e d i s c u s s i o n of t h e issues in social thought which really m a t t e r : such a supposition would not always be out of p l a c e in t h e W e s t , a n d it m a y a p p l y in t h e Soviet U n i o n . S o m e t h i n g s i m i l a r m a y b e t r u e of t h e o t h e r h u m a n sciences, s u c h as p s y c h o logy or linguistics. But p r o b l e m s in t h e history of social s t r u c t u r e m a y

χ

Soviet and Western

Anthropology

b e specific e n o u g h t o b e d i s c u s s e d w i t h less c o n s t r a i n t t h a n o t h e r issues, a n d yet g e n e r a l e n o u g h in t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s to b e of very g r e a t interest. O n t h e positive side it m a y b e t h a t t h e i n t i m a t e links w h i c h exist bet w e e n a n t h r o p o l o g y a n d h i s t o r y h a v e b e e n of g r e a t h e l p in e n d o w i n g Soviet a n t h r o p o l o g y w i t h a c e r t a i n sense of reality. A s a n u m b e r of contributors (e.g. Averkieva, Kozlov a n d Basilov) insist, in diverse ways, Soviet a n t h r o p o l o g y is ' h i s t o r i c i s t ' . T h e y m i g h t h a v e a d d e d t h a t a sense of h i s t o r i c d e p t h a n d c o n t i n u i t y is not m e r e l y a c o r o l l a r y of M a r x i s m , b u t also a d e e p l y - e n t r e n c h e d R u s s i a n i n t e l l e c t u a l t r a d i t i o n . In t h e W e s t , o r a t a n y r a t e in B r i t a i n , a n t h r o p o l o g y took p r i d e in its a u t o n o m y f r o m h i s t o r y , a n d t h e r e even e m e r g e d t h e n o t i o n of t h e ' e t h n o g r a p h i c p r e s e n t ' , t h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l fiction of a social s t r u c t u r e or c u l t u r e e x i s t i n g w i t h o u t a d a t e . It is ironic t h a t at t h e very m o m e n t at w h i c h a n t h r o p o l o g y in t h e W e s t is finding its w a y b a c k t o history, not w i t h o u t d i f f i c u l t y , Soviet a n t h r o p o l o g y is in p a r t p r a c t i c i n g a m i l d d e t a c h m e n t f r o m it. T h e s t r a t e g y of r e s e a r c h i n t o c o n t e m p o r a r y c u l t u r e a n d e t h n i c i t y (as d e s c r i b e d for i n s t a n c e b y B r o m l e y , D r o b i z h e v a a n d K o n ) involves, a s a m a t t e r of i n t e r - d i s c i p l i n a r y division of l a b o u r t h o u g h not a s a m a t t e r of social t h e o r y , a c o n c e n t r a t i o n o n c o n t e m p o r a r y a n d cultural p h e n o m e n a , a n d a corresponding turning away from both the archaic and the structural. N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e i n t i m a t e n e x u s b e t w e e n Soviet a n t h r o p o l o g y a n d h i s t o r y is s t r i k i n g a n d i m p o r t a n t . T h e k i n d of a b s o l u t e l y f u n d a m e n t a l issue a b o u t t h e t y p o l o g y of h u m a n societies a n d historical p e r i o d icisation ( d i s c u s s e d for i n s t a n c e b y S e m e n o v a n d P e r s h i t s a n d less d i r e c t l y b y Kozlov a n d A r u t y o n o v ) , c a n b e f o u n d , in t h e very s a m e i d i o m a n d as p a r t of o n e c o n t i n u o u s d e b a t e , a m o n g s t b o t h h i s t o r i a n s a n d anthropologists. T h i s is t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p o i n t at w h i c h t o w a r n t h e r e a d e r a b o u t terminological a n d conceptual non-equivalences, which on occasion make t r a n s l a t i o n difficult a n d w h i c h involve t h e risk of m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s . It h a s a l r e a d y b e e n s t r e s s e d t h a t etnografia m e a n s t h e science as a w h o l e , i n c l u d i n g its t h e o r e t i c a l p a r t s , a n d is not, like w e s t e r n ethnography, t h e p u r e l y d e s c r i p t i v e a c c o u n t of given e t h n i c g r o u p s . G i v e n t h a t Soviet t h e o r y is g e n e r a l l y historicist in t y p e , this of c o u r s e e x p l a i n s t h e close links w i t h h i s t o r y ; a n d at this p o i n t , c o n c e p t u a l a d j u s t m e n t ceases to b e a m e r e m a t t e r of s u b s t i t u t i n g o n e w o r d for a n o t h e r , a n d c o m e s to req u i r e g e n u i n e i n t e l l e c t u a l i m a g i n a t i o n . It m a y b e n e c e s s a r y to e n t e r i n t o a s t a t e of m i n d in w h i c h t h e tacit b a c k g r o u n d a s s u m p t i o n , t h e null h y p o t h e s i s as it w e r e , is not s t a b i l i t y , b u t c h a n g e , a n d m o r e o v e r c h a n g e of a c e r t a i n g e n e r a l k i n d . O r a g a i n , it is a relatively e a s y m a t t e r to r e m e m b e r t h a t ' a n t h r o p o l o g y ' , w i t h o u t q u a l i f i c a t i o n , m e a n s p h y s i c a l a n t h r o p o l o g y in Soviet p a r l a n c e . A difficulty arises for t h e r e a d e r f r o m t h e fact t h a t e i t h e r t h e a u t h o r or t h e t r a n s l a t o r , a w a r e of t h e n o r m a l t e r m i n o l o g i c a l expect a t i o n s of t h e w e s t e r n r e a d e r , a d j u s t s his p h r a s i n g t o t h e s e e x p e c t a t i o n s , n n d as it w e r e c o m p e n s a t e s for t h e s e m a n t i c drift b e t w e e n t h e t w o

Preface

xi

linguistic shores. T h e difficulty a b o u t this is t h a t whilst it is q u i t e impossible not to m a k e s u c h a d j u s t m e n t s s o m e t i m e s ( w h e n it is easy a n d is s i m p l y a m a t t e r of s u b s t i t u t i n g o n e e x p r e s s i o n for a n o t h e r ) , it is also q u i t e impossible to d o so consistently a n d in all cases. T h e r e a s o n is t h a t in t h e c o m p l e x cases, w h e r e w h a t is at issue is not j u s t t h e use of o n e p h r a s e r a t h e r t h a n a n o t h e r , b u t of a w h o l e c o m p l e x of m e a n i n g s a n d t h e o r e t i c a l a s s u m p t i o n s w h i c h a r e c o n t a i n e d o r i m p l i e d in t h e p h r a s e , a n y r e p h r a s i n g w o u l d m e a n a p r o f o u n d r e - w r i t i n g a n d r e - t h i n k i n g of t h e position of t h e a u t h o r w h o is b e i n g t r a n s l a t e d . T h e t r a n s l a t i o n w o u l d t h e n slide too f a r a n d i m p e r t i n e n t l y i n t o exegesis. T h u s , for i n s t a n c e , I have a l l o w e d myself to c h a n g e ' a n t h r o p o l o g y ' into ' p h y s i c a l a n t h r o p o l o g y ' : for t h e R u s s i a n - s p e a k e r , this w o u l d s e e m in these c o n t e x t s to c o n s t i t u t e m e r e l y a n i n n o c u o u s p l e o n a s m , whilst it m a y save t h e w e s t e r n r e a d e r f r o m m i s c o n s t r u i n g t h e sense. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e h a b i t of referring t o t h e e n t i r e s u b j e c t as ' e t h n o g r a p h y ' , t h o u g h q u i t e easy to t r a n s l a t e as ' a n t h r o p o l o g y ' if o n e wishes, is s o m e h o w so m u c h p a r t of t h e w h o l e a t m o s p h e r e of R u s s i a n discussions - it is e n s h r i n e d in t h e n a m e of the Soviet j o u r n a l d e v o t e d to t h e s u b j e c t - t h a t it seems b e t t e r t o leave it as it s t a n d s , j u s t as o n e w o u l d , in t h e context of R u s s i a n affairs, refer to m u z h i k s a n d r e f r a i n f r o m t r a n s l a t i n g t h e t e r m as ' p e a s a n t s ' . A t r a n s l a t o r f r o m t h e R u s s i a n m u s t o n o c c a s i o n b e allowed to sport a f u r c a p for local c o l o u r . (It s h o u l d p e r h a p s b e s t a t e d t h a t t h e R u s s i a n p a p e r s w e r e originally t r a n s l a t e d b y official M o s c o w t r a n s l a t o r s , w h o a r e not a l w a y s f a m i l i a r w i t h etnografia, let a l o n e w i t h anthropology, n o r u n d u l y r e s p e c t f u l of E n g l i s h w o r d o r d e r or idiom. T h e E d i t o r has t a k e n t h e liberty of t i n k e r i n g w i t h t h e s e t r a n s l a t i o n s , w i t h out c o m p l e t e l y re-writing t h e m , whilst d o i n g his u t m o s t to r e m a i n faithful to t h e m e a n i n g s a n d i n t e n t i o n s of t h e originals. T h e o n e exception is S e m e n o v ' s p a p e r , for t h e t r a n s l a t i o n of w h i c h t h e E d i t o r a s s u m e s c o m p l e t e responsibility. ) A m o n g s t i n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s of i d i o m a r e t h e following: w h e n a Soviet a u t h o r prefixes t h e t e r m ' e t h n o ' to a n o t h e r w o r d , as in ' e t h n o genesis', this g e n e r a l l y m e a n s , I believe, t h a t e t h n o s is a n object of i n q u i r y . ' E t h n o g e n e s i s ' refers to genesis of a n e t h n i c g r o u p . T h e r e is a fairly recent w e s t e r n u s a g e in w h i c h t h e prefix ' e t h n o ' implies not t h a t a n e t h n o s is b e i n g investigated, b u t t h a t something else is b e i n g seen through t h e eyes, or r a t h e r t h r o u g h t h e c o n c e p t s , of t h a t e t h n o s . In s u c h usage, ' e t h n o - b o t a n y ' m e a n s t h e effort to see b o t a n y t h r o u g h t h e ideas a n d classifications of some given e t h n i c g r o u p a n d its l a n g u a g e . It does not m e a n a direct s t u d y of t h e e t h n o s through b o t a n y , b u t seeing b o t a n y 'ethnically'. It is o n l y a s t u d y of t h e e t h n o s indirectly, by a n a t t e m p t to a s s u m e its subjectivity i n s t e a d of o n e ' s o w n c u s t o m a r y viewpoint, a n d t h u s u n d e r s t a n d i n g it ' f r o m t h e inside'. As far as I c a n see, this u s a g e has not yet s p r e a d to t h e Soviet U n i o n , a n d t h e q u i t e d i f f e r e n t ideas u n d e r l y i n g t h e t w o uses of t h e s a m e t e r m m a y easily lead to m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . (I h a v e m a d e no a t t e m p t to t i n k e r w i t h t h e Soviet u s a g e in this case.)

xii

Soviet and Western Anthropology

A philosophically most interesting difference in usage, a n d one which c a n unwittingly lead to very serious m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , concerns t h e ' b r e a d t h ' a n d ' n a r r o w n e s s ' of meaning. It is my belief, which I have not a t t e m p t e d to check systematically, that w h e n a western scholar refers to b r e a d t h a n d narrowness of m e a n i n g , he is referring to denotation, not connotation. H e might say, for instance, ' t h e e t h n o s in the b r o a d e r sense includes a n y ethnic g r o u p with a distinctive language or culture', a n d go to say, ' a n ethnos in t h e n a r r o w e r sense only includes those groups which also possess their o w n socio-political institutions'. In other words, t h e ' n a r r o w n e s s ' of t h e latter m e a n i n g s refers to the fact t h a t there are fewer examples of cultural g r o u p s with socio-political institutions, t h a n t h e r e are of cultural g r o u p s sans phrase. T h e former is a iMÔ-class of the latter. Some R u s s i a n scholars at a n y rate use this distinction in the opposite way, which of course is j u s t as legitimate. ' C u l t u r a l groups endowed with socio-political institutions' is referred to as the broader concept; of course it is richer in the sense t h a t it c o n t a i n s a greater n u m b e r of traits (though the n u m b e r of examples falling u n d e r it is correspondingly smaller). As, generally speaking, c o n n o t a t i o n a n d d e n o t a t i o n vary inversely - the richer a concept, the fewer t h e concrete instances of it, a n d vice versa - the m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s which c a n arise here m a y lead to the total inversion of t h e intended sense. At the s a m e time, t h e philosophical doctrine I have invoked to explain h o w the different m e a n i n g s a r e related - the doctrine a b o u t the inverse relationship of c o n n o t a t i o n a n d d e n o t a t i o n - is philosophically contentious. (Cf. R. M . Eaton, General Logic, New York, 1931, 1959, pp. 265f. F. H . Bradley, The Principles of Logic, O x f o r d , 2nd ed., 1922, p. 170.) Hegelian logicians deny it, a n d p e r h a p s M a r x i s t ones do so too. It is possible t h a t such a denial is implicit in what seems to me Semenov's logical ' r e a l i s m ' in his c o n t r i b u t i o n to this volume. ' M o d e s of P r o d u c t i o n ' , which for h i m are, o n the one h a n d , real entities, causally operative in history, a n d yet also are only exemplified in individual n a m e d societies a n d c a n never exist on their own, have precisely those characteristics which led the Anglo-Hegelians to speak of the 'concrete universal' and, in its n a m e , to deny the inverse relation of connotation a n d denotation. Some m o d e r n logicians, e.g. Q u i n e , w h o are not, at least on the surface, conspicuously Hegelian, also deny the usefulness of a notion o f ' s e n s e ' o r m e a n i n g , as distinct f r o m denotation, from the actual set of objects covered, a n d r e p u d i a t e it as a hangover from Aristotelian essentialism. ( P e r h a p s they are o p e n to t h e suspicion t h a t they use the notion without avowing it.) But Semenov's position, if I u n d e r s t a n d it correctly, is overtly a n d p r o u d l y essentialist or Realist in t h e mediaeval sense: socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s are not abstractions for him, but n a m e s of real entities, which are causally responsible for the more diversified concrete a n d individual societies located in historical time. Given the complexity a n d contentiousness of the issues involved, it

Preface

xiii

w o u l d h a v e b e e n scholastic, p e d a n t i c a n d i m p e r t i n e n t l y intrusive to insert s o m e kind of e x p l a n a t o r y f o o t n o t e in B r o m l e y ' s text. M o r e o v e r , a d i s c u s s i o n of c o n n o t a t i o n a n d d e n o t a t i o n w o u l d b e totally t a n g e n t i a l to his topic a n d p r e o c c u p a t i o n s . At t h e s a m e time, to leave his t e r m i n o logy as it stood w o u l d h a v e a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y led to m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . U n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , I a d o p t e d t h e s o l u t i o n of t r a n s l a t i n g h i m into w e s t e r n i d i o m , whilst i n d i c a t i n g h e r e t h a t I h a v e d o n e so. O n e of t h e p o i n t s at w h i c h i d e n t i c a l t e r m i n o l o g y (or t e r m s h a b i t u a l l y t r a n s l a t e d b e t w e e n t h e R u s s i a n a n d E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e s as if t h e y w e r e e q u i v a l e n t ) h i d e s p r o f o u n d l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in c o n n o t a t i o n , w h i c h c a n lead to t o t a l m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , c o n c e r n s t h e p h r a s e s ' p r i m i tive s o c i e t y ' a n d s i m i l a r e x p r e s s i o n s . I n w e s t e r n a n t h r o p o l o g y , this is a negative a n d r e s i d u a l c a t e g o r y , e n d o w e d w i t h a very m i n i m u m of t h e oretical c o n t e n t . A p r i m i t i v e society is s i m p l y o n e w h i c h is small, a n d devoid of w r i t i n g o r of a n y p o w e r f u l t e c h n o l o g y . A p e r s o n e m p l o y i n g t h e e x p r e s s i o n is not t h e r e b y c o m m i t t e d to a n y views w h a t e v e r a b o u t its i n t e r n a l o r g a n i s a t i o n , historic role, o r s i m i l a r i t y to a n y o t h e r societies also so labelled. By c o n t r a s t , in Soviet usage, w h i c h is very well exp l a i n e d b y P e r s h i t s , t h e e x p r e s s i o n w h i c h c a n b e t r a n s l a t e d in this w a y (p'ervobytnoe obshchestvo), a n d w h i c h I w o u l d p r e f e r to t r a n s l a t e as 'prim o r d i a l c o m m u n i t y ' , is not m e r e l y a t h e o r y - l o a d e d t e r m ; t h e t h e o r y it i n c o r p o r a t e s is a b s o l u t e l y c e n t r a l to t h e e x p l a n a t o r y strategy, a n d p e r h a p s also t o t h e e n t i r e m o r a l vision, of Soviet M a r x i s m . T h e ' p r i m o r d i a l c o m m u n i t y ' is a n e x p l a n a t o r y c o n c e p t c o - o r d i n a t e w i t h ' f e u d a l i s m ' or 'slave society'; a n d p r i m o r d i a l c o m m u n i t i e s , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g differences w h i c h a r e a l l o w e d to exist w i t h i n t h e g e n e r a l c a t e g o r y , a r e e x p e c t e d t o s h a r e c e r t a i n t r a i t s a n d a c e r t a i n historic role. A m o n g s t t h o s e traits, state-lessness a n d class-lessness a r e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t , t h e t w o b e i n g i n t i m a t e l y linked. T h e w e l l - d i f f u s e d c u s t o m of w e s t e r n a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s of d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b e t w e e n state-less ( ' a c e p h a l o u s ') a n d s t a t e - e n d o w e d t r i b a l p r i m i t i v e societies, s i m p l y c o n t a i n s a c o n t r a d i c t i o n if p r o j e c t e d i n t o t h e c u s t o m a r y d e f i n i t i o n s o p e r a t i n g w i t h i n Soviet etnografia. M y m a i n c o n t e n t i o n is t h a t Soviet e t n o g r a f i a is of i m p o r t a n c e not m e r e l y on m e r i t , a s a n t h r o p o l o g y o r as historical sociology, b u t for t h e light it t h r o w s o n Soviet t h o u g h t a n d t h e m a n n e r in w h i c h social a n d p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r o b l e m s a r e c o n c e p t u a l i s e d in t h e Soviet U n i o n . W h a t a r e these issues? N o d o u b t t h e r e a r e m a n y : b u t four of t h e m l e a p to m y eye. 1. T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e e c o n o m y to t h e polity, of p r o d u c t i o n to coercion. M a r x i s t d o c t r i n e h a s b e e n i n t e r p r e t e d in diverse w a y s o n this point. I s u p p o s e it d e p e n d s o n w h e t h e r o n e c o n c e n t r a t e s o n t h e idea t h a t the m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n a n d r e p r o d u c t i o n is in t h e last analysis f u n d a m e n t a l , o r w h e t h e r o n e stresses t h e idea t h a t only c a p i t a l i s m has really p u s h e d t h e s e p a r a t i o n of e c o n o m i c activity f r o m o t h e r s p h e r e s to a n e x t r e m e p o i n t . A s s u c h a s e p a r a t i o n does not o b t a i n in o t h e r social

xiv

Soviet and Western Anthropology

forms, it is not entirely clear w h a t m e a n i n g s h o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d to s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e ' b a s e ' a n d ' s u p e r s t r u c t u r e ' . M a u r i c e G o d e l i e r ' s i n t e r e s t i n g r e - f o r m u l a t i o n s of M a r x i s m e n d e a v o u r t o m a k e use of this very n o n - s e p a r a t i o n , a n d it is for o t h e r s to j u d g e w h e t h e r his view, w h a t e v e r its o t h e r merits, c a n still c l a i m to be ' M a r x ist'. D o t h e forces of coercion have a n i n d e p e n d e n t historic role alongside the forces of production? D o political organisation or culture c o n s t i t u t e i n d e p e n d e n t historical factors? C a n s o m e t h i n g w h i c h could not be isolated .('relations of p r o d u c t i o n ' ) yet be said m e a n i n g f u l l y to determine other kinds of relation, even if 'in the last analysis' it cannot be abstracted from them? However, this is not t h e place to a t t e m p t to h a n d l e t h e p r o b l e m of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of e c o n o m y a n d p o w e r . W h a t it is i m p o r t a n t to say is t h a t it is not s i m p l y a q u e s t i o n of theoretical interest. It is absolutely c e n t r a l to t h e s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d p r o p e r m a n a g e m e n t of i n d u s t r i a l society. (In m y view a very great d e a l of western t h o u g h t on this topic c o n t a i n s m o s t a b o m i n a b l e c o n f u s i o n s . ) All this being so, w h a t Soviet t h i n k e r s h a v e to say a b o u t it - even, or especially, t h r o u g h t h e p r i s m of e t h n o g r a p h y a n d whilst i n t e r p r e t i n g o t h e r a n d historical societies - is of the u t m o s t possible interest. 2. T h e r e is t h e closely r e l a t e d p r o b l e m of t h e typology a n d e v a l u a t i o n of h u m a n societies. T h e g r e a t philosophies of history, i n c l u d i n g M a r x ism, were e l a b o r a t e d in t h e late-eighteenth a n d n i n e t e e n t h centuries. M u c h h a s h a p p e n e d since t h e n . T h i s q u e s t i o n really a m o u n t s to asking - w h o a r e we a n d w h e r e a r e w e going ? W e s t e r n sociology n o w a d a y s , if it h a s a n y p a t t e r n u n d e r l y i n g its eclecticism at all, is W e b e r i a n . I have long a s s u m e d t h a t t h e difference b e t w e e n w e s t e r n W e b e r i a n vision a n d Soviet M a r x i s m is basically t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e g a t e - k e e p e r a n d the H e g e l i a n a c o r n - t o - o a k - t r e e theories of history. O n t h e f o r m e r model, i n d u s t r i a l society w a s b o r n of a n u n i q u e c o m b i n a t i o n of c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a n d it w a s never t h e universal s h a r e d p o t e n t i a l of every a n d a n y h u m a n society, d u e to c o m e to f r u i t i o n sooner or later, w h a t e v e r h a p p e n e d . It only b e c a m e universal through diffusion. Even p h i l o s o p h i e s of ' d e v e l o p m e n t ' , w h i c h have b e e n a c c u s e d of b e i n g a n u p s i d e - d o w n M a r x i s m , such as W . W . R o s t o w ' s , merely offer a s c h e m e of w h a t h a p p e n s if a n d w h e n e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t does occur, a n d c o n t a i n n o g e n e r a l theory of history w h i c h w o u l d entail t h a t it m u s t , s o m e t i m e or o t h e r , be initiated. In t h e A c o r n vision, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , h u m a n society is a seed which c o n t a i n s t h e s a m e u l t i m a t e p o t e n t i a l w h e r e v e r it m a y b e found, a n d it c a n only be deprived of it by d e s t r u c t i o n . If not d e s t r o y e d , its fulfilment m a y be delayed b u t not prevented. S e m e n o v ' s f a s c i n a t i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of M a r x i s m , c o n t a i n e d in this volume, is still acorn-like in its insistence on the law-bound a n d inescapa b l e p o t e n t i a l of t h e a c o r n a n d of its successive i n c a r n a t i o n s , p r i o r to its final épanouissement in a glorious oak tree. But at t h e s a m e time,

Preface

xv

t h r o u g h his i n s i s t e n c e t h a t t h e s e l a w s a p p l y , in e f f e c t , b u t t o a s i n g l e c a s e - h u m a n h i s t o r y a s a w h o l e - a n d not t o a w h o l e o p e n c a t e g o r y of c a s e s ( i n d i v i d u a l s o c i e t i e s ) , his Problemstellung c o m e s f a r c l o s e r t o t h e u n i q u e W e b e r i a n gate-keeper, t h a n to what he himself describes as the customary, uncritical (because unwitting a n d barely considered) a n d i n c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of M a r x i s m . ( S e m e n o v ' s p o s i t i o n h a s its s e v e r e c r i t i c s w i t h i n t h e Soviet U n i o n . See, for i n s t a n c e , N i k i f o r o v ' s The East'and World History, M o s c o w , 1976.) If t h e i m p o r t a n t l a w s of h i s t o r y a r e r e a l i s e d i n b u t a s i n g l e o b j e c t global history as a totality - t h e n t h e logical d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n h i s t o r i c i s t a n d g a t e - k e e p e r e x p l a n a t i o n s is w h i t t l e d d o w n t h o u g h n o t n o n - e x i s t e n t . T h e h i s t o r i c i s t still h o l d s t h a t t h e s a m e p a t t e r n w o u l d necessarily o b t a i n in o t h e r worlds - ¡ / t h e y existed - w h i c h t h e W e b e r i a n d e n i e s ; b u t t h e d i f f e r e n c e is a b o u t w h a t would h a p p e n in o t h e r w o r l d s , n o t so m u c h a b o u t t h i s r e a l w o r l d . It is n o t e a s y t o p u t it t o t h e t e s t . N o w o n d e r t h a t in t h e c o u r s e of t h e W a r t e n s t e i n d i s c u s s i o n s , M a u rice G o d e l i e r c a l l e d Y u r i S e m e n o v a H e g e l i a n . ( T h e r e is n o t h i n g t h a t a c a d e m i c s will r e f r a i n f r o m s a y i n g t o e a c h o t h e r in t h e h e a t of d e b a t e . ) W h a t is t r u e a b o u t S e m e n o v at t h i s p o i n t s e e m s t o m e e q u a l l y t r u e of t h e b r i l l i a n t E n g l i s h n e o - M a r x i s t P e r r y A n d e r s o n , w h o s e Lineages of the Absolute State i m p l i c i t l y a d o p t s a W e b e r i a n , g a t e - k e e p e r Fragestellung. H o w e v e r a n t i - W e b e r i a n A n d e r s o n ' s s p e c i f i c c o n c l u s i o n , t h e m a n n e r of p o s i n g t h e q u e s t i o n is a u t o m a t i c a l l y , a l m o s t u n c o n s c i o u s l y W e b e r i a n . Such a position assumes that the unique gate could only be o p e n e d by a r a r e c o m b i n a t i o n of c i r c u m s t a n c e s , w h i c h o n A n d e r s o n ' s int e r p r e t a t i o n a c t u a l l y i n c l u d e d t h e i d e o l o g i c a l r e t e n t i o n of t h e m e m o r y of a n e a r l i e r a n d l a p s e d social f o r m . W h e t h e r t h i s c a n r e a l l y still u s e fully b e c a l l e d ' M a r x i s t ' , is s o m e t h i n g I m u s t leave t o t h o s e w h o feel themselves qualified to confer or w i t h h o l d this label. 3. L e s s closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e p r e v i o u s t w o s e t s of i s s u e s , t h e r e is t h e s u p r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t - t h e o r e t i c a l l y a n d p r a c t i c a l l y - q u e s t i o n of t h e n a t u r e a n d r o l e of ethnicity, b o t h t h r o u g h o u t h u m a n h i s t o r y , a n d in c o n t e m p o r a r y i n d u s t r i a l society in p a r t i c u l a r . B r o m l e y ' s i n s i s t e n c e , e c h o e d b y s o m e of t h e o t h e r Soviet p a r t i c i p a n t s , o n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of etnografia in t e r m s of t h e s t u d y of t h e ethnos, p r o v i d e s a c h a r t e r for t h e s t u d y of t h i s t o p i c , b o t h in t h e p a s t a n d in t h e p r e s e n t . S e m e n o v ' s s c h e m a c o n t a i n s a d e f i n i t e a n s w e r to t h e q u e s t i o n of w h y it w a s q u i t e e s s e n t i a l for h u m a n i t y t o b e o r g a n i s e d in diverse e t h n i c g r o u p s - q u i t e a p a r t f r o m t h e a c c i d e n t of d i s p e r s a l a n d d i s t a n c e . In his v e r s i o n of M a r x i s m , e t h n i c i t y b e c o m e s h i s t o r i c a l l y n e c e s s a r y , i n s t e a d of c o n t i n g e n t . O t h e r theoreticians have invoked 'uneven d e v e l o p m e n t ' to explain the p o l i t i c i s a t i o n of e t h n i c i t y ; his t h e o r y r e q u i r e s b o t h u n e v e n d e v e l o p m e n t and its p o l i t i c a l a n d e t h n i c e x p r e s s i o n , to e x p l a i n h o w h i s t o r y c a n , a t c e r t a i n c r u c i a l p o i n t s , m o v e o n to ' h i g h e r s t a g e s ' . B u t leaving h i s t o r y a n d g e n e r a l t h e o r y a s i d e , t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of e t n o g r a f i a p r o v i d e s a w a r r a n t for i n v e s t i g a t i n g e t h n i c i t y a n d c u l t u r e in t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y Soviet U n i o n , a n d a s d e s c r i b e d b y B r o m l e y , D r o b i z h e v a

xvi

Soviet and Western Anthropology

a n d o t h e r s , this idea is in fact b e i n g vigorously p u r s u e d . N a t i o n a l i t y is c r u c i a l in East a n d W e s t . Soviet e t h n o g r a p h y now b e c o m e s o n e of o u r m a i n sources of i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t its m a n i f e s t a t i o n - a n d t h e m a n n e r in w h i c h it is b e i n g h a n d l e d - in t h e Soviet U n i o n . 4. As Bromley,· D r o b i z h e v a a n d o t h e r s stress, e t h n i c i t y increasingly m a n i f e s t s itself t h r o u g h culture ( w h a t R u s s i a n s call ' s p i r i t u a l c u l t u r e ' ) , i.e. r o u g h l y leisure activities a n d intellectual idiom a n d identification, r a t h e r t h a n in t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n a l i n f r a s t r u c t u r e of society. In this way, by p r e - e m p t i n g t h e e t h n o s , Soviet a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s have also laid t h e i r h a n d o n a n d s t a k e d t h e i r c l a i m to t h e s t u d y a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Soviet culture, a n d we shall n e e d to s t u d y t h e m for i n f o r m a t i o n a n d ideas a b o u t this topic. T h e i n f r a s t r u c t u r e of this volume, w h i c h springs f r o m a C o n f e r e n c e at B u r g W a r t e n s t e i n in 1976, w a s generously assured b y the W e n n e r G r e n F o u n d a t i o n for A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l R e s e a r c h . B u r g W a r t e n s t e i n fuses t h e d é c o r of t h e f e u d a l m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n with t h e conveniences of late m o n o p o l y c a p i t a l i s m , a c o m b i n a t i o n w h i c h has a very g r e a t deal to c o m m e n d it. H e n c e p r o f o u n d g r a t i t u d e is d u e to t h e F o u n d a t i o n , its D i r e c t o r of S t u d i e s , D r Lisa O s m u n d s e n , a n d her e n t i r e staff. Sir R a y m o n d F i r t h m u s t also b e cited for the generosity w i t h w h i c h he s u p p o r t e d a n d e n c o u r a g e d t h e p r o j e c t f r o m its inception. A m o n g s t t h e R u s s o p h o n e w e s t e r n p a r t i c i p a n t s w h o h e l p e d w i t h adm i n i s t r a t i v e p r o b l e m s a n d various m e e t i n g s before a n d a f t e r the C o n f e r e n c e itself, T a m a r a D r a g a d z e a n d C a r o l i n e H u m p h r e y deserve special t h a n k s . T a m a r a D r a g a d z e also devoted a great deal of t i m e to i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e R u s s i a n p a r t s of t h e t a p e - r e c o r d i n g of t h e C o n f e r e n c e for M e y e r F o r t e s , a n d t h u s m u s t have m a d e a most v a l u a b l e c o n t r i b u t i o n to his I n t r o d u c t i o n . C a r o l i n e H u m p h r e y i n t e r p r e t e d adm i r a b l y d u r i n g a follow-up lecture b y Yulian Bromley at t h e R o y a l Anthropological Institute. D u r i n g t h e a c t u a l m e e t i n g s at W a r t e n s t e i n , in a d d i t i o n to t h e c h a r m ing official i n t e r p r e t e r , prodigies of s i m u l t a n e o u s t r a n s l a t i o n s in R u s s i a n , F r e n c h a n d English w e r e p e r f o r m e d by the brilliant a n d polvm a t h i c Sergei A r u t y o n o v , w h o c o m b i n e d sensitivity to n u a n c e in t h r e e l a n g u a g e s w i t h a m a s t e r y of t h e u n d e r l y i n g subject of discussion. But t h e height of his p e r f o r m a n c e as i n t e r p r e t e r was r e a c h e d w h e n h e cont i n u e d , c a l m , impassive a n d p o k e r - f a c e d , to interpret whilst t w o other p a r t i c i p a n t s - t h e p r e s e n t e d i t o r o n e of t h e m - indulged in a s t a n d - u p procedural row a n d shouting match. O , w h o c a n hold a fire in his h a n d , By t h i n k i n g on t h e frosty C a u c a s u s ? {Richard II) But for his C a u c a s i a n b a c k g r o u n d , o n e would be strongly inclined to

Preface

xvii

s p e a k of le Russe avec son sangfroid habituel. T h i s row - t h e R u s s i a n s referred to it as t h e skandalchik - w a s m y fault. I a m told t h a t it h a s been erased f r o m t h e t a p e - r e c o r d i n g s of t h e C o n f e r e n c e by a p e r s o n or p e r s o n s u n k n o w n , w h i c h if so m a y c o n f i r m t h e Soviets in a n y p r e c o n c e p t i o n s t h e y m a y have a b o u t Nixon-like h a b i t s in the W e s t . But I d o not m e n t i o n this e p i s o d e - w h i c h I c a n n o t r e m e m b e r w i t h o u t e m b a r r a s s m e n t , n o r c a n forget - f r o m a n y Dostoievskian y e a r n i n g for p u b l i c s e l f - a b a s e m e n t , a s e n t i m e n t w h i c h is not highly developed in m y breast. I m e n t i o n it for a d i f f e r e n t r e a s o n . T h e r e a r e p r o b l e m s involved in scholarly e x c h a n g e s b e t w e e n m e n of diverse ideological a n d political b a c k g r o u n d . W h e t h e r or to w h a t e x t e n t we explored these p r o b l e m s , a n d h o w d e e p l y we p r o b e d , is s o m e t h i n g w h i c h t h e r e a d e r will assess for himself o n t h e basis of t h e p a p e r s provided. H o w far one should probe w h e n c o m m u n i c a t i o n is first established, a n d w h e t h e r c r u d e or subtle styles of c o m m u n i c a t i o n a r e best, a r e q u e s t i o n s w h i c h will n o d o u b t be a n s w e r e d b y e a c h r e a d e r for h i m self. But it s h o w s t h a t o n e charge, at a n y r a t e , w o u l d not b e w a r r a n t e d : these meetings w e r e serious, a n d were not a n y k i n d of s m o o t h P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s exercise. I have never yet b e e n a c c u s e d of m o u n t i n g a P . R . o p e r a t i o n , a n d d o not i n t e n d to begin s u c h a c a r e e r in m y old age. In t h e e d i t i n g of t h e volume, I have b e e n very g r e a t l y assisted by m y secretary, M a r g a r e t Kosowicz, a n d by D e b o r a h Blake. T h e final p r e p a r a t i o n of t h e M S for p u b l i c a t i o n was c a r r i e d out whilst I held a r e s e a r c h post at t h e C e n t r e d e R e c h e r c h e s et d ' E t u d e s s u r les Sociétés M é d i t e r r a n é e n n e s , at Aix-en-Provence, a n d I a m i n d e b t e d to this C e n t r e a n d its D i r e c t o r , M a u r i c e Flory, for e n a b l i n g m e to d o so. E.G.

MEYER FORTES Introduction As I look back on the conference of which this book is a record, three episodes stand out in my mind. T h e first is the concise clarification of his concepts o f ' e t h n o s ' and 'ethnicos' with which Bromley responded to a question I raised; the second is the far-reaching exchange between Semenov and Godelier on the definition and functions of relations and modes of production; and lastly there is Basilov's wise and penetrating commentary on the hypothesis adducing the O e d i p u s complex' which I advanced in my paper. It hardly needs saying that my principal interest in the conference was to learn something more than the literature we have access to provides of the theoretical guidelines and research activities of Soviet social and cultural anthropologists. And these three episodes, between them, seemed to me to epitomise the mutual understandings our conference achieved. T o begin with, they brought sharply into focus a feature of Soviet ethnography - as they call it - which I had not anticipated. T h e r e is clearly no such thing as a unified, let alone monolithic, system of theory or practice in Soviet ethnography. T o be sure, there is a basic framework of, loosely speaking, Marxist orientation. But in terms of what they actually do, their problems and procedures of research, Soviet ethnographers, linguists, demographers and sociologists are as diverse in their interests and in their approaches as are anthropologists the world over. If it seems odd to make a point of this, let the blame be laid at the door of the ignorance of Soviet anthropological scholarship which is still widespread in the West. It was chastening to find how well informed in contrast to most of the 'western' participants the Soviet participants in our conference were about international anthropological scholarship in English, French, and other 'western' languages. Happily, the gap is closing fast, as this conference reminded us. For apart from Krader, so long dedicated to bringing together Soviet and 'western' theory and research in the anthropological sciences, there were four'western'participants (Gellner, Dragadze, Humphrey, and Woodburn) who are fully at home with Soviet anthropological scholarship and have been acquainting us with this literature. 1 But for

XX

òoviet and Western

Anthropology

my part, this face-to-Face association in a week of unconstrained and forthright argument and discussion was incomparably more valuable in advancing mutual understanding of our points of view and our work than was the previous circulation of publications. As our discussions developed, it became clear to all of us, I think, that the 'objects' of our studies (to paraphrase Bromley) were fundamentally the same and that the different approaches represented overlapped and converged. There were times when the 'western' emphasis on synchronic analysis seemed to run counter to the Soviet method of diachronic contextualisation. But implicitly, if not in every case explicitly, there was the common ground that all our studies rest upon the basis of empirical research among living peoples and societies. Even when historical and archival records are drawn upon for descriptive material or for adding the dimension of extension in time to a study, the final test of an hypothesis was seen to be empirical observations among living peoples. I would not exclude from this claim even the typological and evolutionist models proposed mainly by the Soviet participants. What, for example, the discussion between Pershits and Woodburn came down to in the end was the relevance of empirically observable (i.e. ethnographically validated) modes of livelihood and of social organisation for the reconstruction of prehistoric 'social formations'. If I lay special stress on this, it is because of the fact noted by Dragadze 2 that the Soviet participants adhered scrupulously to the terms of reference of the conference, that is, submitted papers that define the place of anthropology in relation to such other human sciences as linguistics, demography, psychology, etc., whereas the 'western' participants for the most part submitted papers on anthropological themes of special interest to themselves. Thus, it turned out that the Soviet contributions, being concerned with general principles, in contrast to the particularistic contributions of the 'western' participants, set the main lines of our discussions. At the same time, we were constantly made aware of the extensive field experience that lay behind the Soviet concern with general principles. Having myself been engaged in a review of demographic anthropology in Africa just before the conference, I was particularly struck by the wealth of field experience - and, of course, the elegance of the theoretical analysis - presented in Kozlov's paper and amplified in the discussion. To return to the three episodes I have referred to, as they are admirably reported by Dragadze® I need not go into details. It is their general import that is of main interest to me, for they focussed graphically on the central issues of our discussions. It was inevitable that the dominant theme was the elucidation of the concepts of 'ethnos' and 'ethnicos'. Could 'ethnos', in the sense of'a people', be equated with the concept of 'society', and 'ethnicos'with the more general concept of'culture', as a parameter of human social life that is not subject to spatial or temporal limitations ? Since neither 'ethnos ' nor 'ethnicos ' is tied to specific territorial or economic or political community, to equate either with the

Introduction

xxi

concept of 'society', for e x a m p l e in a D u r k h e i m i a n sense, would not seem correct. However, the principal issue is, I suppose, how Bromley's concepts of ' e t h n o s ' a n d 'ethnicos', with their undertones of 'national consciousness' are related to the ' w e s t e r n ' concept of 'ethnicity' as represented, for instance, in t h e work of Barth a n d of Cohen. 4 In the discussion with Bromley I have referred to, it was m a d e clear that, unlike 'ethnicity' as Barth, C o h e n , et al. represent it, ' e t h n o s ' is not a function of opposition between ethnically or culturally different groups in a pluralist territorial or political c o m m u n i t y . It a p p e a r e d that the essential cultural continuity over time, a n d specificity at a given time, of 'ethnos ' a n d 'ethnicos' are perceived as e m b o d i e d objectively in the distinctive customs, beliefs, a n d practices of the m e m b e r s a n d subjectively, for them, in their self-awareness, their sense of identity, as the carriers a n d transmitters of their ' e t h n o s ' or 'ethnicos'. T h i s is not a function of opposition to other groups, for ' e t h n o s ' is as characteristic of small, isolated, technologically b a c k w a r d pre-industrial communities of, for instance, h u n t e r s a n d gatherers (e.g. Eskimo) as of m o d e r n nation states. ' E t h n o s ' pertains to t h e internal life of a people, regardless of class differences or territory. Is this a more sophisticated version of the one-time Boasian theory that every culture is, at bottom, unique and can only be properly u n d e r s t o o d f r o m within, that is, in terms of its own distinctive contents a n d forms of existence? Does this a m o u n t to a form of cultural relativism which rules out cross-cultural comparison with the aim of reaching generalisations of p a n - h u m a n validity? And what are the institutions a n d mechanisms (e.g. endogamy, family structure and the associated child-rearing practices, ritual a n d religion) that m a i n t a i n the closure a n d continuity of ' e t h n o s ' a n d 'ethnicos'? H o w at a n o t h e r level does ' e t h n o s ' in p a r t i c u l a r relate to the p a t t e r n s of political nationalism a n d evolution which Gellner a n d K r ä d e r examined? T h e s e a n d related questions, notably in connection with defining precisely the 'self-awareness' postulated in t h e delineation o f ' e t h n o s ' a n d its connection with the factors o f ' n a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r ' examined in K o n ' s p a p e r , came up several times. M y conclusion is that a vital p a r a m e t e r of h u m a n social existence at all levels a n d stages of social life is a d u m brated in Bromley's concepts. But I venture to suggest that we are only at the beginning of the researches that are needed in linguistics, ethnology, sociology a n d psychology to bring out their full theoretical implications. It would be particularly rewarding, in my view, to develop parallel research by Soviet ethnographers and 'western' ethnographers to distinguish m o r e clearly in what ways ' e t h n o s ' a n d 'ethnicos' overlap with (if at all) or (more likely) contrast with the externally oriented ethnicity by opposition a n d differentiation that is attracting so m u c h attention now a m o n g 'western ' anthropologists. As an u n r e c o n s t r u c t e d structural-functionalist, I found the exchange between Semenov a n d Godelier especially congenial a n d stimulating. A brief c o m m e n t o n this episode is all I can permit myself here. W i t h all d u e respect, it seemed to me t h a t Semenov's model of what I might per-

xxii

Soviet and Western Anthropology

haps designate as the p a r a d i g m a t i c h u m a n society was f u n d a m e n t a l l y a structural-functionalist one a n d that, if modified in the direction of Godelier's insistence on the relative a u t o n o m y of kinship institutions, it could easily a c c o m m o d a t e such classics of British e t h n o g r a p h y as E v a n s - P r i t c h a r d ' s The Nuer, F o r d e 's Yako Studies, A.I. R i c h a r d s ' Land, Labour and Diet, a n d F i r t h ' s Primitive Polynesian Economy. Critical as Semenov is of ' w e s t e r n ' economic anthropology, he gives t h e impression of being m o r e s y m p a t h e t i c to t h e 'substantivist' t h a n to the ' f o r m a l i s t ' analyses of pre-capitalist economies; a n d this brings his views closer, as I r e a d him, to those of the descriptive e t h n o g r a p h e r s of pre-capitalist economies I have m e n t i o n e d t h a n to the more a m b i t i o u s theoretical works, even those t h a t are f r a m e d in Marxist l a n g u a g e t h a t c o m m a n d a t t e n t i o n in ' w e s t e r n ' anthropological circles. 5 Semenov's exposition of his M a r x i s t f r a m e of analysis was at a level of generality or a b s t r a c t i o n that m a d e discussion difficult, even after Godelier h a d i n t r o d u c e d p a r t i c u l a r e t h n o g r a p h i c examples f r o m his own a n d o t h e r s ' field work. Godelier b r o u g h t out eloquently t h e conceptual difficulties a n d empirical obstacles to u n d e r s t a n d i n g the distinction between 'base' and 'superstructure' and the implications of such dicta as (to q u o t e Semenov) 'relations of p r o d u c t i o n a r e p r i m a r y , f u n d a m e n t a l , while all t h e rest are secondary, derivative' t h a t figure so p r o m i n e n t l y in M a r x i s t anthropological writings. Like Godelier, I claim t h a t t h e evidence is incontrovertible t h a t kinship, ritual, a n d political institutions constitute relatively a u t o n o m o u s d o m a i n s of social structure a n d c a n by no m e a n s be reduced to e m a n a t i o n s of t h e 'relations of p r o d u c t i o n ' sensu stricto. It is significant t h a t Semenov allows for 'special interests', for ' o w n e r s h i p relations d e t e r m i n e d by m o r a l i t y ' and for special rules that determine 'which circle [? of pre-existing social relations] a newly b o r n person m a y enter', which, as I see it, is nothing less t h a n a n a d m i s s i o n of the a u t o n o m y of kinship relations a n d c o n t r a dicts his assertion t h a t 'kinship relations have no content, b u t are simply formal connections'. T h a t this, curiously e n o u g h , aligns Semenov with the distinctly non- if not a n t i - M a r x i s t kinship - formalists such as Beattie, N e e d h a m , Leach a n d Schneider did not escape Godelier's attention. T h e point is clear when we consider p a r ticular cases, as was elegantly exemplified by Pouillon a n d e x p o u n d e d by Godelier. T h e a u t o n o m y , relative to the actual processes of p r o d u c ing, distributing, a n d c o n s u m i n g the necessities of life a n d t h e services required to m a i n t a i n a society, of the juridical, political, a n d ideological ' s u p e r s t r u c t u r e s ' , above all of kinship institutions a n d their reflexive power of organising the 'productive forces', t h e n becomes a b u n d a n t l y clear. J u s t h o w 'relations of p r o d u c t i o n ' can, as Semenov a r g u e d , both mobilise 'volition' a n d yet be i n d e p e n d e n t of ' t h e will a n d consciousness of p e o p l e ' also r e m a i n s unclear to me. M u c h M a r x i s t discussion o f ' m o d e s of p r o d u c t i o n ' , 'socio-economic f o r m a t i o n ' a n d o t h e r such f o r m u l a e strikes m e as essentially a verbal reformulation or general r u b r i c for observations a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s

Introduction

xxiii

t h a t a r e c o m m o n p l a c e in s t r u c t u r a l - f u n c t i o n a l e t h n o g r a p h y . T h e evolutionist implications of this l a n g u a g e , as r e g a r d s t h e p r e - c a p i t a l i s t , o r better stated, pre-industrial economies anthropologists normally s t u d y , d o not help m e in m y a n a l y t i c a l a n d e x p l a n a t o r y tasks. In this field too we need m u c h m o r e r e s e a r c h a n d , a b o v e all, discussion. S e m e n o v ' s g r a n d i o s e s c h e m e of social evolution in t h e f r a m e w o r k of w o r l d history could not fail to w i n t h e a d m i r a t i o n of all p a r t i c i p a n t s for its s w e e p a n d e r u d i t i o n , b u t I d o u b t if a n y of us w a s a b l e to see h o w it c o u l d be a p p l i e d to t h e h u m d r u m tasks of e m p i r i c a l e t h n o g r a p h i c research. ' E t h n o s ' a n d ' systems of p r o d u c t i v e r e l a t i o n s ' seem to reflect very different e m p h a s e s in Soviet e t h n o g r a p h y a n d p o i n t to d i f f e r e n t b u t e q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t a r e a s of t h e o r e t i c a l c o n c e r n for all a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s - t h e m o r e so as, to m y m i n d , t h e y direct a t t e n t i o n to t h e necessity for m o r e e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h in a s y n c h r o n i c c o n t e x t . T h i s w a s b r o u g h t out, it s e e m e d to me, in D r o b i z h e v a ' s ' e t h n o - s o c i o l o g i c a l ' studies in u r b a n settings, a n d in A r u t y o n o v ' s brilliant a c c o u n t of Soviet linguistic science. Basilov's p r e s e n t a t i o n of Soviet t h e o r y a n d r e s e a r c h in t h e e t h n o g r a p h y of religion a n d m a g i c h a d , at t i m e s , a classical F r a z e r i a n tone. W h i l e e m p h a s i s i n g t h e w i d e r a n g e of social interests a n d needs, s o m e t i m e s tied to class differences, s u b s e r v e d b y religious institutions, he referred also to ' a r c h a i c ' f o r m s of m a g i c a l r i t u a l surviving a m o n g s o m e C h r i s t i a n a n d M o s l e m sects; a n d in c o m m e n t i n g o n H u m p h r e y ' s a c c o u n t of Soviet studies of s h a m a n i s m , h e s u g g e s t e d , at o n e p o i n t , a ' p o l y d a e m o n i s t i c o r i g i n ' p r e s u m a b l y in a n evolutionist sense, for t h e s e beliefs a n d practices. However, w h e n p r e s e n t i n g his o w n point of view, a distinctly s t r u c t u r a l - f u n c t i o n a l i s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , so it s e e m e d t o m e , c o u l d be r e a d into his analysis. A point of i m p o r t a n c e w a s his d r a w i n g a t t e n t i o n to t h e principle t h a t a s h a m a n is p o w e r l e s s to choose t h e role for himself - he m u s t , it is a c c e p t e d , b e c h o s e n for t h e role b y t h e spirits w i t h w h o m he will later c o m m u n e . W h e t h e r it is c o n s i d e r e d to c o n f o r m to definitions of religion or not, s h a m a n i s m is a n i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s e d cult g e a r e d to social needs, not a m a n i f e s t a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l i d i o s y n c r a c y . T h i s e m p h a s i s on t h e social i m p l i c a t i o n s of religious a n d o t h e r f o r m s of ritual beliefs a n d practices w a s t h e k e y n o t e of Basilov's incisive a n d perceptive c o m m e n t o n m y p a p e r . T h e a r g u m e n t he p u t f o r w a r d , a n d t h e general discussion it s t i m u l a t e d , especially i m p r e s s e d o n m e t h e e x t e n t to w h i c h b o t h t h e descriptive objectives a n d t h e t h e o r e t i c a l a i m s o f ' w e s t e r n ' a n d Soviet a n t h r o p o l o g y coincide. H i s r e m a r k s a r e well s u m m a r i s e d in D r a g a d z e ' s previously q u o t e d review. M a t c h i n g t h e empirical basis I claimed for m y case with his o w n o b s e r v a t i o n s , h e cont e n d e d that t h e evidence p o i n t e d to a n a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e d a t a to the o n e I offered. It was, h e a r g u e d , at best s u p e r f l u o u s , at w o r s t g r a t u i t o u s , to a d d u c e a n u n d e r l y i n g ' o e d i p a l ' conflict t o e x p l a i n t h e opposition of successive g e n e r a t i o n s of p a r e n t s a n d c h i l d r e n . H e a g r e e d , in c o m m o n with most e t h n o g r a p h i c observers, t h a t t h e r e is a

xxiv

Soviet and Western Anthropology

general t e n d e n c y for successive generations, e.g. fathers a n d sons, to be m u t u a l l y antagonistic. But, he insisted, the sexual rivalry p r e s u p p o s e d in the hypothesis of the O e d i p u s c o m p l e x ' to which I had h a d recourse, is not empirically d e m o n s t r a b l e . It is certainly not relevant at t h e time when sons reach the social a n d economic m a t u r i t y to come into conflict with fathers. W h a t is at stake, then, is not sexual access to t h e m o t h e r but rights of inheritance a n d succession, rights to property, a u t h o r i t y a n d other cultural assets. T h e conflict can be fully a c c o u n t e d for by social reasons t h a t d o justice to t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c a l facts. W h y , then, d r a g in the ' O e d i p u s c o m p l e x ' ? T h i s b a r e s u m m a r y does scant justice to the elegance a n d persuasiveness of his a r g u m e n t . W h a t is significant is that it was s u p p o r t e d , not only by other Soviet p a r t i c i p a n t s , b u t by so authoritative a ' w e s t e r n ' colleague as Professor G o o d y a n d was followed u p by Pouillon with a b a l a n c e d suggestion for reconciling the two views. C o n c e d i n g the force of Basilov's a r g u m e n t (and e n c o u r a g e d by some remarks of Bromley) I, neverthless, defended my s t a n d p o i n t o n two grounds. Firstly, t h e r e is the p r o b l e m of explaining why the opposition between successive generations is, a m o n g m a n y peoples, objectified in rules of ritual or m o r a l avoidance that operate f r o m the earliest infancy of the filial generation a n d are connected, by the actors themselves, with the incest taboos. T h u s , it seems t h a t the conflict has its roots in the early relations of p a r e n t s a n d children within the p a r e n t a l family. And secondly, I a r g u e d t h a t t h e social institutions a n d relations to which Basilov referred must be t h o u g h t of as built u p u p o n such 'ele m e n t a r y particles' of social life as the propensities postulated in the notion of the O e d i p u s complex. Retrospectively, I would d r a w a t t e n tion to t h e fact t h a t the t r a n s m i s s i o n of property, office a n d power f r o m generation to generation is usually regulated by juridical c u s t o m a n d need not, therefore, e n g e n d e r conflict. T h e r e is m u c h m o r e to be said on this topic, a n d I do not suppose that my defence of my hypothesis convinced Basilov or those w h o agreed with him. T h e i m p o r t a n t thing, for me, was that we were able to present a n d consider the alternatives with complete m u t u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g , a n d in the light of the available empirical evidence. I must refrain f r o m enlarging f u r t h e r on the discussions t h a t were held d u r i n g o u r meeting. Certainly, there emerged i m p o r t a n t a n d critical differences b e t w e e n the ways Soviet e t h n o g r a p h e r s on t h e one h a n d a n d British, A m e r i c a n , a n d French social anthropologists o n the other see their empirical tasks a n d their theoretical objectives. T h i s was b r o u g h t out with impressive eloquence a n d skill by Godelier when, presenting some of his o w n field d a t a on initiation rituals a m o n g the B a r u y a of N e w G u i n e a , he questioned the objectivity a n d the uniqueness of the ' e t h n o s ' as a p r o p e r t y of a cultural system over a n d above the details of economic, political, and national custom. A n d I do not suppose t h a t Bromley's response, d r a w i n g attention to the different levels o f ' e t h n i c ' identification o p e n to a person w h o at once is a Cos-

Introduction

xxv

sack, a Russian, and a Soviet citizen, answered Godelier's criticism to his satisfaction. Debates of this type were the order of the day throughout the conference. Yet, at the end, I venture to assert, the conviction emerged for all the participants that our fundamental scientific tasks and objectives are the same and that there is more overlap and convergence between our several theoretical positions than there is irreconcilable divergence. A foundation has, I believe, been truly laid for much future cooperation. NOTES 1 E.g. see Gellner's articles in European Journal of Sociology, 1977, vol. 18. 2 T. Dragadze, in Current Anthropology, 1978, vol. 20. 3 Ibid. 4 Fredrik Barth, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organisation of Culture Difference, London, 1969. R. Cohen, Preface to R. Naroll and R. C o h e n (eds) Handbook of Method in Cultural Anthropology, N e w York, 1973. 5 See, for instance, his p a p e r ' M a r x i s m and primitive society', Philosophy and the Social Sciences, 1975, 5, 201-13.

PART I Marxism, anthropology, history

MAURICE GODELIER The emergence and development in anthropology in France

of

Marxism

Marxism only made its appearance in anthropological research in France some time around the 1960s. Before this, the mainstream of anthropological thinking had grown out of the work of Durkheim, Lévy-Bruhl, Mauss and others; this current had not only influenced French anthropology, but also Anglo-Saxon sociology and anthropology. Fieldwork was far less thorough, less 'monographic' than that of Anglo-Saxon anthropologists, who drew their inspiration from Malinowski and Boas. However, monographs by Maurice Leenhardt and Marcel Griaule stood out quite sharply, the main thrust of their analyses centring around representations and religious practices. Still in the minority at that time, though about to achieve predominance, the structuralists were developing powerfully through the writings of Claude Lévi-Strauss. Louis Dumont had adopted the structuralist method in order to analyse the caste system in India, but his analysis was openly idealist and anti-Marxist in tone, contrary to Lévi-Strauss, who insisted that his studies of systems of kinship and of systems of mythical representations were materialist and even, to a certain extent, 'Marxist'. Around 1960, quite independently of each other, Claude Meillassoux and I became anthropologists, the former having been a sociologist, the latter starting out from a grounding in philosophy and subsequently in economics. Both of us had reached the conclusion that it was time to analyse, from a Marxist point of view, the findings and theories accumulated by anthropologists since the beginning of the century. But our ways soon parted over the question of what a 'Marxist point of view' might be. O u r differences arose over three main points, and since that time these differences have never been settled: 'Marxist' anthropology in France henceforth adopted two sharply distinct and opposing paths and forms. The three points are : 1. How are we to understand the distinction between infrastructure

4

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

a n d s u p e r s t r u c t u r e in precapitalist societies? W h a t does t h e central hypothesis of historical materialism, namely the d e t e r m i n a n t role of the infrastructure 'in the last instance' signify in societies where kinship or politico-religious relations a p p e a r to d o m i n a t e the functioning a n d the r e p r o d u c t i o n of these societies? 2. W h a t should o u r a t t i t u d e be t o w a r d s functionalist a n d structuralist theses a n d m e t h o d s ? W h a t elements may we reject or adopt critically with a view to developing t h e m within a Marxist a p p r o a c h , while still developing a M a r x i s t a p p r o a c h in anthropology? T h e question of what a t t i t u d e to a d o p t with regard to Lévi-Strauss 's work in the fields of kinship a n d of m y t h s was crucial in this respect and, right from the outset, it gave rise to a f u n d a m e n t a l divergence between the two currents. 3. Finally, w h a t should be o u r political attitude, w h a t kind of radical militant praxis ought we to a d o p t in order to act u p o n a n d within French society? A n d , as anthropologists, what kind of militant action could we e n g a g e in against colonial oppression in Vietnam, Algeria, West Africa, Polynesia a n d so o n ? T h i s determination not to confine ourselves to the r e a l m of ideas or of scientific practice b u t to go b e y o n d this, to b e c o m e involved in the b r o a d e r struggles of the working class a n d of other exploited categories of society, m a r k e d us off f r o m LéviStrauss who, t h o u g h taking materialism a n d M a r x i s m as his references all the while, h a s in practice always abstained from seeking to act u p o n his society. Naturally, we both t h o u g h t t h a t the first task of a Marxist was to focus his a t t e n t i o n u p o n t h e study of the 'economic' structures of primitive societies, a n d we f o u n d ourselves grappling with the p r o b l e m s of 'economic a n t h r o p o l o g y ' at a m o m e n t when the debate between formalists a n d substantivists was at its height. Broadly speaking, we both t e n d e d to side with Polanyi against the formalists, while stating our belief in the need to go m u c h f u r t h e r . But the m o m e n t we tried to go further, t h e d i s a g r e e m e n t s concerning the three points outlined above once more rose to the surface. 1. For Meillassoux, kinship was only a superstructure, ' m a s k i n g ' the essence of the ' r e a l i t y ' of social relations, namely economic relations. T h e s e themselves he r e d u c e d to various forms of the l a b o u r process encountered in a given society: h u n t i n g , fishing, farming, a n d so forth, and analysis of these l a b o u r processes was somehow supposed directly to provide t h e key to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of superstructures. In his book Anthropologie économique des Gouro de Côte d'Ivoire he devotes only twelve pages to the family a n d m a r r i a g e , a n d none to religion, representations of n a t u r e , power, lineage, etc. H e more or less reduces the G o u r o to their economic infrastructures. 2. U n d e r t h e influence of a current that is very powerful a m o n g French Africanists, one t h a t is hostile to structuralism, Meillassoux

G o d e l i e r : Marxism in anthropology in France

5

denied all scientific value to Lévi-Strauss 's work and to the method known as structuralist analysis. For him, this method reduced all reality to abstractions and was fundamentally 'idealist'. 3. O n the third question, that of political commitment and militant action, the opposition between us was radical from the start. Meillassoux was active in Trotskyist circles whereas I was a militant in the Communist Party. In 1968, a Maoist current formed around Terray and Rey. These two joined up with Meillassoux, re-reading the latter's book in the 'light' of the theses of Louis Althusser, a philosopher and Communist Party member. While adopting Althusser's theoretical positions, however, Terray and Rey joined forces with Meillassoux in the political sphere in the fight against Althusser's own party. Such, briefly, were the circumstances and the reasons for the emergence of Marxism in anthropology in France, and for the existence of two so profoundly distinct and opposing currents within it. In what follows I shall try to show how I now see the following problems : 1. Determination in the last instance; 2. T h e oppositions between functionalism, structuralism and Marxism; 3. The 'ideological' and the analysis of religious representation practices, which is particularly tricky for a Marxist. The distinction

between infrastructure

and

superstructure

Marx's crucial discovery was the role of transformations of the material base of society in understanding the logic of forms of social life and of their evolution. After Book I of Capital was published Engels, in J u n e 1877, wrote a brief'Introduction to M a r x ' for the benefit of readers of the Volkskalender of Brunswick, in which he said: Of the many important discoveries with which Marx has inscribed his name in the annals of science, we may pause here to consider two only: the first is the revolution which he wrought in the entire conception of world history. History was for the first time set upon its rightful basis. Marx's second important discovery was the final elucidation of the relationship between capital and labour, in other words the demonstration of the process whereby, in present-day society and in the existing capitalist mode of production, the worker is exploited by capital. Modern scientific socialism is founded upon these two important facts. Later, in his famous speech at Marx's tomb on March 17, 1883, Engels took up this theme again, calling the former discovery a 'general law' and the latter a 'specific law' of historical materialism.

6

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

W h a t t h e n d o we m e a n by i n f r a s t r u c t u r e ? By i n f r a s t r u c t u r e or t h e m a t e r i a l base of society we refer to a c o m p l e x c o m b i n a t i o n of . 1. t h e ecological a n d g e o g r a p h i c a l c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n a n d f r o m w h i c h society e x t r a c t s its m a t e r i a l m e a n s of existence ; 2. the p r o d u c t i v e forces, i.e. t h e m a t e r i a l a n d intellectual m e a n s w h i c h m a n invents a n d e m p l o y s in different l a b o u r processes in o r d e r to act u p o n n a t u r e a n d t o e x t r a c t t h e r e f r o m his m e a n s of existence, to t r a n s f o r m n a t u r e into ' s o c i a l i s e d ' n a t u r e ; 3. relations of p r o d u c t i o n , i.e. all social r e l a t i o n s whatsoever, w h i c h serve a threefold f u n c t i o n : first to d e t e r m i n e social access to a n d control of resources a n d t h e m e a n s of p r o d u c t i o n ; s e c o n d l y to r e d i s t r i b u t e t h e social l a b o u r force a m o n g t h e d i f f e r e n t l a b o u r processes, a n d to o r g a n ise these processes; a n d t h i r d l y to d e t e r m i n e t h e social d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e p r o d u c t of l a b o u r . ' M o d e of p r o d u c t i o n ' refers to a specific c o m b i n a t i o n of d e t e r m i n a t e p r o d u c t i v e forces a n d of d e t e r m i n a t e social r e l a t i o n s c o n s t i t u t i n g b o t h m a t e r i a l a n d social c o n d i t i o n s , a n d t h e i n t e r n a l m a t e r i a l a n d social s t r u c t u r e s t h r o u g h w h i c h society acts u p o n its n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t in o r d e r to extract f r o m it a series of socially useful g o o d s . I s h o u l d like to dwell a m o m e n t o n these d e f i n i t i o n s in o r d e r to d r a w a t t e n t i o n to a m a j o r point t h a t is rarely s u b j e c t e d to t h o r o u g h g o i n g t h e o r e t i c a l analysis. A m o n g t h e p r o d u c t i v e forces ( a n d h e n c e f o r m i n g p a r t of t h e i n f r a s t r u c t u r e ) a r e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of t h e n a t u r e that society exploits, r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of tools, of t h e i r rules of m a n u f a c t u r e a n d use. T h e s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s exist socially a n d a r e t h u s c a p a b l e of b e i n g c o m m u n i c a t e d . So we h a v e t o i n c l u d e a m o n g t h e p r o d u c t i v e forces b o t h t h e s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s a n d t h e linguistic m e a n s r e q u i r e d to express t h e m a n d to h a n d t h e m d o w n f r o m g e n e r a t i o n to g e n e r a t i o n within a given c u l t u r e . H e r e , t h o u g h t a n d l a n g u a g e f u n c t i o n as p r o d u c t i v e forces a n d h e n c e as c o m p o n e n t s of t h e i n f r a s t r u c t u r e . T h e distinction b e t w e e n i n f r a s t r u c t u r e a n d s u p e r s t r u c t u r e , therefore, is not b e t w e e n m a t e r i a l a n d i m m a t e r i a l ; as we shall see, it is a d i s t i n c t i o n t h a t c o n c e r n s f u n c tions a n d not institutions. T h i s b e c o m e s c l e a r e r w h e n o n e t u r n s f r o m p r o d u c t i v e forces to look at t h e social relations of p r o d u c t i o n . T h e t h r e e e x a m p l e s w h i c h follow s h o u l d m a k e t h e p o i n t . If we take h u n t i n g - g a t h e r i n g societies s u c h as t h e A u s t r a l i a n a b o r i g i n e s we c a n see t h a t t h e social r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n g r o u p s a n d a m o n g individuals, w h i c h serve as social c o n d i t i o n s of access to n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s a n d as a f r a m e w o r k for t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n of t h e l a b o u r process a n d t h e r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r o d u c t s , a r e in fact social relations of k i n s h i p ; these, moreover, govern m a r r i a g e s , m a t r i m o n i a l alliances b e t w e e n different groups, a n d descent - this being the explicit a n d universal funct i o n of kinship relations. T h e relevance of this e x a m p l e lies in t h e fact t h a t it shows us t h e s a m e institutions, n a m e l y k i n s h i p relations, f u n c t i o n i n g b o t h as i n f r a s t r u c t u r e a n d as s u p e r s t r u c t u r e . So t h e distinction

G o d e l i e r : Marxism

in anthropology in France

7

is n o l o n g e r b e t w e e n i n s t i t u t i o n s , b u t b e t w e e n f u n c t i o n s w i t h i n a given institution. If w e n o w c o n s i d e r a G r e e k city, s u c h as A t h e n s in t h e fifth c e n t u r y B.C., w e find t h a t , t h i s t i m e , it w a s political r e l a t i o n s w h i c h f u n c t i o n e d f r o m w i t h i n as r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n . C i t i z e n s h i p c a r r i e d w i t h it a n exclusive r i g h t to use t h e city's l a n d a n d , c o n v e r s e l y , only l a n d o w n e r s c o u l d b e citizens. T o b e a citizen, t h a t is, a f r e e m a n , w a s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y t o b e a l a n d o w n e r , to h a v e full a c c e s s t o p u b l i c office a n d political r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , a n d to h a v e exclusive r i g h t s to p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e religious life of t h e city, a n d to t h e p r o t e c t i o n of its gods. M e n w h o , t h o u g h free, w e r e f o r e i g n , w e r e b a r r e d f r o m o w n e r s h i p of l a n d a n d f r o m a g r i c u l t u r a l activities, f r o m p u b l i c office a n d f r o m t h e city's t e m p l e s a n d s h r i n e s . A first division of l a b o u r flowed f r o m this, since s u c h m e n w e r e r e s t r i c t e d to h a n d i c r a f t s , t r a d e a n d b a n k i n g . At t h e s a m e t i m e , h o w e v e r , f r e e m e n , w h e t h e r citizens or a l i e n s , w e r e at liberty t o r u n t h e i r a f f a i r s t h e m s e l v e s or else to rely o n slaves t o r u n t h e m . T h i s w a s t h e s e c o n d division of l a b o u r in t h e G r e e k city. S u c h w e r e t h e specific f e a t u r e s of t h e G r e e k e c o n o m y . T o g r a s p t h i s fully it is essential t o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t it w a s not t h e s e f o r m s of division of l a b o u r w h i c h res u l t e d in political r e l a t i o n s f u n c t i o n i n g b o t h a s r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n a n d a s s u p e r s t r u c t u r e s . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , it w a s t h e fact t h a t politics f u n c t i o n e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y as a r e l a t i o n of p r o d u c t i o n w h i c h gave rise t o t h e s e f o r m s of division of l a b o u r w i t h i n a h i e r a r c h y of s t a t u s e s . I c o m e n o w t o m y last e x a m p l e . O p p e n h e i m ' s s t u d y of A s s u r in a n c i e n t M e s o p o t a m i a s h o w s t h a t m o s t of t h e c i t y ' s l a n d w a s r e g a r d e d as t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e g o d A s s u r . A t e m p l e s t a n d i n g in t h e m i d d l e of t h e city w a s t h e d w e l l i n g p l a c e of the g o d a n d t h e p r i e s t s . T h e e c o n o m y f u n c t i o n e d a s a vast c e n t r a l i s e d s y s t e m w i t h i n w h i c h village c o m m u n i t i e s a n d i n d i v i d u a l s w e r e p l a c e d u n d e r t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e priests a n d t h e t e m p l e , t o w h i c h t h e y o w e d a p o r t i o n of t h e i r l a b o u r a n d t h e i r o u t p u t . H e r e , it w a s religious r e l a t i o n s - religion - w h i c h f u n c t i o n e d as social r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n . W e c a n see t h e n t h a t the 'economic factor' does not occupy a constant locus t h r o u g h o u t h i s t o r y a n d t h a t , c o n s e q u e n t l y , it a s s u m e s d i f f e r e n t f o r m s a n d t h a t its m o d e of d e v e l o p m e n t varies. By m o d e of d e v e l o p m e n t I m e a n t w o t h i n g s : s h o r t a n d l o n g - t e r m c o n d i t i o n s of r e p r o d u c t i o n , a n d t h e effects o n m a t e r i a l a n d intellectual forces of p r o d u c t i o n , e n a b l i n g a society to p r o v i d e for its m a t e r i a l m e a n s of e x i s t e n c e . F r o m a n epistem o l o g i c a ! p o i n t of view, I w o u l d stress t h e i m p o r t a n c e of not d e f i n i n g i n f r a s t r u c t u r e a n d s u p e r s t r u c t u r e as i n s t i t u t i o n s , b u t a s f u n c t i o n s . T h i s is t h e first c o n d i t i o n for b r e a k i n g out of t h e s p o n t a n e o u s e t h n o c e n t r i s m c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of o u r c o n c e p t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n e c o n o m y a n d society. B o t h M a r x i s t s a n d n o n - M a r x i s t s a l i k e s p o n t a n e o u s l y s h a r e this e t h n o c e n t r i c p r e j u d i c e . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e y a p p r e h e n d a n c i e n t or e x o t i c e c o n o m i e s t h r o u g h t h e form t a k e n b y t h e social relations of p r o d u c t i o n in o u r society, w h e r e i n d e e d t h e y d o a p p e a r as a series of s e p a r a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s of kinship, r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n a n d religious

8

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

relations. T h e theoretical question, then, if we a r e to study the history of modes of p r o d u c t i o n scientifically, requires t h a t we seek to discover the reasons a n d conditions which have resulted in changes in the locus of relations of p r o d u c t i o n in t h e course of history, a n d which have caused these relations of p r o d u c t i o n to c h a n g e form a n d effect in changing their locus. Needless to say, a n y such history c a n n o t be the fruit of a single, partial discipline, as it mobilises historians, anthropologists, sociologists a n d economists together. However, being a M a r x i s t is not merely a q u e s t i o n of identifying a n d defining social relations of p r o d u c t i o n at different epochs a n d in different societies. It also implies p u t t i n g f o r w a r d t h e hypothesis that the over-arching logic of these societies d e p e n d s on the n a t u r e of their infrastructure. Empiricists, however, starting f r o m the visible hierarchy of institutions, d r a w the conclusion t h a t , with t h e exception of capitalist societies, economy does not play a d e t e r m i n a n t role in the last resort in h u m a n history b u t t h a t , d e p e n d i n g on t h e case in question, this role is played by kinship, politics or religion. T o this end, they even invoke the very examples I have just cited. T h i s is the strategic knot lying at the heart of the M a r x i s t interpretation. T h e p r o b l e m is usually f o r m u l a t e d as follows: how c a n a Marxist simultaneously account for t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n , in the last resort, of economics, a n d for the d o m i n a n c e of kinship, politics or religion? D e t e r m i n a t i o n a n d d o m i n a n c e , the p r o b l e m revolves a r o u n d these two terms. T h e r e are t w o c u r r e n t s of Marxist t h o u g h t on this point. T h e more usual i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , to be f o u n d in its most sophisticated form in Althusser's t h o u g h t , presents t h e economy's d e t e r m i n a t i o n in the last resort as a process of selection in a given society, by the economy, of one s u p e r s t r u c t u r e f r o m a m o n g s t possible ones, which is t h e n somehow elevated into a d o m i n a n t position. W h a t e v e r the terminology employed, the causality of t h e e c o n o m y is thought of as a relation between institutions a n d not b e t w e e n functions. For others, including myself, if kinship functions in m a n y societies as a d o m i n a n t relation, it is because it functions f r o m within as a social relation of p r o d u c t i o n , as t h e social relation within which m a n ' s action u p o n nature, jointly with the social control of the m e a n s of production a n d of p r o d u c t s are organised. Similarly, where politics dominates social life as a whole, this is because.it acts f r o m within as the social relations of p r o d u c t i o n . O n each occasion, w h a t transpires t h r o u g h the d o m i n a t i o n of one or a n o t h e r of these structures is the s a m e hierarchy of functions as exists in our o w n society, since we c a n see that in all societies structures only play a d o m i n a n t role if they function simultaneously as economic infrastructures. It is not a d e q u a t e to say, as empiricists do, t h a t if relations of kinship a r e d o m i n a n t in m a n y primitive societies, this is because they a s s u m e several functions. It is not enough for social relations to ' p l u r i f u n c t i o n ' in order for t h e m to d o m i n ate a society's logic, m o d e of development a n d system of collective representations; they m u s t , of necessity, a s s u m e the function of re-

Godelier : Marxism in anthropology in France

9

lations of production. This, it seems to me, is the correct u n d e r s t a n d i n g of M a r x ' s hypothesis concerning the m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n ' s d e t e r m i n a n t role in the last resort. T h i s discovery arises from quite specific historical conditions which are in fact the reasons behind the epistemological r u p t u r e which g r a d u ally built u p t h r o u g h M a r x ' s thinking on the question of the capitalist m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n . For it is only within the n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y capitalist m o d e of production t h a t the distinct functions of i n f r a s t r u c t u r e a n d s u p e r s t r u c t u r e existed in the form of distinct organisations. For the first time, t h e process of production has developed within institutions that are almost entirely separate from the family, f r o m politics a n d f r o m religion. However, separate here does not m e a n being devoid of a n y internal relations of correspondence. T h e r e is a working-class form of family and a bourgeois form corresponding to the new capitalist mode of production, and these forms evolve in step with the latter's development. T h e i m p o r t a n t point, though, is t h a t it is not w i t h i n the f r a m e work of political or family relations t h a t the social process of p r o d u c t i o n is organised. In this context, it b e c a m e easy, for t h e first time, to recognise the role of the economy in the evolution of society; a n d here lies the origin of the epistemological r u p t u r e engineered by M a r x . W i t h the emergence of capitalist relations of p r o d u c t i o n , it b e c a m e possible to see in the history of Ancient Greece s o m e t h i n g other t h a n w h a t the Greeks themselves saw, a n d to see this history differently. But at the same time, it b e c a m e h a r d e r to discover economics w h e r e it exists as a function of relations of kinship or of political relations. W e are confronted with w h a t can only be termed a n 'epistemological c h i a s m a ' ; the same social relations reveal something of the p a s t a n d cause something of the past to vanish, but it is not the s a m e thing. W h a t M a r x discovered was not only t h e role of economics in capitalist society b u t , t h r o u g h analysis of the capitalist m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n , the existence of a hierarchy of structural functions and causalities which provide the conditions of r e p r o d u c t i o n of society - of a n y society - without p r e j u d g i n g the n a t u r e of t h e structures assuming these functions in a n y p a r t i c u l a r case or the n u m b e r of functions that a s t r u c t u r e m a y assume. A n d this is what Engels m e a n t when he credited M a r x with having discovered both a general a n d a specific law of historical development. It should n o w be clear that in order to e m p l o y these hypotheses, M a r x i s m requires an extremely complex methodology, one c a p a b l e not only of isolating structures but also of t h r o w i n g light on the effects structures have on each other within a given hierarchy of functions. It is here that M a r x i s m competes with the m e t h o d s of functionalist empiricism a n d structuralism.

Functionalism,

structuralism

and

Marxism

Marxism, in the social sciences, involves analysis of social relations in

10

P a r t I : Marxism,

anthropology, history

t e r m s of s t r u c t u r e a n d t h e s e a r c h for a h i e r a r c h y of c a u s e s d e t e r m i n i n g t h e f u n c t i o n i n g a n d e v o l u t i o n of societies. T h i s m e a n s t h a t it is o b l i g e d to devise a n e x t r e m e l y c o m p l e x m e t h o d o l o g y for t h e a n a l y s i s of social facts. As w i t h f u n c t i o n a l i s t e m p i r i c i s m , M a r x i s m d o e s not t a k e individuals a s its s t a r t i n g p o i n t , b u t t h e i r social r e l a t i o n s , a n d it a n a l y s e s t h e s e social r e l a t i o n s not s e p a r a t e l y , b u t t o g e t h e r , as s y s t e m s . But unlike e m p i r i c i s m , M a r x i s m d o e s not c o n f u s e social s t r u c t u r e s w i t h t h e social r e l a t i o n s t h a t a r e visible o n t h e s u r f a c e of society, a n d still less with t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n d i v i d u á i s m a y f o r m of t h e i r social r e l a t i o n s . M a r x for e x a m p l e d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t if o n e looks solely at t h e a p p a r e n t relations in capitalist society, it looks as if the wage p a i d were equivalent to t h e v a l u e of t h e g o o d s p r o d u c e d b y t h e w o r k e r , a n d as if t h e a d d e d value, o r c a p i t a l i s t p r o f i t , flowed f r o m t h e c a p i t a l itself a n d f r o m t h e circ u l a t i o n a n d sale of c o m m o d i t i e s , n o t f r o m t h e i r p r o d u c t i o n . W h a t visible relations, practical institutions such as wage-labour, hide is the c r u c i a l fact t h a t t h e c a p i t a l i s t c l a s s ' s profit is u n p a i d social l a b o u r , a value a d d e d w i t h o u t a n y e q u i v a l e n t in e x c h a n g e . T h e ' w a g e f o r m , w h i c h o n l y e x p r e s s e s t h e false a p p e a r a n c e s of w a g e l a b o u r , r e n d e r s t h e real relation b e t w e e n c a p i t a l a n d l a b o u r invisible a n d in fact d e m o n s t r a t e s precisely t h e opposite; it is f r o m t h e s e t h a t all legal n o t i o n s of t h e w a g e e a r n e r a n d t h e c a p i t a l i s t , all t h e m y s t i f i c a t i o n s of c a p i t a l i s t p r o d u c t i o n , a r e d e r i v e d ' (Capital, Book I, c h . 19). T h e e c o n o m i c c a t e g o r i e s of w a g e a n d p r o f i t , i n t e r e s t a n d so f o r t h t h u s e x p r e s s t h e visible r e l a t i o n s of t h e e v e r y d a y p r a c t i c e of b u s i n e s s a n d h a v e a p r a g m a t i c utility as s u c h , b u t t h e y h a v e n o scientific v a l u e in t h e m s e l v e s since t h e y a r e c o n f i n e d t o s y s t e m a t i s i n g t h e a p p e a r a n c e s of t h e p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s a n d of t h e circ u l a t i o n of c o m m o d i t i e s . T h e scientific r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of e c o n o m i c a n d social r e a l i t y d o e s not e m e r g e b y ' a b s t r a c t i o n ' f r o m t h e s p o n t a n e o u s o r e l a b o r a t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of i n d i v i d u a l s . It m u s t , o n t h e c o n t r a r y , c o n test t h e e v i d e n c e of t h e s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s in o r d e r to u n c o v e r t h e h i d d e n i n t e r n a l logic of social r e a l i t y . F o r M a r x , h o w e v e r , scientific k n o w l e d g e of t h e c o n t e n t of a social r e l a t i o n will never, of itself, a b o l i s h t h e indiv i d u a l ' s o w n s p o n t a n e o u s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of this r e l a t i o n . It m o d i f i e s its effects a n d its i m p o r t a n c e in t h e p r a c t i c e of i n d i v i d u a l s a n d social g r o u p s b u t it d o e s not s u p p r e s s it. L é v i - S t r a u s s too r e f u s e s to t a k e visible social r e l a t i o n s for t h e only p o s s i b l e social reality, f o u n d i n g his s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s u p o n a r e j e c t i o n of all e m p i r i c i s t p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s . F o r Lévi-Strauss, too, s t r u c t u r e s also f o r m p a r t of r e a l i t y : T h e u l t i m a t e proof of t h e m o l e c u l a r s t r u c t u r e of m a t t e r is s u p p l i e d b y t h e e l e c t r o n m i c r o s c o p e , w h i c h e n a b l e s us to o b s e r v e real m o l e c u l e s . But this exploit c a n n o t a l t e r t h e fact t h a t m o l e c u l e s will not b e c o m e visible t o t h e n a k e d eye in t h e f u t u r e . Similarly, it is p o i n t l e s s to e x p e c t t h a t a s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s will a l t e r o u r p e r c e p t i o n of c o n c r e t e social r e l a t i o n s . It will m e r e l y e x p l a i n t h e m b e t t e r . [C. L é v i - S t r a u s s . ' O n m a n i p u l a t e d sociological m o d e l s ' , Bijdragen, 1969, 6, p. 52]

Godelier : Marxism in anthropology in France

11

W h a t e v e r the differences concerning the notion of s t r u c t u r e between functionalism, structuralism and M a r x i s m , all three a p p r o a c h e s are agreed on a point of method, that is the priority accorded to analysis of structures over t h a t of their origin a n d their evolution. Analysing the historic origin of a structure m e a n s analysing the conditions of the form a t i o n of its internal components a n d of the establishment of their interrelations. So we must identify these c o m p o n e n t s a n d their relations beforehand, which means t h a t this s t r u c t u r e needs to be analysed theoretically before we can reconstitute its genesis a n d its evolution. O n e example given of this method in M a r x is the way he deals with the process of the genesis of the capitalist m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n in Book I of Capital. O n l y after having defined the content of value a n d the n a t u r e of surplus-value does M a r x rapidly outline the historical process of the genesis of the radical separation of p r o d u c e r s from the m e a n s of p r o d u c t i o n a n d f r o m money, this s e p a r a t i o n lying at t h e very foundation of t h e capitalist m o d e of production. H e t h e n goes on to discuss what classical economists called 'primitive a c c u m u l a t i o n of capital', this being a n a c c u m u l a t i o n that occurred within the feudal economic order gradually leading to the dissolution of that order. M a r x i s m is not a form of historicism; it proceeds along the lines of a c o n s t a n t toa n d - f r o between analysis of structures a n d analysis of historical events. Despite their shared critique of empiricism, t h e r e is a radical difference between structuralism and M a r x i s m . A l t h o u g h he does not deny history, Lévi-Strauss cannot really give a n account of it owing to the fact that in his analysis of social structures he separates analysis of the form of social relations from analysis of their functions. Not that these functions are either ignored or denied; it is j u s t that they are never explored as such. As a result, we can never properly analyse the way these social relations really hinge together within a hierarchy of functions. History a p p e a r s as a mélange of c h a n c e a n d necessity - necessity internal to each structural level, and c h a n c e where relations between these levels are concerned. Hence, Lévi-Strauss 's statement to the effect that he agrees with M a r x ' s hypothesis r e g a r d i n g the 'primacy of infrastructures' r e m a i n s just that, having no impact u p o n his actual work, and devoid of meaning. For him, the notion of i n f r a s t r u c t u r e r e m a i n s an empirical one, not a scientifically reconstructed notion. W h e n a n a lysing the material infrastructure of I n d i a n societies, for example, he falls back on empirical disciplines such as geography, technology, historical d e m o g r a p h y , botany, and s o o n . E a c h discipline contributes its specialised information, but no a t t e m p t is m a d e to discover the internal components a n d the structural relations which define the social a n d material infrastructure of these societies. W h a t is most striking is that Lévi-Strauss - while borrowing from M a r x the notion of i n f r a s t r u c t u r e and, further, while accepting his hypothesis of the primacy of infrastructure in the logic of the functioning of these societies - entirely ignores the concept of relations of p r o d u c t i o n . H e therefore a d o p t s

12

P a r t I : Marxism, anthropology, history

e m p i r i c a l d e f i n i t i o n s of t h e e c o n o m y a n d c o n t r a d i c t s , in d i s c u s s i n g i n f r a s t r u c t u r e s , t h e p r i n c i p l e s a n d t h e m e t h o d s h e e m p l o y s in a n a l y s i n g r e l a t i o n s of k i n s h i p or m y t h s a n d f o r m s of religious t h o u g h t . S o m e p e o p l e , e.g. L u c i e n Sève, h a v e a c c u s e d L é v i - S t r a u s s ' s m e t h o d of b e i n g r e s p o n s i b l e for his failures to a n a l y s e h i s t o r y . O n e c a n c e r t a i n l y t a k e h i m t o t a s k for h a v i n g s e p a r a t e d t h e s t u d y of t h e f o r m s f r o m t h a t of t h e f u n c t i o n s of social relations, a l t h o u g h this s e p a r a t i o n w a s n e c e s s a r y in t h e first s t a g e ; b u t b y e x t e n d i n g it h e u l t i m a t e l y m a d e it i m p o s s i b l e to a c c o u n t for t h e evolution of w h o l e societies. T h i s is n o t t h e m a i n p o i n t , t h o u g h , as it is not his m e t h o d w h i c h b r i n g s L é v i - S t r a u s s u p a g a i n s t a w a l l ; it is L é v i - S t r a u s s himself w h o a b r u p t l y a b a n d o n s his m e t h o d p r e cisely w h e n h e c o m e s t o a n a l y s e i n f r a s t r u c t u r e s . O v e r a n d b e y o n d t h e w r i t e r ' s t h o u g h t , t h e r e is t h e t h i n k e r himself, r o o t e d in his p e r s o n a l a n d social c o n t e x t . T o b e a M a r x i s t in t h e social sciences t h e r e f o r e m e a n s t o try t o r e c o n s t r u c t , r e p r o d u c e in t h o u g h t , t h e logic of t h e p r o c e s s e s w h i c h give rise to t h e visible o r d e r of facts a n d i n s t i t u t i o n s a n d w h i c h d e t e r m i n e t h e i r p o s sible t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s . I n o r d e r t o c a r r y this t h r o u g h , w e n e e d t o b e a b l e t o p i n p o i n t t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s existing w i t h i n societies, t h e s e b e i n g of t w o t y p e s : i n t e r n a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n s o n a given s t r u c t u r a l level - s u c h as t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n b e t w e e n capitalist a n d w o r k e r - a n d c o n t r a d i c t i o n s b e t w e e n s t r u c t u r a l levels - s u c h as t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n b e t w e e n p r o d u c t i v e forces a n d r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n . F a r f r o m b e i n g foreign t o e a c h o t h e r , m o r e o v e r , t h e t w o t y p e s of c o n t r a d i c t i o n a r e o r g a n i c a l l y l i n k e d . W h i l e it is g e n e r a l l y fairly easy to i d e n t i f y c o n t r a d i c t i o n s i n t e r n a l t o a given s t r u c t u r a l level, it is far h a r d e r to u n c o v e r t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s t h a t e m e r g e b e t w e e n s t r u c t u r a l levels in a s o c i e t y ' s p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s , for t h e s e a r e not c o n t r a d i c t i o n s b e t w e e n i n s t i t u t i o n s or t h i n g s , b u t b e t w e e n t h e p r o p e r t i e s of social r e l a t i o n s ; p r o p e r t i e s w h i c h limit their reproductive capacities to maintain themselves within certain limits. By m o v i n g in this d i r e c t i o n w e m a y h o p e to d i s c o v e r s o m e of t h e laws of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of social r e l a t i o n s , t h e laws of m o t i o n g o v e r n i n g societies. O b v i o u s l y , t h o u g h , this a n a l y s i s of c o n t r a d i c t i o n s d o e s n o t fit in w i t h a H e g e l i a n - t y p e dialectical logic, for t h e l a t t e r rests, in t h e last a n a l y s i s , u p o n a non-scientific, m e t a p h y s i c a l p r i n c i p l e , t h e p r i n c i p l e of t h e i d e n tity of o p p o s i t e s in w h i c h t h e slave is b o t h himself a n d his m a s t e r , a n d his m a s t e r at o n c e himself a n d his slave. T o b e scientific, a n a n a l y s i s of t h e i n t e r n a l a n d e x t e r n a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n s of societies m u s t s t a r t out f r o m t h e u n i t y of o p p o s i t e s , a conflictive u n i t y of p a r t l y o p p o s i n g a n d c o n t r a d i c t o r y p r o p e r t i e s ; a n d f r o m conflicts l e a d i n g to t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of these contradictions. T h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n H e g e l ' s dialectic a n d t h a t of M a r x does not lie, a s A l t h u s s e r p u t it, in t h e fact t h a t in t h e f o r m e r ' s view c o n t r a d i c t i o n s a r e a l w a y s simple, while b e i n g ' o v e r d e t e r m i n e d ' in t h e latter. T h e d i f f e r e n c e goes far d e e p e r t h a n t h a t . It lies in t h e a c c e p t a n c e o r rejection of a m e t a p h y s i c a l , non-scientific, p r i n c i p l e . O n this p o i n t n e i t h e r M a o -

Godelier : Marxism in anthropology in France

13

T s e - T u n g nor Lenin m a n a g e to be very clear, both of t h e m slipping constantly a n d imperceptibly f r o m the notion of the unity of opposites to that of their identity. Needless to say, both notions exist for Hegel, since the very fact that opposites are identical also makes them united. For him, the principle of the unity of opposites is a c o m p l e m e n t a r y principle derived f r o m the initial principle of the identity of opposites. W h e n M a r x claims to have extracted the 'rational core ' of Hegel's logic he strikes m e as trying to say t h a t he h a s m a n a g e d to split Hegel's two principles, retaining one while casting aside the other. In fact, M a r x i s m reveals the existence of two levels of rationality. First, the intentional rationality of individuals a n d groups acting within d e t e r m i n a t e social relations a n d u p o n these social relations on the basis of their own representation of these relations a n d in pursuit of their ends. Beyond this, however, there is a n unintentional rationality which consists of all the objective properties of these social relations a n d of their specific laws of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . If Marxists gradually m a n a g e to uncover these two levels of rationality they will t r a n s f o r m M a r x i s m into the most complex form of m o d e r n scientific practice, the most complex form of rationalism in the production of knowledge.

Towards

a materialist

theory of religion

T h e third problem, which we shall only touch on here, concerns the materialist e x p l a n a t i o n of social representations a n d more particularly of those ideals represented by gods a n d the symbolic practices employed in their worship. T h i s is to raise the problem of a Marxist theory of ideologies. I should like to begin by disposing of any conceptions in which ideology a p p e a r s only at a n d as t h e surface of social relations, or, borrowing Althusser's vocabulary, as the superstructure of the superstructures. As I have already shown in listing the realities that go to make up the infrastructure of societies, there is no such thing as a purely material force of production. A tool has no social existence unless its rules of m a n u f a c t u r e a n d use a r e known a n d c o m m u n i c a t e d . T h e s e representations are also productive forces and constitute an internal element in the infrastructure. Generally speaking, a social relation cannot be reproduced unless people have a representation of this relation. And this representation, far f r o m being a mere reflection of the relation, is one of its internal conditions of existence. H e n c e we find ideas a n d representations at every level of society not merely as one of its conditions of reproduction. T h u s ideology cannot be seen as a specific level, as one instance separated f r o m other instances. Does this m e a n that the problem of such differences and contradictions as m a y exist between the representations people have of their social relations a n d the content of these social relations no longer exists? Does it m e a n that I have decided to take the illusions of a society

14

P a r t I : Marxism, anthropology, history

or a n e p o c h c o n c e r n i n g itself for reality ? Q u i t e t h e reverse. T h i s w a y of conceiving the distinction between infrastructure a n d superstructures as a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n f u n c t i o n s w i t h i n t h e p r o c e s s of social life, m o r e t h a n a n y o t h e r s , e n a b l e s us to t h r o w light o n t h e f o u n d a t i o n s a n d t h e m a c h i n e r y of t h e illusions e a c h society c r e a t e s a b o u t itself. As a n e x a m p l e , in a society w h e r e k i n s h i p r e l a t i o n s f u n c t i o n as a rel a t i o n of p r o d u c t i o n , h e n c e d o m i n a t i n g t h e o v e r - a r c h i n g logic of t h a t society, all social r e l a t i o n s necessarily a p p e a r to b e so m a n y a s p e c t s a n d efTects of k i n s h i p r e l a t i o n s . As a r e s u l t , r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n d o not a p p e a r as t h e social c o n d i t i o n s a n d f o r m s of a m a t e r i a l p r o c e s s of p r o d u c t i o n , a p r o c e s s itself d e p e n d e n t u p o n a d e t e r m i n a t e level of p r o d u c t i v e forces, b u t m a i n l y as a s p e c t s of a p r o c e s s of e x c h a n g e of w o m e n a n d of d e s c e n t . T h e very w a y in w h i c h r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n a p p e a r c a u s e s t h e i r c o n t e n t p a r t l y to d i s a p p e a r . T h i s a p p e a r a n c e c o n s t i t u t e s t h e point of d e p a r t u r e for s p o n t a n e o u s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l s a n d g r o u p s h a v e of t h e i r o w n r e l a t i o n s a n d of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s w i t h n a t u r e . F o r this r e a s o n , t h e r e l a t i o n s w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l s h a v e w i t h e a c h o t h e r a n d w i t h n a t u r e are, s p o n t a n e o u s l y , p a r t l y illusory or imaginary. A n o t h e r example is that of the citizen in Ancient Greece, for w h o m all p r o b l e m s w e r e basically political; or conversely, in o r d e r t o b e t h o u g h t of as a p r o b l e m , t h e m a t t e r in h a n d h a d t o t a k e o n t h e a p p e a r a n c e of a political p r o b l e m , a p r o b l e m for t h e city. T h i s w a s b e c a u s e political relations d o m i n a t e d t h e f u n c t i o n i n g of society as a w h o l e a n d w e r e t h e c o n d i t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n of t h e social w h o l e . But w e h a v e a l r e a d y s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e r e a s o n w h y politics g o v e r n e d t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n of t h e city seems t o b e t h a t it f u n c t i o n e d f r o m w i t h i n as a social r e l a t i o n of p r o d u c t i o n , as ' i n f r a s t r u c t u r e ' or, t o p u t it a n o t h e r w a y , as a social r e l a t i o n w h i c h p r o g r a m m e d t h e m a t e r i a l b a s e of t h e i r society. T h e thinkable a n d the unthinkable are therefore historically a n d struct u r a l l y d e t e r m i n e d . A n d w h a t w a s u p p e r m o s t in d e t e r m i n i n g t h e m w e r e t h e p l a c e s o c c u p i e d a n d t h e f o r m s t a k e n b y social r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n . It w o u l d a p p e a r , t h e n , t h a t all societies h a v e illusions a b o u t t h e m s e l v e s , b u t t h a t t h e s e illusions a r e n e v e r t h e l e s s involved w i t h t h e realities themselves, since t h e y a r e r o o t e d in t h e p l a c e s a n d f o r m s of relations of p r o d u c t i o n . By developing as a n e x t e n s i o n of t h e a p p e a r a n c e s of social relations, s p o n t a n e o u s social r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s leave a n e s s e n t i a l p o r t i o n of t h e s e r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n o p a q u e , n a m e l y t h e i r m a t e r i a l content. But t h e p r a c t i c a l c o n s e q u e n c e of this p a r t l y illusory r e l a t i o n w h i c h s p o n t a n e o u s l y grows u p b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s a n d t h e i r m a t e r i a l c o n d i t i o n s of existence is a p r o l i f e r a t i o n of illusory acts u p o n a n i m a g i n a r y reality. T h u s t h e G r e e k s insisted m a n y t i m e s o n e x e c u t i n g , a f t e r d e f e a t a t the h a n d s of t h e i r e n e m i e s , t h e s t r a t e g i s t s t h e y h a d a p p o i n t e d t o l e a d t h e i r a r m i e s . F o r t h e m , t h e defeat of A t h e n s c o u l d not b e a n y t h i n g b u t a political p r o b l e m c a r r y i n g w i t h it t h e p u n i s h m e n t p r o v i d e d for t h o s e w h o b e t r a y a political c a u s e . W h a t w a s u n t h i n k a b l e , n o n - r e p r e s e n t a b l e

Godelier : Marxism in anthropology in France

15

in their way of thinking, was that there might have been other causes for the decadence of A t h e n s a n d for the collapse of its imperial power. T h e whole theory of historical necessity begins to raise its head here, for causes are unceasingly active, even w h e n m e n know nothing of t h e m . A n d they operate all the more necessarily when men are u n a w a r e of t h e m or ignore t h e m . O n the basis of these t w o analyses it m a y be possible to sketch out a Marxist a p p r o a c h to religious p h e n o m e n a . In primitive societies, the sacred is not merely a theoretical category but a practical device for acting u p o n the relations between a m a n a n d his fellows and between m e n and n a t u r e . G o d s a n d s u p e r n a t u r a l powers represent imaginary conditions of r e p r o d u c t i o n of n a t u r e a n d society. But it is i n a d e q u a t e to say only t h a t these ideals a r e 'illusory' representations of the conditions of r e p r o d u c t i o n of n a t u r e a n d society, if we want to produce a materialist theory of religion. W e must also elaborate a theory of the conditions a n d the m e c h a n i s m s governing the production of these idealities. M a r x , in Capital, warned against a narrowly materialist conception - inherited f r o m the abstract materialism of the n a t u r a l sciences - w h e n writing on the subject of religion: 'It is far easier to discover by analysis the earthly core of nebulous religious conceptions t h a n to develop (entwickeln), conversely, these celestial forms, on each occasion, out of the real conditions of life' {Das Kapital, I, p. 389, n. 89). I have altered R o y ' s F r e n c h translation, its revision by M a r x notwithstanding, as he t r a n s l a t e d entwickeln by 'faire voir c o m m e n t les conditions réelles de la vie revêtent peu à peu une forme éthérée' (to show how the real conditions of life gradually assume an ethereal form. Editions Sociales, I, t. 2, p. 59). Roy's translation suggests that the real conditions of life m a y exist before a n d in the absence o f ' e t h e r e a l forms ', i.e. religious representations, a n d that they gradually assume these in the process of historical development. O n e would need to explain how the real conditions of life lead m a n to represent the invisible causes of the visible order of n a t u r e a n d history as the work of Powers conceived in m a n ' s image, intentionally governing the order of t h e universe. T h i s theory is now beginning to emerge in the work of V e r n a n t a n d Détienne, a m o n g others. If we want to take a global view of t h e diversity of religious p h e n o m e n a and of the complex relations existing between economic infrastructure, political power a n d religious forms, we m a y say that in primitive hunter-gathering societies, tools are such t h a t everyone can make t h e m for himself a n d t h a t technical knowledge is shared a m o n g everyone. But even here, imaginary knowledge regarding the gods, the masters of animals a n d plants, was u n e q u a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e d by different groups a n d individuals. T h e first monopoly could have been a monopoly of the imaginary rather t h a n a monopoly of the material m e a n s of production. In the development of social inequality, with the a p p e a r a n c e of early forms of classes and the state, it seems that we observe a qualitative change. T h e Inca, personifying the state, is no longer the representative of m a n k i n d

16

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

d e a l i n g with t h e gods, b u t t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e gods a m o n g m e n . H e is t h e son of t h e S u n , a n d o n h i m d e p e n d s t h e fertility of w o m e n a n d t h e fields, t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n of society as well as t h a t of the cosmos. T h e d e v e l o p m e n t of class relations a n d t h a t of t h e s t a t e w o u l d seem to b e acc o m p a n i e d by a p r o c e s s of divinisation of a f r a c t i o n of h u m a n i t y , a n d of divinisation of t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s m a n i f e s t i n g t h a t f r a c t i o n ' s p o w e r . Religion is not m e r e l y t h e f a n t a s m a t i c reflection of social relations, a n ideology t h a t legitimises existing relations of p r o d u c t i o n a f t e r t h e event, as it were, b u t f u n c t i o n s as o n e of t h e c o m p o n e n t s of t h e i n t e r n a l f r a m e work of these r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n , as o n e of t h e essential c o n d i t i o n s of the r e l a t i o n in w h i c h a n a r i s t o c r a c y c o n t r o l l i n g t h e p o w e r s of t h e state exploits t h e p e a s a n t r y . T h e m o m e n t e a c h individual a n d every c o m m u n i t y t h o u g h t h e or it o w e d his c o n d i t i o n s of existence t o t h e s u p e r n a t u r a l p o w e r of t h e I n c a , e a c h i n d i v i d u a l o r c o m m u n i t y recognised a n o b l i g a t i o n t o offer h i m l a b o u r a n d p r o d u c e , b o t h in o r d e r to c e l e b r a t e his glory a n d his divine reality, a n d to r e n d e r to t h e I n c a a p o r t i o n of w h a t h e (the I n c a ) h a d d o n e for t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n a n d t h e p r o s p e r i t y of all. R e l i g i o n h e r e served as a s o u r c e of violence-free cons t r a i n t ; in s o m e w a y s it c o n s t i t u t e s t h e g r e a t e s t s t r e n g t h of t h e s t a t e a n d of t h e d o m i n a n t class, since it obliges t h o s e d o m i n a t e d to c o n s e n t to their domination from within. T h e m i s t a k e h e r e w o u l d b e t o c o n f u s e effects a n d r e a s o n s . Religion w a s not i n v e n t e d in o r d e r t o force t h e d o m i n a t e d to c o n s e n t to t h e i r d o m i n a t i o n , b u t it exists in s u c h a w a y t h a t it r e s u l t s in t h i s c o n s e n t . Seen t h u s , we m a y r e s t a t e t h e p r o b l e m of t h e origin of class relations within classless societies a n d t h a t of the a p p e a r a n c e of primitive f o r m s of t h e S t a t e . B u t w e a r e not really in a p o s i t i o n t o discuss t h a t at this point. *

T o c o n c l u d e , I s h o u l d like to dwell for a m o m e n t o n M a r x ' s f o r m u l a in w h i c h he s p e a k s of t h e ' t r a n s p a r e n c y of social relations ' w h i c h will exist w h e n class r e l a t i o n s h a v e d i s a p p e a r e d . I d o not believe ' t r a n s p a r e n c y ' c a n m e a n a b s o l u t e k n o w l e d g e , by each i n d i v i d u a l , of all t h a t c o n c e r n s h i m , b u t t h a t it m e a n s n o n - a l i e n a t i o n , i.e. t h e recognition t h a t everyt h i n g t h a t h a p p e n s is e i t h e r h u m a n or n a t u r a l in origin, w i t h o u t alien additives, w i t h o u t t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n of h u m a n - a n d n a t u r e - t r a n s c e n d i n g powers. T h e t r a n s p a r e n c y of relations does not m e a n a s t a t e of knowledge, t h e i m p o s s i b l e a n d m e t a p h y s i c a l d r e a m of s o m e a b s o l u t e knowledge, b u t a s t a t e of social relations in w h i c h m e n n o longer consider e a c h o t h e r a n d t h e m s e l v e s in s o m e w a y foreign to w h a t they are. A n d this s t a t e c a n n o t arise f r o m a r b i t r a r y a b o l i t i o n of the S t a t e o r of religion. For S t a t e a n d religion c a n n o t b e a b o l i s h e d ; they will die out, their f u n c t i o n s will w i t h e r a w a y a n d h e n c e will lose all reality at t h e c o n c l u s i o n of class struggles a n d of r e v o l u t i o n a r y t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s of society. T h u s i n t e r p r e t e d , M a r x i s m is t h e most critical, the m o s t c o m p l e x

G o d e l i e r : Marxism in anthropology in France

17

a n d t h e m o s t difficult f o r m of m o d e r n r a t i o n a l i s m . At t h e s a m e t i m e , it is its m o s t o p e n f o r m , for t h e p a r a d o x of M a r x i s m lies in t h e fact t h a t it c a n o n l y c o n t i n u e to exist p r o v i d e d it never a l l o w s itself t o b e c o m e h i d e b o u n d or to b e c o m e a closed system, a state philosophy, on p a i n of d e a t h as a science a n d r e b i r t h a s religious d o g m a . It is o n this c o n d i t i o n t h a t we c a n tie t h e p r o c e s s of k n o w l e d g e in w i t h t h e p r o c e s s of t h e revolu t i o n a r y t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of society.

YU. PETROVA-AVERKIEVA Historicism

in Soviet ethnographic

science

In the USSR ethnography grew up as an historical discipline dealing with the peculiarities of the way of life and culture of ethnic communities at all stages of the development of human society. But while at earlier times ethnographers concentrated mainly on precapitalist societies, nowadays the majority of Soviet ethnographers study capitalist and post- capitalist socialist ethnic communities. T h e leading principle of the ethnographic research in the USSR is historicism. By historicism is meant the study of every phenomenon of social life within a particular historical framework, in terms of the process of its origin and development, and its causal determination. T h e Marxist materialistic view of history underlies this approach. Soviet ethnographers have been working on the foundation of the Marxist theory of ethnographic science as a concrete social science based, first of all, on historical materialism and on Marxism in general. They substantiate this theory by the rich corpus of factual data accumulated by the ethnographic science, and take into account all the valuable findings of the pro-Marxist and non-Marxist theories. Since one often comes across wrong interpretations of Marxist historicism in western ethnographic literature, I shall dwell upon some principal features of the approach in question, which guide Soviet scholars in their research work. Soviet ethnographers proceed, first of all, from the Marxist-Leninist teaching concerning social progress and the onward march of history. M a n y western scholars have tried to refute Marxism by denying the very idea of progress in human history and stressing the absence of an objective criterion of progress. Indeed, the development of a society is highly contradictory and uneven in all spheres of social life. That is why Marxists pose the problem of social progress as related to concrete historical processes; they propose a concrete criterion of progress with regard to different spheres of social life - technological, socio-economic, and intellectual. In the sphere of technology the objective criterion of progress is the level of the development of productive forces, the extent to which man has control over nature. As Lenin stressed, we find here the 'highest cri-

20

P a r t I : Marxism, anthropology, history

terion of social p r o g r e s s . '' But p r o d u c t i v e forces develop w i t h i n p a r t i c u l a r socio-economic systems. A socio-economic f o r m a t i o n is progressive w h e n it provides t h e best possibilities for t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of h u m a n p r o d u c t i v e forces. Giving a g e n e r a l i s e d f o r m u l a t i o n of t h e objective criterion of social p r o gress, t h e Soviet sociologist S e m e n o v j u s t l y w r o t e : T h e b e t t e r t h e possibilities w h i c h a society a f f o r d s for t h e increase in t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y of l a b o u r , for u n l i m i t e d d e v e l o p m e n t a n d i n d e p e n d e n t c r e a t i o n of history b y w o r k i n g m a s s e s , for t h e satisfying of their g r o w i n g m a t e r i a l a n d c u l t u r a l needs, for e n r i c h i n g one's p e r s o n a l i t y - t h e m o r e progressive t h a t society is. 2 At t h e s a m e t i m e , it is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e p r e s e n t historical e p o c h t h a t for m a n y e c o n o m i c a l l y u n d e r d e v e l o p e d c o u n t r i e s t h e r e exists t o d a y t h e possibility of a r e v o l u t i o n a r y l e a p to socialism, b y p a s s i n g t h e capitalist stage. T h e y h a v e m u c h b e t t e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s for r a p i d p r o gress i n a l i s p h e r e s t h a n developed capitalist countries. It is n o t e w o r t h y t h a t not only Soviet s c h o l a r s point out this peculiarity. Service, for instance, n o t e s it in his article o n t h e e v o l u t i o n a r y p o t e n t i a l of ' b a c k w a r d civilisations. ' s Soviet e t h n o g r a p h e r s c o n s i d e r it t h e i r task to work o u t c o n c r e t e criteria of p r o g r e s s w i t h r e g a r d to t h e historical investigated e p o c h s to d e t e r m i n e t h e d e g r e e of progressiveness or of r e a c t i o n a r y c h a r a c t e r of this or t h a t social process o r p h e n o m e n o n , u n d e r t h e given c o n d i t i o n s of t i m e a n d place. T h i s is t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t in t h e s t u d y of t h e surviving t r a d i t i o n s , o r t r a d i t i o n a l social s t r u c t u r e s , s u c h as, for i n s t a n c e , a village c o m m u n i t y . M a r x ' s f o r m u l a t i o n of f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e s of m a t e r i a l i s t i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g of history is w e l l - k n o w n : In the social p r o d u c t i o n of their life m e n e n t e r into definite r e l a t i o n s that are indispensable a n d independent of their will, relations of prod u c t i o n w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d to a definite stage of d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e i r m a t e r i a l p r o d u c t i v e forces. T h e s u m - t o t a l of these relations of p r o d u c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s t h e e c o n o m i c s t r u c t u r e of society, t h e real f o u n d a t i o n o n w h i c h rises a legal a n d political s u p e r s t r u c t u r e a n d to w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d definite f o r m s of social consciousness. T h e m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n of m a t e r i a l life c o n d i t i o n s t h e social, political a n d intellectual life processes in general. It is not t h e c o n s c i o u s n e s s of m e n t h a t d e t e r m i n e s t h e i r being, b u t o n t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e i r social b e i n g t h a t d e t e r m i n e s t h e i r consciousness. 4 A b o u t his o w n c o n c l u s i o n s M a r x w r o t e : ' T h e general result at w h i c h I arrived a n d w h i c h o n c e won, served as a g u i d i n g t h r e a d for m y studies.' 5 E v a l u a t i n g M a r x ' s findings, Engels said: ' F o r all historical sciences ( a n d all sciences w h i c h a r e not n a t u r a l sciences a r e historical)

Petrova-Averkieva : Historicism in Soviet ethnographic science

21

a revolutionary discovery was m a d e with this proposition. ' 6 T h i s discovery is gaining wide recognition n o w a d a y s even in n o n - M a r x i s t and neo-Marxist literature, but at the s a m e time it is this s t a t e m e n t which often seems to be m i s i n t e r p r e t e d . It is often u n d e r stood as 'economic m a t e r i a l i s m ' or 'economic d e t e r m i n i s m , ' a n d in this p a r t i c u l a r form it is p o p u l a r with m o d e r n neo-evolutionists. Both M a r x a n d Engels, and also Lenin, h a d w a r n e d against such interpretations. Engels in the letter to Bloch wrote : According to the materialistic concept of history, t h e ultimately determining element in history is t h e p r o d u c t i o n a n d r e p r o d u c t i o n of real life. M o r e t h a n this neither M a r x n o r I have ever asserted. H e n c e if somebody twists this into saying t h a t t h e economic element is the only determining one, he t r a n s f o r m s t h a t proposition into a m e a n ingless, abstract, senseless p h r a s e . T h e economic situation is t h e basis, but the various elements of t h e s u p e r s t r u c t u r e . . . also exercise their influence u p o n the course of the historical struggles a n d in m a n y cases p r e p o n d e r a t e in d e t e r m i n i n g their f o r m . ' T o Mikhailovsky's a t t e m p t to interpret M a r x i s m along these lines, Lenin wrote: But where have you read in the works of M a r x or Engels t h a t they necessarily spoke of economic m a t e r i a l i s m ? W h e n they described their world outlook they called it simply m a t e r i a l i s m . . . T h e materialists (Marxists) were the first socialists to raise the issue of the need to analyse all aspects of social life, a n d not only the economic.® T h e above q u o t e d statement of M a r x is often u n d e r s t o o d as a f o r m u lation of technological d e t e r m i n a t i o n . T h e productive forces are reduced to technology a n d the development of technology is seen as the m a i n driving force of history. O n e c a n even c o m e across quite erroneous statements to the effect t h a t in Capital M a r x e x p o u n d e d the 'energy theory of evolution'. 9 T e c h n o - e n v i r o n m e n t a l interpretations of M a r x ism have also spread recently. 1 0 It is the central category of M a r x i s t historicism - that of socioeconomic formation - that is most m i s u n d e r s t o o d . M a n y western scholars recognise the i m p o r t a n c e of t h e concept of social formation, but they disagree on its m e a n i n g . As is known, the f o u n d e r s of Marxism, long before functionalism h a d a p p e a r e d , e m p h a s i s e d the interdependence of all p h e n o m e n a of social life a n d the dialectical c h a r acter of this interdependence. Of all t h e various intra-social relations they singled out as p r i m a r y the material a n d objective relations, namely the socio-economic relations, the study of which allowed t h e m to establish several principal types of such relations. Lenin wrote: ' T h e analysis of material social relations at once m a d e it possible to observe recurrences and regularity a n d to generalise the systems of the various

22

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

c o u n t r i e s u n d e r t h e single f u n d a m e n t a l c o n c e p t : social f o r m a t i o n . ' " Every f o r m a t i o n is c h a r a c t e r i s e d by a p a r t i c u l a r m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n of m a t e r i a l life. I n t h e course of its development every f o r m a t i o n passes t h r o u g h t h e stages of origin, climax a n d t r a n s i t i o n to a h i g h e r f o r m a t i o n . Every form a t i o n , as L e n i n says, 'is a specific social o r g a n i s m whose inception, f u n c t i o n i n g , a n d t r a n s i t i o n t o a h i g h e r f o r m a r e governed b y specific laws.' 1 * In Soviet h i s t o r i o g r a p h y these stages a r e usually called 'historical e p o c h s . ' It is in t h e c h a r a c t e r of historical e p o c h s t h a t the c o n c r e t e historical process of existence of f o r m a t i o n m a n i f e s t s itself. T h e shift in socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s is a g e n e r a l law i n d e p e n d e n t of chronological d a t a . It is t h e logic of t h e historical process. As for historical epochs, they are associated w i t h c e r t a i n dates, events, a n d chronological periods. T h e y represent t h e c o n c r e t e m a r c h of history. T h e s t u d y of historical epochs i n t r o d u c e s real historicism i n t o t h e concept of social f o r m a t i o n . Different kinds of processes m a y a n d d o o c c u r a m o n g different peoples a n d countries in o n e a n d t h e s a m e historical e p o c h . It is necessary, as L e n i n wrote, ' t h a t a c c o u n t be t a k e n of t h e specific f e a t u r e s distinguishing this c o u n t r y f r o m o t h e r s in t h e s a m e historical epoch.' 1 ® Every e p o c h w i t h i n a social f o r m a t i o n is c h a r a c t e r i s e d b y its o w n specific regularities, j o i n t l y with general laws of t h a t social f o r m a t i o n . Every social f o r m a t i o n is a n a t u r a l stage in t h e o n w a r d m a r c h of w o r l d history. T h e f o r m a t i o n is b o t h t h e e m b o d i m e n t of t h e d i s c o n t i n u i t y of historical process, a n d a link in t h e c h a i n of progressive d e v e l o p m e n t of m a n k i n d . A c c o r d i n g to M a r x i s t historicism, t h e s e q u e n c e of successive f o r m a t i o n s expresses t h e objective logic of w o r l d history. But this o r d e r is not a n objective necessity for every n a t i o n . W e k n o w of peoples w h o leapt f r o m p r i m a t i v e society directly t o f e u d a l i s m a n d even c a p i t a l i s m ( A m e r i c a n I n d i a n s ) or even to socialism ( m i n o r p e o p l e s of t h e n o r t h of t h e U S S R ) ; t h e r e a r e peoples w h o p a s s e d f r o m f e u d a l i s m to socialism, with the help of socialist countries. N o single socio-economic formation, except for t h e primitive one, d o m i n a t e d t h e w h o l e world at a single p e r i o d of time. Because of t h e unevenness a n d diversity of t h e historical process w h i c h followed t h e primitive f o r m a t i o n , societies b e l o n g i n g to d i f f e r e n t f o r m a t i o n s co-exist in o n e a n d t h e s a m e historical e p o c h . W e e t h n o g r a p h e r s of t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y a r e a b l e to observe, for instance, societies w h i c h allow us to identify t h e b a s i c g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c feat u r e s of t h e primitive f o r m a t i o n . Soviet e t h n o g r a p h e r s , investigating p r i m i t i v e society f r o m the p o i n t of view of historicism, set themselves t h e task of tracing, on t h e basis of e t h n o g r a p h i c a n d archaeological d a t a , t h e e p o c h s of historical developm e n t of t h e primitive social f o r m a t i o n . M o s t of o u r scholars a d h e r e to t h e division of this f o r m a t i o n into t h r e e m a j o r historical e p o c h s : t h e primitive h u m a n herd, the m a t r i l i n e a l clan, a n d t h e t r a n s i t i o n to class society. W e a t t e m p t to establish t h e specific f e a t u r e s of every e p o c h ,

Petrova-Averkieva : Historicism in Soviet ethnographic science

23

a n d their relation to the general regularities of this pre-class primitivec o m m u n i s t formation. P a r t i c u l a r attention is given to the third of t h e above mentioned epochs of this f o r m a t i o n ; the task in this connection is to reveal the conditions a n d signs of the a p p e a r a n c e in its innermost recesses of a new kind of relation characteristic of a n emerging higher type of class formation. A p a r t f r o m t h e great ideological a n d practical i m p o r t a n c e of such investigations, t h e material itself seems to be easily available, as most of the economically underdeveloped peoples of the world, available for direct observation by e t h n o g r a p h e r s recently, were living u n d e r conditions characteristic of this historical epoch. In various works by o u r western colleagues one can come across a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the category of the m o d e of production of ' m a terial goods' as a form or direction of economy; by production relations they u n d e r s t a n d a form of organisation of labour, or distribution of labour within this economy. A concrete society is t h e n identified with a socio-economic formation. As a result, every tribe is considered to be a formation. 1 4 It is obvious t h a t in this case the socio-economic formation is not viewed as a category of logic, as a type of society a n d a stage in the objective a n d logical world history process. T e r r a y , for instance, identifies socio-economic f o r m a t i o n with the m o d e of production, a n d the latter is defined as a '. . . t h r e e - p a r t system: an economic base, a juridico-political s u p e r s t r u c t u r e , a n d an ideological superstructure. T h i s economic base is, in its t u r n , a c o m b i n a t i o n of a system of productive forces a n d a system of relations of production.' 1 5 H e r e the n a m e of 'economic base ' is given to t h e mode of production as a system of productive relations together with particular productive forces. As is well-known, M a r x a n d Engels saw the 'economic basis', the system of productive relations, as a basis for all other kinds of social relations existing in a given society. Such inaccuracies in t h e interpretation of the f u n d a m e n t a l s of historical materialism are often explained as a t t e m p t s to a d a p t t h e m to the specific conditions of precapitalist societies, a n d in particular to primitive society. Western e t h n o g r a p h i c writings often contain statements about t h e inapplicability of M a r x i s t historicism to the study of primitive society. W e believe that Soviet e t h n o g r a p h e r s in their work have succeeded in refuting these misconceptions. In the study of the life of peoples at different stages of their history they always trace the operation of one f u n d a m e n t a l historical law according to which ' t h e m o d e of production of material life conditions the social, political a n d intellectual life processes in general. ' Primitive society was no exception a n d developed on the same basis. It was not s t a g n a n t , b u t the rate of its development was very slow. Very important for o u r research is the following statement by M a r x : ' A s s u m e particular stages of development in production, commerce, a n d consumption, a n d you will have a corresponding social constitution, a corresponding organisation of the family or orders of

24

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

classes, in a word, a c o r r e s p o n d i n g civil society. ' , 6 T h e classics of M a r x i s m kept stressing that the materialist a p p r o a c h to history as a scientific theory of historical process should be seen as a general m e t h o d of studying social p h e n o m e n a , a n d not as a m e a n s of constructing a b s t r a c t historical conceptions. General sociological laws formulated by t h e m do not exhaust all the diverse specific historical regularities. T h e founders of M a r x i s m insisted on the necessity of concrete research into historical p h e n o m e n a a n d events in order to reveal their objective interrelationship with other p h e n o m e n a a n d facts, a n d to establish their essential traits. N o general laws exist in their p u r e form. T h e y o p e r a t e u n d e r diverse conditions, e m b r a c i n g the u n i q u e traits of a given social a n d n a t u r a l environment. T h e y manifest themselves in various situations reflecting the dialects of the universality a n d diversity of historical processes. C o m p a r a t i v e analysis reveals similarities of the objective tendencies in social development in spite of the diversity of natural environment, history a n d culture of ethnic a n d d e m o g r a p h i c s t r u c t u r e of the given societies. In the social life of a n ' e t h n o s ' e t h n o g r a p h e r s a t t e m p t to trace the i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e a n d interweaving of economic, political, a n d ideological processes. T h e y try to reveal the specific features of the relationship between basis a n d s u p e r s t r u c t u r e u n d e r the conditions of different historical epochs of different formations, a n d t h e long-term determinative role of the economic movement. T h e diversity of t h e forms of social life of ' e t h n o s e s ' in one a n d the s a m e historical epoch, d e m o n s t r a t e d by e t h n o g r a p h i c science, a n d t h e presence in the history of some of t h e m of periods of stagnation a n d b a c k w a r d steps, do not contradict the Marxist u n d e r s t a n d i n g of history, nor do they refute t h e Marxist interpretation of history. According to Lenin's words, 'it is undialectical, unscientific and theoretically wrong to r e g a r d the course of world history as smooth a n d always progressive in direction, without occasional gigantic leaps b a c k . ' 1 ' Engels also has noted t h a t , 'history often proceeds by leaps a n d zigzags.' 1 8 It is the recognition of revolutionary leaps, retreats a n d zigzags t h a t distinguishes M a r x i s t historicism f r o m unilinear evolutionism, which emphasises t h e continuity of slow changes in history of h u m a n society. M a r x i s m does not canonise one unilinear order of historical events as the only possible o r d e r ; it denies the idea of predestined necessity. Such Marxist categories as possibility a n d reality refute the above interpretations of M a r x i s m . T h e m e t h o d of historicism presupposes a t h o r o u g h study of this or that process or p h e n o m e n o n of social life in its historical perspective. Empirical knowledge a n d theoretical generalisations should be combined in such a n inquiry. W e do not accept the division of the science into two s e p a r a t e disciplines - e t h n o g r a p h y as a ' f a c t - g a t h e r i n g ' science a n d ethnology as a generalising one. However, M a r x i s t s do not deny the a u t h o r i t y of fact. As Lenin stressed: ' M a r x i s m does not base itself on a n y t h i n g other t h a n the facts of history a n d reality. ' " W e only

P e t r o v a - A v e r k i e v a : Historicism m Sonet ethnographic science

25

o b j e c t to f a c t u a l w o r k b e i n g c o n f i n e d t o m e r e l y d i s c o v e r i n g a n d d e s c r i b i n g facts, w i t h o u t i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e m f r o m t h e p o i n t of view of t h e historic r e g u l a r i t i e s w h i c h a r e revealed by t h o s e facts. E v e r y h i s t o r i c fact r e p r e s e n t s t h e u n i t y of t h e g e n e r a l a n d t h e specific. A c c u m u l a t i n g facts is t h e first s t a g e of a scientific i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Soviet e t h n o g r a p h y , like a n y t r u e science, c o m p r i s e s b o t h a d e s c r i p t i v e , empirical part a n d an 'explanatory,' theoretical part. U n i m p e a c h a b l e historical c o n c e p t i o n s c a n a n d d o g r o w o n l y o u t of t h o r o u g h f a c t u a l s t u d i e s . M a t e r i a l i s t i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g of h i s t o r y d e v e l o p s in c o r r e s p o n d e n c e w i t h t h e c o n c r e t e h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n , as a result of t h e a n a l y s i s of n e w f a c t s a n d p h e n o m e n a . T h i s is t h e e s s e n c e of M a r x i s t historicism. T h i s a p p r o a c h is, h o w e v e r , o f t e n criticised as a m e t h o d of ' p r e conceived s c h e m e s ' a n d ' o p i n i o n s . ' U s u a l l y w h a t is m e a n t b y t h e s e p r e c o n c e i v e d o p i n i o n s a n d s c h e m e s a r e t h e sociological l a w s d i s c o v e r e d by t h e f o u n d e r s of M a r x i s m . T h i s u n f o u n d e d c r i t i c i s m o n t h e p a r t of t h e a d v o c a t e s of p u r e fact h a s o f t e n b e e n d e n o u n c e d b y m a n y w e s t e r n s c h o l a r s 2 0 w h o d e m o n s t r a t e d b y c o n c r e t e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e very c h o i c e of facts, t h e i r first r o u g h classification, is b a s e d o n c e r t a i n p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r o m i s e s a n d t h e o r e t i c a l h y p o t h e s e s of t h e r e s e a r c h e r . T h i s u n i t y of t h e c o n c r e t e f a c t u a l a n d g e n e r a l t h e o r e t i c a l side of r e s e a r c h is p a r t of t h e M a r x i s t t e a c h i n g c o n c e r n i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e o r y a n d p r a c t i c e , s c i e n c e a n d life. It a l s o c o n c e r n s s c i e n c e as a g e n e r a l i s a t i o n of e x p e r i e n c e . A n o t h e r a s p e c t of this t e a c h i n g is t h e r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e fact t h a t t h e k n o w l e d g e of h i s t o r i c a l e x p e r i e n c e p r o vides real possibilities of foreseeing t h e f u t u r e a n d for p l a n n i n g it. In w e s t e r n l i t e r a t u r e t h i s idea is o f t e n d i s t o r t e d a n d p r e s e n t e d as 'politicisation' of social science, which threatens its ' h o n e s t y ' a n d 'objectivity.' A c c o r d i n g t o H a r r i s , science s h o u l d b e a b o v e ' c l a s s i n t e r e s t s . ' 2 1 O n e m i g h t a s k H a r r i s to e x p l a i n t h e ' c l a s s - i n d e p e n d e n t ' p o s i t i o n f r o m which he blackens Marxists, denounces M a r x as a revolutionary, a n d r e f u t e s his t e a c h i n g c o n c e r n i n g p r o l e t a r i a n r e v o l u t i o n s ? A s t h e classics of M a r x i s m e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e w h o l e w r i t t e n h i s t o r y of m a n k i n d , except for t h e p r i m i t i v e e p o c h , is t h e h i s t o r y of class s t r u g g l e . T h a t is w h y Soviet e t h n o g r a p h e r s in t h e i r s t u d y of social p h e n o m e n a of class societies, i n c l u d i n g e a r l y class societies, p r o c e e d f r o m t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t the s u b s t a n c e of a p h e n o m e n o n or of a n i n s t i t u t i o n , or a c u s t o m u n d e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n , c a n n o t be u n d e r s t o o d w i t h o u t t h e a n a l y s i s of class r e l a t i o n s in t h e given society. L e n i n e m p h a s i s e s t h a t n o res e a r c h e r d e s c r i b i n g social r e l a t i o n s in a class society ' c a n h e l p t a k i n g t h e side of o n e class or a n o t h e r . ' 22 T h e r e is n o s u c h t h i n g a s objectivity i n d e p e n d e n t of c l a s s - t h i s h a s b e e n s t a t e d in m a n y w e s t e r n w r i t i n g s . 2 3 T h e h i s t o r i c a l m e t h o d of Soviet e t h n o g r a p h y w a s e s p e c i a l l y p r o ductive w h e n a p p l i e d to t h e s t u d y of t h e genesis of e t h n o s e s , t h e p e r i o d s in t h e e t h n i c h i s t o r y of peoples, a n d t h e i r r e l a t i o n to t h e g e n e r a l h i s t o r y of m a n k i n d . 2 4 S o v i e t s c h o l a r s single out t h r e e t y p e s of e t h n i c c o m m u n i t i e s w h i c h s u c c e e d e d o n e a n o t h e r in t h e p r o c e s s of h i s t o r y , t h e y

26

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

are tribes, nationalities, and nations. All these bore their specific features in different historical epochs of different socio-economic formations. M u c h has been done by Soviet scholars to establish the regularities of the social development of mankind. In the ethnic and social features of a given ethnos, Soviet scholars see a display of the ethnically specific, and the specific is seen as the manifestation of the general laws of development of ethnic processes. T h e vast experience of nation building in such a multinational state as the USSR provided Soviet scholars with a mass of material and allowed them to work out a scientific typology of ethnic processes, to reveal the factors and rate of their development, and to specify stages of their history. Comparative investigations of ethnic communities of various types have led these scholars to the conclusion that all the spheres of social life of the early ethnic communities — tribes - were permeated with specific ethnic features; that is why the tribal life as a whole has been the object of ethnographers' attention. At the subsequent stages ethnic peculiarities manifest themselves on a narrower scale. Nationalities still perpetuate them in their languages, traditional material and spiritual culture etc; but at the national level, ethnic character manifests itself most vividly in the consciousness of ethnic identity, which thus approaches the sphere of ethnic psychology. Having established that ethnic processes are slower than socio-economic ones, Soviet ethnographers, however, find it possible to reveal the ethnic specificity in other spheres of the social life of modern nations. T h e priority of Soviet scholars in the investigation of ethnic problems has been recognised in the ethnographic literature of the West. I would mention here a recent statement of a noted Norwegian scholar, Gjessing, who wrote that 'ethnogenesis was never respected in western European anthropology, while in the USSR and Eastern European countries ethnohistory and ethnogenesis occupy a respectable place. It is the Marxist historical approach to the social life of ethnoses that allows Soviet scholars to contribute markedly to the study of ethnic processes, including the problems of ethnogenesis. In conclusion it should be noted that the work done by Soviet scholars in the field of ethnic history of peoples is not identical with what in the USA is called 'ethnohistory.'The latter, as far as I know, means the study of the past history of ethnoses on the basis of joint archaeological and ethnographic data and written sources. In the USSR this kind of investigation is called 'historical ethnography.' As for the subjectmatter of ethnic history, it is the study of ethnic processes throughout the whole history of an ethnos.

Petrova-Averkieva : Historicism in Soviet ethnographic science

27

NOTES 1 V.l. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 13, Moscow, 1962, p. 243. 2 Yu.N. Semenov, Social Progress and Modem Bourgeois Philosophy of Society, Moscow, 1965, pp. 277-8 (in Russian). 3 E. Service, ' T h e law of evolutionary potential', in Evolution and Culture, 1960. 4 K. M a r x and F. Engels, Selected Works, Moscow, 1970, p. 181. 5 Ibid. 6 K. M a r x and F. Engels, Selected Works, vol. 1, Moscow, 1958. 7 K. M a r x and F. Engels, Selected Works, vol. 2, Moscow, 1958. 8 V.l. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 1, Moscow, 1960, pp. 151,161-2. 9 M . Opler, ' T w o converging lines of influence in cultural evolutionary theory', American Anthropologist, 1962, vol. 64, no. 3. G.S Berliner, ' T h e feet of the natives are large', Current Anthropology, 1969, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 60. 10 See, for example, M . Harris, The Rise of Anthropological Theory, New York, 1968. 11 Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 140. 12 Ibid. 13 V.l. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 20, Moscow, 1964, pp. 400-1. 14 C. Meillassoux, L'Anthropologie Economique des Gouro de Côte d'Ivoire, Paris, 1964. E. Terray, Le Marxism devant les Sociétés 'Primitives ', Paris, 1969. See also Marxist Analysis and Social Anthropology, London, 1975. For critical analysis of these conceptions see Yu.I. Semenov, ' M a r x i s m a n d primitive society', Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1975, no. 4 (in Russian). 15 Terray, op. cit., pp. 97-8. 16 K. M a r x a n d F. Engels, Selected Works, vol. 1, Moscow, 1969, p. 518. 17 V.l. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 22, Moscow, 1964, p. 310. 18 K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, vol. 1, Moscow, 1958, p. 373. 19 Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 394. 20 See, for instance, 'Social responsibility symposium', Current Anthropology, 1968, vol. 9, no. 5. See also Harris, op. cit., pp. 2,290. G. M u r d a l , Objectivity in Social Research, New York, 1969. E. Gellner, Cause and Meaning in the Social Sciences, London, 1973. 21 Harris, op. cit., p. 221. 22 V.l. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 2, Moscow, 1962, p. 531. 23 See, for example, Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter, London, 1973. 24 V.l. Kozlov, Dynamics and Population Size of Peoples, Moscow, 1969. Yu.V. Bromley, Ethnos and Ethnography, Moscow, 1973; The Social and the National, Moscow, 1974; Ethnic Processes in the USSR, Moscow, 1975 (all in Russian). 25 G. Gjessing, 'Socio-archaeology', Current Anthropology, 1975, vol. 16.

YU. I. SEMENOV The theory of socio-economic formations world history*

and

I T h e materialist c o n c e p t i o n of history is a b o v e all a w a y of seeing history as a n a t u r a l - h i s t o r i c a l process, a s t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d s u c c e s s i o n of s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s . T h u s the c o n c e p t of s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s n a t u r a l l y b e c o m e s the c e n t r a l a n d basic c a t e g o r y of historical m a t e r i a l i s m . It is not possible to r e a c h the heart of the materialist theory of t h e historical process w i t h o u t a d e e p u n d e r s t a n d i n g of this notion. ' S o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s ' a r e d e f i n e d as stages in the development of society, r e g u l a r l y s u c c e e d i n g e a c h o t h e r in a strictly d e f i n e d order. T h e definition m a y seem clear a n d simple; this simplicity is, however, deceptive, for it is not c l e a r j u s t h o w the w o r d ' s o c i e t y ' is b e i n g used. In p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n d historical literature, the w o r d has not one, but various m e a n i n g s . For one thing, it c a n be used to d e s c r i b e a c o n c r e t e a n d distinct society. S u c h a society c a n be, in c o n s i d e r a b l e m e a s u r e , a n i n d e p e n d e n t unit in historical d e v e l o p m e n t . It is in this sense that the w o r d is used w h e n one s p e a k s for instance, of L a g a s h , A t h e n i a n , C a r t h a g i n i a n , V e n etian, F r e n c h a n d Polish societies. In a n earlier w o r k I h a v e s u g g e s t e d that, in this sense, w e s h o u l d use t h e e x p r e s s i o n 'social o r g a n i s m ' . 1 S e c o n d l y , t h e w o r d ' s o c i e t y ' is o f t e n u s e d to indicate one or a n o t h e r concrete t o t a l i t y of social o r g a n i s m s . For instance, one speaks of the society of N o r t h A m e r i c a n I n d i a n s , the society of A u s t r a l i a n a b o r igines, or a b o u t w e s t e r n E u r o p e a n or N e a r E a s t e r n societies. T h i r d l y , the t e r m ' s o c i e t y ' is used to d e s i g n a t e all existing social o r g a n i s m s , past a n d present, i.e. to d e s c r i b e all h u m a n society as a whole. In this sense, one n o r m a l l y a t t a c h e s the a d j e c t i v e ' h u m a n ' to it. F o u r t h l y a n d finally, the w o r d is also u s e d to d e s i g n a t e society as such, or this or that t y p e of society. It is only possible to m a k e c l e a r the p r o p e r m e a n i n g of the socio* T r a n s l a t e d b y Ernest G e l l n e r . T h e t r a n s l a t o r has used the expressions ' g l o b a l s y s t e m ' a n d ' w o r l d s y s t e m ' i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y (for stylistic reasons), w h e r e a s onlv one expression occurs in the original R u s s i a n .

30

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

economic formation, as a stage of historical development, by considering the genesis of this notion. H u m a n society has always represented the s u m of a good n u m b e r of distinct concrete societies, i.e. social organisms. Correspondingly its development, i.e. global history, is composed of a multiplicity of histories of these social organisms. In the history of m a n k i n d , it is never possible to find wholly similar social organisms. Every single society has its o w n p a r t i c u l a r traits, which distinguish it f r o m all others. Individuality a n d unreplicability also distinguish the development of every social organism. Every distinct society has its o w n history, which is different f r o m the history of all other social organisms. T h e history of A t h e n s differs from the history of R o m e , the history of E n g l a n d f r o m t h a t of France, t h e history of Russia from t h a t of C h i n a . It was above all the uniqueness of the history of individual societies which impressed historians prior to M a r x . H e n c e global history a p p e a r e d to t h e m as the endless c u m u l a t i o n of events, devoid of a n y kind of order. It was not possible to overcome t h e chaos a n d a r b i t r a r i n e s s governing visions of history without uncovering t h a t which is c o m m o n to social organisms, a n d finding t h a t which r e p e a t s itself in their development. Pre-Marxist thinkers repeatedly m a d e efforts in this direction. Sociologists, for instance, endeavoured to find a concept w h i c h would contain that which is common to all social organisms without exception, a n d which would express the f u n d a m e n t a l traits of a n y given concrete society. T h e concept which they o b t a i n e d by m e a n s of a b s t r a c t i n g f r o m the traits which distinguish one society f r o m a n o t h e r , only resulted in e m p t y abstractions, devoid of scientific value. Lenin provided a p r o f o u n d a n d brilliant account of the indefensible n a t u r e of this kind of idea. 2 T h e r e were also efforts to g r o u p social organisms together in species a n d to define their types. But all these efforts proved abortive, because sociologists a n d historians failed to s e p a r a t e the f u n d a m e n t a l aspects of social life f r o m inessential a n d secondary ones. It is easy to see that no classification of social organisms, which is based o n secondary characteristics, c a n a p p r o a c h a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the development of society. As for the n u m e r o u s a t t e m p t s to show repetition in t h e evolution of single societies, they never reached f u r t h e r t h a n one form or a n o t h e r of 'cyclicalism'. Social organisms do not merely exist a n d develop. T h e y m e r g e into existence, a n d not infrequently they disintegrate, perish, d i s a p p e a r . Literally before our very eyes there emerged from the ruins of Hitler's ' T h i r d R e i c h ' two new, previously non-existent social o r g a n i s m s - the G e r m a n D e m o c r a t i c Republic a n d t h e G e r m a n Federal R e p u b l i c . Before our eyes Pakistan, as it h a d existed since its emergence in 1947, d i s a p p e a r e d , a n d in its place two new social organisms were formed, one retaining the old n a m e , the other a d o p t i n g a new one : t h e R e p u b l i c of Bangladesh. If we t u r n to more distant periods, we find t h a t the

Semenov : Socio-economicformations and world history

31

emergence a n d d i s a p p e a r a n c e of social organisms constitutes the most c o m m o n of p h e n o m e n a . T h e Hittite a n d Assyrian empires, the A t h e n ian a n d C a r t h a g i n i a n republics, the R o m a n empire, etc. all emerged, grew, flourished, a n d t h e n weakened a n d d i s a p p e a r e d forever. T h e s e a n d similar facts were at the root of the idea to which could m a k e all social organisms (or their systems) pass t h r o u g h the s a m e stages of development: they emerge, grow, reach m a t u r i t y , age a n d , finally, perish. Global history t h e n a p p e a r s as the m o n o t o n o u s repetition of the very same processes, as the eternal movement of a wheel. In its time the emergence of this type of theory was in p a r t connected with the effort to find at least some kind of order in history, a n d in this sense represented a definite contribution to the development of historical t h o u g h t . T h i s applies particularly to Vico a n d his Scienzia Nuova (1725). In our time, w h e n the materialist conception of history has been in existence a long time, all kinds o f ' c y c l i c a l ' conceptions play a reactionary role. T h e i r essence has now b e c o m e the r e p u d i a t i o n of the unity of the global historical process, a n d its f r a g m e n t a t i o n into basically disconnected histories of distinct social organisms or their groupings, which are t h e n usually called civilisations. But c o n t r a r y to all theories of circularity, historical evidence bears such vivid testimony to the progress of m a n k i n d as a whole, as could hardly escape the attention of historians. M a r x ' s predecessors notably perceived, in a highly defined form, t h e g r a d u a l development of h u m a n society. T h i s insight found its expression in the delimitation of the basic epochs of global history. World-historical epochs such as t h e ancient, mediaeval a n d m o d e r n were already defined by the Italian h u m a n ist-historians of the fifteenth a n d sixteenth centuries (Bruni, Biondo, Machiavelli a n d others). F u r t h e r m o r e this t h r e e - t e r m division c a m e to be refined, a n d f r o m t h e t u r n of the eighteenth a n d nineteenth centuries, historians c a m e ever more frequently to treat the ancient east as a distinct period. T h i s periodicisation of history h a d , for a considerable time, a merely empirical nature. A step forward t o w a r d s e n d o w i n g each of the three t e r m s in the first-cited typology with theoretical import was taken by Saint-Simon, w h o related e a c h of t h e m to a definite social system: the ancient one was based on slavery, the mediaeval on feudalism, in which the labourer was tied to land a n d only indirectly belonged to the landowner, a n d the m o d e r n on the ' i n d u s t r i a l ' system, based on hired labour. A n o t h e r significant effort was u n d e r t a k e n in this direction by Hegel in his Philosophy of History (1822-1831). II

A revolution in conceptions of history arose when M a r x a n d Engels succeeded in isolating, from all the other m u l t i f o r m social relations, j u s t those which c a m e into being independently of the will and knowledge of m a n a n d which d e t e r m i n e their views, aims, strivings, their actions a n d c o m p o r t m e n t a n d thereby also all other social relations. T h e s e objec-

32

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

tive, m a t e r i a l relations are the productive, socio-economic relations. In every concrete society, productive relations constitute a m o r e or less integral whole, which is t h e base, the f o u n d a t i o n of all other social relations, a n d thereby also of t h e entire social o r g a n i s m . T h e separation of productive relations f r o m all the others at the same time also a m o u n t e d to the uncovering of the existence of some of their basic forms. It t h u s becomes clear t h a t distinct social organisms could either have the s a m e socio-economic structure, i.e. one constituted by relations of t h e s a m e kind, or possess diverse structures, constituted by social relations of diverse types. In so far as productive relations are the f u n d a m e n t a l , determinative ones, all individual societies, which have as their basis one a n d t h e s a m e system of socio-economic relations, notw i t h s t a n d i n g all their differences, in reality represent one a n d the same society, belong to one a n d t h e same type. O n the other h a n d , social organisms with different socio-economic structures, whatever similarities they might display, are essentially distinct a n d relate to different types of society. In this way, by m e a n s of t h e identification of productive relations as the basis of any given society a n d the discovery of several qualitatively different systems of such relations, the e n o r m o u s n u m b e r of social organisms was r e d u c e d to several basic types, to be called socioeconomic formations. Lenin wrote: '. . . the analysis of material social relations provided the possibility of linking t h e repetitions a n d regularities, a n d of s u b s u m i n g the social orders of various countries u n d e r the unitary conception of social formations. ' s T h e concept of socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s is not reducible simply to the idea of a social type. It is markedly more complex and m a n y - s i d e d . But one of its aspects is ever rooted in the fact t h a t it is a concept of social species, which has as its base a definite type, a definite system of productive relations. T h i s concept always brings home, on the one h a n d , the basic identity of all social organisms which have as their foundation one a n d t h e s a m e system of productive relations, a n d on the other h a n d , the basic differences between concrete societies possessing diverse socio-economic structures. T h e concept of socio-economic formations is altogether inseparable from the concept of concrete socio-economic formations. W i t h o u t the concept of concrete types of society t h e r e neither is nor can be a n y concept of a type of society in general. It is evident that a socio-economic formation always exists as a concrete, definite socio-economic formation, which finds its existence only in definite societies, or social organisms. T h e relation of socio-economic formations to social organisms is essentially the relationship of the general to the specific. Lenin wrote: ' T h e general exists only in the specific and t h r o u g h it. Everything specific is (in one way or a n o t h e r ) general. A n y t h i n g general is (part, aspect or essence of) t h e specific. ' 4 A socio-economic f o r m a t i o n has no i n d e p e n d e n t being. A type of society c a n only exist in concrete societies of the given type. Any concrete

Semenov : Socio-economic formations and world history

33

socio-economic f o r m a t i o n exists not alongside specific societies, b u t only in these very social organisms. It exists as their profound a n d shared basis, their internal essence, a n d thereby as their species. Lenin saw M a r x ' s great achievement in that he ' d i d not confine himself to describing the existing system, to j u d g i n g a n d c o n d e m n i n g it ; he gave a scientific explanation of it, reducing that existing system, which differs in diverse E u r o p e a n a n d n o n - E u r o p e a n countries, to a c o m m o n basis the capitalist social f o r m a t i o n . ' s T h e c o m m o n e l e m e n t s s h a r e d by social organisms, falling u n d e r the same socio-economic formation, naturally a r e not exhausted by their socio-economic s t r u c t u r e . But what in the end unites all these social organisms, a n d above all determines their inclusion in one type, is the presence within t h e m of one a n d the same system of productive relations. All else t h a t b i n d s t h e m together derives f r o m this f u n d a m e n t a l shared trait. It was for this reason particularly that Lenin repeatedly defined the socio-economic formation as the s u m of systems of definite productive relations. 6 At the same time, he never reduced the diverse socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s altogether to the system of their productive relations. According to him, each socio-economic formation was always the species of a n y society, when all its aspects were seen jointly. In the same work he characterises the system of productive relations as the 'skeleton' of socio-economic formations, which is always clothed in the 'flesh a n d b l o o d ' o f o t h e r social relations. 7 But this 'skeleton' always includes the essence of one or a n o t h e r socio-economic f o r m a t i o n . Productive relations are objective a n d m a terial. Accordingly, the system constituted by those relations is also material. And this m e a n s that this system operates a n d develops in accordance with its o w n laws, which are i n d e p e n d e n t of the recognition a n d will of m e n w h o live within that system of relations. Given laws a p p e a r as laws of the functioning a n d development of socio-economic formations. T h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of the notion of the socio-economic formation m a d e it possible first of all to see t h e evolution of m a n as a natural-historical process, a n d m a d e it possible to highlight not merely that which is c o m m o n a m o n g s t social organisms, but also a n d at the same time that which is repetitive in their development. All social organisms, which belong to one a n d the s a m e formation, a n d have as their basis one a n d the same system of productive relations, are inevitably b o u n d to develop in accordance with the same laws. However m u c h c o n t e m p o r a r y England a n d Portugal, or c o n t e m p o r a r y Italy a n d J a p a n m a y differ from each other, they all represent bourgeois social organisms, a n d their development is defined by the same laws the laws of capitalism. T h e most serious task of science is the uncovering of the laws of the function a n d development of all socio-economic formations, i.e. the formulation of a theory of all formations. In relation to capitalism this task was carried out by M a r x . T h e only p a t h which c a n lead to the formulation of a theory of this or that formation is t h a t which first uncovers

34

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

those basic a n d general features which manifest themselves in the development of all o r g a n i s m s of t h a t p a r t i c u l a r type. It is quite clear that one c a n n o t uncover the shared features in p h e n o m e n a unless one abstracts f r o m the differences between t h e m . It is only possible to lay b a r e the inner objective necessity of a n y given real process if one frees it from that concrete-historical form in which it manifests itself, and if one presents that process in its ' p u r e ' form in its logical type, i.e. in a form in which it c a n only exist for theoretical c o m p r e h e n s i o n . W h e r e a s concrete socio-economic formations exist in historical reality only w h e n i n c a r n a t e d in social organisms, within theory the inner essence of single societies a p p e a r s in a p u r e form, as something existing i n d e p e n d e n t l y ; as t h e ideal social o r g a n i s m of a given type. M a r x ' s Capital m a y serve as a n example. In t h a t work, the function a n d develo p m e n t of capitalist society is considered, not as a definite society, e.g. the English, F r e n c h or Italian, b u t as capitalist society in general. A n d the development of this ideal capitalism (the p u r e bourgeois socioeconomic formation), represents nothing but the r e p r o d u c t i o n of the inner necessity, or objective regularity of the evolution of every particular capitalist s o c i e t y . O t h e r social formations also a p p e a r in theory as ideal social o r g a n i s m s . It is for this reason in particular that Lenin, jointly with the c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n of socio-economic formations as the general basis of individual societies, also called t h e m : 'distinct social organisms, possessing distinct laws of their o w n emergence, functioning a n d transition to other forms, of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n into other social organisms.'' It is quite clear t h a t a socio-economic formation in the pure sense, i.e. as a distinct social o r g a n i s m , can exist only in theory, b u t not in historical reality. In history, it exists in distinct societies as their inner essence, their objective basis. A failure to see this can lead to theoretical errors. T h u s , for instance, certain Soviet historians, having failed to find in history pure, ideal socio-economic formations, reached the conclusion that formations do not exist in reality at all, that they represent only logical, theoretical constructions. 9 T h e endeavour to avoid such a conclusion led several other scholars to the direct, i m m e d i a t e identification of socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s with actually existing social organisms, with distinct concrete societies. T h e inevitable consequences were a schématisation, a simplification, a n d thereby a distortion of the historic process, the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the theory of formations from a m e t h o d of inquiry into a straitjacket into which historic facts h a d to be forced. E i t h e r of these a p p r o a c h e s is equally misguided. Either can lead to a r e p u d i a t i o n of the materialist conception of history. Ill So far we have spoken of socio-economic formations only as types of society, or social organisms. But they manifest themselves not merely as types of society. Every system of productive relations is connected with

S e m e n o v : Socio-economic formations and world history

35

a definite level of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of p r o d u c t i v e forces. Definite p r o ductive forces, t o g e t h e r with a definite s y s t e m of p r o d u c t i v e relations, c o n s t i t u t e a unity - o n e or o t h e r of t h e m o d e s of p r o d u c t i o n . H e n c e it is possible to define a socio-economic f o r m a t i o n as a t y p e of society, w h i c h has as its f o u n d a t i o n a definite m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n . W i t h t h e developm e n t of p r o d u c t i v e forces a s y s t e m of p r o d u c t i v e r e l a t i o n s is s o o n e r or later r e p l a c e d by a n o t h e r , m o r e progressive one, w h i c h b r i n g s w i t h itself t h e r e p l a c e m e n t of o n e t y p e of society b y a n o t h e r h i g h e r type. W h a t follows is t h a t socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s a r e t y p e s of society w h i c h at t h e s a m e t i m e c o n s t i t u t e definite stages in t h e g r a d u a l develo p m e n t of society. C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , t h e evolution of h u m a n society is n o t h i n g b u t t h e n a t u r a l - h i s t o r i c a l process of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d rep l a c e m e n t of socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s . T h e c o n c e p t of socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s a r o s e at t h e s a m e t i m e a n idea of t y p e s of societies a n d of s t a g e s of social d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e f o u n d a t i o n for t h e definition of socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s w a s laid by t h e d e l i m i t a t i o n , b y p r e - M a r x i s t h i s t o r i a n s , of t h e b a s i c e p o c h s of global history: a n c i e n t o r i e n t a l , a n c i e n t a n d m e d i a e v a l . M a r x e n d o w e d t h i s p u r e l y e m p i r i c a l classification w i t h a t h e o r e t i c a l basis. T h e period of history in w h i c h t h e f o u n d e r s of M a r x i s m lived w a s m a r k e d by t h e existence of social o r g a n i s m s b a s e d o n t h e s y s t e m of capitalist p r o d u c t i v e relations, t h e b o u r g e o i s m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n . C a p i t a l i s m c e l e b r a t e d its victory over f e u d a l i s m b e f o r e t h e i r very eyes. T h e capitalist social o r g a n i s m s , typical of m o d e r n E u r o p e , w e r e altog e t h e r a b s e n t f r o m t h e m i d d l e ages. Specific t o t h a t p e r i o d w e r e f e u d a l o r g a n i s m s w i t h a f e u d a l m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n . I n t h e earlier, or a n c i e n t p e r i o d even f e u d a l o r g a n i s m s w e r e a b s e n t . It w a s t h e t i m e of t h e existence of social o r g a n i s m s b a s e d o n t h e slave-owning m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n . T h e n a t u r e of p r o d u c t i v e r e l a t i o n s w h i c h w e r e at t h e root of a n c i e n t oriental social o r g a n i s m r e m a i n e d o b s c u r e in m a n y w a y s d u r i n g t h e 1850s. H o w e v e r , t h e i r s h a r e d idiosyncrasy a n d , at t h e s a m e time, t h e i r qualitative d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , not m e r e l y f r o m f e u d a l a n d b o u r g e o i s , b u t also f r o m a n c i e n t slave-owning societies, w e r e not q u e s t i o n e d at t h e t i m e by M a r x . For this very r e a s o n he t e r m i n a t e d his r e m a r k a b l e s u m m a r y of t h e essence of t h e m a t e r i a l i s t c o n c e p t i o n of history in his P r e f a c e to t h e Critique of Political Economy with t h e w o r d s :

In general outline, t h e Asiatic, a n c i e n t , feudal, a n d c o n t e m p o r a r y , bourgeois m o d e s of p r o d u c t i o n c a n b e d e s i g n a t e d as successive epochs of t h e e c o n o m i c social f o r m a t i o n . Bourgeois p r o d u c t i v e relations a p p e a r as t h e last a n t a g o n i s t i c f o r m of t h e social process, a n t a g o n i s t i c not in t h e sense of individual a n t a g o n i s m , b u t in t h e sense of a n a n t a g o n i s t arising f r o m t h e social c o n d i t i o n s of t h e life of individuals ; b u t t h e p r o d u c t i v e forces e m e r g i n g in t h e b o s o m of b o u r geois society will also c r e a t e the c o n d i t i o n s for t h e resolution of this

36

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history a n t a g o n i s m . H e n c e with the b o u r g e o i s social f o r m a t i o n t h e prehistory of h u m a n society comes to a close. 1 0

A n t a g o n i s t i c social f o r m a t i o n s , in M a r x ' s view, were p r e c e d e d by pre-class, primitive society, a n d were d e s t i n e d to b e s u c c e e d e d by classless, c o m m u n i s t society. T h e s c h e m e of t h e succession of socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s is a c c e p t e d in its basic f e a t u r e s by all M a r x i s t scholars. T h e o n e c o n t e s t e d e l e m e n t in it is t h e 'asiatic ' m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n a n d c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y t h e asiatic socio-economic f o r m a t i o n . For a c o n s i d e r a b l e t i m e t h e asiatic f o r m a t i o n w a s e x c l u d e d f r o m t h e s c h e m a , a n d a n c i e n t oriental social o r g a n i s m s w e r e i n t e r p r e t e d as slave-owning ones, i.e. as b e l o n g i n g to t h e s a m e t y p e as a n c i e n t societies. I n recent y e a r s a vigorous discussion h a s t a k e n place c o n c e r n i n g t h e socio-economic s t r u c t u r e of t h e a n c i e n t east. M a n y of the p a r t i c i p a n t s u p h e l d t h e view t h a t at t h e root of a n c i e n t oriental social o r g a n i s m s , t h e r e w e r e distinctive a n t a g o n i s t i c p r o d u c t i v e relations, d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m b o t h slave-owning a n d feud a l ones, not to m e n t i o n capitalist ones. O t h e r s d i d not a c c e p t this view. Even now a c o n s i d e r a b l e p r o p o r t i o n of Soviet scholars c o n t i n u e s to view a n c i e n t oriental societies as slave-owning ones. T h u s this issue remains open. In this c o n n e c t i o n o n e must stress t h a t n e i t h e r solution of this p r o b lem is in conflict with t h e materialist c o n c e p t of history, for in e i t h e r case, t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t h u m a n history is t h e n a t u r a l - h i s t o r i c a l p r o cess of t h e evolution a n d succession of socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s , r e m a i n s u n s h a k e a b l e . T h e q u e s t i o n as to w h e t h e r t h e r e were, in t h e a n c i e n t orient, socio-economic class f o r m a t i o n s distinct f r o m slaveo w n i n g ones, is a n issue of fact a n d not of principle. IV

A n o t h e r p r o b l e m does however c o n s t i t u t e a n issue of principle. W h a t did t h e socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s really r e p r e s e n t , as stages of historical d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d in w h a t m a n n e r d i d t h e i r succession o c c u r in historical reality? At t h e level of theory, socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s a p p e a r as distinct social o r g a n i s m s , a n d t h e i r succession a p p e a r s as t h e r e p l a c e m e n t of o n e s u c h o r g a n i s m by a n o t h e r . P u r e socio-economic formations a p p e a r in it as successive forms of existence of p u r e h u m a n society in general, c o n s t i t u t i n g in itself one c o n t i n u o u s social o r g a n i s m . But in reality, socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s d o not a p p e a r as distinct social o r g a n i s m s ; nor does h u m a n society as a w h o l e c o n s t i t u t e a single social o r g a n i s m . It h a s always c o n s t i t u t e d a multiplicity of social o r g a n isms, w h i c h e m e r g e , develop a n d d i s a p p e a r . S u c h a d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n t h e o r y a n d reality is i n e s c a p a b l e . W e have a l r e a d y n o t e d above, t h a t at t h e level of theory, a n y given historical process a p p e a r s in its p u r e , ideal aspect, in its logical form. A s Engels s h o w e d , logic is ' n o t h i n g b u t t h e reflection of the historical process in a n a b s t r a c t a n d

S e m e n o v : Socio-economic formations and world history

37

t h e o r e t i c a l l y consistent f o r m ; a reflection w h i c h is corrected, b u t t h e c o r r e c t i o n c o r r e s p o n d s to those laws w h i c h a r e given by historical p r o cess itself, so t h a t every e l e m e n t is seen at t h e points of its d e v e l o p m e n t at w h i c h it r e a c h e s its full m a t u r i t y a n d its classical f o r m ' . " So t h e t h e o r y of socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s is t h e reflection of the p r o c e s s of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of h u m a n society in a n a b s t r a c t a n d theoretically c o n sistent form. T h e t h e o r y of every distinct social f o r m a t i o n reflects t h e objective necessity of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of all social o r g a n i s m s which h a v e at t h e i r b a s e t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g given system of p r o d u c t i v e relations. It is clear t h a t t h e t h e o r y of socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s r e p r o d u c e s the objective necessity of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of all social o r g a n i s m s in general, i.e. of all h u m a n society as a w h o l e . But this c o n t e n t i o n r e q u i r e s r e f i n e m e n t . O n e possibility is t h a t , w h e n we speak of all social o r g a n i s m s of a given type, we m e a n every o n e of t h e m t a k e n individually. But w h a t h a v e w e in m i n d , w h e n we speak of all social o r g a n i s m s on t h e second a s s u m p t i o n : d o we m e a n e a c h social o r g a n i s m , t a k e n in isolation, or d o we m e a n all social o r g a n i s m s t a k e n j o i n t l y ? T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e t h e o r y of socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s hinges o n t h e a n s w e r to this q u e s t i o n . If we a d o p t t h e f o r m e r alternative, t h e t h e o r y of socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s p r e s e n t s itself to us as t h e realisation of the i n n e r necessity of t h e develo p m e n t of e a c h social o r g a n i s m t a k e n on its o w n . In t h e l a t t e r case, however, the evolution of a p u r e h u m a n society, t h e successive stages of w h i c h are p u r e socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s , is p r e s e n t e d to us as t h e act u a l i s a t i o n of t h e i n n e r objective logic of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of all social organisms takenjointly. T h i s q u e s t i o n w a s not posed with clarity in M a r x i s t p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n d historical writings for a long time. But in p r a c t i c e a n a n s w e r to it w a s a l w a y s p r o p o u n d e d . T h e o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y of scholars, o f t e n w i t h o u t clearly realising it themselves, in one w a y o r a n o t h e r in t h e final analysis inclined t o w a r d s the first solution. T h e t r e a t m e n t of t h e succession of social f o r m a t i o n s as successive c h a n g e s of t h e t y p e of individual social o r g a n i s m , c o r r e s p o n d e d all in all with t h e facts of E u r o p e a n history, b e g i n n i n g w i t h later f e u d a l i s m . T h e r e p l a c e m e n t of f e u d a l i s m by c a p i t a l i s m took place as a rule in t h e form of a q u a l i t a t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of existing social o r g a n i s m s . Q u a l i t a t i v e l y t r a n s f o r m e d f r o m feudal i n t o bourgeois, social o r g a n i s m s at t h e s a m e t i m e survived as such, as distinct u n i t s of historical d e v e l o p m e n t . F r a n c e , for instance, t r a n s f o r m e d itself f r o m a f e u d a l into a bourgeois society, b u t at t h e s a m e t i m e preserved itself as F r a n c e . L a t e - f e u d a l a n d b o u r g e o i s F r a n c e , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g all differences, do have s o m e t h i n g in c o m m o n : they a p p e a r as successive stages of t h e evolution of F r e n c h society. T h e t r a n s i t i o n f r o m c a p i t a l i s m to socialism also generally h a s t h e f o r m of the qualitative t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of a n existing social o r g a n i s m . T h i s m a d e it possible to treat t h e t h e o r y of socio-economic f o r m a tions as the a c t u a l i s a t i o n of t h e development of each social o r g a n i s m t a k e n on its o w n . T h e identification for practical p u r p o s e s of t h e

38

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

d e v e l o p m e n t of society as a whole, with the d e v e l o p m e n t of e a c h society individually, w a s a i d e d by the above-noted plurality of m e a n i n g s o f ' s o ciety'. T h e r e p l a c e m e n t of the notion of h u m a n society in general by t h a t of social o r g a n i s m w a s virtually i m p e r c e p t i b l e . T h e c o n s e q u e n c e w a s the c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e view of history of h u m a n society as t h e s u m m a t i o n of the histories of a definite n u m b e r of social organisms. Admittedly, t h e representatives of such a viewpoint spoke not of social o r g a n i s m s , b u t o f ' n a t i o n s ' or ' c o u n t r i e s ' . T h i s however does not affect t h e h e a r t of t h e m a t t e r . T h e m a i n point is t h a t t h e succession of f o r m a t i o n s w a s p r e s e n t e d as a process t a k i n g place exclusively w i t h i n social o r g a n i s m s , a n d t h e f o r m a t i o n s themselves were conceived as t h e stages in t h e evolution of distinct concrete societies. N a t u r a l l y , given such a view of socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s , b a s e d o n their role as stages b o t h of distinct societies a n d also of h u m a n i t y of large, t h e i r inevitability c a n only a p p e a r as t h e i r applicability to all social o r g a n i s m s , as universality. T h e only basis for t r e a t i n g socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s as relevant for h u m a n society in general w o u l d t h e n b e t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t e a c h individual society passes t h r o u g h t h e m . O f course, scholars who, consciously or unconsciously, a d h e r e d to s u c h a view could not fail to see t h a t t h e r e a r e facts i n c o m p a t i b l e with t h e i r conceptions. But a m o n g s t all such possible facts, they t u r n e d t h e i r a t t e n t i o n to those w h i c h could b e c h a r a c t e r i s e d as 'exceptions', as t h e o m i s s i o n by one n a t i o n or a n o t h e r of this or t h a t socio-economic f o r m a tion. S u c h a n ' e x c e p t i o n ' they i n t e r p r e t e d as a n ever-possible or even inevitable deviation f r o m t h e n o r m , b r o u g h t a b o u t by t h e c o m b i n a t i o n of s o m e exceptional c i r c u m s t a n c e s . But t h e m a t t e r is really m u c h m o r e complex. Social o r g a n i s m s a r e k n o w n w i t h i n w h i c h t h e f e u d a l f o r m a t i o n w a s r e p l a c e d by c a p i t a l i s m , a n d t h e latter by socialism, b u t it is difficult to find a n y within w h i c h slave-owning w a s r e p l a c e d by feudalism. T h e slave-owning social o r g a n i s m s of the a n c i e n t period did not t r a n s f o r m themselves in t h e course of development into feudal ones, i.e. they did not ' p a s s over' into a h i g h e r stage, b u t d i s a p p e a r e d , p e r i s h e d . It w a s not t h e y , b u t new social o r g a n i s m s altogether, w h i c h e m e r g e d o n their ' r u i n s ' , a n d w h i c h b e c a m e feudal. T h u s slave-owning society does not a p p e a r as a stage of the inner d e v e l o p m e n t of distinct societies, of social o r g a n i s m s . I n so far as a considerable n u m b e r of Soviet h i s t o r i a n s a d h e r e d t o t h e c o n c e p t i o n of succession of stages outlined above, so t h e e m e r g e n c e of this fact a p p e a r e d to t h e m as equivalent to the d e m o n s t r a t i o n of t h e proof t h a t t h e slave-owning f o r m a t i o n is not a r e g u l a r stage of t h e evolution of h u m a n society. In t h e eyes of s o m e of t h e m a n c i e n t society e m e r g e d as a lateral, blind-alley b r a n c h of the m a i n s t r e a m of history. 1 2 M o r e o v e r , a n t i q u i t y is not exceptional. In general all global history, right u p to late f e u d a l i s m , presents itself to us not at all in t h e f o r m of a process of t r a n s i t i o n s f r o m stage to stage of a definite n u m b e r of social o r g a n i s m s existing continuously, b u t as a process of the e m e r g e n c e , de-

S e m e n o v : Socio-economic formations and world history

39

v e l o p m e n t a n d e x t i n c t i o n of m a n y social o r g a n i s m s . T h e s e co-exist not m e r e l y in s p a c e , a l o n g s i d e e a c h o t h e r , b u t also in t i m e , o n e a f t e r a n o t h e r . H i s t o r y k n o w s n o single social o r g a n i s m , w h i c h h a v i n g o n c e e m e r g e d , t h e n ' p a s s e d t h r o u g h ' all f o r m a t i o n s . I n s t e a d o n e k n o w s a n e n o r m o u s n u m b e r of social o r g a n i s m s , in t h e i n t e r n a l d e v e l o p m e n t of w h i c h a t r a n s i t i o n f r o m o n e f o r m a t i o n to a n o t h e r h a d no p l a c e w h a t ever. I n o t h e r w o r d s , in r e l a t i o n t o t h e s e o r g a n i s m s , f o r m a t i o n s a p p e a r not as s t a g e s of t h e i r i n t e r n a l d e v e l o p m e n t , b u t only as t h e i r species. T h e m a j o r i t y of social o r g a n i s m s of t h e a n c i e n t w o r l d a n d of t h e e a r l y m i d d l e a g e s b e l o n g to this c a t e g o r y . T h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y evident f r o m t h e e x a m p l e of t h e a n c i e n t o r i e n t , all of w h o s e h i s t o r y offers a p r o c e s s of t h e successive e m e r g e n c e a n d d i s a p p e a r a n c e of social o r g a n i s m s a n d w h o l e c o n g l o m e r a t e s of s u c h organisms (the city-states of S u m e r , O l d Babylonia, N e w Babylonia, the Empires of the M e d e s , U r a r t u , E l a m , M i t t a n i a n d others). It is possible to d i s a g r e e a b o u t t h e n a t u r e of t h e s o c i o - e c o n o m i c s t r u c t u r e of t h e a n c i e n t o r i e n t , b u t it s e e m s u n q u e s t i o n a b l e t h a t t h e newly e m e r g e n t social o r g a n i s m s b e l o n g t o t h e s a m e t y p e as t h o s e w h i c h p e r i s h e d . T h u s if we find, w h e n we c o n s i d e r t h e h i s t o r y of E u r o p e f r o m t h e s i x t e e n t h to t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r i e s , a c h a n g e in t y p e of social o r g a n i s m s , while t h e o r g a n i s m s t h e m s e l v e s p r e s e r v e t h e i r i d e n t i t y as d e f i n i t e u n i t s of historical d e v e l o p m e n t , t h e n t h e very o p p o s i t e is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e a n c i e n t e a s t : w e see t h e e m e r g e n c e a n d d i s a p p e a r a n c e s of social o r g a n i s m s as u n i t s of h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h o u t a n y c h a n g e of type, of allocation t o species of f o r m a t i o n . T h e s e a n d s i m i l a r facts p r o v e i n d i s p u t a b l y not m e r e l y t h a t t h e r e is n o social o r g a n i s m t h a t w o u l d h a v e ' p a s s e d t h r o u g h ' all f o r m a t i o n s , b u t also t h a t t h e r e is n o s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n , at a n y r a t e of a class type, t h r o u g h w h i c h all social o r g a n i s m s w o u l d h a v e ' p a s s e d ' . In e s s e n c e this a p p l i e s even to t h e p r i m i t i v e - c o m m u n a l f o r m a t i o n , w h i c h is c u s t o m a r i l y s e e n as t h e o n e t r u l y universal s t a g e of d e v e l o p m e n t , w h i c h c o u l d in n o case b e m i s s e d o u t b y a n y n a t i o n or c o u n t r y . H o w ever, o n e m u s t not forget t h a t t h e t r a n s i t i o n f r o m a pre-class society to a c l a s s - e n d o w e d o n e never t o o k p l a c e in t h e f o r m of a q u a l i t a t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of a n y given, a l r e a d y existing social o r g a n i s m , as its m e t a m o r p h o s i s f r o m a p r e - c l a s s i n t o a class society. It w a s a l w a y s a p r o c e s s of d i s r u p t i o n of a n old pre-class social o r g a n i s m a n d t h e e m e r g e n c e of new, previously n o n - e x i s t e n t c l a s s - e n d o w e d societies. T h u s pre-class a n d the original class social formations never a p p e a r e d as stages of t h e i n n e r d e v e l o p m e n t of a n y given a n d d e f i n e d social o r g a n ism. T h i s c l a i m is not m u c h a f f e c t e d by w h e t h e r we s p e a k in t e r m s of ' n a t i o n s ' or 'countries'. For concrete nations a n d countries (unless the latter is used s i m p l y a s a g e o g r a p h i c a l e x p r e s s i o n ) d o not last for ever, b u t e m e r g e a n d d i s a p p e a r . F o r i n s t a n c e , c o u l d o n e really say w i t h o u t q u a l i fication t h a t t h e R u s s i a n s , G e r m a n s , F r e n c h a n d E n g l i s h ' p a s s e d t h r o u g h ' t h e s t a g e of p r i m i t i v e - c o m m u n a l s t r u c t u r e , w h e n it is well k n o w n t h a t all t h e s e n a t i o n s w e r e f o r m e d long a f t e r t h e e m e r g e n c e of

40

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

c l a s s - e n d o w e d society, a n d in t h e course of its s u b s e q u e n t developm e n t . F u r t h e r m o r e , at t h e t i m e of t h e d i s i n t e g r a t i o n of primitive c o m m u n a l s t r u c t u r e , t h e r e w e r e as yet no R u s s i a n s , Byelorussians or U k r a i n i a n s , b u t Kriviachki, Biatichi, Polians, Dregovichi, Slovenes a n d o t h e r East Slavonic e t h n i c g r o u p s . T h e existence of a n overall c o n t i n u ity b e t w e e n t h e N o v g o r o d i a n Slovenes, Kriviachki, a n d Biatichi on the o n e h a n d , a n d t h e G r e a t R u s s i a n s on t h e other, m u s t not o b s c u r e t h e fact t h a t we a r e h e r e d e a l i n g not with o n e a n d t h e s a m e e t h n i c c o m m u n i t y , b u t w i t h d i f f e r e n t ones. At p r e s e n t , t h e ' n o n - u n i v e r s a l i t y ' of t h e slave-owning social f o r m a tion is officially r e c o g n i s e d by Soviet historians. 1 3 But, in t h e s a m e sense, t h e f e u d a l a n d capitalist f o r m a t i o n s a r e not universal either. In c o n s e q u e n c e , several Soviet h i s t o r i a n s r e a c h e d t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t not only t h e slave-owning, b u t also all o t h e r f o r m a t i o n s , r e p r e s e n t not r e g u l a r steps in t h e history of society, b u t only t y p e s of society. 1 4 T h i s w a s n o t h i n g less t h a n a r e p u d i a t i o n of t h e t h e o r y of socio-economic formations. ν T h e above-cited a n d s i m i l a r facts a r e invoked by h i s t o r i a n s a n d sociologists r e p r e s e n t i n g n o n - M a r x i s t positions to j u s t i f y t h e rejection of t h e t h e o r y of s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s . T h i s t h e o r y a p p e a r s to t h e m f r e q u e n t l y as a p u r e l y c o n c e p t u a l s c h e m a , in conflict with historical reality. But in fact t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n with history does not a p p l y at all to t h e t h e o r y of s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s , but only to t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of it a n a l y s e d above, w h i c h t u r n s it into a n a c c o u n t of t h e i n t e r n a l regularity of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of every social o r g a n i s m t r e a t e d as a distinct unit. At t h e b a s e of s u c h a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h e r e lies a view of t h e history of h u m a n society as a s i m p l e s u m m a t i o n of t h e histories of s e p a r a t e social o r g a n i s m s , e a c h of w h i c h develops i n d e p e n d e n t l y . T h e u n i t y of t h e global historical process is t h e r e b y r e d u c e d a l m o s t exclusively to t h e generality of t h e laws w h i c h o p e r a t e in every social o r g a n i s m , a n d t h e r e b y to t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t . C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y t h e t h e o r y of social f o r m a t i o n s is u n d e r s t o o d as the reflection of t h e identity of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of all social o r g a n i s m s . But in fact t h e h i s t o r y of h u m a n society, c o m p o s e d of t h e history of distinct societies, does c o n s t i t u t e a single whole, not r e d u c i b l e to t h e s u m of the developments of individual societies. A n d likewise the theory of socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s expresses t h e u n i t y of t h e global historic process. It expresses t h e i n n e r objective necessity of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t , not of every social o r g a n i s m t a k e n separately, b u t of all social o r g a n isms t a k e n t o g e t h e r , i.e. t h e evolution of the total h u m a n society seen as a single w h o l e . It follows t h a t s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s are a b o v e all stages of t h e general d e v e l o p m e n t of h u m a n society. T h e history of every social o r g a n i s m is b u t a s m a l l p a r t of t h e history of t h e w h o l e of h u m a n so-

Semenov : Socio-economic formations and world history

41

ciety. Above all, t h a t which applies to the whole need not apply to each of the p a r t s of which the whole is composed. T h e development of the p a r t s of social organisms, c a n n o t but differ f r o m t h e development of the whole. All socio-economic formations can be ' p a s s e d t h r o u g h ' only by h u m a n society as a whole, a n d not by the distinct social o r g a n i s m s of which it is composed. Some socio-economic formations m a y be represented in the history of specific organisms, a n d others in the history of altogether different ones. A n d if some or o t h e r social o r g a n i s m s perished a n d d i s a p p e a r e d , this does not signify in the least that their development did not e m b o d y one or other regular stage of the development of h u m a n society as a whole. O n e has to r e m e m b e r that the very conception of socio-economic formations, as stages of development, arose not as a result of c o m p a r i n g the histories of distinct social organisms a n d eliciting their stages, which would then apply to all without exception, but by m e a n s of uncovering that which distinguishes one epoch of global history f r o m a n o t h e r . It is only by considering these epochs t h a t one c a n u n d e r s t a n d what socio-economic formations really m e a n as steps in t h e evolution of society as a whole, a n d also u n d e r s t a n d how their succession a n d rep l a c e m e n t take place. O n l y in the primitive epoch did all social o r g a n i s m s belong to the same type. F r o m the m o m e n t of t h e e m e r g e n c e of t h e first classe n d o w e d societies, there have always simultaneously existed - as is the case now - social organisms belonging not to one type, b u t to a diversity of types. T h i s being so, on what basis c a n one say that h u m a n society as a whole finds itself in this or t h a t stage of its development a n d w h a t a r e the objective criteria which enable one to j u d g e in precisely which of these stages it finds itself? T h e classification of a distinct social o r g a n ism as belonging to one or a n o t h e r f o r m a t i o n is decided by seeing w h a t system of productive relations is found at its base. But w h a t can one say of h u m a n society as a whole, if the social o r g a n i s m s which c o m p o s e it belong to diverse types ? If one a d h e r e d to the view of socio-economic formations above all as similar stages of the development of distinct societies, t h e n t h e criterion could only be quantitative. O n e c a n assign society as a whole to that stage of development which corresponds to the m a j o r i t y of social o r g a n isms existing at t h a t m o m e n t , or which c o r r e s p o n d s to t h e conditions u n d e r which the majority of m a n k i n d lives at t h a t time. T h e concept of h u m a n society as a single whole also reveals the possibility of quite a n o t h e r a p p r o a c h . Social organisms of one kind or a n o t h e r as a rule do not exist in isolation. M o r e often t h a n not a definite n u m b e r of social organisms of one type form a more or less coherent whole. In this case the systems of productive relations, found at the base of each of t h e m , a p p e a r as p a r t s of a more or less unified economic whole. A n d the social o r g a n i s m s are united in such a case not only by the m e r e identity of economic structures, as is the case when they do not form a system, b u t also by the

42

P a r t I : Marxism,

anthropology, history

p r e s e n c e of a u n i f i e d e c o n o m i c b a s e . T h u s s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s exist n o t o n l y in d i s t i n c t societies b u t a b o v e all in s y s t e m s of s u c h societies. T h e y a r e species not o n l y of social o r g a n i s m s , b u t of w h o l e systems. S y s t e m s of social o r g a n i s m s of a given t y p e c a n differ not only in scale, b u t also in t h e e x t e n t of t h e i r i n f l u e n c e o n n e i g h b o u r i n g social o r g a n i s m s a n d s y s t e m s . Social o r g a n i s m s of a single t y p e d i d not c o n s t i t u t e a single p a n - g l o b a l s y s t e m even in t h e p e r i o d of p r i m i t i v e society. It w a s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h a t t y p e of society t h a t a m u l t i p l i c i t y of local s y s t e m s of social o r g a n i s m s w a s in e x i s t e n c e , n o single o n e of w h i c h s t o o d o u t f r o m t h e rest. I n c o n s e q u e n c e of t h e p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d u n e q u a l d e v e l o p m e n t , not t o m e n t i o n o t h e r f a c t o r s , a single p a n - g l o b a l s y s t e m of social o r g a n i s m s of o n e t y p e c o u l d n o t exist in t h e s u b s e q u e n t p e r i o d s e i t h e r , a n d t h i s c o n t i n u e s to b e t h e c a s e r i g h t u p to o u r t i m e . But if it is n o t p o s s i b l e t o s p e a k of p a n - g l o b a l s y s t e m s of social o r g a n i s m s of o n e t y p e , t h e n , a f t e r t h e t r a n s i t i o n t o class society, it is p o s s i b l e t o s p e a k of g l o b a l s y s t e m s , i.e. t h o s e w h i c h w e r e c e n t r e s of t h e g l o b a l - h i s t o r i c d e v e l o p m e n t , t h e e x i s t e n c e of w h i c h is, e v e n if not at o n c e , a t least in t h e final a n a l y s i s , d i s c e r n i b l e in t h e total m a r c h of h u m a n history. VI

T h e t r a n s i t i o n f r o m p r e - c l a s s t o class society d i d not t a k e p l a c e , as is well k n o w n , s i m u l t a n e o u s l y t h r o u g h o u t all t h e a r e a s of h u m a n settlem e n t . At first c l a s s - e n d o w e d society f o r m e d itself fully o n l y in t w o delimited areas, t h e Nile valley a n d the a r e a b e t w e e n t h e rivers Tigris a n d E u p h r a t e s . T h u s t h e r e e m e r g e d t h e first r e g i o n a l c e n t r e s of h i s t o r i c a l development s u r r o u n d e d by a historic periphery which remained backw a r d in its d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e s u b s e q u e n t d e v e l o p m e n t of m a n k i n d followed o n t h e o n e h a n d t h e line of t h e e m e r g e n c e of n e w i n d e p e n d e n t r e g i o n a l c e n t r e s of historic d e v e l o p m e n t ( t h e valleys of t h e I n d u s a n d t h e H w a n g H o ) a n d o n t h e o t h e r t h e line of f o r m a t i o n of a b r o a d s y s t e m of class societies, e m bracing the entire N e a r East. T h e N e a r E a s t e r n system of class societies, e m b r a c i n g E g y p t a n d M e s o p o t a m i a , c a n n o t b e d e s c r i b e d as o n e of m a n y r e g i o n a l c e n t r e s of h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t . It c o n s t i t u t e d t h e c e n t r e of g l o b a l - h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t a n d in t h a t sense a p p e a r e d not as a r e g i o n a l , b u t as a g l o b a l s y s t e m . W i t h t h e f o r m a t i o n of this s y s t e m , class r e l a t i o n s c a m e t o d o m i n a t e t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of h u m a n society a s a w h o l e . O n e e p o c h of g l o b a l h i s t o r y - t h e p r i m i t i v e - w a s finally a n d irreversibly r e p l a c e d b y a n e w o n e , t h e e p o c h of t h e a n c i e n t e a s t . It is c h a r a c t e r i s e d b y t h e fact t h a t in it, t h e first c l a s s - e n d o w e d socioe c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n a s s u m e s a l e a d i n g role in t h e h i s t o r y of m a n k i n d . F o l l o w i n g M a r x , w e shall call t h i s t h e ' a s i a t i c ' f o r m a t i o n . T h e m o s t s t r i k i n g p e c u l i a r i t y of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of class society of t h e a n c i e n t east is t h e p e r p e t u a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of t h e political m ; i p . t h e

S e m e n o v : Socio-economic formations and world history

43

e x t i n c t i o n of s o m e a n d t h e e m e r g e n c e of o t h e r g o v e r n m e n t a l f o r m a tions. O n e of t h e m a i n r e a s o n s for t h i s is t h e a l t e r n a t i o n , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of all c o u n t r i e s of t h e a n c i e n t e a s t , of p e r i o d s of t h e e x i s t e n c e of s t r o n g social o r g a n i s m s , a n d t h e r e b y also of s t r o n g c e n t r a l i s e d d e s p o t i s m s , w i t h p e r i o d s of t h e i r d i s i n t e g r a t i o n into s m a l l e r social a n d h e n c e also governmental formations.15 In t h i s c o n n e c t i o n o n e m u s t stress t h a t , w h e r e a s in m o d e r n h i s t o r y t h e c o n c e p t s ' c o u n t r y ' a n d 'social o r g a n i s m ' g e n e r a l l y c o i n c i d e in c e r t a i n c o n t e x t s , t h i s is q u i t e d i f f e r e n t in t h e a n c i e n t e a s t . O n e a n d t h e s a m e c o u n t r y c o u l d at o n e p e r i o d b e o n e social o r g a n i s m , a n d in a n o t h e r c o n s t i t u t e a c o m b i n a t i o n of s e m i - i n d e p e n d e n t o r even i n d e p e n d e n t social o r g a n i s m s . R o u g h l y t h e s a m e c a n a l s o b e said of t h e c o n c e p t s 'social o r g a n i s m ' a n d ' s t a t e ' . If in l a t e r a n d m o d e r n h i s t o r y every social o r g a n i s m a s a r u l e also a p p e a r s a s a s t a t e , t h e n in t h e a n c i e n t e a s t m a t t e r s w e r e m o r e c o m p l e x . T h e b o u n d a r i e s of a s t a t e c o u l d c o i n c i d e w i t h t h o s e of a social o r g a n i s m , or fail t o c o i n c i d e w i t h it. As s h o w n , it w a s a l a w of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e a s i a t i c f o r m a t i o n t h a t t h e r e w a s a n a l t e r a t i o n of p e r i o d s of t h e e x i s t e n c e of g r e a t social o r g a n i s m s a n d of t h e i r d i s i n t e g r a t i o n into s m a l l e r o n e s . It is q u i t e c l e a r t h a t t h i s c o u l d not b e s y n c h r o n i s e d t h r o u g h o u t all t h e c o u n t r i e s of t h e N e a r E a s t . At t h a t t i m e , whilst o n e a r e a e x p e r i e n c e d t h e f o r m a t i o n a n d e x i s t e n c e of g r e a t social o r g a n i s m s , o t h e r s c o u l d find t h e m s e l v e s in a s t a t e of d e c l i n e . All t h i s f a v o u r e d t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s of t h e political map. G r e a t social o r g a n i s m s , at t h e h e i g h t of t h e i r p o w e r a n d a s a result of a series of victorious w a r s of c o n q u e s t , c o u l d s u b d u e a c o n s i d e r a b l e n u m b e r of o t h e r s m a l l e r , or w e a k e n e d l a r g e social o r g a n i s m s . H e n c e e n o r m o u s e m p i r e s a r o s e , c o n s t i t u t i n g c o m p l e x c o n g l o m e r a t e s of social o r g a n i s m s of diverse k i n d s . T h e y c o u l d also e m b r a c e , j o i n t l y w i t h classe n d o w e d social o r g a n i s m s , r e g i o n s i n h a b i t e d b y p e o p l e s finding t h e m s e l v e s at t h e s t a g e of t h e d i s i n t e g r a t i o n of c l a n or t r i b a l society, i.e. r e g i o n s of t h e h i s t o r i c p e r i p h e r y . T h i s s i t u a t i o n s p e e d e d u p t h e f o r m a tion of class societies in t h o s e r e g i o n s , a n d e x t e n d e d t h e a r e a of t h e c e n t r e of h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t at t h e e x p e n s e of t h e p e r i p h e r y . It is q u i t e clear t h a t t h e e m p i r e s r e s u l t i n g f r o m c o n q u e s t c o u l d not b e s t a b l e a n d lasting. W i t h t h e w e a k e n i n g of t h e social o r g a n i s m at t h e core of s u c h a political f o r m a t i o n , t h e w h o l e i n e v i t a b l y d i s i n t e g r a t e d . F u r t h e r w e a k e n i n g , or a fortiori t h e d i s i n t e g r a t i o n of t h e given o r g a n i s m , led to a s i t u a t i o n w h e n it o r t h e p a r t s into w h i c h it d i s i n t e g r a t e d f o u n d t h e m s e l v e s u n d e r t h e p o w e r of a c o n q u e r o r . N o t i n f r e q u e n t l y t h e s e c o n q u e r o r s w e r e t h e p e o p l e s of t h e p e r i p h e r y , p a s s i n g t h r o u g h t h e s t a g e of t h e f o r m a t i o n of classes a n d of t h e state. T h e y s o m e t i m e s s u c c e e d e d in e r e c t i n g g r e a t e m p i r e s , c o v e r i n g c o n s i d e r a b l e t e r r i t o r i e s of t h e h i s t o r i c c e n t r e . T h e c o n s e q u e n c e of all this w a s o n c e a g a i n t h e e x t e n s i o n of t h e c e n t r e at t h e cost of t h e p e r i p h e r y . As is e v i d e n t f r o m w h a t h a s b e e n s t a t e d , t h e d i s a p p e a r a n c e a n d e m e r g e n c e of social o r g a n i s m s , t h e c r e a tion a n d d i s i n t e g r a t i o n of l a r g e political f o r m a t i o n s , t h e i n c u r s i o n s of

44

P a r t I : Marxism,

anthropology,

history

peoples of the historic periphery into the region of the centre of historical development, can u n d e r no circumstances be interpreted as deviations f r o m normality, as anomalies. For the societies of the ancient east all this a p p e a r s as the n o r m or rule. W h e r e a s in t h e study of E u r o p e a n history we encounter, beginning with late feudalism, social organisms whose existence does not come to an end even with such a radical t r a n s f o r m a t i o n as is effected by a change of socio-economic formation, in the study of the history of the ancient east we do not find a single social organism which has continued in existence t h r o u g h o u t the length of this epoch. All organisms which emerged in the transition to class society disappeared long before the t e r m i n a t i o n of the ancient eastern epoch. Still less could ancient oriental social o r g a n i s m s preserve themselves t h r o u g h the radical changes involved in a r e p l a c e m e n t of social formation. Moreover, it is possible to say a priori that the r e p l a c e m e n t of the asiatic formation by a n o t h e r m o r e progressive one, could not take place as the qualitative t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of c o n t i n u o u s social organisms, which would have preserved themselves as such, as units of historical development. Nor did it simply take the form of the destruction or ruin of asiatic social organisms a n d t h e emergence in their place of new, already slave-owning ones. T h e real p a t h of development was even more complex. T h e point is t h a t social organisms of a new type did not emerge at all in that very s a m e region in which asiatic society reached its greatest development, b u t at one of the edges of the world system of asiatic social organisms, i m m e d i a t e l y a d j o i n i n g the historic periphery of its time - in the western p a r t of Asia M i n o r a n d in the Balkan peninsula. T h i s circ u m s t a n c e h a d in m a n y ways obscured for the majority of historians the fact of the existence of a c o n t i n u o u s connection between the asiatic a n d the ancient formations. S h t a e r m a n maintains, for instance, that 'ancient society e m e r g e d on the basis of the disintegration of the primitive c o m m u n a l structure, a n d not as the result of the development of earlier class e n d o w e d societies of the ancient oriental type, a n d cannot in relation to t h e m be considered a higher or any other stage of their development'. 1 6 T h e c o n t e n t i o n that ancient society emerged directly f r o m primitivec o m m u n a l society is passed on f r o m one historical work to a n o t h e r . F r e q u e n t repetition has m a d e it seem axiomatic. But it is impossible to agree with it without reservation. It seems u n q u e s t i o n a b l e that ancient societies were p r e c e d e d on t h e same territory by class organisms, b u t of a n o t h e r type. In so far as given d a t a allow one to j u d g e , A c h a i a n kingdoms differed little in their socio-economic structure f r o m the societies of the ancient east. T h e view that A c h a i a n Greece offers us the s a m e socio-economic f o r m a t i o n as the ancient east is strikingly s u p p o r t e d by the p a r t i c u l a r features of the development of the older Greek classendowed societies. After their flowering there comes, as usual, a period of decline, a n irruption of tribes of the historic periphery, and the destruction of the older class social organisms.

Semenov : Socio-economicformations and world history

45

At the moment of their invasion of the territory of A c h a i a n Greece, the D o r i a n Greeks were at the stage of t h e f o r m a t i o n of class society. T h e c i r c u m s t a n c e provided a basis for t h e claim that ancient society arose immediately from pre-class forms. T h e r e is an element of t r u t h in this, b u t only an element, and not the whole. It is well known that a n u m b e r of Greek regions, including Attica, were not c o n q u e r e d by the Dorians. T h e population of ancient A t h e n s was composed of people whose more or less distant ancestors h a d lived in a society of the asiatic type. For this reason alone it would be incorrect to speak of A t h e n i a n slave-owning society as having replaced a p r i m i t i v e - c o m m u n a l one, even if one accepted the view that the d e g r a d a t i o n of t h e structure of A c h a i a n Greece was complete e n o u g h to lead to t h e replacement of class relations by primitive-communal ones. In a n y case there are no d a t a testifying to the existence of p r i m i t i v e - c o m m u n a l relations in the Attica at the t u r n of the second a n d first m i l l e n n i u m B.C. Evidently, the regress went no further t h a n the r e p l a c e m e n t of an early class society by a proto-class one. But the issue hinges not merely on the existence of regions which escaped the Dorian invasions. T h e D o r i a n s themselves could not escape the influence of the higher level of cultural development of the Achaians. It was all the easier for t h e m to assimilate the achievements of A c h a i a n culture, because on a technical level they were the equals of Achaia. T h e replacement of the bronze a g e by the early iron age, which took place on the territory of Greece, m a d e possible the transition to a new class-endowed socio-economic formation, a n d one m o r e progressive t h a n the asiatic one which emerged in the c o p p e r a n d b r o n z e age. But this possibility would never have become a reality h a d Greece not represented a n admittedly marginal, but nonetheless inseparable part of the old centre of the global historic development, a n d h a d it not been within the zone of the constant a n d m a n y - s i d e d influence of the lands of the old east. T h o s e historians who see the slave-owning not as a n inevitable and regular stage in the evolution of h u m a n society, b u t as a n exception, a deviation from the normal p a t h of development, invoke as one piece of evidence the fact that nowhere on earth, except for Greece a n d Italy of the first millennium B.C., did the disintegration of the primitivec o m m u n a l structure lead to slave-owning societies. T h i s contention requires refinement. Nowhere on e a r t h did the disintegration of primitive-communal structure on its o w n lead to the emergence of slave-owning social organisms, without t h e direct a n d i m m e d i a t e influence of previously formed class societies. And this allows only one conclusion — slave-owning society does not a p p e a r to be the first class-endowed socio-economic formation. T h e only class formation which can arise exclusively on the basis of the disintegration of primitive society alone a p p e a r s to b e the asiatic one. In particular, because the transition f r o m pre-class society to the asiatic

46

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

socio-economic f o r m a t i o n does not r e q u i r e or p r e s u p p o s e t h e a g e n c y of previously f o r m e d c l a s s - e n d o w e d socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s , asiatic societies c a n e m e r g e as islands, to a c o n s i d e r a b l e e x t e n t isolated f r o m e a c h o t h e r in a sea of p e o p l e s r e m a i n i n g in t h e pre-class stage, a n d constitute r e g i o n a l c e n t r e s of historical d e v e l o p m e n t s u r r o u n d e d by t h e r e m a i n i n g p e r i p h e r y . All class societies, e m e r g i n g in a r e a s w h i c h at t h e t i m e w e r e o u t s i d e t h e i n f l u e n c e of previously f o r m e d c e n t r e s of civilisa t i o n , inevitably h a d to b e asiatic r a t h e r t h a n slave-owning o r feudal. T h e d a t a a v a i l a b l e t o science c o n c e r n i n g t h e socio-economic s t r u c t u r e or t h e p r o t o - c l a s s a n d early-class societies of p r e - C o l u m b a n A m e r i c a , O c e a n i a a n d s u b - S a h a r a n Africa fully c o n f i r m this c l a i m . S l a v e - o w n i n g society w a s not t h e first f o r m of class society. Slaveo w n i n g society c o u l d not e m e r g e a s a n island in t h e sea of primitivec o m m u n a l s t r u c t u r e s . T h e c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h are essential for t h e second c l a s s - e n d o w e d social f o r m a t i o n c a n arise only as a result of a p r o l o n g e d p r i o r d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e first a n t a g o n i s t i c f o r m a t i o n . It is i m p o r t a n t to stress t h a t t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s could not b e p r o d u c e d by t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of a relatively small s y s t e m of asiatic social f o r m a t i o n s , c o n s t i t u t i n g a local, regional c e n t r e of historical d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e first slave-owning social o r g a n i s m s could e m e r g e only w i t h i n t h e b o u n d s of t h e global s y s t e m of asiatic social o r g a n i s m s , such as w a s c o n s t i t u t e d by t h e N e a r E a s t e r n one, a n d even t h a t only a f t e r the c o m p l e t i o n of t h e t r a n s i t i o n to t h e iron age. T h u s t h e l i m i t a t i o n in s p a c e a n d t i m e of the e m e r g e n c e of slaveo w n i n g society is not in t h e least d e g r e e in conflict w i t h t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the a n c i e n t f o r m a t i o n w a s a r e g u l a r stage in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of h u m a n society. T h e e m e r g e n c e of t h e a n c i e n t f o r m a t i o n w a s a lawb o u n d a n d inevitable result of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e asiatic f o r m a t i o n , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e fact t h a t slave-owning social o r g a n i s m s a r o s e not t h r o u g h o u t t h e t e r r i t o r y of t h e old c e n t r e of global d e v e l o p m e n t , b u t only at o n e of its d i s t a n t edges. T h e fact t h a t the a n c i e n t f o r m a t i o n c o u l d arise only as a result of p r i o r millenial d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e asiatic society c o m e s to b e m o r e a n d m o r e r e c o g n i s e d by h i s t o r i a n s . T h e wellk n o w n English a r c h a e o l o g i s t Woolley writes : W e have o u t g r o w n t h e p h a s e w h e n all the a r t s were t r a c e d to G r e e c e w h i c h w a s t h o u g h t to h a v e s p r u n g , like Pallas, full g r o w n f r o m t h e b r a i n of t h e O l y m p i a n Z e u s ; we h a v e learnt how t h a t flower of g e n i u s d r e w its s a p f r o m L y d i a n s a n d H i t t i t e s , f r o m P h o e n i c a a n d C r e t e , f r o m B a b y l o n a n d E g y p t . But t h e roots go f a r t h e r b a c k : b e h i n d all these lies S u m e r . 1 7 T h e e m e r g e n c e a n d c o n s o l i d a t i o n in Ionia, G r e e c e a n d later Italy of a s y s t e m of social o r g a n i s m s of a new a n d m u c h higher type, w h i l e t h e old s o c i o - e c o n o m i c o r d e r survived in t h e N e a r East, m e a n t n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t h e t r a n s p o s i t i o n of t h e c e n t r e of global-historical d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e c e n t r e m o v e d to the M e d i t e r r a n e a n a n d t h e N e a r East b e c a m e p a r t

Semenov : Socio-economic formations and world history

47

of the historic periphery. T h u s a new class-endowed p e r i p h e r y emerged alongside the old pre-class one. T h e e m e r g e n c e of the new world system m a r k e d the shift of the leading role in the history of m a n k i n d f r o m the asiatic formation to the slave-owning one. O n e epoch of world history ended, namely the ancient oriental, a n d a new one, the ancient, commenced. T h e ancient formation, like the 'asiatic', appeared as a stage in the development of h u m a n society, a n d not in t h e development of social organisms. Its replacement by a new a n d m o r e progressive one, the feudal formation, took place in t h e form of the d e s t r u c t i o n of the old social organisms a n d the e m e r g e n c e of new ones, within which feudal relations developed a n d prevailed. As with t h e destruction of ' a s i a t i c ' social organisms, the destruction of slave-owning ones was connected with an invasion by peoples of t h e pre-class historic p e r i p h e r y . T h e fact that the replacement of t h e ancient slave-owning f o r m a t i o n by the feudal one took place not within distinct social organisms, b u t exclusively at the level of h u m a n society at large, o b s c u r e d to a considerable extent the existence of a p r o f o u n d continuity between t h e ancient a n d feudal world systems. As I have already shown, it was this above all, along with some o t h e r factors considered above, which led various historians to the conclusion t h a t ancient society does not in itself represent a regular stage in evolution, but r a t h e r a blind alley, b r a n c h i n g off f r o m the m a i n s t r e a m of h u m a n development. T h e total failure to see t h e continuous connection b e t w e e n systems of social organisms also lies at the base of a different kind of idea, which would fragment h u m a n history into the s u m of histories of distinct, selfenclosed 'civilisations'. In fact a deep continuity does o b t a i n h e r e as well. As the evolution of ancient society p r e p a r e d the g r o u n d for the e m e r g e n c e of feudalism in conformity with social laws, in t h e final analysis it also did the s a m e for capitalism. Engels pointed this out : Without slavery, no Greek state, no Greek art a n d science; without slavery, no R o m a n E m p i r e . But without Hellenism a n d the R o m a n Empire as a basis, also no m o d e r n E u r o p e . W e should never forget that our whole economic, political a n d intellectual development has as its presupposition a state of things in which slavery was as necessary as it was universally recognised. In this sense we are entitled to say: without the slavery of a n t i q u i t y , no m o d e r n s o c i a l i s m . " All in all the continuity b e t w e e n ancient a n d feudal world systems is easier to see t h a n that between the asiatic a n d the ancient, because feudal social organisms emerged not merely at the edges of the ancient centre of the global-historical development, b u t also on almost all of its territory. T h e fact that feudal social o r g a n i s m s also emerged on the territory of the pre-class historic periphery does not contradict this. T h e transition to feudalism was indeed accomplished, amongst all the peoples inhabiting this territory, only by those whose level of agricul-

48

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

turai technology was no lower t h a n that of the peoples of t h e ancient world, a n d w h o inhabited regions within t h e zone of influence first of the slave-owning, a n d later of the feudal world system of social organisms. T h e most favourable conditions for t h e e m e r g e n c e of feudalism were found at the north-western edge of t h e ancient world system - on the territory of c o n t e m p o r a r y France. It was just there that feudalism emerged in its classical form, and it was j u s t t h e r e t h a t conditions arose for the formation of strong a n d lasting social organisms which, in their s u b s e q u e n t development, b e c a m e capitalist. In this sense one c a n say t h a t the transfer of the leading role in h u m a n history to feudalism, a n d the start of a new period in world history - the mediaeval - are connected with a new shift of the centre of global-historical development, this time to western Europe, where it r e m a i n e d even after the emergence of capitalism. T h e fact that in the history of class-endowed society u p to capitalism, every move to a new stage of development t r a n s p i r e d not within the limits of distinct social organisms, b u t at t h e level of h u m a n society as a whole, was first recognised and at t h e s a m e time obscured by Hegel. Behind the development a n d elevation of the ' A b s o l u t e Spirit', a b o u t which his Philosophy of History tells us, t h e r e are h i d d e n the interconnected rise of new socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s a n d shifts of the centre of global-historic development. T h e transition from the feudal socio-economic formation to the capitalist one took the form of the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the social organisms, constituting the world feudal system, into bourgeois ones, which thereu p o n formed one world system. W i t h t h e t r a n s f e r of the leading role to the capitalist social formation, the m i d d l e ages were replaced by the m o d e r n period. T h i s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n initially involved only some of the social organisms. T h e others for some time m a i n t a i n e d their old form. It is quite evident that the existence of a new capitalist world system could not fail to leave marks on the development of social organisms, which continued to be feudal, nor to give a considerably distinctive c h a r a c t e r to the process of their t r a n s f o r m a t i o n into bourgeois ones. In contrast with all previous history, t h e r e p l a c e m e n t of feudalism by capitalism took place not only at the level of h u m a n society as a whole, b u t also inside every social organism. T h e world capitalist system was the first one which, for all practical purposes, d r e w every social o r g a n i s m on e a r t h into its own sphere of influence. In this sense, global history in a literal sense only began with capitalism. T h e great O c t o b e r revolution laid the f o u n d a t i o n of a new world system - the socialist, which in the s u b s e q u e n t period emerges as the centre of the world historical developments, thereby opening u p a f u r t h e r epoch of global history. T h e world socialist system a p p e a r s as the only one which can be a n d necessarily will become global. A n d in the more distant future, with the transition to c o m m u n i s m , h u m a n society will inevitably t r a n s f o r m itself into a single social organism.

S e m e n o v : Socio-economic formations and world history

49

VII

In t h i s w a y , t h o u g h t h e r e h a d never b e e n a p a n - g l o b a l s y s t e m of asiatic social o r g a n i s m s , t h e r e d i d exist a global s y s t e m of s u c h societies. T h e r e h a d never been a pan-global slave-owning society, but a world system of s l a v e - o w n i n g societies d i d exist. T h e r e w a s n o p a n - g l o b a l s y s t e m of feud a l i s m , b u t t h e r e w a s a w o r l d s y s t e m of f e u d a l social o r g a n i s m s , a w o r l d f e u d a l society. I n t h e c o u r s e of w o r l d h i s t o r y , w o r l d s y s t e m s of social o r g a n i s m s w e r e r e p l a c e d by o t h e r s , w h i c h for a t i m e took over t h e l e a d i n g role in t h e h i s t o r y of m a n k i n d . S i m u l t a n e o u s l y , w i t h t h e c h a n g e of s y s t e m , t h e r e w a s t h e r e p l a c e m e n t of o n e e p o c h b y a n o t h e r . B e t w e e n successive w o r l d s y s t e m s t h e r e is a d e e p link of c o n t i n u i t y . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t of e a c h of t h e m , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of t h e c o m m u n i s t one, p r e p a r e s a n d m a k e s possible t h e e m e r g e n c e of a n e w o n e , b e l o n g i n g t o a h i g h e r t y p e . T h e successive r e p l a c e m e n t of w o r l d s y s t e m s of social o r g a n i s m s a p p e a r s in t h e f o r m of t h e h i s t o r i c succession of socio-economic f o r m a tions. If s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s as t y p e s of society exist i n c a r n a t e in social o r g a n i s m s a n d diverse k i n d s of s y s t e m s thereof, so t h e stages of d e v e l o p m e n t in w h i c h m a n k i n d a s a w h o l e finds itself have t h e i r existe n c e o n l y in w o r l d s y s t e m s of social o r g a n i s m s of t h e a p p r o p r i a t e t y p e . T h e succession a n d r e p l a c e m e n t of w o r l d s y s t e m s h a d a l r e a d y b e e n n o t e d b y h i s t o r i a n s in s o m e m e a s u r e , w h i c h led t o t h e d e l i m i t a t i o n of t h e e p o c h s of w o r l d history. B u t its e s s e n c e w a s revealed only by M a r x a n d Engels, w h e n t h e y f o r m u l a t e d t h e t h e o r y of socio-economic f o r m a tions. T h e succession of s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s is t h e essence of t h e succession of g l o b a l s y s t e m s , a n d h e n c e of h i s t o r i c a l e p o c h s . T h e old w o r l d s y s t e m g e n e r a l l y does not d i s a p p e a r at o n c e w i t h t h e e m e r g e n c e of a n e w o n e a n d its a s s u m p t i o n of t h e l e a d i n g role. T h e a n c i e n t s y s t e m d o e s s e e m to b e a n e x c e p t i o n . W h e n c e a s i n g to b e t h e c e n t r e of w o r l d h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t , a s y s t e m m a y for s o m e t i m e p r e serve itself a n d , t h o u g h n o l o n g e r t h e l e a d i n g one, m a y still r e m a i n a w o r l d s y s t e m of a k i n d . D i s t i n c t social o r g a n i s m s , c o n s t i t u t i n g t h i s s y s t e m , m a y p r e s e r v e t h e m s e l v e s for a long t i m e even a f t e r t h e p o i n t w h e n t h e s y s t e m ceases t o b e global, a n d b e c o m e s a regional o n e (or several s u c h ) , a n d even a f t e r t h e d i s i n t e g r a t i o n of s u c h r e g i o n a l s y s t e m s . As long a s distinct social o r g a n i s m s exist, w h i c h have a s t h e i r basis a given s y s t e m of p r o d u c t i v e relations, t h e given s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n also survives, t h o u g h n o longer a s a s t a g e of h u m a n h i s t o r y as a w h o l e , b u t only a s a t y p e of social o r g a n i s m a n d s t a g e in w h i c h this or t h a t i n d i v i d u a l society finds itself. A w o r l d s y s t e m w h i c h a p p e a r s as t h e c e n t r e of t h e g l o b a l - h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t s h o w s its i n f l u e n c e , not necessarily o n all societies, as c a p i t a l i s m d i d at t h e t i m e of its a p o g e e , b u t at a n y r a t e o n a large n u m b e r of s u r r o u n d i n g social o r g a n i s m s , w h i c h find themselves at a lower s t a g e of d e v e l o p m e n t , or, p a r t i c u l a r l y , at t h e p r i m i t i v e stage. P e o p l e s w h i c h a r e r e t a r d e d in t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t a n d find t h e m s e l v e s in t h e

50

P a r t I : Marxism,

anthropology,

history

zone of influence of more progressive social organisms, are thereby given the option of a c q u i r i n g their achievements in the spheres of material a n d intellectual culture, a n d of bypassing stages which m a n k i n d as a whole has already gone t h r o u g h . T h e account of the results of the influence of advanced social organisms on b a c k w a r d s ones, which at the s a m e time ignores their influence itself, is at the root of one of the variants of the idea of the multilineal of historic development. As the protagonists of this view say, history knows examples of the direct transition f r o m the primitive structure not only to the asiatic, but also directly to the ancient, a n d , finally, directly to the feudal. F r o m this they c o n c l u d e t h a t what we are dealing with here is nothing other t h a n the existence of three equally valid, parallel lines of development. 1 9 But history is also familiar with cases of transition from the primitive f o r m a t i o n directly to capitalism, or to socialism. However not one single representative of the viewpoint described has been able to b r i n g himself to assert t h a t we are here dealing with five parallel a n d equally valid lines of development. It is overwhelmingly clear t h a t the transition f r o m the primitive structure to capitalism or socialism is possible only t h r o u g h the direct agency of capitalist or socialist social o r g a n i s m s respectively. But really it is just the same in the case of t h e transition f r o m the p r i m i t i v e - c o m m u n a l formation to the ancient or feudal. A basis for the e m e r g e n c e of ancient social organisms could only be provided by those disintegrating primitive ones which either found themselves in a n area previously forming part of the world system of asiatic social o r g a n i s m s (the D o r i a n s ) , or in the zone of the i m m e d i a t e influence of the world ancient system (the R o m a n s ) . Similarly feudal social organisms could arise only on the basis of these disintegrating primitive o r g a n i s m s which found themselves either on the territory previously constituting the ancient world system (the T e u tons), or in t h e zone of influence, first of the ancient and then of the feudal world system (the Slavs). It a p p e a r s as a characteristic trait of every world system which constitutes a centre of pan-global development, t h a t it expands at the cost of r e t a r d e d social organisms, which are d r a w n into the orbit of its influence. Not infrequently these societies provide the base for the emergence of social o r g a n i s m s of a new type, which then also enter the world system. T h e e n l a r g e m e n t of the world system is accompanied by a f u r t h e r extension of the zone of its influence. M o r e and more social organisms, belonging to lower types, are d r a w n into it. In c o n s e q u e n c e history acquires a n ever m o r e marked pan-global character. Every time it takes a f u r t h e r step forward, the elevation of social o r g a n i s m which were r e t a r d e d in their development to the level a t t a i n e d by h u m a n i t y at large, becomes not merely possible, but also inevitable. T h i s b e c a m e manifest with p a r t i c u l a r clarity when m a n k i n d reached the capitalist stage of development, a n d the capitalist world system arose, which, step by step, d r e w the entire globe into its sphere of influence. M a r x a n d Engels wrote:

Semenov : Socio-economic formations and world history

51

T h e bourgeoisie, by the rapid i m p r o v e m e n t of all i n s t r u m e n t s of prod u c t i o n , by the immensely facilitated m e a n s of c o m m u n i c a t i o n , d r a w s all, even the most b a r b a r i a n , n a t i o n s into civilisation. T h e c h e a p prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it b a t t e r s down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the b a r b a r i a n s ' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to a d o p t the bourgeois m o d e of prod u c t i o n ; it compels t h e m to i n t r o d u c e what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e. to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image. 2 0 T h e existence in Western E u r o p e of the constituted world system of capitalist social organisms made the accelerated capitalist development of neighbouring lands both possible a n d necessary. C h a r a c t e r i s i n g the development of Russia, M a r x stressed t h a t she did not need 'like the West to pass t h r o u g h the long i n c u b a t i o n period of developing m a c h i n e p r o d u c t i o n in order to o b t a i n m a c h i n e s , s t e a m b o a t s , railways, etc'. 2 1 As he showed, Russian capitalists 'have m a n a g e d to introduce in a flash the whole m e c h a n i s m of e x c h a n g e (banks, joint-stock companies, etc.) which took centuries to grow u p in the W e s t ' . 2 2 For a long time the process o f ' c a t c h i n g u p ' by b a c k w a r d nations to the level a t t a i n e d by the leading ones took place spontaneously. T h e antagonistic c h a r a c t e r of the relationships of class society m a d e its m a r k on the processes of incorporation of b a c k w a r d social o r g a n i s m s into the zone of influence of progressive societies. Not infrequently it took b r u t a l a n d violent forms. All the colonial histories of capitalist countries can serve as a n example. T h e following, for example, was written by M a r x a b o u t British colonial d o m i n a t i o n in India : E n g l a n d has to fulfil a double mission in I n d i a : one destructive, the other regenerating - the a n n i h i l a t i o n of the old Asiatic society, a n d the laying of the material f o u n d a t i o n of W e s t e r n society in Asia . . . All the English bourgeoisie m a y b e forced to d o will neither e m a n cipate nor materially m e n d the social condition of t h e mass of the people, which d e p e n d s not only on the development of the productive powers, but on their a p p r o p r i a t i o n by the people. But w h a t they will not fail to do is to lay down the material premises for b o t h . H a s the bourgeoisie ever done more? H a s it ever effected a progress without dragging individuals a n d peoples t h r o u g h blood a n d dirt, t h r o u g h misery a n d d e g r a d a t i o n ? T h e Indians will not reap the fruits of the new elements of society scattered a m o n g t h e m by the British bourgeoisie, till in G r e a t Britain itself the new ruling classes shall have been s u p p l a n t e d by the industrial proletariat, or till the H i n d o o s themselves shall have g r o w n strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether. 2 3 T h e situation, was radically t r a n s f o r m e d by the a p p e a r a n c e of the

52

P a r t I : Marxism, anthropology, history

w o r l d ' s first socialist s t a t e a n d t h e r e a f t e r of a w o r l d socialist s y s t e m . A l r e a d y , in t h e e a r l y 1920s, L e n i n gave t h e p r o l e t a r i a t , w h i c h h a d t a k e n p o w e r into its o w n h a n d s , t h e t a s k of p r o v i d i n g p a n - g l o b a l help to n a t i o n s r e t a r d e d in t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t , so a s t o e n s u r e t h e i r t r a n s i t i o n d i r e c t l y t o socialism, a v o i d i n g all o t h e r s t a g e s of d e v e l o p m e n t . 2 4 All t h e h i s t o r y of t h e U S S R a p p e a r s as t h e m o d e l e x a m p l e of t h e i m p l e m e n t a tion of L e n i n ' s g r e a t idea. Peoples, finding t h e m s e l v e s at t h e m o m e n t of t h e O c t o b e r r e v o l u t i o n at t h e s t a g e of p r i m i t i v e s t r u c t u r e ( N e n t s i , N g a n a s a n y , O r o k i , C h i k c h i , Evenki a n d o t h e r s ) , or of p r e - c a p i t a l i s t class r e l a t i o n s ( K a z a k h s , T u r k m e n , U z b e k s , T a d z h i k s a n d o t h e r s ) live at p r e s e n t in a socialist society. H e l p f r o m t h e w o r k e r s of t h e U S S R a l l o w e d t h e M o n g o l p e o p l e to move on t o socialism. T h e Soviet U n i o n a n d o t h e r socialist s t a t e s also p r o v i d e a n e n o r m o u s a m o u n t of h e l p for c o u n t r i e s w h i c h have freed themselves f r o m colonial d e p e n d e n c y . I n c o n s e q u e n c e m a n y of t h e m have a d o p t e d a socialist o r i e n t a t i o n a n d h a v e e n t e r e d o n t h e p a t h of n o n - c a p i t a l i s t d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e existence of a w o r l d socialist s y s t e m p r o v i d e s t h e n a t i o n s w h i c h a r e r e t a r d e d in t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h a realistic possibility of a t r a n s i t i o n to socialism, w h i c h b y - p a s s e s t h e long a n d t o r m e n t e d r o u t e b y w h i c h m a n k i n d as a whole has passed. VIII

T h u s t h e t r a n s i t i o n f r o m o n e s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n to a n o t h e r t a k e s p l a c e in w o r l d h i s t o r y , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n only of t h e t r a n s i t i o n f r o m p r i m i t i v e - c o m m u n a l f o r m a t i o n t o t h e asiatic, a s t h e r e p l a c e m e n t of a w o r l d s y s t e m of social o r g a n i s m s of o n e d e f i n i t e t y p e b y a n o t h e r , as t h e t r a n s f e r of t h e l e a d i n g role f r o m o n e s u c h s y s t e m t o a n o t h e r . But not even a single o n e of t h e s e s y s t e m s ever e m b r a c e d all t h e i n h a b i t e d p a r t s of t h e globe. E a c h of t h e m a l w a y s c o v e r e d a m o r e or less d e f i n e d p a r t of t h e o e c u m e n e . As t h e facts s h o w , t h e c e n t r e of p a n - g l o b a l d e v e l o p m e n t m o r e o f t e n d i d not r e m a i n static, b u t shifted, a n d in c o n s e q u e n c e t h e successive w o r l d s y s t e m s g e n e r a l l y o c c u p i e d f a r f r o m i d e n t i c a l r e g i o n s of t h e e a r t h ' s surface. All this m a k e s it h a r d l y p r o b a b l e t h a t every s e q u e n c e of social o r g a n i s m s existing in this or t h e o t h e r r e g i o n of t h e o e c u m e n e - let a l o n e a n y o n e distinct social o r g a n i s m t a k e n o n its o w n - c o u l d ' p a s s t h r o u g h ' all s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s . T h a t r e m a i n s t r u e even if we t a k e a s o u r u n i t entities s u c h as c o n t i n e n t s . O n l y E u r o p e , a n d even t h a t o n l y if t a k e n a s a whole, a p p e a r s to b e in s o m e m e a s u r e a n e x c e p t i o n to this. Peoples existing in c o n d i t i o n s of t h e p r i m i t i v e - c o m m u n a l s t r u c t u r e w e r e t o b e f o u n d o n its t e r r i t o r y . Q u i t e clearly, this does not t u r n E u r o p e into a n e x c e p t i o n . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , this links it w i t h all o t h e r i n h a b i t e d c o n t i n e n t s . P r i m i t i v e - c o m m u n a l o r g a n i s m s existed t h r o u g h o u t t h e o e c u m e n e , w h i c h led to t h e view of t h e p r i m i t i v e - c o m m u n a l f o r m a t i o n a s t h e universal one, as t h e o n e t h r o u g h w h i c h all n a t i o n s

S e m e n o v : Socio-economic formations and world history

53

w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n h a v e ' p a s s e d '. T h e w o r l d s y s t e m of a s i a t i c social o r g a n i s m s f o r m e d itself in A s i a , w h e r e its c e n t r e w a s f o u n d , b u t it e x p a n d e d a n d d r e w i n t o itself a p a r t of E u r o p e a n t e r r i t o r y ( t h e s o u t h e r n p a r t of t h e B a l k a n p e n i n s u l a a n d C r e t e ) . T h u s E u r o p e also h a d its social o r g a n i s m s of t h e ' a s i a n ' t y p e . O n E u r o p e a n t e r r i t o r y , a l b e i t in diverse r e g i o n s of it, o n e w o u l d find t h e c e n t r e s of t h e f o l l o w i n g w o r l d s y s t e m s : a n c i e n t , f e u d a l , c a p i t a l i s t . F i n a l l y , t h e w o r l d socialist s y s t e m c a m e t o e m b r a c e a c o n s i d e r a b l e p a r t of E u r o p e . A s w e r e m a r k e d a b o v e , t h e p a r t i s a n s of t h e t h e o r y of s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s , w h i c h w a s s u b j e c t e d t o a c r i t i q u e in t h e p r e c e d i n g p a g e s , d i d n o t a l t o g e t h e r s u c c e e d in f o r m u l a t i n g t h e i r p o s i t i o n w i t h c l a r i t y . T h e y d i d not t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e m u l t i p l i c i t y of senses of t h e w o r d 'soc i e t y ' a n d t h e y d i d not o f f e r a t h e o r e t i c a l c l a r i f i c a t i o n of t h e c o n c e p t 'social o r g a n i s m ' . H e n c e m o s t of t h e m s a w t h e t h e o r y of s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s as r e q u i r i n g a n d p r e s u p p o s i n g t h a t t h e historic developm e n t in all i n h a b i t e d r e g i o n s of t h e e a r t h s h o u l d b e r o u g h l y t h e s a m e . T h e y w o u l d o n l y p e r m i t , first, t h a t d e v e l o p m e n t s h o u l d p r o c e e d a t d i v e r s e r a t e s of s p e e d , a n d s e c o n d l y , t h a t in o n e r e g i o n or a n o t h e r , in v i r t u e of e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e r e s h o u l d b e t h e ' o m i s s i o n ' of o n e s t a g e or a n o t h e r . T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e t h e o r y of s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s w a s p r e s e n t e d a s t h e o n l y p o s s i b l e o n e a n d t h u s as identical w i t h t h e t h e o r y itself. H e n c e t h e c o n s p i c u o u s fact, for e x a m p l e , t h a t a n c i e n t social o r g a n i s m s e x i s t e d o n l y in a c e r t a i n d e l i m i t e d a r e a , basically in s o u t h e r n E u r o p e , a n d a w h o l e set of s i m i l a r facts, w e r e seen as g r o u n d s for t h e revision, n o t o n l y of t h e given i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e t h e o r y , b u t m o r e g e n e r a l l y of t h e b a s i c c o n t e n t i o n s of t h e t h e o r y itself. By w a y of e x a m p l e o n e m a y refer t o t h e article b y D a n i l o v a , ' C o n t r o versial p r o b l e m s in t h e theory of pre-capitalist societies'. 25 In this a r t i c l e t h e a u t h o r a d o p t s a p o s i t i o n o p p o s e d to t h e so-called five-stage s c h e m a of f o r m a t i o n s ( p r i m i t i v e , s l a v e - o w n i n g , f e u d a l i s m , c a p i t a l i s m , c o m m u n i s m ) . B u t all h e r c r i t i q u e is e q u a l l y effective a g a i n s t t h e six-stage s c h e m a (primitive, a s i a t i c , a n c i e n t , f e u d a l , capitalist a n d c o m m u n i s t f o r m a t i o n s ) a n d m o r e g e n e r a l l y a g a i n s t a n y given s c h e m a of t h e evolu t i o n of s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s . In full a c c o r d a n c e w i t h D a n i l o v a ' s ideas, t h e five-stage s c h e m a a p p e a r s to b e t h e g e n e r a l i s a t i o n of t h e historical d e v e l o p m e n t of E u r o p e a l o n e , a n d n o t of h u m a n society as a whole. S h e w r i t e s : ' T h e successive r e p l a c e m e n t of t h e p r i m i t i v e a n d s l a v e - o w n i n g s t r u c t u r e s by f e u d a l i s m , a n d t h e r e a f t e r b y c a p i t a l i s m in t h e o t h e r r e g i o n s of t h e e a r t h ( a n d i n d e e d also in E u r o p e ) w h i c h is so c h a r a c t e r i s t i c for t h e M e d i t e r r a n e a n a n d t h e a r e a s s h a r i n g its h i s t o r i c fate, is b y n o m e a n s to b e f o u n d everyw h e r e . ' S h o w i n g t h a t t h e criticised c o n c e p t i o n allows t h e o m i s s i o n of s o m e f o r m a t i o n s b u t o n l y as d e v i a t i o n s or e x c e p t i o n s , D a n i l o v a stresses t h a t ' t h e r e t u r n e d o u t to b e m o r e d e v i a t i o n s a n d e x c e p t i o n s , t h a n c a s e s falling u n d e r t h e r u l e , a n d s e c o n d l y - a n d this is t h e m a i n point - t h e

54

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

regularities o p e r a t i n g here showed themselves to be so specific, that they could not be explained by t h e influence of historic environment alone.' All this led her to the conclusion that in h u m a n society there exist not one, b u t several diverse lines of development. In this way Danilova, without clearly realising it herself, arrives at the repudiation not merely of a five-stage, b u t more generally of any given scheme of the evolution of h u m a n society, i.e. to t h e rejection of the very core of the theory of socio-economic formations. Analogous conclusions were reached s o m e w h a t earlier by some other scholars. T h e greatest p a r a d o x , if you like, lies in the fact that, at the root of this theory of history itself t h e r e lies the very same principle as is also f o u n d at t h e root of the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the theory of formations considered above, the untenability of which has led to this kind of conclusion. T h e followers of this interpretation of the succession of social formations a n d the p a r t i s a n s of the multilineal conception of history, both, a n d in e q u a l m e a s u r e , start f r o m the rejection of the unity of the world historical process. Both groups alike see the history of m a n k i n d as a simple s u m m a t i o n of parallel a n d p r e d o m i n a n t l y i n d e p e n d e n t processes in the development of distinct social organisms, countries, nations, areas, regions. T h e r e is only this difference between them, that according to the first, all these s e p a r a t e units develop basically in the s a m e m a n n e r a n d along t h e s a m e line, whereas according to the views of the latter group, they develop in a n essentially diverse way, i.e. along different lines. T h e issue of the unilineality or multilineality of historical development arises only if we are faced not by one, but by several independent objects. T h e question t h e n is w h e t h e r these objects developed in a basically similar or dissimilar way, according to the same or different laws. T h e conception of h u m a n history as a single process eliminates this question. T h e unity of an object already by itself presupposes the unity of its development, which not merely does not exclude, but on the c o n t r a r y p r e s u p p o s e s the idiosyncracy of the development of every p a r t , of which the given whole is composed. W e have already s h o w n above the total untenability of the conception of h u m a n history as a s u m of histories of distinct units, b o u n d only by the identity of the laws o p e r a t i n g in t h e m and their corresponding parallel development. But the idea of the multilineal development of m a n k i n d is j u s t as u n t e n a b l e . In diverse regions, development took place in diverse fashions, but all these processes were in the end but p a r t s of a n u n i t a r y process of the evolution of h u m a n society, subject to one single set of regularities. O n e of the factors conditioning the specificity of the development of diverse regions was the difference in the speed of their evolution. At the time w h e n the world capitalist system was emerging in Europe, A u s t r a l i a n aborigines were still at the stage of primitive structure. T h i s m a d e the colonisation of Australia by E u r o p e a n s inevitable. C a p i t a l i s m was b r o u g h t to Australia along with white settlers, a n d the

Semeno ν : Socio-economic formations and world history

55

aborigines were in part destroyed, in part p u s h e d back into the least desirable locations. At present they face no prospects of development other t h a n the organic information in the s t r u c t u r e of A u s t r a l i a n capitalist society. Roughly the same took place on the territory of the present U S A a n d C a n a d a . T h e population of Mexico, central A m e r i c a a n d Peru already found itself, at the m o m e n t of E u r o p e a n discovery, in the stage of t h e asiatic formation. Spain, whose dependency they b e c a m e , was a feudal country. Initially, an idiosyncratic superimposition of the feudal m o d e of production on the asiatic took place in this area. Later, in p r o p o r t i o n to its inclusion in the zone of influence of the world capitalist system, the capitalist m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n emerged within it. In s u b - S a h a r a n Africa, at the start of E u r o p e a n colonisation, some peoples found themselves in the stage of primitive c o m m u n a l structure, and others at the stage of transition to the asiatic formation, and some of these had moved right u p to the limit s e p a r a t i n g it f r o m a genuine class society. T h e i r inclusion in the zone of influence of the world capitalist system provided the condition for their development along the capitalist p a t h . W i t h the emergence of a world socialist system a n o t h e r possibility also arises for t h e m - t h a t of non-capitalist development. T h e m a t t e r is more complex in the countries of Asia, especially those within which class society emerged sooner t h a n in the m a j o r i t y of the regions of Europe (the Near East, India, C h i n a ) . All the efforts to discern in their development the s a m e stages as those which apply to Europe, were hardly crowned with a n y great success. T h e social structure found there d u r i n g the periods frequently called feudal by scholars, differed substantially f r o m E u r o p e a n feudalism, but it was very similar to that which was f o u n d t h e r e in an earlier period. Right up to their incorporation in the zone of influence of the world capitalist system, no t r a c e of the bourgeois m o d e of production was to be found within t h e m . All this taken together would seem to give full s u p p o r t to t h e old idea of the existence in the East of its own line of development, qualitatively different from that followed by t h e West. H e n c e some Marxists, disenchanted with the above-described i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the theory of socio-economic formations, c a m e to be a t t r a c t e d by this view. 26 However the solution to this problem was put forward by the a u t h o r s of the theory of socio-economic formations, M a r x a n d Engels. It consisted in proposing that from the birth of class society right u p to the eighteenth a n d even nineteenth century, the asiatic m o d e of production continued to exist in certain countries of the East. In other words, these countries remained at the stage of the first class-endowed socioeconomic formation, just as all the original p o p u l a t i o n of Australia remained up to the same period at the stage of t h e p r i m i t i v e - c o m m u n a l structure. As is well known, M a r x a n d Engels repeatedly wrote a b o u t

56

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

the s t a g n a n t c h a r a c t e r of the evolution of the oriental countries. 2 ' T h e dragging of these countries into t h e zone of influence of the world capitalist system led to the overcoming of s t a g n a t i o n a n d the birth within t h e m of the bourgeois m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n . M a r x upheld this viewpoint. 2 9 W h a t we e n c o u n t e r here once again is a specific development, but not specific laws, nor a n idiosyncratic line of development. T o speak of a u n i q u e eastern line of development has hardly any better form u l a t i o n t h a n speaking of a u n i q u e Australian line. C o n c e r n i n g the line of development which is frequently called western ( E u r o p e a n ) , it would seem t h a t it is western in a purely geographical, b u t not in a n y historical sense. W o r l d systems of a n y given type, in which socio-economic formations were embodied, could not but be territorially b o u n d e d . Beginning with t h e ancient, they c a m e to e m b r a c e E u r o p e . F r o m that time on, their successive replacement took place particularly on E u r o p e a n territory. All this generates the illusion t h a t we are dealing here with a regional, western, E u r o p e a n line of development. In reality all these systems of social organisms, notwiths t a n d i n g their territorial limitation were in their n a t u r e not regional, or E u r o p e a n , but global ones, j u s t as the pre-ancient N e a r - E a s t e r n system of social o r g a n i s m s was global a n d not regional or asiatic. T h e global significance of t h e formation of the capitalist system in E u r o p e is indisputable. By the beginning of the twentieth century it d r e w into its sphere of operation not merely the whole world, but also t h r o u g h its o p e r a t i o n provoked, in a large n u m b e r of countries which were r e t a r d e d in their development, the a p p e a r a n c e of the bourgeois socio-economic mode. T h e m a t t e r is m o r e complex with the asiatic, ancient a n d feudal systems. Not one of t h e m extended its influence over the whole world. T h e degree of their influence on r e t a r d e d society was correspondingly smaller. However, without the N e a r - E a s t e r n asiatic system of social o r g a n i s m s there would have been no ancient one, without ancient society there would have been no feudal one, and without a feudal one, no capitalism. O n l y the successive development a n d replacement of these systems could prepare for the appearance of capitalism, a n d hence s u b s e q u e n t l y of socialism, thereby making not merely possible, b u t also necessary, the transition of all remaining peoples without exception directly to capitalism or socialism. In this way, in the final analysis, their existence a n d development was linked to the fate of all m a n k i n d . T h e characteristic trait of a world system of social organisms of a given type a p p e a r s to be t h e fact t h a t their development inevitably prepares for t h e a p p e a r a n c e of a new, more progressive world system, so t h a t its existence a p p e a r s to be a necessary link in the history of m a n kind. T h u s not merely t h e capitalist a n d socialist, but even the old N e a r - E a s t e r n asiatic, the ancient a n d feudal systems of social o r g a n isms were all stages of t h e development not of this or t h a t region, but of h u m a n i t y at large.

S e m e n o v : Socio-economic

formations

and world history

57

IX

In the light of e v e r y t h i n g said a b o v e it c l e a r l y t r a n s p i r e s that o n e c a n in no w a y see the h i s t o r y of m a n k i n d as a s i m p l e s u m of the histories of social o r g a n i s m s , a n d that o n e c a n n o t see s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s as i d e n t i c a l s t a g e s of t h e evolution of social o r g a n i s m s , o b l i g a t o r y for all of them. T h e

h i s t o r y of h u m a n s o c i e t y

is a s i n g l e w h o l e a n d

socio-

e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s a p p e a r a b o v e all a s s t a g e s of d e v e l o p m e n t of this s i n g l e u n i t y . S o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s m a y or m a y not a p p e a r as s t a g e s in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of d i s t i n c t social o r g a n i s m s , b u t this d o e s not in t h e v e r y least p r e v e n t t h e m f r o m b e i n g s t e p s in the e v o l u t i o n of h u m a n s o c i e t y as a w h o l e . T h e s u c c e s s i o n of s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s takes p l a c e a b o v e all at t h e level of all m a n k i n d , in t h e f o r m of the rep l a c e m e n t of w o r l d s y s t e m s of s o c i a l o r g a n i s m s of a g i v e n k i n d ; a n d w h e n m a n k i n d a s a w h o l e h a s r e a c h e d this o r t h a t s t a g e of its d e v e l o p m e n t , ' p a s s e d t h r o u g h ' this or t h a t f o r m a t i o n , not m e r e l y d o e s t h e need to p a s s t h r o u g h t h e m d i s a p p e a r for r e t a r d e d n a t i o n s , b u t t h e v e r y possibility d i s a p p e a r s a s well. S o o n e r o r later it b e c o m e s not m e r e l y p o s s i b l e , but n e c e s s a r y for t h e m to miss out all the i n t e r v e n i n g s t a g e s , a n d m o v e o n t o the h i g h e r s t a g e r e a c h e d b y m a n k i n d a s a w h o l e .

NOTES 1 Yu. I. Semenov, ' T h e category "social o r g a n i s m " a n d its significance for historical scholarship', Vopro sy Is torn, 1966, no. 8 (in R u s s i a n ) . 2 V.l. Lenin, ' W h a t t h e " f r i e n d s of t h e p e o p l e " a r e a n d how they fight t h e sociald e m o c r a t s ' , Collected Works, vol. 1, Moscow, 1972, pp. 136-45; ' T h e e c o n o m i c content of n a r o d i s m a n d criticisms of it in M r Struve's book', Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 411 (both in R u s s i a n ) . 3 Lenin, ' W h a t t h e " f r i e n d s of the p e o p l e " are', Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 140. 4 V.l. Lenin, 'Philosophical notebooks', Collected Works, vol. 38, M o s c o w , 1972, p. 361. 5 Lenin, ' W h a t the " f r i e n d s o f t h e p e o p l e " a r e ' , Collected Works, vol. l , p p . 157-8. 6 Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 1, pp. 142, 165. 7 Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 141. 8 Lenin ' T h e economic content of n a r o d i s m ' , Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 410. 9 See, for instance, A.Ya. Gurevich, ' T o t h e discussion of precapitalist formations: formation a n d form', Voprosy Filosofia 1968, no. 2, 118-19 (in R u s s i a n ) . 10 K. M a r x , Preface to Ά c o n t r i b u t i o n to the c r i t i q u e of political e c o n o m y ' , in K. M a r x and F. Engels, Selected Works, vol. 1, Moscow, 1973, p. 504. 11 Ibid. 12 See, for instance, E . M . S h t a e r m a n , 'Ancient society: t h e m o d e r n i s a t i o n of history a n d historical analogies', Problems m the History of Pre-capitalist Societies, vol. 1, Moscow, 1968, p. 647 (in R u s s i a n ) . 13 See E . M . Zhukov, 'Fifty years of Soviet historical science', Voprosy Istorii, 1968, no. 1, 25 (in R u s s i a n ) . 14 See G.A. Melikishvili, ' C o n c e r n i n g the question of ancient oriental class societies', Voprosy Istorii, 1966, no. 2, 73, (in R u s s i a n ) ; a n d English t r a n s l a t i o n in Introduction to Soviet Ethnography cd. S. P. D u n n a n d E. D u n n , vol. 2, Berkeley, 1974, p p . 560-1, 568-9. 15 See Yu.I. Semenov, ' T h e c a t e g o r y "social o r g a n i s m " ' , Voprosy ¡stoni, 1966, no. 8 (in Russian).

58

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

16 See S h t a e r m a n . in Problems in the Union of Pre-capilalnt Societies,. vol. 1. p. 647 (in Russian). 17 C . L . Woolley, The Sumenans, O x f o r d , 1928. p. 193. 18 F. Engels, Anti-Dühnng, M o s c o w - L e n i n g r a d , 1934, p. 206. 19 See L.S. Vasiliev a n d I.A. Stuchevskii, ' T h r e e m o d e l s of t h e e m e r g e n c e a n d evolu t i o n of pre-capitalist societies', Voprosy Istorii, 1965, no. 5 (in R u s s i a n ) . E.J. H o b s b a w m , I n t r o d u c t i o n to K. M a r x , Pre-capitalist Social Formations, L o n d o n , 1964, p p . 36-8. 20 K. M a r x a n d F. Engels, ' M a n i f e s t o of t h e C o m m u n i s t P a r t y ' , Selected Works, vol. I, p. 112. 21 K. M a r x , 'First d r a f t of t h e reply t o V . l . Z a s u l i c h ' s letter', M a r x a n d Engels, Selected Works, vol. 3, M o s c o w , 1973, p. 157. 22 I b i d . 23 K. M a r x , ' T h e f u t u r e results of t h e British rule in I n d i a ' , M a r x a n d Engels, Selected Works, vol. 1, p p . 4 9 4 , 4 9 7 - 8 . 24 V . l . Lenin, ' R e p o r t of t h e C o m m i s s i o n o n t h e n a t i o n a l a n d colonial q u e s t i o n s , July', Collected Works, vol. 31, M o s c o w , 1974, p. 244; ' T a x in k i n d ' , Collected Works, vol. 32, M o s c o w , 1975, p p . 349-50. 25 L.V. Danilova, ' C o n t r o v e r s i a l p r o b l e m s in t h e t h e o r y of p r e c a p i t a l i s t societies', Soviet Anthropology and Archaeology, 1971, vol. 9, 2 6 9 - 3 2 8 (a t r a n s l a t i o n f r o m t h e R u s s i a n ) . T h e R u s s i a n original a p p e a r e d in Problems in the History of Pre-capitalist Societies, M o s c o w , vol 1, p. 27. 26 See. G. Lewin, ' T h e p r o b l e m of social f o r m a t i o n s in C h i n e s e history', Marxism Today, 1967, no. 1,21-2. 27 M a r x , ' T h e British rule in I n d i a ' , a n d ' T h e f u t u r e r e s u l t s of t h e British rule in I n d i a ' , b o t h in M a r x a n d Engels, Selected Works, vol. 1, p p . 4 8 8 - 9 4 ; Capital, vol. 1, M o s c o w , 1965, pp. 3 5 7 - 9 ; ' T h e letter to E n g e l s in M a n c h e s t e r , J u n e 2 n d 1853', K. M a r x a n d F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, M o s c o w , 1975, p p . 7 5 - 6 . F. Engels, ' T h e letter t o M a r x in L o n d o n , J u n e 6 t h , 1853', M a r x a n d Engels, Selected Correspondence, pp. 75-7. 28 M a r x , ' T h e British rule in I n d i a ' , a n d ' T h e f u t u r e results of t h e British rule in I n d i a ' , b o t h in M a r x a n d Engels, Selected Works, vol. 1, p p . 490-6; Capital, vol. 1, p. 539; ' T h e letter to Engels in M a n c h e s t e r , J u n e 14th, 1853', M a r x a n d Engels, Selected Correspondence, p p . 79-80; M a r x , Capital, vol. 3, M o s c o w , 1966, p. 796. 29 M a r x , ' T h e f u t u r e results of t h e British r u l e in India", M a r x a n d Engels, Selected Works, vol. 1, pp. 494, 497-8.

E. GELLNER A Russian Marxist philosophy of history Y u r i S e m e n o v is a highly distinguished theoretician of M a r x i s t a n d Soviet a n t h r o p o l o g y . H i s ' T h e t h e o r y of s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s a n d world h i s t o r y ' is an e l e g a n t , c o h e r e n t , beautifully argued a n d u n c o m p r o m i s i n g defence of a unilineal i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of M a r x i s m , a n d a defence of it as a valid a c c o u n t of h u m a n history. T h i s in itself is a m a t t e r of c o n s i d e r a b l e interest. U n i l i n e a l i s m h a s of late h a d a b a d press, b o t h inside a n d outside the Soviet U n i o n , a m o n g M a r x i s t s a n d n o n - M a r x i s t s alike. N o consensus exists on this q u e s t i o n inside Soviet s c h o l a r s h i p , or outside of course, a n d the a u t h o r s with w h o m S e m e n o v p o l e m i c i s e s i n c l u d e b o t h scholars within his own c o u n t r y a n d westerners, M a r x i s t s a n d n o n - M a r x i s t s . T h o u g h S e m e n o v does not raise this explicitly in the m a i n part of his a r g u m e n t , t h e q u e s t i o n is one of very great political interest, a n d is not at all a simple t e c h n i c a l issue of c o n c e r n to historians only. T h e question w h e t h e r h u m a n history is O n e or M a n y is obviously f u n d a m e n t a l for a n y philo s o p h y of history. It is also c e n t r a l t o most d e b a t e s about M a r x i s m , a n d to p r o b l e m s in M a r x i s t political s t r a t e g y . O n e of the c o m m o n e s t c r i t i c i s m s of M a r x i s m hinges on u n i l i n e a l i s m , a n d runs as follows: W h y did the socialist revolution o c c u r in b a c k w a r d a n d p e r i p h e r a l R u s s i a ? O u g h t it not, a c c o r d i n g to the theory of universal o b l i g a t o r y successive stages o f h u m a n society (i.e. u n i l i n e a l i s m ) , to have o c c u r r e d in the highly developed capitalist countries, in w h i c h the a n t i c i p a t e d c o n t r a d i c t i o n s of the capitalist mode of p r o d u c t i o n were bec o m i n g most a c u t e ? O r a g a i n , t h e r e is the well known d i l e m m a facing M a r x i s t revolutionaries in underdeveloped countries, e n d o w e d with p e a s a n t r i e s a n d an e m e r g i n g ' n a t i o n a l bourgeoisie', but not yet with a n u m e r o u s , powerful or effective proletariat. O u g h t such revolutionaries, in the light of u n i l i n e a l i s m , to ally themselves with the national bourgeoisie a n d help f u r t h e r its ends in the patient e x p e c t a t i o n of a s u b s e q u e n t m o r e favourable situation, or ought they to fight the u l t i m a t e e n e m y right now, a n d historic t i m e t a b l e s be d a m n e d ? (In Jewish theology, t h e r e is a special n a m e for the sin of e n d e a v o u r i n g to i m p l e m e n t divine decrees p r e m a t u r e l y , a n d the same might seem to apply within M a r x i s m . )

60

P a r t I : Marxism,

anthropology,

history

It is an interesting consequence of Semenov's formulation of Marxist unilinealism, t h a t if it is valid, these problems barely arise, or do not arise at all. If his position is correct, the questions themselves were profoundly misguided, a n d ought never to have been posed, at least in those terms. T h e m a n n e r in which Semenov demonstrates his conclusion, as well as the conclusion itself, is of great interest. T h e a r g u m e n t is basically philosophical r a t h e r t h a n specific a n d historical. Historical d a t a , a n d those of a r a t h e r general kind, enter the a r g u m e n t only at relatively m a r g i n a l a n d t a n g e n t i a l points. T h e b u r d e n of the proof hinges on r a t h e r a b s t r a c t a n d philosophical issues, a n d on two in particular - the unity of h u m a n history, a n d the question of nominalism versus realism (in the platonic sense). T h e s e two issues t u r n out, once again, to be related. Consider the second of these, the problem of the relationship of abstract concepts to reality. It m a y be as well to invoke a c o n t e m p o r a r y authority, the A m e r i c a n logician Q u i n e , for a restatement of the available alternatives: T h e t h r e e m a i n mediaeval points of view regarding universals are d e s i g n a t e d b y h i s t o r i a n s a s realism, conceptualism,

a n d nominalism.

Es-

sentially these s a m e t h r e e doctrines a p p e a r in twentieth-century surveys . . . u n d e r the n e w n a m e s oflogicism, intuitionism a n d formalism. Realism . . . is the Platonic doctrine that universals or abstract entities have being independently of m i n d ; . . . Conceptualism holds that they a r e universal b u t t h a t they are m i n d - m a d e . . . . the nominalists of old, object(ed) to a d m i t t i n g abstract entities at all . . . [Willard van O r m a n Q u i n e , From a Logical Point of View, C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . 1953, pp. 14,15] T h i s was a n d evidently continues to be a central issue in philosophical t h o u g h t , a n d in its time it could send those w h o were in error to their d e a t h : T h e n the C a r d i n a l of C a m b r a i . . . questioned M a s t e r J a n H u s if he regarded universals as real a p a r t from the thing itself. A n d he r e s p o n d e d t h a t he did, since both St Anselm a n d others h a d so regarded t h e m . T h e r e u p o n the cardinal argued . . . t h a t . . .it follows that with the cessation of the particular there also ceased the universal s u b s t a n c e of itself. J a n H u s replied that it ceased to exist in the s u b s t a n c e of t h a t p a r t i c u l a r b r e a d . . . but despite that, in other particulars it r e m a i n s t h e same. [Report of the trial of J a n H u s in 1415 b y P e t r ζ M l a d o ñ o v i c , q u o t e d i n Unity, Heresy and Reform,

1378-1460,

ed. C . M . D . C r o w d e r , L o n d o n , 1977, pp. 88-9] W i t h i n a m o n t h J a n H u s paid for his realist views at the stake. But the issue of r e a l i s m / n o m i n a l i s m underlies not only the p r o b l e m of t r a n s u b -

G e l l n e r : A Russian Marxist philosophy ofhistory

61

s t a n t i a t i o n , of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of b r e a d - i n - g e n e r a l to t h e specific b r e a d used in t h e E u c h a r i s t , b u t e q u a l l y t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s in general to specific, c o n c r e t e societies. S e m e n o v clearly seems also to be a realist, a n d m o r e o v e r h e h o l d s r e a l i s m to b e a n essential p r e r e q u i s i t e for t h e correct i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of M a r x i s m . W h a t is at issue now is t h e correct a s s e s s m e n t of t h e ontological s t a t u s , so to speak, o f ' s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s ' . Is t h e r e n o t h i n g in t h e w o r l d over a n d above c o n c r e t e l y existing societies with w h i c h socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s m u s t t h e n b e identified if t h e t e r m is to refer to a n y t h i n g at all, or, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , a r e t h e y m e r e l y logical a r t e facts of t h e m i n d , c o n c e p t u a l c o n v e n i e n c e s ? T h e s e w o u l d seem to b e t h e n o m i n a l i s t a n d c o n c e p t u a l i s t o p t i o n s , a n d t h e y seem to b e r e p u d i a t e d : . . . a socio-economic f o r m a t i o n in t h e p u r e sense . . . c a n only exist in t h e o r y , b u t not in historical reality. In h i s t o r y , it exists in distinct societies as their i n n e r essence, their objective basis. A failure to see this c a n lead to theoretical e r r o r s . T h u s , for i n s t a n c e , c e r t a i n Soviet h i s t o r i a n s , having failed to locate w i t h i n history p u r e , ideal socioe c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s , r e a c h e d t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t f o r m a t i o n s d o not exist in reality at all, t h a t t h e y r e p r e s e n t only logical, t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s . T h e e n d e a v o u r t o avoid s u c h a c o n c l u s i o n led several o t h e r scholars to t h e direct, i m m e d i a t e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of socioe c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s with a c t u a l l y e x i s t i n g social o r g a n i s m s , w i t h distinct concrete societies . . . E i t h e r of t h e s e a p p r o a c h e s is e q u a l l y m i s g u i d e d . E i t h e r c a n lead t o a r e p u d i a t i o n of t h e m a t e r i a l i s t conc e p t i o n of history. [Yu.I. S e m e n o v , ' T h e t h e o r y of s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s a n d w o r l d history', t r a n s l a t e d b y E. G e l l n e r . All subseq u e n t q u o t a t i o n s , not o t h e r w i s e identified, a r e f r o m this w o r k ] T h o u g h socio-economic f o r m a t i o n s c a n n o t exist i n d e p e n d e n t l y of c o n c r e t e individual societies, nevertheless t h e y a r e not m e r e a b s t r a c t i o n s or c o n c e p t u a l conveniences. T h e y exist as t h e i n n e r essences of c o n c r e t e societies, a n d d e t e r m i n e t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t . T h a t i n n e r essence is d e s c r i b e d , in so m a n y w o r d s , as existing i n d e p e n d e n t l y of t h e consciousness a n d will of m e n . T h o u g h this last r e m a r k s e e m e d to b e i n t e n d e d to a p p l y above all to t h e m i n d s a n d wills of p a r t i c i p a n t s in t h e historic process, it m u s t p r e s u m a b l y a p p l y w i t h even g r e a t e r force to t h e historical observer. H i s m e n t a l acts d o not m a k e t h e s e systems of p r o d u c t i v e relations; they m a k e h i m . T h e q u e s t i o n of t h e reality of a b s t r a c t i o n s m a y seem scholastic. Its relevance m a y however e m e r g e m o r e clearly if o n e looks at S e m e n o v ' s o t h e r m a i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n , n a m e l y the u n i t y of h u m a n history a n d its implications for unilinealism a n d rival theories. W h a t is u n i l i n e a l i s m ? It is t h e d o c t r i n e t h a t , for t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of h u m a n history, we n e e d to consider o n e a n d only one list of historic stages t h r o u g h w h i c h h u m a n society h a s p a s s e d (or is p a s s i n g a n d will p a s s ) . S e m e n o v q u i t e cogently notes t h a t t h e issue of u n i l i n e a l i s m as s u c h is q u i t e i n d e p e n -

62

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

dent of the subsidiary (though also i m p o r t a n t ) question concerning just how m a n y stages there are, or just w h a t they are. (E.g., a r e there just five of t h e m , or is the 'asiatic m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n ' a distinct stage, to be inserted between primitive c o m m u n i s m a n d slave-owning society?) Semenov's a r g u m e n t f r o m t h e unity of h u m a n history r u n s as follows. T o w h a t could the η stages of h u m a n history (whatever the correct n u m b e r m a y be) be m e a n t to apply ? T h e r e would seem to be two possibilities: First t h a t they are m e a n t to a p p l y to the development of each a n d every society, t a k e n individually. Secondly that they a r e meant to apply to t h e history of m a n k i n d at large (in some sense which is yet to emerge). It is extremely interesting t h a t Semenov concedes t h a t the theory of socio-economic formations has generally been interpreted in the first sense. It w a s n ' t even t h a t the first interpretation was consciously preferred : it was unreflectively taken for g r a n t e d : T h e overwhelming m a j o r i t y of scholars, often without clearly realising it themselves, in one way or a n o t h e r in the final analysis inclined t o w a r d s the first solution. T h e t r e a t m e n t of the succession of social formations as successive changes of the type of individual social organism, c o r r e s p o n d e d all in all with the facts of E u r o p e a n history, beginning with later feudalism . . . T h i s m a d e it possible to treat the theory of socio-economic formations as the actualisation of the develo p m e n t of each social o r g a n i s m t a k e n on its own. T h e identification for practical p u r p o s e s of the development of society as a whole, with the development of each society individually, was aided by the abovenoted plurality of m e a n i n g s o f ' s o c i e t y ' . T h e last sentence of the q u o t a t i o n refers to the ambiguity of'society it c a n m e a n a concrete society, with co-ordinates in time a n d space, a local h a b i t a t i o n a n d a n a m e , b u t it c a n also m e a n the generic thing, which is, for Semenov, both a b s t r a c t a n d yet inherent, essential, explicative. T h e passage q u o t e d highlights, amongst other things, the i n t e r - d e p e n d e n c e of the platonic-realist and the historical-unity arguments. T h e unity applies to the generic essence, not to the individual society. But w h a t is p e r h a p s most interesting a b o u t it is the admission that the m a j o r i t y of scholars have in the past interpreted M a r x i s m as requiring the unilineal succession to apply to individual societies - a n d this m a j o r i t y of course includes M a r x i s t s at least as m u c h as the critics of M a r x i s m . H e n c e Semenov's reformulation is a very significant advance within M a r x i s m or, at the very least, the recovery a n d the m a k i n g explicit of s o m e t h i n g which h a d long been lost and which, if originally present at all, h a d never been articulated with sufficient clarity or e m p h a s i s to m a k e s u b s e q u e n t generations of scholars a w a r e of the fact t h a t they were c o n t r a d i c t i n g it. T h o s e who sinned against it generally did so, as Semenov stressed, w i t h o u t being a w a r e of making a n y contentious a s s u m p t i o n at all. ' T h i s interpretation of the theory of

Gell ner : A Russian M arxist philosophy of history

63

socio-economic formations was presented as t h e only possible one a n d t h u s as i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e t h e o r y itself. ' If it w a s p o s s i b l e t o d o this, t h e correct i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c o u l d not h a v e b e e n very easily a v a i l a b l e , at least in explicit f o r m . L e a v i n g a s i d e t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e o r i g i n a l i t y of his f o r m u l a t i o n - is it valid? I find this c e n t r a l p o i n t in S e m e n o v ' s a r g u m e n t e n t i r e l y c o n v i n c ing. T h e idea t h a t u n i l i n e a l i s m r e q u i r e s every i n d i v i d u a l society t o p a s s t h r o u g h every stage, (a view w h i c h , like t h e rest of S e m e n o v ' s silent majority, I h a d always taken for g r a n t e d , without even being a w a r e of it), only n e e d s to b e s t a t e d clearly to b e s e e n t o b e a b s u r d . E v e r y society c o u l d o n l y p a s s t h r o u g h every s t a g e if societies w e r e g e n e r a l l y i m m o r t a l , like J o n a t h a n S w i f t ' s S t r u l d b r u g s , or a l t e r n a t i v e l y if societies lived out t h e i r lives in i s o l a t i o n . But e a c h of t h e s e a s s u m p t i o n s is b l a t a n t l y a b s u r d . N o c o n t e m p o r a r y n o r t h e r n E u r o p e a n society h a s a h i s t o r y going b a c k b e y o n d (at b e s t ) t h e m i d d l e a g e s . T h r o u g h religion, m o d e r n G r e e c e a n d Israel m a y p e r h a p s c l a i m s o m e k i n d of r a t h e r d u b i o u s i d e n t i t y w i t h a n c i e n t B y z a n t i u m a n d Israel r e s p e c t i vely, t h o u g h this i d e n t i t y i m m e d i a t e l y l a p s e s if w e insist o n c o n t i n u ity of t e r r i t o r i a l o c c u p a t i o n or of o r g a n i s a t i o n or of political sovereignty or a n y t h i n g of t h e k i n d . It s e e m s to follow t h a t if, for i n s t a n c e , b o t h s l a v e - o w n i n g society a n d f e u d a l i s m a r e s u c h ' s t a g e s ' , t h e n it is s o m e w h a t i m p l a u s i b l e to s u p p o s e t h a t t h e s a m e c o n t i n u o u s society h a d at o n e p e r i o d b e e n s l a v e - o w n i n g a n d at a n o t h e r , f e u d a l . T h e r e w a s p r e s u m a b l y never a t i m e w h e n slave-owners w e r e r e q u i r e d t o h a n d in t h e i r d e e d s of o w n e r s h i p of slaves, a n d have t h e m r e p l a c e d b y l a n d - d e e d s to a p p r o p r i a t e t e r r i t o r y , c a r r y i n g w i t h t h e m a given n u m b e r of serfs, a n d c o r r e s p o n d i n g m i l i t a r y o b l i g a t i o n s t o o v e r l o r d s , a n d so f o r t h . It is a nice idea - o n e likes to t h i n k of q u e u e s of d i s g r u n t l e d slaveo w n e r s , w a i t i n g at t h e m u n i c i p i u m , c o m p l a i n i n g t o e a c h o t h e r a b o u t t h e b a d r a t e of e x c h a n g e — ' t e n e r s t w h i l e slaves for o n e a c r e w i t h t w o serfs, n o w is t h a t fair I ask you, t h e g o v e r n m e n t is c l e a r l y m a k i n g a packet out of this t r a n s i t i o n to f e u d a l i s m , it's j u s t o n e f u r t h e r h i d d e n f o r m of t a x a t i o n ' - a n d p e r h a p s d e n o u n c i n g t h o s e w h o c h e a t - ' n o w L u c a n i u s over t h e r e , h e h a n d s in sick old slaves w h o m h e h a d q u i c k l y b o u g h t u p c h e a p w h e n t h e c h a n g e f r o m s l a v e - o w n i n g to f e u d a l i s m w a s a n n o u n c e d , b u t t h e n he m a n a g e s to c o l l a r t h e very best l a n d w i t h t h e y o u n g e s t serfs! A n d I tell you a n o t h e r t h i n g , t h i s iusprimae noctis w h i c h we a r e p r o m i s e d in t h e d e c r e e p r o m u l g a t i n g f e u d a l i s m , it really isn't a p a t c h o n t h e f u n we used t o have w i t h t h e N u b i a n slave-girls. If you ask me, it's a very retrogressive step, a n d it's a l w a y s t h e m i d d l e classes w h o p a y for it in t h e e n d . . . ' It is a n a t t r a c t i v e p i c t u r e , b u t to t h e d e t r i m e n t of t h e c o n t i n u i t y of history, it never h a p p e n e d t h a t way. S e m e n o v is so clearly r i g h t o n this point t h a t o n e is a bit p u z z l e d t h a t it h a d not b e e n m a d e w i t h e m p h a s i s earlier. It is not p l a u s i b l e t o expect every, or even a n y , c o n c r e t e c o n t i n u o u s society to p a s s t h r o u g h all s t a g e s . T h i s b e i n g so, w h y h a d critics

64

P a r t I : Marxism,

anthropology,

history

of M a r x i s m a n d revisionists m a d e so m u c h fuss a b o u t the a b s e n c e of s o m e s t a g e s in s o m e societies in p a r t i c u l a r ? W e shall have to r e t u r n to this q u e s t i o n . If t h e s u c c e s s i o n of s t a g e s c a n n o t p l a u s i b l y b e c r e d i t e d to single, cont i n u o u s societies, w h i c h s e e m s t o b e t h e case, a n u m b e r of o t h e r q u e s t i o n s a r i s e w h i c h i n c l u d e : W h a t is a single society? A n d in w h a t sense c a n t h e series of s t a g e s b e c r e d i t e d t o h u m a n h i s t o r y or society as a w h o l e ? T h e f o r m e r q u e s t i o n is not a n s w e r e d in S e m e n o v ' s article, b u t it is clearly h i g h l i g h t e d b y his w h o l e a p p r o a c h . T h e s e c o n d a n d c r u c i a l q u e s t i o n is a n s w e r e d q u i t e explicitly a n d very clearly. It is h e r e t h a t w e shift f r o m his n e g a t i v e p o s i t i o n ( s t a g e s m a y not b e c r e d i t e d to t h e life stories of individual societies) to his positive doctrine (they must be credited to s o m e t h i n g else). But j u s t w h a t ? T h o u g h t h e h i s t o r y of m a n k i n d m a y b e u n i t a r y , yet m a n k i n d , e x c e p t p e r h a p s in t h e very last s t a g e s of its h i s t o r y , d o e s not f o r m s o m e k i n d of o r g a n i c u n i t y , r e c o g n i s i n g itself as s u c h a n d a c t i n g as one. F o r m o s t of h i s t o r y so far, it is split i n t o l a r g e n u m b e r of units, o f t e n q u i t e u n a w a r e of e a c h o t h e r . I n w h a t s e n s e t h e n c a n s u c h a n h i s t o r y have ' s t a g e s ' ? S e m e n o v q u i t e explicitly, a n d p l a u s i b l y , rejects a n y statistical a n s w e r t o this. It w o u l d b e q u i t e p o i n t l e s s , for i n s t a n c e , to say t h a t m a n k i n d at l a r g e is in t h e f e u d a l s t a g e at a t i m e w h e n t h e m a j o r i t y of societies is feud a l . F o r o n e t h i n g , h o w d o y o u c o u n t f e u d a l ' s o c i e t i e s ' - is t h e r e o n e p e r king, b a r o n or k n i g h t ? N o r w o u l d it m a k e sense to select a t i m e w h e n t h e m a j o r i t y of m a n k i n d lived u n d e r f e u d a l r e g i m e s (if s u c h a t i m e existed, w h i c h is d o u b t f u l ) . W h a t t h e n ? S e m e n o v ' s a n s w e r is p r o f o u n d l y H e g e l i a n , a n d h e d o e s i n d e e d invoke H e g e l in h i s a r g u m e n t . T h e a n s w e r c a n b e s t b e s u m m e d u p as t h e t o r c h relay t h e o r y of h i s t o r y . T h e t o r c h of l e a d e r s h i p is p a s s e d o n in t h e c o u r s e of h u m a n h i s t o r y f r o m o n e a r e a t o a n o t h e r a n d f r o m o n e social s y s t e m to a n o t h e r . M a n k i n d a s a w h o l e is at a given stage, w h e n t h e m o s t a d v a n c e d , a n d at t h e s a m e t i m e m o s t i n f l u e n t i a l a r e a h a p p e n s to b e at t h e s t a g e in q u e s t i o n . T h e c r i t e r i o n for b e i n g t h e most i n f l u e n t i a l s e e m s to b e in p a r t t h a t it exercises a g r e a t d e a l of i n f l u e n c e o n s u r r o u n d i n g b a c k w a r d , p e r i p h e r a l a r e a s ; a n o t h e r c r i t e r i o n seems t o b e t h a t it is a l s o p r e p a r i n g t h e g r o u n d for t h e next stage. It w o u l d s e e m to follow t h a t o n e c a n o n l y i d e n t i f y t h e t o r c h - c a r r y i n g r e g i o n w i t h confid e n c e a f t e r t h e e v e n t , w h e n t h e n e x t s t a g e h a s a r r i v e d (provided it in t u r n c a n b e i d e n t i f i e d ) , u n l e s s o n e c a n , w h i c h s e e m s unlikely, d o it w i t h t h e h e l p of a k i n d of s o c i o l o g i c a l - g e n e t i c X - r a y , i d e n t i f y i n g the s e e d s of t h e f u t u r e b e f o r e t h e y h a v e b o r n e f r u i t . (But t h e owl of M i n e r v a o n l y flies at d u s k . ) It a l s o follows t h a t p a r a l l e l r e p l i c a t i o n of t h e s a m e stages in d i v e r s e societies is not m e r e l y n o l o n g e r r e q u i r e d b y t h e t h e o r y , b u t b e c o m e s positively i m p l a u s i b l e , a n d w o u l d p e r h a p s even c o n t r a d i c t the t h e o r y . T h e p o w e r f u l rayonnement of t h e t o r c h - c a r r y i n g zone, at a n y s t a g e , c h a n g e s t h e r u l e s of t h e g a m e so m u c h t h a t societies l a g g i n g b e h i n d will n o l o n g e r p a s s t h r o u g h t h e s a m e s t a g e s as t h e p i o n e e r s . T h i s p r i n c i p l e is

G e l l n e r : A Russian Marxist philosophy of history

65

in fact a p p l i e d in a n o t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g w o r k , L . E . K u b b e l ' s Songhaiskaia Derzhava ( M o s c o w , N a u k a , 1974). T h e a u t h o r a p p e a r s to s h a r e this view of Semenov's, a n d invokes it to e x p l a i n w h y W e s t A f r i c a n s a h e l i a n societies did not move f r o m t h e p r i m i t i v e - c o m m u n a l s t a g e to a slave society, b u t to a n early f o r m of f e u d a l i s m . A n u m b e r of t h i n g s have h a p p e n e d in t h i s r e f o r m u l a t i o n . H i s t o r y a c q u i r e s a strongly purposive, m o r a l i s t i c tinge. T h o u g h S e m e n o v insists o n the i n d e p e n d e n c e , f r o m h u m a n c o n s c i o u s n e s s a n d will, of t h e b a s i c p r o d u c t i v e relations w h i c h d e t e r m i n e all else, nevertheless t h e p a t t e r n which they g e n e r a t e c a n o n l y b e c h a r a c t e r i s e d in highly e v a l u a tive terms, a n d t h e s t o r y told s e e m s d o m i n a t e d b y a p u r p o s e w h i c h is b o t h inexorable a n d w h i c h m e a n s well b y m a n k i n d , in t h e e n d . But over a n d above this, it is d i f f u s i o n w h i c h is heavily stressed, a n d w h i c h p l a y s a n a b s o l u t e l y i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t in this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , in this r e u n i f i c a t i o n of h u m a n history, so to s p e a k . D i f f u s i o n is i n d e e d a very i m p o r t a n t process. In t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , w h e n a n t h r o p o l o g y w a s b o r n , E u r o p e a n s h a d t h e fact of d i f f u s i o n u n d e r t h e i r very noses; t h e y c o u l d see it h a p p e n i n g all t h e t i m e . T h e rival idea of evolution took a little m o r e t h o u g h t ; o n e h a d to p u t t o g e t h e r w h a t t h e biologists w e r e saying, w i t h t h e history of o n e ' s o w n society, a n d t h e n s u r m i s e t h a t o t h e r societies m o v e d a l o n g similar lines (only m o r e slowly), a n d t h a t t h e w h o l e t h i n g w a s similar to t h e biological story. T h e t h i r d idea, f u n c t i o n a l i s m , s t a r t s f r o m t h e o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t s o m e societies d o not c h a n g e m u c h , a n d t h e inference t h a t this r e q u i r e s m e c h a n i s m s for k e e p i n g t h e m stable, a n d t h a t it m a y be a b a d t h i n g to d i s t u r b t h o s e m e c h a n i s m s . ( T h i s idea h a d long b e e n available in conservative t h o u g h t , it s u i t e d s o m e styles of colonial policy, a n d , c o n t r a r y to t h e belief of s o m e a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s , it w a s not invented w i t h i n a n t h r o p o l o g y . ) T h e q u e s t i o n is, w h i c h of t h e s e t h r e e ideas (if a n y ) provides t h e clue t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g h u m a n society a n d history. M a r x i s m as conventionally i n t e r p r e t e d ( a n d in h a r m o n y , I t h i n k , with the i n t e n t i o n s of its f o u n d e r s ) is basically evolutionist. I apologise for t h e t e r m , especially to R u s s i a n M a r x i s t s , for w h o m I t h i n k this imm e d i a t e l y c o n j u r e s u p t h e a s s o c i a t i o n of d o c t r i n e s a b o u t e v o l u t i o n a r y rather than revolutionary development. T h e question about smooth c o n t i n u i t y versus occasional d r a m a t i c j u m p s is q u i t e a s e p a r a t e one, not c o n n e c t e d with t h e present a r g u m e n t . T h e t e r m ' e v o l u t i o n i s m ' is here used in a generic m a n n e r , covering b o t h t h e s e alternatives, a n d designating a stress on endogenous development as the m a i n a n d crucial process in h u m a n history. T h e c o n v e n t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n r e p u d i ates the functionalist stress on stability a n d f u n c t i o n a l i t y as s p u r i o u s , as a case of t a k i n g t h e f a ç a d e for t h e r e a l i t y : w i t h i n t h e social sciences in t h e West, M a r x i s t s t e n d to c o n s i d e r f u n c t i o n a l i s t s to b e t h e m a i n o p posing t r e n d . In S e m e n o v ' s r e f o r m u l a t i o n , we shall see t h a t t h e m a t t e r is m o r e c o m p l e x . N o w obviously M a r x i s m never d e n i e d t h e fact of d i f f u s i o n . It is clearly implied in a n y unilineal version of M a r x i s t p h i l o s o p h y of h i s t o r y

66

P a r t I : Marxism,

anthropology,

history

at t w o p o i n t s a t l e a s t : in as f a r as p r i m i t i v e - c o m m u n a l societies a r e s m a l l , w h e r e a s a s i a t i c o r s l a v e - o w n i n g o n e s a r e l a r g e or at a n y r a t e larger, o b v i o u s l y t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e d i s p l a c i n g a n d d i s p l a c e d social f o r m s m u s t b e of a f e w - m a n y k i n d , if not a c t u a l l y of a o n e - m a n y k i n d . S u c h a b s o r p t i o n b y few o r o n e of m a n y is t h e e x t r e m e f o r m of diff u s i o n , of c o u r s e . T h e n a g a i n , w i t h t h e c o m i n g of c a p i t a l i s m , its a b s o r p tion of t h e rest of t h e w o r l d is not m e r e l y i m p l i e d , b u t explicitly c o m m e n t e d o n , b y M a r x a n d E n g e l s . In b e t w e e n t h e s e t w o t r a n s i t i o n s , t h e m a t t e r is not c l e a r . T h e p r o g r e s s i o n a s i a t i c - s l a v e - o w n i n g - f e u d a l is not n e c e s s a r i l y , or at all, a p r o g r e s s i o n in size, a n d t h u s d o e s not req u i r e a b s o r p t i o n of n e w t e r r i t o r y a n d / o r p o p u l a t i o n at e a c h stage. H o w e v e r , t h o u g h M a r x i s m , a s c o n v e n t i o n a l l y i n t e r p r e t e d , clearly allows a n d r e q u i r e s d i f f u s i o n at t w o p o i n t s at least, a n d d o e s not e x c l u d e it e l s e w h e r e ; n e v e r t h e l e s s it stresses it m u c h less t h a n is t h e c a s e in S e m e n o v ' s version, w h e r e d i f f u s i o n f e a t u r e s very c o n s p i c u o u s l y . T h u s S e m e n o v stresses t h e i m p a c t of t h e t o r c h - c a r r y i n g c e n t r e o n p e r i p h e r a l r e g i o n s , a n d o n t h e c o n t i n u o u s e x p a n s i o n of b o t h c e n t r e a n d a f f e c t e d p e r i p h e r y (as o p p o s e d to t h e b a c k w o o d s w h i c h r e m a i n isolate d ) . T h e r e is a f u r t h e r e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t p o i n t : o n occasion, n o t only is t h e c e n t r e a n e s s e n t i a l p r e c o n d i t i o n of t h e a t t a i n m e n t of t h e next stage, b u t so is t h e p e r i p h e r y . T h e p e r i p h e r y b e c o m e s , at least o n occasion, quite indispensable. T h i s s e e m s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e , a c c o r d i n g t o S e m e n o v , at t h e p o i n t of transition f r o m N e a r - E a s t e r n asiatic society (ancient-oriental) to M e d i t e r r a n e a n s l a v e - o w n i n g society. . . . it is p o s s i b l e to say a prion t h a t t h e r e p l a c e m e n t of t h e a s i a t i c form a t i o n b y a n o t h e r , m o r e p r o g r e s s i v e o n e c o u l d not t a k e p l a c e a s t h e q u a l i t a t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of e x i s t i n g social o r g a n i s m s , w h i c h w o u l d h a v e p r e s e r v e d t h e m s e l v e s a s s u c h . . . N o r d i d it t a k e p l a c e s i m p l y in t h e f o r m of t h e d e s t r u c t i o n or r u i n of a s i a t i c social o r g a n i s m s a n d t h e e m e r g e n c e in t h e i r p l a c e of n e w , a l r e a d y s l a v e - o w n i n g ones. T h e p o i n t is t h a t social o r g a n i s m s of a n e w t y p e did not e m e r g e at all in t h a t very s a m e r e g i o n . . . b u t at o n e of t h e edges of t h e w o r l d s y s t e m of a s i a t i c social o r g a n i s m s . . . T h e r e p l a c e m e n t of t h e b r o n z e a g e b y t h e e a r l y iron age, w h i c h took p l a c e o n t h e t e r r i t o r y of G r e e c e , m a d e p o s s i b l e t h e t r a n s i t i o n to a new class-endowed socio-economic formation, and one more progressive t h a n t h e asiatic o n e w h i c h e m e r g e d in t h e c o p p e r a n d b r o n z e a g e . But t h i s possibility w o u l d never h a v e b e c o m e a reality h a d G r e e c e not r e p r e s e n t e d a n a d m i t t e d l y m a r g i n a l , b u t n o n e t h e l e s s ins e p a r a b l e p a r t of t h e old c e n t r e . . . T h e i n f l u e n c e of t h e old ' a s i a t i c ' society w a s a n essential p r e c o n d i t i o n of this m i r a c l e . ( T h e r e c a n b e n o d o u b t a b o u t S e m e n o v ' s s y m p a t h y w i t h it. O n e is r e m i n d e d of w h a t H e g e l h a d s a i d - in t h e a n c i e n t o r i e n t , o n l y one w a s free, b u t h e r e some w e r e f r e e . ) M o r e o v e r , the m i r a c l e a p p a r -

Gell n e r : A Russion Ai arxist philosophy of history

67

e n t l y o c c u r r e d o n c e o n l y - w h i c h , I s u p p o s e , j u s t i f i e s o n e in c a l l i n g it a m i r a c l e ( m y t e r m , not S e m e n o v ' s ) . . . . S l a v e - o w n i n g social o r g a n i s m s a r o s e not t h r o u g h o u t t h e territ o r y of t h e old c e n t r e of g l o b a l d e v e l o p m e n t b u t o n l y at one of its d i s t a n t limits. [ M y italics.) But t h i s single Wirtchaftswunder is t h e p r e c o n d i t i o n of all t h e o t h e r s in t h e w e s t e r n h i s t o r i c a l s e q u e n c e . T h e a u t h o r i t y of E n g e l s ' Anti-D'ùhnng is invoked for t h i s : ' W i t h o u t slavery, n o G r e e k s t a t e , n o G r e e k art a n d s c i e n c e ; w i t h o u t slavery, n o R o m a n E m p i r e . But w i t h o u t H e l l e n i s m and the R o m a n E m p i r e . . . no m o d e r n Europe. ' E a r l i e r , we a r e given a n a c c o u n t of t h e a n c i e n t N e a r E a s t w h i c h d o e s i n d e e d m a k e it s e e m u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e t r a n s i t i o n to a h i g h e r s t a g e c o u l d h a v e o c c u r r e d i n t e r n a l l y , r a t h e r t h a n at its l i m i t s : . . . t h e a n c i e n t o r i e n t , all of w h o s e h i s t o r y o f f e r s a p r o c e s s of t h e successive e m e r g e n c e a n d d i s a p p e a r a n c e of social o r g a n i s m s or c o n g l o m e r a t e s of s u c h o r g a n i s m s . . . It is p o s s i b l e to d i s a g r e e a b o u t t h e n a t u r e of t h e s o c i o - e c o n o m i c s t r u c t u r e of t h e a n c i e n t o r i e n t , b u t it s e e m s u n q u e s t i o n a b l e t h a t t h e n e w l y e m e r g i n g social o r g a n i s m s b e l o n g e d t o t h e s a m e t y p e as t h o s e w h i c h p e r i s h e d . C h a n g e of p e r s o n n e l , b u t not of s t r u c t u r e . I b n K h a l d u n w o u l d e n d o r s e s u c h a view. S e m e n o v also p u t s f o r w a r d a n o s c i l l a t i o n t h e o r y for t h i s r e g i o n a n d p e r i o d of h u m a n h i s t o r y : T h e m o s t s t r i k i n g p e c u l i a r i t y of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of class society of t h e a n c i e n t e a s t is t h e p e r p e t u a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of t h e political m a p , t h e e x t i n c t i o n of s o m e a n d t h e e m e r g e n c e of o t h e r g o v e r n m e n t a l f o r m a t i o n s . O n e of t h e m a i n r e a s o n s for t h i s is t h e a l t e r a t i o n , c h a r a c teristic of all c o u n t r i e s of t h e a n c i e n t e a s t , of p e r i o d s of t h e e x i s t e n c e of s t r o n g social o r g a n i s m s , a n d t h e r e b y a l s o of s t r o n g c e n t r a l i s e d d e s p o t i s m s , w i t h p e r i o d s of t h e i r d i s i n t e g r a t i o n . . . It is q u i t e c l e a r t h a t t h e e m p i r e s r e s u l t i n g f r o m c o n q u e s t c o u l d not b e s t a b l e or l a s t i n g . W i t h t h e w e a k e n i n g . . . at t h e c o r e . . . t h e w h o l e inevitably d i s i n t e g r a t e d . . . t h e p a r t s i n t o w h i c h it d i s i n t e g r a t e d f o u n d t h e m s e l v e s u n d e r t h e p o w e r of a c o n q u e r o r . N o t i n f r e q u e n t l y t h e s e c o n q u e r o r s w e r e t h e p e o p l e s of t h e p e r i p h e r y . . . t h e i n c u r s i o n s of t h e p e o p l e s of t h e h i s t o r i c p e r i p h e r y i n t o t h e r e g i o n of t h e c e n t r e of historical d e v e l o p m e n t c a n u n d e r n o c i r c u m s t a n c e s b e i n t e r p r e t e d a s d e v i a t i o n s f r o m n o r m a l i t y . F o r t h e societies of t h e a n c i e n t east all this a p p e a r s to b e t h e n o r m or rule. It is difficult t o see h o w t h i s c o u l d h a v e n o r m a l l y led to a n y p r o g r e s s . If so m a n y p e r i s h e d w i t h o u t ever p r o d u c i n g t h e next s t a g e , w h y s h o u l d o n e of t h e m s o m e d a y creatively p r o d u c e s o m e t h i n g new!* T h i s seed

68

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

showed no sign of sprouting. But once only, in the far west of the ancient eastern world, one of those incursions did eventually lead to an higher stage. T h e unprogressive, stagnant nature of the asiatic socio-economic formation, its low potential for self-propulsion to the next higher stage, is further visible from that second great incarnation of it, in the East proper (as opposed to the ancient Near East). In those regions, . . class society emerged sooner t h a n in most of the regions of Europe . . . ' but did not proceed to develop. Semenov does not altogether exclude the possibility that they might properly be characterised as feudal : T h e social structure found there during the periods which are frequently called feudal by scholars, differed substantially from E u r o p e a n feudalism . . . But this hardly matters; feudal or asiatic, either way it was static. . . but [it] was very similar to that which was found there in antiquity.' Whatever it was, it was stagnant. T h e authority of M a r x and Engels is invoked for this theory of asiatic stagnation : . . . the solution . . . was proposed by the very authors of the theory of socio-economic formations, Marx and Engels. It consisted of proposing that from the birth of class-endowed society right up to the eighteenth a n d even nineteenth centuries, the asiatic m o d e of production continued to exist in certain countries of the East. In other words, these countries remained in the stage of the first class-endowed socioeconomic formation, just as all the original population of Australia remained up to the s a m e period at the stage of primitive-communal structure. As is well known, M a r x a n d Engels repeatedly wrote about the stagnant character of the evolution of the oriental countries. As we have seen, Semenov overcomes the misguided interpretation of unilinealism by means of a judicious blend of diffusionism and what I have called the torch relay view of history, a n d what may also be called the displacement effect, or the doctrine of the essential periphery. T h e historic periphery, one might say, is a subject not object of history in Semenov's view: during various crucial transitions, i.e. the asiatic/slave and the slave/feudal, it played a crucial role in the attainment of the next historic step ( T h o u g h Semenov does not really spell this out, the same would now seem to be true for the capitalism/socialism transition.) T h e fact that historic leadership is displaced, that the torch is passed sideways, that its new erstwhile retarded recipients are also essential for f u r t h e r progress, dispenses both t h e m a n d their predecessors from that irksome theoretical obligation to 'pass through all stages'. If the sideways displacement effect is essential not accidental, if the active participation a n d contribution of the periphery is a necessary precondi-

G e l l n e r : A Russian Marxist philosophy of history

69

tion of f u r t h e r progress, it follows n o t m e r e l y t h a t societies n e e d not, b u t a c t u a l l y cannot, p a r a l l e l e a c h o t h e r ' s ' s t a g e s ' . At t h e very least, the p e r i p h e r y ( a c c o r d i n g to t h e h y p o t h e s i s previously b a c k w a r d by ' s t a g e ' c r i t e r i a ) m u s t l e a p f r o g f o r w a r d w h e n it t a k e s over l e a d e r s h i p . If the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of t h e p e r i p h e r y w a s essential for t h e a t t a i n m e n t of t h e next stage, t h e n p a r t s of t h e old c e n t r e not a f f e c t e d b y t h e a g e n c y of t h e newly active p e r i p h e r y a r e ipso jacto d e b a r r e d f r o m b e i n g t h e o r i g i n a t o r s of t h e next r o u n d , t h e next s t e p u p . S o m e t r a n s i t i o n s positively r e q u i r e a r a d i c a l c h a n g e of world l e a d e r s h i p , it w o u l d a p p e a r . As s t a t e d , this t h e o r e t i c a l a d j u s t m e n t o r r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the t h e o r y c o n t a i n s a great a m o u n t of implicit d i f f u s i o n i s m , of t h e invocation of t h e i m p o r t a n t p r o c e s s b y w h i c h societies affect e a c h o t h e r sideways, a n d have impact on each other, to the point of transforming each o t h e r . ( T h i s is in c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e ' e v o l u t i o n i s t ' m o d e l of a n ' i n t e r n a l ' or e n d o g e n o u s d e v e l o p m e n t . ) T h i s d i f f u s i o n i s m is r a t h e r specific in the i m p o r t a n c e it a t t r i b u t e s t o w h a t m i g h t o t h e r w i s e b e c o n s i d e r e d t h e passive, ' b a c k w a r d ' or influence-receiving regions. But f u n c t i o n a l i s m is also p r e s e n t in this t h e o r y ( a n d it h a s p e r h a p s a l w a y s b e e n o n e of t h e c o n s t i t u e n t s of M a r x i s m ) . Evolutionists start f r o m t h e fact of e n d o g e n o u s d e v e l o p m e n t ( a n d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of m a n k i n d as a whole m u s t b e e n d o g e n o u s , as S e m e n o v m i g h t insist, if we exclude e x t r a - t e r r e s t r i a l i n t r u s i o n s ) ; d i f f u s i o n i s t s s t a r t f r o m t h e e q u a l l y c o n s p i c u o u s fact of l a t e r a l i n f l u e n c e ; a n d f u n c t i o n a l i s t s s t a r t f r o m t h e s o m e t i m e s most c o n s p i c u o u s fact of stability or s t a g n a t i o n . W e have seen how m u c h S e m e n o v stresses t h e s t a g n a t i o n of t h e o r i e n t a l s a n d t h e native A u s t r a l i a n s . T h e d r a g g i n g of these c o u n t r i e s i n t o t h e z o n e of i n f l u e n c e of t h e w o r l d capitalist system led t o t h e o v e r c o m i n g of s t a g n a t i o n . . . M a r x took this view. F r o m all this it w o u l d s e e m t o follow t h a t f u n c t i o n a l i s m - t h e d o c t r i n e t h a t the m a i n trait of societies is stability, s e l f - p e r p e t u a t i o n , a n d t h a t c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e j o b of t h e social a n a l y s t is to locate t h e m e c h a n i s m s , t h e functions, w h i c h c o n t r i b u t e to t h i s e n d result - w o u l d seem a p r e t t y good a p p r o x i m a t i o n to t h e t r u t h , at a n y r a t e for t h e m a j o r i t y of societies, t h o u g h not for all. A d m i t t e d l y , this self-preserving e q u i l i b r i u m or s t a g n a t i o n of oriental societies ( t h o u g h not of A u s t r a l i a n a b o r i g i n a l ones), is one of c l a s s - e n d o w e d a n d h e n c e a n t a g o n i s t i c s t r u c t u r e s , so t h a t the stability is c o n f l i c t - r i d d e n r a t h e r t h a n p e a c e f u l . S u c h a view however would in no w a y d i f f e r e n t i a t e S e m e n o v f r o m m a n y ' w e s t e r n ' functionalists, w h o o f t e n delight in finding conflict f u n c t i o n a l a n d seeing f u n c t i o n s in conflict. T h e only d i f f e r e n c e w o u l d b e t h a t they would extend s u c h a conflict-stressing a c c o u n t t o p r i m i t i v e - c o m m u n a l societies as well, w h e t h e r o r not t h e y possess 'classes'. W e now possess, I t h i n k , t h e o u t l i n e skeleton of S e m e n o v ' s position, sketched out as a c c u r a t e l y a n d fairly as I a m c a p a b l e , t h o u g h not at all

70

P a r t I: Marxism,

anthropology,

history

t i m e s in his o w n w o r d s . C o n s i d e r n o w t h e p r o b l e m s f a c e d by t h i s p o s ition. F i r s t of all it is w o r t h r e p e a t i n g t h a t its c e n t r a l c o n t e n t i o n s e e m s t o m e c o r r e c t . If o n e c o n s i d e r s t h e i m p o r t a n c e of d i f f u s i o n in h u m a n hist o r y , a n d t h e e p h e m e r a l n a t u r e , o n a h i s t o r i c t i m e scale, of c o n c r e t e societies, a n d t h e fact t h a t ' s t a g e s ' a r e i n s p i r e d b y h i s t o r i c e p o c h s not b y i n d i v i d u a l n a t i o n a l h i s t o r i e s , it d o e s i n d e e d follow t h a t w h a t S e m e n o v r i g h t l y c a l l s t h e c u s t o m a r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of u n i l i n e a l i s m is so i m p l a u s i b l e t h a t it s h o u l d n e v e r h a v e b e e n a d o p t e d , a n d t h a t o n l y c e r t a i n i d i o s y n c r a s i e s of E u r o p e a n h i s t o r y led t o its i m p l a u s i b i l i t y r e m a i n i n g h i d d e n . By a b a n d o n i n g t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s o r s t a g e s a r e f r e e d f r o m t h e n e e d t o ' a p p l y ' t o e a c h a n d every s o c i e t y . Ipso facto, t h e c r i t i c of t h a t t h e o r y finds h i m s e l f d e p r i v e d of a l a r g e p a r t of his a r m o u r y , if n o t all of it. S o is all w e l l ? C a n t h e m a t t e r rest t h e r e ? T h e r e is in t h e W e s t a w e l l - k n o w n a n d i n f l u e n t i a l t h e o r y of s c i e n c e , f o r m u l a t e d b y S i r K a r l P o p p e r , w h i c h r u n s r o u g h l y as f o l l o w s : t h e m e r i t of s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r i e s lies in t h e i r e x p o s u r e t o risk. T h e m o r e p o s s i b l e f a c t s t h e y d e n y , t h e m o r e t h e y a r e at risk, t h e g r e a t e r t h e i r c o n t e n t a n d m e r i t . S o t h e m i s g u i d e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of u n i l i n e a l i s m w a s c l e a r l y full of c o n t e n t , in so f a r a s it d e n i e d all t h e f a c t s a s s i d u o u s l y a s s e m b l e d b y its c r i t i c s , c o n c e r n i n g t h e f a i l u r e of t h i s o r t h a t society t o p a s s t h r o u g h a p p r o p r i a t e s t a g e s . S e m e n o v ' s v e r s i o n is n o t v u l n e r a b l e to t h e s e f a c t s ( o r a t a n y r a t e , n o t v u l n e r a b l e t o a n i m p o r t a n t p r o p o r t i o n of t h o s e f a c t s ) . D o e s t h a t m e a n t h a t it is v i r t u a l l y w i t h o u t c o n t e n t , o r at a n y r a t e t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e of M a r x i s m h a s b e e n d r a s t i c a l l y i m poverished? S e m e n o v ' s a d j u s t m e n t w o u l d s e e m to b e ad hoc in t h e s e n s e t h a t it clearly a p p e a r s to be provoked b y those criticisms, a n d to be designed t o r e n d e r t h e m h a r m l e s s . B u t his r e a s o n i n g is n o t m e r e l y in t h i s s e n s e ad hoc, it is a l s o e n t i r e l y c o g e n t . T h e t r o u b l e w i t h a n y u n c r i t i c a l o r u n s e l e c t i v e r e p u d i a t i o n of ad hoc a d j u s t m e n t s is t h a t a r g u m e n t s m a y b e b o t h ad hoc a n d g o o d . P o p p e r i a n s m a y b e in d a n g e r of f o r g e t t i n g t h a t s u c h t h e o r i e s , like all o t h e r s , m u s t b e n e f i t f r o m t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t t h e o r i g i n of a t h e o r y is u n c o n n e c t e d w i t h its m e r i t . B e i n g ad hoc is a k i n d of o r i g i n . S u c h b a s t a r d y s h o u l d n o t d i s q u a l i f y a c a n d i d a t e of m e r i t . T h e t r u t h of t h e m a t t e r w o u l d s e e m t o b e t h a t a l t h o u g h S e m e n o v ' s r e f o r m u l a t i o n w i t h d r a w s u n i l i n e a l i s m f r o m t h e r e a c h of s o m e o b j e c t i o n s , it d o e s n o t w i t h d r a w it f r o m t h e r e a c h of all of t h e m . M o r e o v e r , n o t o n l y d o e s it n o t lose all t h e e m p i r i c a l c o n t e n t a n d t e s t a b i l i t y e x p o s u r e of t h e o l d f o r m u l a t i o n , it a c t u a l l y h i g h l i g h t s s o m e n e w a n d i n t e r e s t i n g p r o b l e m s , w h i c h , b y t h e c r i t e r i a of t h e p h i l o s o p h y of s c i e n c e m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , is a h a l l m a r k of a g o o d a n d fertile t h e o r y . B o t h t h e retained-old a n d the newly-acquired p r o b l e m s deserve discussion. First of all, whilst t h e r e f o r m u l a t i o n frees societies f r o m t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o p a s s t h r o u g h all s t a g e s , it s u r e l y c a n n o t give t h e m carte blanche t o d o e n t i r e l y a s t h e y p l e a s e . T h e y w e r e e x e m p t e d f r o m t h e o l d o b l i g a t i o n in v i r t u e of t h e i m p o r t a n c e of d i f f u s i o n , of t h e l a t e r a l i n f l u e n c e of w o r l d -

G e l l n e r : A Russian Marxist philosophy of history

71

leaders, in t h e sociological sense. H e n c e t h e y c a n only c l a i m t h e i r e x e m p t i o n f r o m the old o b l i g a t o r y s t a g e s w h e n s u c h lateral influence does o p e r a t e . It c a n only p e r m i t t h e m t o e v a d e t h e p r o p e r s e q u e n c e u n d e r the influence of a world c e n t r e w h i c h d r a g s t h e m i n t o a n o t h e r ' s t a g e ' . But if insulated ( a n d does i n s u l a t i o n never o c c u r ? ) t h e y m u s t e i t h e r follow the p r o p e r o r d e r of stages, or p e r h a p s b e s t a g n a n t . O t h e r wise, they c o n t i n u e to pose a p r o b l e m for u n i l i n e a l i s m , S e m e n o v ' s reformulation notwithstanding. T a k e a c o n c r e t e e x a m p l e . In t h e W e s t , s c h o l a r s c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e p h e n o m e n o n of slavery d i s a g r e e a b o u t t h e exact n u m b e r of societies actually based o n the i n s t i t u t i o n of slavery, b u t t h e y s e e m to b e a g r e e d t h a t t h e C a r i b b e a n a n d the s o u t h e r n states of t h e U S A , in t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p a r t s of the e i g h t e e n t h a n d n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r i e s , fall into this c a t e g o r y . T h i s retrogression, f r o m late f e u d a l i s m o r early c a p i t a l i s m , w i t h o u t the benefit of t h e influence of a n y global c e n t r e of slave o w n i n g , (which in a n y case w o u l d not b e a t o r c h - c a r r y i n g w o r l d leader b u t itself a case of retrogression), m u s t c o n t i n u e to p o s e a p r o b l e m for unilinealism. O r take t h e p r o b l e m of s t a g n a t i o n - in o t h e r w o r d s , t h e fact t h a t ' s t a t i c ' f u n c t i o n a l i s m does seem t r u e for s u c h a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of h u m a n societies. A l t h o u g h S e m e n o v ' s r e f o r m u l a t i o n rightly allows t h e p h e n o m e n o n of p r i m i t i v e - c o m m u n a l societies b e i n g d r a g g e d f r o m t h e i r p e r i p h e r y i n t o ' h i g h e r ' w o r l d systems, it m u s t p r e s u m a b l y still b e t r u e t h a t h a d this not o c c u r r e d , t h o s e l a g g a r d s w o u l d e v e n t u a l l y p r o p e l themselves u p w a r d s by t h e i r o w n i n n e r r e s o u r c e s . I s u p p o s e we c a n n o w never k n o w w h e t h e r i n d e e d t h e y w o u l d h a v e d o n e so. F o r m y o w n p a r t , I would q u i t e gladly accept a m o d i f i e d q u a s i - e v o l u t i o n i s t version of t h e t r a n s i t i o n f r o m p r i m i t i v e - c o m m u n a l t o asiatic, w h i c h m i g h t b e called the f r e q u e n c y o r statistical t h e o r y , a n d w h i c h w o u l d r u n as follows: not every p r i m i t i v e - c o m m u n a l society c o n t a i n s a d e q u a t e o r sufficient seeds of c h a n g e . T h e c o n d i t i o n s of u p w a r d d e v e l o p m e n t a r e m o r e complex, a n d r e q u i r e a d d i t i o n a l p r o p i t i o u s c i r c u m s t a n c e s (say, a n alluvial river valley s u i t a b l e for intensive i r r i g a t i o n a g r i c u l t u r e - a t h e o r y which a d m i t t e d l y looks p l a u s i b l e only for t h e 'old w o r l d ' , b u t I a m using it only for t h e sake of a r g u m e n t ) . T h e t h e o r y w o u l d only req u i r e that this c o m b i n a t i o n of c i r c u m s t a n c e s is sufficiently p r o b a b l e to e n s u r e that it should o c c u r sooner or later. O n c e it o c c u r r e d , t h e p r o cesses or t o r c h - o f - l e a d e r s h i p a s s u m p t i o n a n d of d i f f u s i o n , so m u c h stressed (in o t h e r t e r m s ) b y Semenov, w o u l d e n s u r e t h e p e r p e t u a t i o n of t h e new stage. It w o u l d c o n s t i t u t e n o o b j e c t i o n to s u c h a t h e o r y t h a t t h e initial e n d o g e n o u s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n w o u l d only o c c u r in a m i n o r i t y of p r i m i t i v e - c o m m u n a l societies. Semenov does not a c t u a l l y e l a b o r a t e s u c h a t h e o r y , b u t it s e e m s to m e consistent with his position, a n d in its spirit, a n d m o r e o v e r to b e intrinsically p l a u s i b l e a n d attractive. W h a t t h e t h e o r y really r e q u i r e s is t h a t the s p o n t a n e o u s , e n d o g e n o u s p r i m i t i v e / a s i a t i c t r a n s i t i o n s h o u l d have occured at least o f t e n e n o u g h for us to b e able, so to speak, to rely

72

P a r t I : Marxism,

anthropology, history

o n it. T h i s s e e m s to b e t h e c a s e , a n d S e m e n o v a l s o h o l d s it to b e so : A first c l a s s - e n d o w e d society f o r m e d itself fully only in t w o d e l i m i t e d a r e a s , t h e N i l e valley a n d t h e a r e a b e t w e e n t h e rivers T i g r i s a n d E u p h r a t e s . . . T h e s u b s e q u e n t d e v e l o p m e n t of m a n k i n d followed, o n t h e o n e h a n d , t h e line of t h e e m e r g e n c e of n e w i n d e p e n d e n t r e g i o n a l c e n t r e s of h i s t o r i c d e v e l o p m e n t ( t h e valleys of t h e I n d u s a n d t h e Hwang Ho) . . . T h e o n l y class f o r m a t i o n w h i c h c a n a r i s e exclusively o n t h e b a s i s of t h e d i s i n t e g r a t i o n of p r i m i t i v e society a l o n e a p p e a r s to b e the asiatic o n e . . . a s i a t i c societies c a n e m e r g e as i s l a n d s , to a c o n s i d e r a b l e e x t e n t i s o l a t e d f r o m e a c h o t h e r in a sea of p e o p l e s r e m a i n i n g in t h e p r e - c l a s s s t a g e . . . All c l a s s societies, e m e r g i n g in a r e a s w h i c h at t h e t i m e w e r e o u t s i d e t h e i n f l u e n c e of p r e v i o u s l y f o r m e d c e n t r e s of civili s a t i o n , i n e v i t a b l y h a d to b e a s i a t i c r a t h e r t h a n s l a v e - o w n i n g or f e u d a l . T h e d a t a a v a i l a b l e . . . [from] p r e - C o l u m b a n A m e r i c a , O c e a n i a a n d s u b - S a h a r a n A f r i c a fully c o n f i r m this . . . G i v e n t h e m u l t i p l i c i t y of t h e s e i n d e p e n d e n t , isolated ' a s i a t i c i s l a n d s ' , in f o u r or five c o n t i n e n t s , w e seem t o b e safe. If by s o m e a c c i d e n t of g e o g r a p h y , t h e Nile flowed i n t o t h e I n d i a n o c e a n a n d t h e S a h a r a s t r e t c h e d to S u e z , t h e r e w o u l d have b e e n n o p h a r a o n i c E g y p t , b u t t h e t r a n s i t i o n f r o m p r i m i t i v e t o a s i a t i c w o u l d h a v e b e e n safe. T h e C h i n e s e or t h e H a w a i a n s , t h e A z t e c s a n d t h e I n c a s w o u l d still have b e e n t h e r e . H i s t o r y m i g h t h a v e b e e n d e l a y e d a b i t , b u t its b a s i c laws w o u l d h a v e remained unaltered. Only the timetable would have been amended. But w h a t d o e s m a k e o n e feel r a t h e r n e r v o u s is w h e n o n e sees t h e t o r c h of p r o g r e s s in o n e p a i r of h a n d s o n l y . If t h o s e feet h a d s t u m b l e d , if t h a t l e a d e r h a d f a l t e r e d , if t h o s e h a n d s h a d failed . . . w h a t t h e n ? It m a k e s o n e s c a r e d t o t h i n k of it. F o r j u s t this s e e m s to h a v e b e e n t h e s i t u a t i o n , o n at least o n e c r u c i a l occasion: . . . t h e l i m i t a t i o n in s p a c e a n d t i m e of t h e e m e r g e n c e of s l a v e - o w n i n g society . . . s l a v e - o w n i n g social o r g a n i s m s a r o s e not t h r o u g h o u t t h e t e r r i t o r y of t h e old c e n t r e . . . but o n l y at o n e of its d i s t a n t edges . . . S e m e n o v d o e s not d i s c u s s t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e e x i s t e n c e of o t h e r slaveo w n i n g societies, b u t a s f a r as t h e s u c c e s s o r s to t h e old N e a r - E a s t e r n w o r l d s y s t e m a r e c o n c e r n e d , t h e a n c i e n t M e d i t e r r a n e a n seems to h a v e been a n u n i q u e case. T h i s is curious, in as far as the three pre-conditions he specifies — i r o n , p r e - e x i s t i n g a s i a t i c society, a n d earlv-class i n v a d e r s - m u s t o f t e n h a v e c o m e t o g e t h e r . For o n e t h i n g , w h y did t h e new f o r m a t i o n not s p r e a d w i t h A l e x a n d e r ? A n d a f t e r A l e x a n d e r , t h e r e have b e e n m a n y i n v a d e r s of a s i a t i c societies, e n d o w e d b o t h w i t h a n early class s t r u c t u r e p r e s u m a b l y c o m p a r a b l e to t h a t of t h e D o r i a n s , a n d with iron,

G e l l n e r : A Russian Marxist philosophy of history

73

a n d yet a s i a t i c s o c i e t y r e m a i n e d s t u b b o r n l y s t a g n a n t , a n d it t o o k t h e b r u t a l p r i n c e of c a p i t a l i s m t o r o u s e t h a t s l e e p i n g b e a u t y f r o m h e r slumber. H e r e we c o m e to a p r o f o u n d methodological p r o b l e m w h i c h faces S e m e n o v ' s r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . T h e e n d o g e n o u s , a c o r n - t o - o a k t r e e vision of h u m a n h i s t o r y s e e m s e s s e n t i a l t o M a r x i s m a n d t o e v o l u t i o n i s t t h e o ries g e n e r a l l y ; in f a c t , it d e f i n e s e v o l u t i o n i s m . B u t h o w d o w e k n o w t h a t a c o r n s g e n e r a t e o a k t r e e s ? T h e a n s w e r is t h a t w e h a v e n u m e r o u s e x a m p l e s of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r d e v e l o p m e n t . N o o a k t r e e is k n o w n t o h a v e sprung from something other t h a n a n acorn. But the matter becomes m o r e d i f f i c u l t if w e o n l y p o s s e s s o n e i n s t a n c e o n l y of a p a r t i c u l a r t r a n s i t i o n . T o o m a n y f a c t o r s a r e p r e s e n t for us t o b e a b l e t o s i n g l e o u t t h e c r u c i a l o n e s . It m a y b e d i f f e r e n t i n m o d e r n g e n e t i c s . It m a y b e t h a t m i c r o s c o p i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e g e n e t i c e q u i p m e n t e n a b l e s t h e g e n e t i cist t o i d e n t i f y its g r o w t h p o t e n t i a l a priori. B u t in h i s t o r y a n d t h e s o c i a l sciences, we simply c a n n o t r e a d t h e genetic code - w h e t h e r b e c a u s e o u r theories a r e not g o o d a n d precise e n o u g h , or b e c a u s e social s t r u c t u r e s a r e n o t a s t i g h t l y o r g a n i s e d a n d u n i q u e l y d e t e r m i n e d in t h e i r e f f e c t s a s b i o l o g i c a l o n e s , o r b o t h . If t h e r e is o n l y o n e s p e c i m e n of s l a v e - o w n i n g s o c i e t y , a t a n y r a t e w i t h i n t h e m a i n s t r e a m of h i s t o r y , a n d t h a t o n e is in t u r n t h e p r e c o n d i t i o n of all s u b s e q u e n t p r o g r e s s , t h e n w e a r e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y in a v e r y d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n . O n e of S e m e n o v ' s o p p o n e n t s o n t h i s i s s u e w i t h i n t h e Soviet U n i o n , w h o m h e v e r y f a i r l y q u o t e s , d o e s i n d e e d single out this p r o b l e m as absolutely central : . . . there turned out to be more deviations a n d exceptions t h a n cases f a l l i n g u n d e r t h e r u l e [of u n i l i n e a l i s m ] , a n d s e c o n d l y - a n d t h i s is t h e m a i n point - the regularities operating here showed themselves to be so s p e c i f i c , t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t b e e x p l a i n e d s i m p l y b y t h e i n f l u e n c e of h i s t o r i c e n v i r o n m e n t a l o n e . [ L . V . D a n i l o v a , ' C o n t r o v e r s i a l p r o b l e m s in t h e t h e o r y of p r e - c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t i e s ' , a l s o q u o t e d in S e m e n o v ' s a r t i c l e . A n E n g l i s h v e r s i o n is a v a i l a b l e in Soviet Anthropology and Archaeology, 1968, vol. 9, p p . 2 6 9 - 3 2 8 ] T h i s m a y i n d e e d b e t h e m a i n p o i n t . If o n e s p e c i f i c c o n j u n c t u r e of c i r c u m s t a n c e s p r o d u c e d a n u n i q u e e v e n t — t h e e m e r g e n c e of s l a v e - o w n i n g s o c i e t y - w h i c h h o w e v e r a l s o t u r n s o u t to b e a n e s s e n t i a l link in t h e c h a i n l e a d i n g to t h e p r e s e n t , w h a t h a p p e n s t o t h e n e c e s s i t y of h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t ? S e m e n o v does not a b j u r e historical necessity. H e asserts it in t h e a b s t r a c t : T h e t h e o r y of e v e r y d i s t i n c t s o c i a l f o r m a t i o n r e f l e c t s t h e o b j e c t i v e n e c e s s i t y of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of all social o r g a n i s m s , w h i c h h a v e at t h e i r b a s e t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g s y s t e m of p r o d u c t i v e r e l a t i o n s . T h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t r a i t of a w o r l d s y s t e m of social o r g a n i s m s of a given t y p e a p p e a r s t o b e t h e fact t h a t t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t inevitably p r e p a r e s t h e a p p e a r a n c e of a n e w , m o r e p r o g r e s s i v e w o r l d s y s t e m , so

74

P a r t I : Marxism,

anthropology,

history

t h a t its e x i s t e n c e a p p e a r s to b e a necessary link in t h e h i s t o r y of m a n k i n d . [ M y italics] H e is a l s o w i l l i n g t o i m p l e m e n t t h i s a b s t r a c t h i s t o r i c a l d e t e r m i n i s m b y specific historically g u a r a n t e e d predictions : T h e w o r l d socialist s y s t e m a p p e a r s a s t h e o n l y o n e w h i c h c a n b e a n d n e c e s s a r i l y will b e c o m e g l o b a l . A n d in t h e m o r e d i s t a n t f u t u r e , w i t h t h e t r a n s i t i o n t o c o m m u n i s m , h u m a n society will i n e v i t a b l y t r a n s f o r m itself i n t o a s i n g l e social o r g a n i s m . T h i s final p r e d i c t i o n is i n t e r e s t i n g . By w h a t c r i t e r i o n will t h e g l o b a l c o m m u n i s t s o c i e t y b e o n e o r g a n i s m ? P r e s u m a b l y not b y p o l i t i c a l crit e r i a , in as f a r a s t h e r e c a n b e n o r o o m for s t a t e a u t h o r i t i e s in a c l a s s l e s s society. T h e o t h e r plausible criterion would be a s h a r e d culture, which is i n d e e d in o u r a g e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t c r i t e r i o n of ' n a t i o n a l i t y ' . But w h y s h o u l d w e e x p e c t m a n k i n d in t h e c o m m u n i s t s t a g e t o b e c o m e c u l t u r a l l y h o m o g e n e o u s ? M a n y people w o u l d find s u c h a p r o s p e c t dep r e s s i n g . B u t w h a t is i n t e r e s t i n g a b o u t t h e p r e d i c t i o n is t h e i m p l i e d s u g g e s t i o n - it is n o m o r e - t h a t l a t e r a l b o u n d a r i e s ( b e t w e e n ' s o c i a l o r g a n i s m s ' , o r ' n a t i o n s ' ) a l s o e x p r e s s a n t a g o n i s m s . W h a t else, o t h e r t h a n t h e a b s e n c e of a n t a g o n i s m s , w o u l d a c c o u n t for t h e i n e v i t a b l e e r o s i o n of l a t e r a l b o u n d a r i e s ? If t h i s is so, o n e c o u l d i n d e e d e x p e c t l a t e r a l b o u n d a r i e s t o go by t h e b o a r d , if o n e a n t i c i p a t e s a s t a g e of h u m a n history w h i c h will be free of social a n t a g o n i s m s . T h e idea t h a t lateral intero r g a n i s m r e l a t i o n s , o r at least s o m e of t h e m , a r e a l s o a n t a g o n i s t i c is i n d e e d i m p l i e d in S e m e n o v ' s s c h e m e . It w o u l d s e e m t o follow f r o m t h e i m p o r t a n c e g i v e n w i t h i n it t o t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p e r i p h e r y a n d the centre. Certain crucial transitions can only take place t h r o u g h the interaction between centre and periphery. T h e relationship between t h e t w o is n o t i m m e d i a t e l y a r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n classes, b u t it is a rel a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n o r g a n i s m s at d i f f e r e n t s t a g e s , a n d h e n c e c o n t a i n i n g d i v e r s e c l a s s e s a t t h e i r h e l m . I n t h i s s e n s e , it is a l s o a k i n d of c l a s s a n t a gonism. T h e stress on centre-periphery relations a n d t h e a t t e m p t to e x t e n d t h e n o t i o n of class r e l a t i o n t o it is of c o u r s e s h a r e d b y Soviet a n d w e s t e r n M a r x i s t s , a n d is p r o m i n a n t in t h e r e c e n t w o r k of i n f l u e n t i a l w e s t e r n M a r x i s t s s u c h a s W a l l e r s t e i n (I. W a l l e r s t e i n , The Modern World System, N e w Y o r k , 1974). T h e w h o l e n o t i o n o f ' p e r i p h e r y ' , a s rec e n t l y u s e d , is I s u p p o s e a n a t t e m p t t o t u r n ' u n d e r - d e v e l o p m e n t ' i n t o a t i m e l e s s a n d g e n e r i c n o t i o n , a v a i l a b l e for u s e r e t r o s p e c t i v e l y o n t h e historic past. H o w e v e r t h e s e a r e t a n g e n t i a l issues. T h e o n e c e n t r a l m e t h o d o l o g i c a l issue facing the Semenov reinterpretation arises from the essential a n d yet m o r e o r less u n i q u e c h a r a c t e r of a t least o n e s t a g e , n a m e l y M e d i t e r r a n e a n s l a v e - o w n i n g society. T h e o b v e r s e of t h i s u n i q u e n e s s ( w h i c h S e m e n o v d o e s n o t a s s e r t in so m a n y w o r d s ) is t h e fact t h a t w e c a n n o t rely o n t h i s f o r m a t i o n to a r i s e o n t h e f o u n d a t i o n of its p r e d e c e s s o r .

G e l l n e r : A Russian Marxist philosophy of history

75

a s i a t i c s o c i e t y , in t h e o r i e n t . ( T h i s f a i l u r e S e m e n o v s t r e s s e s e x p l i c i t l y . ) S l a v e - o w n i n g s o c i e t y , if n o t u n i q u e , a t least is not a r e l i a b l e c o n s e q u e n c e of its h i s t o r i c a n t e c e d e n t s , u n l i k e a s i a t i c s o c i e t y itself, w h i c h a p p e a r s t o b e a h a r d y p l a n t flowering i r r e p r e s s i b l y in m a n y p a r t s of t h e globe. T h e m o s t i n f l u e n t i a l s i n g l e s o c i o l o g i s t in t h e W e s t is I s u p p o s e M a x W e b e r . It w o u l d b e b i z a r r e t o r e d u c e his d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h M a r x t o t h e issue of i d e a l i s m / m a t e r i a l i s m . T h e r e a l d i f f e r e n c e is s o m e t h i n g else: it is t h e i s s u e b e t w e e n t h e a c o r n / o a k t r e e m o d e l a n d t h e g a t e k e e p e r m o d e l s of h u m a n p r o g r e s s . I n t h e H e g e l i a n / M a r x i s t t r a d i t i o n , t h e s e e d s of p r o g r e s s a r e t h e r e a n d will c o m e to f r u i t i o n o n e w a y o r a n o t h e r . O n t h e g a t e k e e p e r m o d e l , t h e w a y f o r w a r d is b a r r e d , b u t o n e g a t e h a p pened, fortuitously, to be o p e n . T h e former model naturally leads to a s e n s e of t h e u n i t y of m a n k i n d a n d its h i s t o r y (a s e n s e w h i c h S e m e n o v s h a r e s s o s t r o n g l y ) , b e c a u s e it is a s it w e r e g u a r a n t e e d b y t h e p o t e n c y of t h o s e s h a r e d s e e d s , w h e r e a s t h e l a t t e r vision i m p l i e s t h e o p p o s i t e . W e b e r w a s i n d e e d o b s e s s e d b y t h e d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s of w e s t e r n h i s t o r y , its n o n - u n i v e r s a l i t y . It is s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e real i n t e r n a t i o n a l p o p u l a r i t y of W e b e r ' s t h o u g h t c a m e a t a p e r i o d o b s e s s e d w i t h t h e f a i l u r e of n o n w e s t e r n a c o r n s t o g r o w e a s i l y a n d q u i c k l y i n t o w e s t e r n o a k trees, i.e. at t h e t i m e of p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s of ' e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t ' ( a n d / o r of its d e s i r e d p o l i t i c a l a c c o m p a n i m e n t s . ) T h i s is t h e h e a r t of t h e m a t t e r . T h e o n e c r u c i a l o p e n i n g in t h e g a t e w a s for h i m a c o n s e q u e n c e of a n a c c i d e n t a l c o m b i n a t i o n of c i r c u m s t a n c e s . ( L i k e S e m e n o v , h e t h o u g h t h e c o u l d n e v e r t h e l e s s give a c a u s a l a c c o u n t of it, d e s p i t e its u n i q u e n e s s . ) H e w a s o n l y a n idealist in t h e t h i n s e n s e t h a t o n e e l e m e n t in t h e set of c i r c u m s t a n c e s w a s a n i d e o l o g i c a l o n e . T h e o t h e r e l e m e n t s w e r e n o t , a n d for m o s t societies a n d s i t u a t i o n s , h e w a s a s materialist as they come. S e m e n o v ' s n e a r l y - u n i q u e g a t e o r o p e n i n g is l o c a t e d m u c h f u r t h e r b a c k t h a n W e b e r ' s . It is, a s w e s a w , l o c a t e d at t h e e m e r g e n c e of slaveo w n i n g in t h e B a l k a n s a n d I t a l y , o v e r 2 0 0 0 y e a r s p r i o r t o t h e p a s s a g e of W e b e r ' s s p e c i a l g a t e w a y . B u t t h i s d o e s not a f f e c t t h e logical a s p e c t of the p r o b l e m . W h a t h a p p e n s to historical inevitability, to the generation of o n e s t a g e b y a n o t h e r , if o n e of t h e s t a g e s is q u a s i - u n i q u e o r in a n y c a s e s i m p l y c a n n o t b e r e l i e d u p o n t o e m e r g e f r o m its p r e d e c e s s o r ? T h i s is o n e of t h e p r o b l e m s S e m e n o v ' s r e f o r m u l a t i o n will h a v e t o face. W h i l s t S e m e n o v s u c c e s s f u l l y d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l societies d o n o t n e e d t o p a s s t h r o u g h e a c h a n d every s t a g e , a n d t h a t t h e y m a y skip s t a g e s w h e n t h e y c o m e u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e of m o r e a d v a n c e d , t o r c h - c a r r y i n g centres, nevertheless certain possibilities p r e s u m a b l y m u s t still r e m a i n e x c l u d e d ; t h e r e is still a c e r t a i n o v e r l a p in r e q u i r e m e n t s b e t w e e n S e m e n o v ' s unitary-history unilinealism, a n d the old p a r a l l e l - u n i l i n e a l i s m . S o c i e t i e s m u s t not j u m p s t a g e s w h e n not i m p e l led t o d o so b y a n y o u t s i d e a d v a n c e d c e n t r e , for i n s t a n c e . S e m e n o v d o e s not d i s c u s s t h e c a s e o f j a p a n , t h e o n e society w h i c h , t h o u g h a s i a t i c in a g e o g r a p h i c s e n s e , is w i d e l y h e l d t o h a v e h a d a g e n u i n e f e u d a l i s m . If

76

P a r t I : Marxism,

anthropology,

history

slave s o c i e t y w a s a b s e n t in t h e E a s t , b u t is h e l d t o b e a p r e c o n d i t i o n of t h e e m e r g e n c e of f e u d a l i s m , h o w w a s t h i s p o s s i b l e ? S o c i e t i e s m u s t not go i n t o r e v e r s e g e a r a n d r e g r e s s i n t o ' e a r l i e r ' s t a g e s , w i t h o r w i t h o u t t h e i m p u l s i o n of s o m e m o r e p o w e r f u l c e n t r e . C a n t h e r e b e c e n t r e s of r e t a r d a t i o n t o o w h i c h a l s o e x e r c i s e a n i n f l u e n c e ? I n b r i e f , t h e u n i t y of w o r l d h i s t o r y , t h e s t r e s s o n d i f f u s i o n of m o r e a d v a n c e d m o d e s of p r o d u c t i o n f r o m c e n t r e s of e x c e l l e n c e , d o e s n o t r e m o v e all t h e p r o b l e m s f a c i n g u n i l i n e a l i s m . T h e r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n d o e s not give u n i l i n e a l i s m a c o m p l e t e l y c l e a n bill of h e a l t h , it m e r e l y r e m o v e s s o m e of its d i f f i c u l t i e s . B u t let u s l e a v e t h e s e p r o b l e m s , a n d c o n s i d e r s o m e of t h e n e w t a s k s which the interpretation suggests. Semenov's insistence on the importa n c e of t h e p e r i p h e r y a n d of t h e s i d e w a y s p a s s i n g of t h e t o r c h is r e m i n i s c e n t of a c e r t a i n f a m i l i a r p h i l o s o p h y of h i s t o r y , w h i c h h a s o f t e n b e e n f o r m u l a t e d : c i v i l i s a t i o n s o r n a t i o n s o r s o c i e t i e s m u s t , like t h r e e q u a r t e r s in r u g b y f o o t b a l l , p a s s t h e b a l l s i d e w a y s if t h e y a r e t o a d v a n c e . T h e r e is a p o e t i c f o r m u l a t i o n of t h i s i d e a b y t h e A u s t r i a n p o e t a n d p l a y w r i g h t G r i l l p a r z e r , for i n s t a n c e : D e n n alle Völker dieser weiten E r d e , Sie t r e t e n a u f d e n S c h a u p l a t z n a c h u n d n a c h , Die a n d e m Po u n d bei d e n A l p e n w o h n e n , D a n n zu d e n P y r a n ä e n k e h r t d i e M a c h t . Die aus der Seine trinken und der Rhone, S c h a u s p i e l e r s t e t s , sie s p i e l e n d r a u f d e n H e r r n . D e r Brite s p a n n t d a s N e t z von seiner Insel, U n d t r e i b t d i e F i s c h e in s e i n g o l d n e s G a r n . J a , selbst die M e n s c h e n jenseits e u r e r Berge, D a s b l a u g e a u g t e V o l k voll r o h e r K r a f t , D a s n u r im Fortschritt k a u m b e w a h r t die S t ä r k e B l i n d , w e n n es h a n d e l t , t h a t l o s , w e n n es d e n k t , A u c h sie b e s t r a h l t d e r W e l t e n s o n n e S c h i m m e r , U n d E r b e aller F r ü h e r n glänzt ihr Stern. D a n n k o m m t ' s auf euch, a n e u c h u n d eure B r ü d e r , D e r letzte A u f s c h w u n g ist's d e r m a t t e n W e l t . D i e l a n g g e d i e n t , sie w e r d e n e n d l i c h h e r r s c h e n , Z w a r b r e i t u n d w e i t , a l l e i n n i c h t h o c h , n o c h tief; Die Kraft, entfernt von i h r e m ersten U r s p r u n g , W i r d s c h w ä c h e r , ist n u r n o c h e r b o r g t e K r a f t . Doch werdet herrschen ihr u n d euren N a m e n Als Siegel d r ü c k e n a u f d e r k u n f t g e n Z e i t . ( G r i l l p a r z e r , Libussa, A c t V ) . T h u s spoke Libu§e, while presiding over the transition f r o m m a t r i a r c h y to early state f o r m a t i o n a n d u r b a n i s a t i o n a m o n g the w e s t e r n S l a v s ; t h e o c c a s i o n of t h e p r o p h e c y w a s t h e f o u n d a t i o n of t h e c i t y of Prague. M y translation follows:

G e l l n e r : A Russian Marxist philosophy of history

77

T h u s all t h e p e o p l e s o n t h e e x p a n s e of e a r t h T h e worldly stage ascend, each t u r n by t u r n , T h o s e living b y t h e P o a n d in t h e A l p s , T h e n to t h e P y r e n e e s t h e p o w e r shifts. Those who drink from the Seine a n d from the R h o n e , W e r e actors ever, t h e n they p l a y e d the lords. T h e B r i t o n s p r e a d s a n e t f r o m h i s f a i r isle, A n d drives t h e fish i n t o h i s g o l d e n s n a r e . Y e a , even t h e m e n w h o live b e y o n d y o u r hills, T h e b l u e - e y e d n a t i o n full of u n c o u t h s t r e n g t h , A folk w h i c h b a r e l y h o l d s its p l a c e in p r o g r e s s , B l i n d w h e n it a c t s , a n d d e e d l e s s w h e n it t h i n k s ; T h e y too will feel t h e r a y s of t h e w o r l d ' s s u n , T h e i r s t a r will s h i n e , s u c c e e d i n g all t h e r e s t . Y o u r t u r n will c o m e , for y o u a n d for y o u r b r e t h r e n , T h e final u p s u r g e of a w e a r y e a r t h . T h o s e w h o h a v e s e r v e d so l o n g will r u l e a t l a s t , T h o u g h f a r a n d w i d e , yet w i t h o u t h e i g h t o r d e p t h ; T h e s t r e n g t h , so f a r n o w f r o m its p r i m a l s p r i n g , Grows weaker, b e i n g now b u t b o r r o w e d force. Y e t you will r u l e , a n d p r e s s y o u r n a m e a s seal O n t i m e t o c o m e , t i m e w h i c h is yet t o b e . B u t t h e r e is a c e r t a i n a s y m m e t r y in S e m e n o v ' s v e r s i o n . T h e t o r c h needs t o b e a d v a n c e d sideways on n u m e r o u s occasions, but not always. In t h e first t r a n s i t i o n ( p r i m i t i v e / a s i a t i c ) , t h e q u e s t i o n of it b e i n g p a s s e d from a more a d v a n c e d c e n t r e to a r e t a r d e d p e r i p h e r y simply did not a r i s e , as t h e r e w e r e n ' t a n y a d v a n c e d c e n t r e s . If y o u b r e a k u p ' p r i m i t i v e s o c i e t y ' i n t o a n u m b e r of s u b - s t a g e s , a s is d o n e b y t h e Soviet s c h o l a r M a r e t i n , t h i s p o i n t t h e n a p p l i e s o n c e a g a i n t o t h e first of t h e s e s u b s t a g e s . (See Y u . V. M a r e t i n , Community and its Types in Indonesia, s e p a r a t e l y p u b l i s h e d o f l p r i n t , P r o c e e d i n g s of t h e V I I W o r l d C o n g r e s s of A n t h r o p o l o g y , N a u k a , M o s c o w , 1964.) T h u s , in t h e first t r a n s i t i o n , everyone is e q u a l l y r e t a r d e d , o r if you like, n o o n e is r e t a r d e d , a n d w i t h o u t any centre, t h e r e c a n be n o p e r i p h e r y . At the next t r a n s i t i o n ( a s i a t i c / slave) the s i d e - s t e p w a s e s s e n t i a l : t h e a s i a t i c h e a r t l a n d s d o n o t s e e m t o h a v e :he p o t e n t i a l for e n d o g e n o u s g r o w t h , b u t sink i n t o c a n o n i c a l l y d o c u m e n t e d s t a g n a t i o n . T h e s a m e is r e p e a t e d n e x t t i m e , t h e s l a v e / f e u d a l t r a n s i t i o n o n c e a g a i n t a k e s p l a c e at t h e e d g e of t h e old c e n t r e . But t h e f e u d a l / c a p i t a l i s t t r a n s i t i o n is e x c e p t i o n a l : it is, so t o s p e a k , a c e n t r e - p r e s e r v i n g t r a n s i t i o n , a n d t h i s is q u i t e i d i o s y n c r a t i c , if o n e s p e l l s out S e m e n o v ' s s c h e m a in d e t a i l . Is t h i s c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e fact t h a t it is t h e o n e t r a n s i t i o n to w h i c h w e s t e r n h i s t o r i c a l s o c i o l o g y is r e a l l y s e n s i tive? If t h e r e is at p r e s e n t a n y k i n d of p h i l o s o p h y of h i s t o r y at all in t h e W e s t , it is a n u n s y s t e m a t i s e d o n e . w h i c h c o n c e n t r a t e s o n t h e b i g s o c i a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n w r o u g h t b y i n d u s t r i a l i s a t i o n . It p e r c e i v e s t w o h i s t o r i c a l

78

P a r t I : Marxism,

anthropology, history

t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s - t h e neolithic a n d t h e i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n s . In between, there are conquests rather than inwardly-destined and deep m e t a m o r p h o s e s . N o o n e h a s yet a r t i c u l a t e d this vision w i t h p h i l o s o p h i c d e p t h . T h e p h i l o s o p h y of ' i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y ' h a s not yet f o u n d its H e g e l . B u t if t h e f e u d a l / c a p i t a l i s t t r a d i t i o n is so u n u s u a l , h o w is it to b e e x p l a i n e d ? W h y is o n e p a r t i c u l a r t r a n s i t i o n c e n t r e - p r e s e r v i n g , w h e r e a s all o t h e r s ( e x c e p t t h e first, w h i c h h a d n o choice) a r e c e n t r e - s h i f t i n g ? T h e last t r a n s i t i o n , w h i c h is yet t o c o m e , will also b e u n i q u e , in t h a t it will b e n e i t h e r c e n t r e - p r e s e r v i n g n o r c e n t r e - d i s p l a c i n g , b u t c e n t r e dissolving. S t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g , n o t o n e b u t t w o c o n t r a s t s a r e involved h e r e . S o m e t r a n s i t i o n s p r e s e r v e l e a d e r s h i p , a n d s o m e c a n only b e a c c o m p l i s h e d b y m e a n s of t h e d i s p l a c e m e n t of t h e a d v a n c e d c e n t r e . B u t f u r t h e r m o r e t h e r e is also t h e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n society-preserving a n d soc i e t y - d e s t r o y i n g t r a n s i t i o n s (irrespective of t h e q u e s t i o n of n a t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p ) . T h e t w o d i s t i n c t i o n s a r e not identical a n d c u t across e a c h o t h e r . A s f a r as t h e very first e p o c h a l t r a n s i t i o n is c o n c e r n e d , t h e issue of s o c i e t y - p r e s e r v a t i o n d o e s a l r e a d y arise ( w h e r e a s t h e issue of t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n of l e a d e r s h i p c o u l d not yet arise, t h e r e not h a v i n g b e e n a n y p r i o r l e a d e r s ) . S e m e n o v explicitly says t h a t t h e first classe n d o w e d societies e m e r g e not t h r o u g h a m e t a m o r p h o s i s of p r i m i t i v e ones, b u t t h r o u g h t h e i r d e s t r u c t i o n , a n d on t h e i r r u i n s . B o t h q u e s t i o n s a r i s e in t h e s e c o n d a n d t h i r d t r a n s i t i o n s , w h i c h a r e b o t h ' d i s p l a c e m e n t of l e a d e r s h i p ' a n d ' d i s c o n t i n u i t y of societies' t r a n s i t i o n s . T h e n e x t t r a n s i t i o n is d o u b l y c o n t r a s t e d w i t h t h e m : l e a d e r s h i p s t a y s p u t , a n d societies p r e s e r v e themselves. But t h e t r a n s i t i o n f r o m c a p i t a l i s m t o s o c i a l i s m is t h e m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g o n e , f r o m this v i e w p o i n t : l e a d e r s h i p d o e s shift s i d e w a y s , b u t at t h e s a m e t i m e societies a r e p r e s e r v e d . T h e last t r a n s i t i o n , S e m e n o v p r e d i c t s , will dissolve t h e p r e v i o u s l y e x i s t i n g d i s t i n c t societies, a n d we c a n o n g e n e r a l M a r x i s t g r o u n d s a s s u m e t h a t l e a d e r s h i p will move only in t h e sense of dissolving a l t o g e t h e r . It will m o v e , b u t not to a n y o n e . It will just m o v e away. T h i s second contrast between society-preserving transitions a n d o t h e r s , o b v i o u s l y c r u c i a l a n d c e n t r a l for a n y f u r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t of this p h i l o s o p h y of h i s t o r y , in effect b r i n g s to t h e fore t h e w h o l e q u e s t i o n of w h y t h e r e a r e , a n d also w h y s o m e t i m e s t h e r e a r e not, c o n t i n u o u s societies, n a t i o n s , c u l t u r e s or w h a t e v e r . T r a d i t i o n a l M a r x i s m c a n b e a c c u s e d , at b e s t , of n o t h i g h l i g h t i n g t h e q u e s t i o n , a n d at w o r s t of t r e a t i n g it as s o m e t h i n g e p i p h e n o m e n a l a n d of n o g r e a t i n t e r e s t . Λ dismissive a t t i t u d e t o t h i s q u e s t i o n s i m p l y is not possible w i t h i n S e m e n o v ' s s c h e m a . T h e diversity a n d p l u r a l i t y of n a t i o n s a n d c u l t u r e s is not a c o n t i n g e n t a c c i d e n t , a b y - p r o d u c t of t h e isolation a n d h e n c e of t h e linguistic a n d o t h e r i d i o s y n c r a s i e s of p r i m i t i v e c o m m u n i t i e s , b u t a n e s s e n t i a l fact, w i t h o u t w h i c h t h e w h o l e p r o c e s s of w o r l d h i s t o r y c o u l d not w o r k . T h i s s e e m s to follow, if f r o m n o t h i n g else, f r o m t h e c r u c i a l role p l a y e d b y p e r i p h e r a l n a t i o n s o n t h o s e t h r e e s u p r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t

Gellner : A Russian Marxist philosophy of history

79

occasions in world history. If a b a c k w a r d a n d distinct p e r i p h e r y is essential for some steps forward, there could be no progress in a world with one nation only. T h e s c h e m a highlights a point which others have reached by different p a t h s : that ethnicity seems to have a different role in the later stages of history, a n d in the course of the later transitions, f r o m the one it h a d d u r i n g earlier epochs. In connection, for instance, with the asiatic m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n a n d its epoch, Semenov notes t h e n o n - c o n g r u e n c e between political organisation a n d 'social o r g a n i s m ' . T h o u g h he does not say so, the same is also conspicuously t r u e of slave-owning society, whose political units varied from small city states to t h e ecumenical R o m a n empire, without a p p a r e n t l y a n y c o r r e s p o n d i n g radical c h a n g e in the underlying relations of p r o d u c t i o n . ( T h e s a m e a p p e a r s to be t r u e in M o n g o l i a a n d central Asia, according to t h e material of a Soviet scholar, S.I. Vainstein. In her introduction to his study of the T u v i n ians, Nomads of South Siberia, C a m b r i d g e , 1979, Caroline H u m p h r e y writes, 'Vainstein's material a d d s u p to the following conclusion: there are no t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s in the technology of herding, nor of agriculture, nor of craft or commodity production, which " a c c o u n t f o r " the rise a n d fall of the steppe empires.') N o n - c o n g r u e n c e between ethnicity a n d polity also seems hardly disputable for the feudal age, with its s h a d o w y larger units a n d its fragmented political micro-units. It is d u r i n g the s u b s e q u e n t two stages that two of the things occur which m a y well be connected: societies acquire a kind of persistence, become c o n t i n u o u s a n d 'pass t h r o u g h ' t h e transitions, a n d ethnicity becomes a n i m p o r t a n t (though not the exclusive) principle of political-unit delimitation. O n e can a d d to this the idiosyncratic fact that no sideways passing of the torch occurs during the first of the two great modern transitions, which at the same time looks like being the big a n d crucial transition for bourgeois sociologists: the emergence o f ' r a t i o n a l ' p r o d u c t i o n . O n e can of course think of good ad hoc reasons why the transition from feudalism to capitalism h a d to be e n d o g e n o u s a n d society-preserving. It was a transition in which commercial a n d p r o d u c t i o n - o r i e n t e d strata took over f r o m a p r e d a t o r y or display-oriented military nobility - a contrast which of course greatly struck the early E u r o pean sociologists. This being so, it could h a r d l y be a transition in which the historical midwife would be a w a r of conquest a n d d o m i n a tion. It was the un-martial ones - at least in their o u t w a r d aspect - w h o were the victors then. It was the warriors w h o were the vanquished. T h e y could hardly be defeated at their own g a m e a n d in their own field by newcomers ill-suited for it. T h e victory h a d to be effected by internal mechanisms inside a society. If it was decided by w a r at all, it was civil war, which preserved the continuity of state a n d society even if it changed the identity of rulers within it. O n e c a n also p u t the case negatively: is it conceivable that the emergence of bourgeois society out of a feudal one would have been the work of p e r i p h e r a l - bluntly: barb a r i a n - invaders? T h e r e is something bizarre a b o u t the idea of such

80

P a r t I : Marxism,

anthropology, history

t r i b a l i n v a d e r s d e m o l i s h i n g t h e b a r o n ' s castle a n d t h e n settling d o w n in its r u i n s as b u r g h e r s , t r a d e r s , financiers a n d e n t r e p r e n e u r s . N o , this t r a n s i t i o n for o n c e h a d to b e e n d o g e n o u s , a n d h e n c e b o t h society- a n d n a t i o n a l - l e a d e r s h i p - p r e s e r v i n g . But I m u s t confess t h a t I find t h e ad hoc r e a s o n s w h i c h I h a v e s k e t c h e d o u t above, in o r d e r to e x p l a i n t h e i d i o s y n c r a s y , r a t h e r inelegant precisely b e c a u s e of t h e i r ad hoc q u a l i t y . T h e y a r e p l a u s i b l e as far as t h e y go, b u t if history is s u c h a u n i t y - if t r a n s i t i o n s g e n e r a l l y involve a s i d e - s t e p , b u t not o n this o n e o c c a s i o n - I ' d like to see s o m e good g e n e r a l r e a s o n for this a s y m m e t r y . W h a t I h a v e d e s c r i b e d as t h e implicit, u n f o r m u l a t e d w e s t e r n p h i l o s o p h y of h i s t o r y , d o e s s e e m t o have the a d v a n t a g e h e r e : by t r e a t i n g t h e t r a n s i t i o n to i n d u s t r i a l i s m as in a n y case q u i t e u n i q u e , it is not e m b a r r a s s e d b y t h e n finding f u r t h e r u n i q u e t r a i t s in it. S e m e n o v ' s version of t h e H e g e l o - M a r x i s t vision t r a n s f o r m s it f r o m a n essentially E u r o c e n t r i c s e l f - c o n g r a t u l a t o r y o n e - w h i c h it h a d b e e n n o r m a l l y - i n t o a n e n c o u r a g i n g p a t o n t h e b a c k for late d e v e l o p e r s . But in d o i n g this, it finds o n e p a r t i c u l a r t r a n s i t i o n , t h e f e u d a l i s m / c a p i t a l i s m one, e m b a r rassingly idiosyncratic. Let us r e t u r n h o w e v e r to t h e overall c o n c e p t u a l s t r a t e g y of S e m e n o v ' s w o r k a n d its p l a c e in t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l w o r l d of Soviet s c h o l a r s h i p . H e h a s saved u n i l i n e a l i s m f r o m a t a n y r a t e s o m e of t h e h i s t o r i c a l o b j e c t i o n s t o it b y m e a n s of his s t r o n g stress o n t h e u n i t y of h i s t o r y , o n t h e i n e q u a l i t y b e t w e e n c e n t r e a n d p e r i p h e r y w h i c h n e v e r t h e l e s s a r e p a r t s of o n e single process, o n t h e d i f f u s i o n f r o m c e n t r e to p e r i p h e r y , w h i c h is h o w e v e r acc o m p a n i e d b y a n e s s e n t i a l role of p e r i p h e r y in t h e c o u r s e of c r u c i a l t r a n s i t i o n s ; in brief he a d o p t s w h a t m a y b e called t h e relay t o r c h p a t t e r n of h i s t o r i c a l l e a d e r s h i p , w h i c h stresses t h e i m p o r t a n c e of l e a d e r s h i p a n d e m u l a t i o n . T h e last shall b e first. T h i s w a s a l w a y s a M a r x i s t view, b u t S e m e n o v ' s s c h e m a gives it a n e t h n i c twist in a d d i t i o n to its old class m e a n i n g . T h e c o n s e q u e n c e of all this h a s b e e n a s c h e m a w h i c h h i g h l i g h t s not o n l y t h e h i g h l y p r o b l e m a t i c a l n a t u r e of t h e h i s t o r i c a l c o n t i n u i t y of societies or n a t i o n s , b u t also c e r t a i n specific a n d i n t r i g u ing o d d i t i e s in this field - t h a t t h e p a t t e r n s of social c o n t i n u i t y a n d of g l o b a l l e a d e r s h i p b y societies a r e r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t at d i f f e r e n t stages a n d in t h e c o u r s e of diverse t r a d i t i o n s . O n c e n o t e d a n d stressed, t h e s e q u e s tions c a n hardly be ignored. But t h e s u g g e s t i v e n e s s of S e m e n o v ' s i d e a s in t h i s d i r e c t i o n is n o t , so to s p e a k , s i m p l y a n i r r e l e v a n t p r i c e or b y - p r o d u c t of t h e m a i n objective, n a m e l y t h e d e f e n c e of u n i l i n e a l i s m . T h o u g h t h e r e l e v a n c e is not spelt o u t , let a l o n e u n d e r s c o r e d b y h i m , it is t h e r e : t h e m o s t c o n s p i c u o u s r e s e a r c h i n n o v a t i o n w i t h i n Soviet a n t h r o p o l o g y r e c e n t l y h a s b e e n a c o n c e r n w i t h e t h n i c i t y , w i t h t h e e t h n o s , a n d m o r e o v e r a c o n c e r n w i t h it in t h e m o d e r n , n o n - a r c h a i c p e r i o d , w h i c h is m a r k e d by t h e i d i o s y n cratic persistence of ethnoses. In other words, there is a sense in which the w o r l d - h i s t o r i c a l t h e o r e t i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n p r o p o s e d by S e m e n o v , a n d t h e c o n c r e t e r e s e a r c h into e t h n i c i t y led b y B r o m l e y , dovetail very n e a t l y . T h e a r g u m e n t w o u l d not m e r e l y e x p l a i n w h y t h e e x i s t e n c e of

G e l l n e r : A Russian Marxist philosophy of history

81

distinctive ethnic groups is essential to world history, it would also, a n d in intimate connection with the previous point, help explain t h e persistence a n d h i s t o r i c i m p o r t a n c e of real w a r , as o p p o s e d to t h e m e t a p h o r i cal class w a r . In a r e m a r k a b l e book (Philosophers of Peace and War, C a m b r i d g e , 1978) W . B . G a l l i e a r g u e s (p. 9 9 ) : T h i s p r o b l e m arises . . . f r o m t h e fact t h a t t h e e x i s t e n c e of w a r . . . c a n n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d or d e a l t w i t h or c o n t r o l l e d , s i m p l y as o n e facet or b y - p r o d u c t of m a n k i n d ' s g r e a t c o n s t r u c t i v e t a s k of a c h i e v i n g a j u s t a n d s a t i s f y i n g e c o n o m i c o r d e r . O r t o s p e a k m o r e s i m p l y , f r o m its first b e g i n n i n g s M a r x i s t overall social t h e o r y w a s defective, t h r o u g h its f a i l u r e to p l a c e a n d e x p l a i n t h e d i f f e r e n t p o s s i b l e roles of w a r in h u m a n history. Whatever other functions warfare may have — a n d Semenov no doubt w o u l d n o t d i s a g r e e w i t h M a r x ' s a c c o u n t of its e s s e n t i a l role in a n c i e n t s l a v e - o w n i n g society — d u r i n g t h e c r u c i a l s i d e - s t e p p i n g m o v e m e n t s it w o u l d b e a n i n e v i t a b l e a g e n t of t h e d i f f u s i o n or even t h e very e s t a b l i s h m e n t of t h e n e w social o r d e r . Gallie q u o t e s t h a t d e v a s t a t i n g l y a c c u r a t e p r e d i c t i o n b y E n g e l s of t h e n a t u r e of t h e First W o r l d W a r , p u b l i s h e d as e a r l y a s 1888; b u t goes o n to a d d t h a t E n g e l s m i s u n d e r stood t h e p r a c t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of his t h e o r e t i c a l i n s i g h t , w h i l s t L e n i n understood the practical implications without necessarily a p p r e c i a t i n g t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p o i n t . W a r w a s essential to t h e e m e r g e n c e of a n e w o r d e r o n the p e r i p h e r y . As G a l l i e p u t s it (p. 98) : For, c o n t r a r y to M a r x a n d Engels, w h o h a d m a i n t a i n e d t h a t T s a r i s m w o u l d fall only to a r e v o l u t i o n f r o m w i t h i n , L e n i n w a s p e r s u a d e d t h a t it w o u l d fall only a s t h e result of a n u t t e r l y d i s a s t r o u s w a r - a n d t h a t m e a n t as long a w a r , a n d a s g e n e r a l i s e d a g l o b a l w a r , as p o s s i b l e . . . In s u m , L e n i n ' s s t a n c e in 1914 w a s not s i m p l y g o o d M a r x i s m , a f a i t h f u l a d h e r e n c e t o its classic d o c t r i n e s . . . it w a s a l s o a necessity of his p a r t i c u l a r t a s k a s l e a d e r of t h e R u s s i a n M a r x i s t Socialists . . . L e n i n w a s c o m m i t t e d , in fact if not in w o r d , t o i n t e r n a t i o n a l sociali s m / o r the sake of one country, f r o m 1911 o n w a r d s , if not f r o m t h e o u t s e t of his r e v o l u t i o n a r y c a r e e r . S e m e n o v ' s s c h e m a is also suggestive or e x p r e s s i v e in o t h e r i n t r i g u i n g w a y s . T h e s e a d d i t i o n a l ideas or s u g g e s t i o n s a r e implicit in t h e a r r a n g e m e n t of the m a t e r i a l a n d not a r t i c u l a t e d b y S e m e n o v himself, w h o c o n s e q u e n t l y c a n n o t in fairness b e held in a n y w a y r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e m , o n e w a y or t h e o t h e r . T h e y a r e in t h e eye of this b e h o l d e r or int e r p r e t e r , w h o m u s t c o n s e q u e n t l y a s s u m e c o m p l e t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for them. A striking trait of t h e s c h e m a is its s t r o n g sense, not of w o r l d historical i n d i v i d u a l s ( n o n e a r e m e n t i o n e d , a n d t h e r e is c o n s p i c u o u s a b s e n c e of a n y cult of p e r s o n a l i t y in this p h i l o s o p h y of h i s t o r y ) , b u t of,

82

Part I : Marxism, anthropology, history

so to speak, welt-histonsche Voelker. (Bryce Gallie for instance said about Lenin that 'he was to become the one unquestionably "world-historical individual" of our century'. But no world-historical individuals appear on Semenov's tableau. His heroes are nations or collectivities.) T h e y are the nations who assume leadership, and the criteria of leadership are ultimately moral - a contribution towards the fulfilment of the ultimate destiny of mankind as a whole, a destiny whose culmination, both in a chronological and an evaluative sense, is known. T h e West has lost all such confidence, and despises its Victorian predecessors for having had it. A western anthropologist who dared speak, without irony, of the mission civilisatrice or of the 'white man's burden', would be more or less ostracised by his professional community. Semenov has no hesitation in using the notion of differences of level of development and referring to the obligations of global leadership which this carries with it. T h e major mechanism of progress in the past has been the leadership and influence exercised by an advanced centre over the retarded periphery. T h i s influence defined leadership and the location of leadership in turn defined the world-historical epoch. Secondly, Semenov tells us that the most advanced world-system in existence now is the socialist one. T h e joint implication of these two assertions is not spelt out, but it is obvious. T h e moral obligations of leadership which this imposes on that system and on its centre are clear. If such leadership is exercised in the course of aiding nations which had been for too long committed to stagnation, it may well fail to be properly appreciated. It may be no accident that it is precisely the previously most stagnant society which is also now the most recalcitrant in accepting guidance from the leading centre. But that is not all. Russia was once expected to be the third R o m e . This did not come to be - at least not literally. However, three times in our single and united pan-human history did mankind advance only by taking a step sideways; thrice was the torch of progress handed over to a nation on the periphery, advance being blocked by the centre. O n c e it was passed to the Dorians when they established a slave-owning society at the far West of the ancient orient; once it was handed to the Franks when they built the centre of feudalism in the outlying marchlands of declining slave society. More recently the banner of leadership was transmitted for the third time.

PART II The distinctiveness of the primitive

A. I. PERSHITS Ethnographic reconstruction of the history of primitive society T h e history of primitive society looms large in the M a r x i s t understanding of history. T h i s is because it helps to solve a number of problems. Above all there is the great significance of the general concept of primitive society for the M a r x i s t theory of the historical process. It asserts that primitive society - or the primitive c o m m u n a l system - w a s the first socio-economic formation in the history of mankind, and was the only one which knew neither private property, nor antagonistic classes, nor state power. T h e concept of pristine collectivism enables the founders of scientific c o m m u n i s m to demonstrate not the primordial, but, on the contrary, the historically conditioned and, therefore, transient character of all these basic institutions of class society. It will be recalled that in their concept of the history of primitive society, M a r x and Engels drew on the research carried out in the nineteenth century, especially on the works by M o r g a n . A large amount of new material has been accumulated since then and some of the old conclusions could not but become outdated as science developed. T h i s confronted scientists with the alternative of deciding which conclusions need to be refined or revised - the more specific and secondary, or those which are of principal, methodological significance? It is the second solution which is prevalent in western anthropology. Some scientists have continued to try to prove the pristine character of the rudimentary forms of private ownership, state power, etc. 1 It is noteworthy that even those scholars who, like Gellner, give in principle a positive assessment of the theory of socio-economic formations, are rather sceptical about the first such system - the primitive one. 2 Hence the great importance attached by Marxist science to the reconstruction of primitive society and its history on the basis of all the facts available today. Another important goal of this kind of reconstruction is to provide science with more knowledge. Here we proceed from the conviction that any cultural phenomenon can be understood only if it is studied in the historico-genetic context, and not only from the structuralcum-functional viewpoint. M a n y elements of culture are rooted in the

86

Part II : The distinctiveness of the primitive

primeval past a n d later manifest themselves in a modified form. Lastly, t h e r e is still a n o t h e r p u r p o s e of studying the history of primitive society, which is of practical significance. T o d a y there are quite a few b a c k w a r d peoples w h o have retained various pre-class forms, often those which were fused with the latest class relation. T h e e t h n o g r a p h i c assessment of p h e n o m e n a like the r e m n a n t s of the clan and c o m m u n a l traditions, the activity of secret societies, tribalism, etc. m a y help these peoples in their social, economic, political a n d cultural a d v a n c e m e n t . A n o t h e r reason w h y special i m p o r t a n c e is a t t a c h e d to the history of primitive society, a p a r t f r o m the goals concerning world outlook, knowledge a n d practical tasks, is t h e distinctiveness of its methodology a n d sources. W h i l e other sections of historical science are based mainly on written m o n u m e n t s , t h e history of primitive society, at least prior to the e m e r g e n c e of the first class societies, wholly pertains to the preliterate stage in t h e development of h u m a n i t y a n d is reconstructed on the basis of other sources. H e n c e t h e t e n d e n c y , which is traced back to Radclifle-Brown a n d Lowie a n d is characteristic of the western conception of scholarship, to d r a w a distinction b e t w e e n scholarship proper, which studies only the civilised peoples with a written language, a n d prehistory or prehistoric (sometimes also protohistoric) archaeology, studying primitive society before it reached t h a t level of civilisation.® A kind of a c o m p r o m i s e a n d , at t h e s a m e time, m a r k e d h e a d w a y was m a d e in the 1950s w h e n ' e t h n o h i s t o r y , ' a new subdivision within A m e r i c a n socio-cultural anthropology, e m e r g e d in order to u n d e r t a k e , as it is often conceived, a reconstruction of the history of preliterate peoples by c o m b i n i n g t h e w r i t t e n sources of neighbouring civilised societies with e t h n o g r a p h i c a n d o t h e r d a t a . 4 In methodological terms, this idea resembles a n o t h e r one, f o r m u l a t e d in West E u r o p e a n science s o m e w h a t earlier, of singling out ' p a r a h i s t o r y ' , c o m m e n c i n g in preliterate societies with the emergence of written sources in other p a r t s of the globe, which provided certain possibilities for 'historising' the peoples before they reached the civilisation level. 5 It is obvious that here t h e formal historiographical a p p r o a c h replaces the s u b s t a n t i a l a p p r o a c h to classification. In reality, however, all peoples, whatever t h e sources used to reconstruct their history, are the subjects of o n e single historical process. H e n c e , the development of all peoples is studied by one historical science, although, naturally, one or a n o t h e r aspect of this science ( a n d of the a d j a c e n t sciences) comes to the f o r e g r o u n d for the s t u d y of diverse stages of history. T h i s is precisely w h y we look to the history of primitive society, although it is based almost wholly, not on written information, but rather on a r c h a e ological, paleoanthropological, e t h n o g r a p h i c a n d other d a t a , as an organic element of one historical science. At present this a p p r o a c h to the question, which M a r x a n d Engels stressed (in ' G e r m a n ideology' t h a t history should not be c o n t r a s t e d with prehistory) often a t t r a c t s western researchers as well. 6 M o s t recently, it has become relevant for the contrast of history a n d ' e t h n o h i s t o r y . ' T h u s , C. H u d s o n notes with

P e r s h i t s : Ethnographic reconstruction ojprimitive society

87

good r e a s o n t h a t ' b y c o n s i g n i n g p r e l i t e r a t e p e o p l e s to e t h n o h i s t o r y , however, we r e m o v e t h e m f r o m t h e c a t e g o r y of h u m a n i t y to w h i c h we ourselves b e l o n g . ' 7 I believe t h a t t h e singling out of p r o t o - or p a r a - or e t h n o - h i s t o r y s h o u l d b e t r a n s f e r r e d i n t o a n o t h e r level. B e i n g p a r t a n d parcel of total historical science, t h e h i s t o r y of p r i m i t i v e society is s u b d i v i d e d i n t o history d e a l i n g w i t h t h e p e r i o d e n d i n g w i t h t h e e m e r g e n c e of m o s t a n c i e n t civilisations, a n d the history of a society coexisting with the class society a n d d e v e l o p i n g a t t h e o u t s k i r t s of civilisation. T h e s e subdivisions of t h e history of p r i m i t i v e society, like t h e societies themselves, m a y b e d e f i n e d as p r e c l a s s a n d epiclass ( h e r e t h e prefix ' e p i ' m e a n s existing at t h e s a m e t i m e ) . B e l o n g i n g t o s i m i l a r t y p e s of p r i m i t i v e societies, t h e preclass a n d epiclass societies d i f f e r in t h e d e g r e e of t h e s p o n t a n e i t y of their d e v e l o p m e n t , w h i c h I a m going t o dwell u p o n s o m e w h a t later. T h i s d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n allows us to avoid a possible a m b i g u i t y of t h e w o r d ' p r i m i t i v e ' a n d is c l e a r e r (as r e g a r d s n o t i o n s a n d t e r m i n o l o g y ) t h a n t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e historically p r i m i t i v e societies a n d t h o s e lagging b e h i n d in t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t . So far, this is m e r e l y a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , a n d in t h i s p a p e r I a m u s i n g t h e t r a d i t i o n a l t e r m ' p r i m i t i v e ' in t h e sense of preclass, a n d ' l a g g i n g b e h i n d in its (their) d e v e l o p m e n t ' in t h e sense of epiclass. So w h a t a r e t h e possibilities t o d a y of r e c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e history of primitive society? H o w m u c h p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n is t h e r e in t h e different sources, a n d w h a t p a r t of it is p r o p e r l y e t h n o g r a p h i c ? T h e s e q u e s t i o n s c a n b e a n s w e r e d d i f f e r e n t l y w i t h respect to diverse p e r i o d s in the d e v e l o p m e n t of p r i m i t i v e society. As for t h e m o s t a n c i e n t e p o c h of t h e e a r l y p a l e o l i t h i c e r a , t h e d a t a provided by p a l e o a n t h r o p o l o g y , p r i m a t o l o g y to s o m e e x t e n t , a n d especially a r c h a e o l o g y , a r e of p r i m a r y , if not exclusive, significance. T h e evidence s u p p l i e d b y p a l e o a n t h r o p o l o g y , s u c h as skulls, e n d o crans, signs of i n j u r i e s o n b o n e r e m n a n t s , b u r i a l places, etc. offers m a t e r i a l by w h i c h we c a n j u d g e a b o u t t h e psychology, d e m o g r a p h i c s t r u c t u r e a n d even t h e social life of t h e collectivities of a r c h a n t h r o p s a n d p a l e o a n t h r o p s . T h e i r significance, h o w e v e r , is not t o b e overestim a t e d : t h e y a r e not very large a n d , at least as f a r as sociological c o n clusions are c o n c e r n e d , d o not a l w a y s m a k e it possible to decide w h a t is the rule a n d w h a t is t h e e x c e p t i o n . T h e a r e a in w h i c h o n e c a n use primatological results, h o w e v e r o n e assesses t h e l e g i t i m a c y of this m e t h o d , is restricted to t h e earliest stage of sociogenesis. I n this c o n t e x t , t h e fast growing d a t a of a r c h a e o l o g y a r e b e c o m i n g i n c r e a s i n g l y i m p o r t a n t , t h o u g h here too, w h e n a p p l i e d to a given d e l i m i t e d e p o c h a n d a welldefined s p h e r e , t h e t r u t h is evidently s o m e w h e r e h a l f w a y b e t w e e n t h e c a u t i o u s o p t i m i s m of C h i l d e a n d t h e m o d e r a t e p e s s i m i s m of d e Laet . 8 It is no a c c i d e n t t h a t in a r c h a e o l o g y , as well as in p a l e o a n t h r o p o l o g y , t h e s a m e d a t a lead v a r i o u s s c h o l a r s to d i a m e t r i c a l l y o p p o s e d c o n c l u s i o n s . T a k e , for i n s t a n c e , t h e r e c e n t e x c a v a t i o n s of t h e early paleolithic settlem e n t s in Soviet t e r r i t o r y ( K u d a r o , T s o n a , A z y k h , a n d o t h e r s ) , in w h i c h

88

P a r t I I : The distinctiveness

of the primitive

some archaeologists see evidence of a universal existence of communes, i.e. collectivities t h a t were well knit together socially, and others see in t h e m only distinct h a r b i n g e r s of subsequent c o m m u n a l organisation in a so-called primitive h u m a n h e r d . 9 Generally speaking, the lack of sufficient e t h n o g r a p h i c parallels for that epoch makes it an area of most vigorous d e b a t e s which, in theoretical terms, concern the question of the legitimacy of placing the material within the framework of the primitive social formation. 1 0 T r u e , the a d h e r e n t s of the so-called 'new archaeology' trend that took s h a p e in the U S A in the 1960s believe that the m e t h o d s of historical reconstruction c a n be b a s e d on systems analysis of any one of the interrelated elements m a k i n g up archaeological complexes. T h e reconstruction of the absent elements is done in this case by a c o m p a r i s o n of some s u b s y s t e m s with others, a i d e d by an analysis of a mass of facts by statistical a n d c o m p u t e r m e t h o d s . However, even the most o u t s t a n d i n g representatives of this t r e n d do not deny the significance of ethnographic d a t a as a m e a n s of modelling reconstructed social relationships a n d checking purely archaeological h y p o t h e s e s . " I shall not analyse here the archaeological m e t h o d s proper, but confine myself to noting their relatively great significance for the study of the socio-cultural complexes of those early epochs for which we have no e t h n o g r a p h i c parallels. As primitive m a n exceeded the b o u n d s of the early paleolithic, we c a m e to possess, a p a r t f r o m the facts of archaeology, the data of e t h n o g r a p h y on the peoples of the world which lag behind in their development. P e r h a p s it is not worth giving much thought to finding a c o m p a r a t i v e evaluation of archaeological and ethnographic sources for the reconstruction of the history of primitive society as from that landm a r k . T h e former attract us by their unquestioned simultaneity with the epoch which is being reconstructed; and the latter by their alle m b r a c i n g a n d solid c h a r a c t e r . A comprehensive application of both is necessary (and w r i t t e n sources should also be used whenever possible) a n d it is this a p p r o a c h t h a t is getting most widespread. But, as it was aptly observed by a Soviet e t h n o g r a p h e r , while archaeology is offering us merely a skeleton, e t h n o g r a p h y enables us to j u d g e the texture a n d the functioning of a living organism. 1 2 This raises a cardinal question for the evaluation of the history of primitive society : just how representative are e t h n o g r a p h i c d a t a for the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the history of the primitive c o m m u n i t y ? T h e r e are two m e t h o d s of using ethnographic d a t a for the reconstruction of primitive history: the historical comparative m e t h o d and the m e t h o d of survivals. T h e former is the basic one, according to which the primeval past of m a n k i n d is reconstructed by c o m p a r i n g its stages with the c o r r e s p o n d i n g nations which are at present lagging behind in their development. T h e historical comparative m e t h o d appeals to the unity of the world historical process, and for a n y o n e who recognises this unity the validity of this method is beyond d o u b t . Never-

P e r s h i t s : Ethnographic reconstruction of primitive society

89

theless, its c o n c r e t e a p p l i c a t i o n c o m e s u p a g a i n s t d e f i n i t e difficulties, a r i s i n g f r o m t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e c o m p a r a b i l i t y or c o n g r u e n c e of t h e c o m p a r e d entities. In c o n t r a s t w i t h s u c h classics of e v o l u t i o n i s m as B a s t i a n a n d T a y l o r , w e k n o w full well t h a t t h e u n i t y of t h e w o r l d h i s t o r i c a l p r o c e s s is d e t e r m i n e d n o t m e r e l y b y t h e n a t u r e of sociological l a w s b u t also b y c o n t a c t s b e t w e e n v a r i o u s g r o u p s of m a n k i n d w h i c h s t e a d i l y i n c r e a s e in t h e c o u r s e of h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t . 1 3 T h e s e c o n t a c t s took p l a c e in t h e p r i m e v a l e p o c h of m a n k i n d as well, b u t t h e y a c q u i r e d a special i m p o r t a n c e w i t h t h e e m e r g e n c e a n d e x p a n s i o n of t h e a r e a of civilisations w h o s e i n f l u e n c e , in o n e w a y or a n o t h e r , w a s felt b y t h e i r close a n d dist a n t p r i m i t i v e p e r i p h e r y . Even t h e isolation of A u s t r a l i a n a b o r i g i n e s in t h e p r e c o l o n i a l p e r i o d w a s not a b s o l u t e , a n d t h e i n f l u e n c e of m o r e a d v a n c e d societies o n t h e less d e v e l o p e d o n e s i n c r e a s e d m a n y t i m e s over since t h e t i m e of great g e o g r a p h i c discoveries. T h i s i n f l u e n c e s h o u l d not b e e x a g g e r a t e d e i t h e r : o n m o r e t h a n o n e o c c a s i o n , a t t e n t i o n w a s d r a w n t o t h e fact t h a t e x t e r n a l i n f l u e n c e s a r e effective a b o v e all w h e n t h e g r o u n d h a s b e e n p r e p a r e d b y i n t e r n a l d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e recipient societies. Likewise, it c a n n o t b e u n d e r r a t e d . I c a n n o t b u t a g r e e w i t h t h o s e r e s e a r c h e r s w h o c o n s i d e r t h a t a l a r g e n u m b e r of u n d e r d e v e l o p e d societies w h i c h h a v e b e e n s t u d i e d b y e t h n o g r a p h e r s in m o d e r n t i m e s , h a d b e e n s u b j e c t e d to o u t s i d e i n f l u e n c e in p r e v i o u s e p o c h s , a n d t h a t t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s is c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y l i m i t e d for t h e h i s t o r y of p r i m i t i v e society. 1 4 T h e r e is a n o t h e r f a c t o r to b e r e c k o n e d w i t h . T h e very fact t h a t c e r t a i n t r i b e s h a v e l a g g e d b e h i n d in t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t p o s e s t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e y m a y b e identified w i t h t h e p r i m i t i v e t r i b e s of t h e ' o l d w o r l d ' w h i c h a d v a n c e d at a far h i g h e r r a t e a n d , t h e r e f o r e , w h e t h e r t h e geographic a n d historical factors which, a m o n g other things, c a u s e d s t a g n a t i o n d i d not p l a y a significant role. T h i s is e s p e c i a l l y t r u e a b o u t t h e less d e v e l o p e d t r i b e s of h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s a p t l y d e s c r i b e d b y M . S a h l i n s as ' d i s p l a c e d p e r s o n s . ' 1 5 S u c h societies p r o b a b l y d e g e n e r a t e d in p a r t a n d m a y b e r e g a r d e d as d e f o r m e d . It is not w i t h o u t r e a s o n t h a t in recent t i m e s m a n y w e s t e r n s c h o l a r s , while r e c o g n i s i n g t h e validity of a r c h a e o l o g i c a l - e t h n o g r a p h i c c o m p a r i s o n s , c o n f i n e t h e i r possibility m e r e l y , t o t h e r e g i o n s w h e r e t h e continuity of cultural development c a n be t r a c e d archaeologically. 1 6 T h i s view, however, in which the m e t h o d o f ' c o n t r o l l e d c o m p a r i s o n ' p r o p o s e d by E g g a n in 1954 is u s e d as a s t a r t i n g p o i n t , s e e m s to b e t o o e x t r e m e . E l a b o r a t e d in Soviet e t h n o g r a p h y , t h e t h e o r y of e c o n o m i c - c u l t u r a l types o p e n s u p possibilities for c o m p a r i n g societies of a s i m i l a r t y p e , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e a r e a of t h e i r l o c a t i o n a n d c u l t u r a l c o n t i n u i t y . 1 7 A s i m i lar s t a n d is t a k e n b y s u c h p r o m i n e n t foreign a r c h a e o l o g i s t s as C l a r k . In his view, u n i n t e r r u p t e d d e v e l o p m e n t a d d s t o t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y of c o m p a r i s o n s b u t t h e l a t t e r , however, a r e a d m i s s i b l e w h e n e v e r it c o n c e r n s t h e societies w i t h s i m i l a r levels in t h e i r m a n n e r of s e c u r i n g of m e a n s of s u b s i s t e n c e a n d ecology. 1 8

90

Part II : The distinctiveness of the primitive

All this goes to show t h a t m o d e r n societies (in t h e b r o a d sense of the w o r d ) w h i c h lag b e h i n d in their d e v e l o p m e n t a r e not the equivalents, b u t merely the a n a l o g u e s of primitive societies, a n d t h a t in u s i n g the historical c o m p a r a t i v e m e t h o d o n e s h o u l d be g u i d e d by t h e g e n e r a l principles of d r a w i n g conclusions b y analogy, with d u e respect for t h e u s u a l c o n d i t i o n s of e n h a n c i n g the p r o b a b i l i t y of s u c h conclusions. As is k n o w n , a n a n a l o g y s h o u l d b e b a s e d o n as m a n y relevant traits as possible. C o n s i d e r i n g o u r goals, this m e a n s t h a t to r e a c h conclusions a b o u t a primitive-historical m o d e l A, we should a s c e r t a i n its similarity w i t h e t h n o g r a p h i c m o d e l A1, with w h i c h it is b e i n g c o m p a r e d in a cons i d e r a b l e n u m b e r of i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e s revealed archaeologically in t h e f o r m e r case, a n d e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y in t h e latter. T h e larger this n u m b e r , t h e m o r e p r o b a b l e t h e analogy, a n d vice versa. If s o m e of the significant f e a t u r e s of t h e models obviously d o not coincide, a n a n a l o g y is r e n d e r e d invalid. It is i m p o r t a n t to b e a r in m i n d a n o t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t of increasing t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of conclusions m a d e by a n a l o g y : the f e a t u r e t o b e revealed s h o u l d be linked with o t h e r features as closely as possible, a n d b e as closely d e t e r m i n e d as possible. So w h a t are t h e limits, in t e r m s of stages a n d subjects, of a p p l y i n g t h e historical c o m p a r a t i v e m e t h o d w h i c h m a y also b e called ' t h e m e t h o d of ethnographic analogues'? As far as archaeological eras a r e c o n c e r n e d , this m e t h o d is n o w o f t e n a p p l i e d to t h e late paleolithic, b e c a u s e t h e m a t e r i a l c u l t u r e of t h e aborigines of T a s m a n i a a n d , to some extent, of Australia bears a resemb l a n c e to t h e late paleolithic culture. But for all t h a t , this parallel is d i s p u t a b l e since t h e differences are not less significant. H e r e we deal w i t h different forms of h u n t i n g activity a n d different levels of settled life, w h i c h , even w h e n o t h e r essential e l e m e n t s a r e almost similar, c o u l d not b u t influence t h e social o r g a n i s a t i o n in the whole. It is n o accident that other scholars are trying to reconstruct the social organisation of classical settled h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s , w h o lived in t h e late paleolithic, by analogy with t h e c o m m u n i t i e s of settled h o r t i c u l t u r i s t s , w h i c h , by t h e way, is also c o n t e s t a b l e . P e r h a p s we have n o reliable ethnographic analogues of late paleolithic communities at all. But, beginn i n g with t h e next archaeological epoch, at least w h e n it c o n c e r n s m a n y regions of t h e globe, t h e availability of e t h n o g r a p h i c a n a l o g u e s is c e r t a i n : tools a n d i m p l e m e n t s of p r o d u c t i o n , direction a n d level of e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t , t h e c h a r a c t e r of s e t t l e m e n t s a n d living q u a r ters, a n d s o m e o t h e r characteristics a r e identical at the stage of classic mesolithic, o n t h e one h a n d , a n d a m o n g the w a n d e r i n g tribes of h u n ters a n d g a t h e r e r s of t h e m o d e r n times on the o t h e r . N o w , as far as subject m a t t e r is c o n c e r n e d , this m e t h o d is far m o r e effective w h e n applied to socio-economic, r a t h e r t h a n to socioideological, s t r u c t u r e s . T h i s is only n a t u r a l , since the f o r m e r a r e m o r e rigidly d e t e r m i n e d by m a t e r i a l e l e m e n t s of p r o d u c t i o n . T h u s , t h e social o r g a n i s a t i o n of w a n d e r i n g h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s is, as a rule, of t h e s a m e type a n d consists of local g r o u p s c o m p o s e d of n u c l e a r families,

P e r s h i t s : Ethnographic reconstruction ofprimitive society

91

a n d k i n s h i p links a m o n g t h e m m a y b e e i t h e r m a t r i l i n e a l or p a t r i l i n e a l . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e lack of a rigid d e t e r m i n a t i o n of c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n in m a n y c u l t u r a l s p h e r e s , revealing m e r e l y statistical r a t h e r t h a n d y n a m i c r e g u l a r i t i e s , leaves o p e n vast o p p o r t u n i t i e s for t h e f u r t h e r u s e of e t h n o g r a p h i c a n a l o g u e s . I n t e r e s t i n g in this respect a r e a t t e m p t s of Soviet a n d w e s t e r n scientists t o o u t l i n e c e r t a i n c o m p l e x e s of i n t e r r e l a t e d s o c i o - c u l t u r a l s t r u c t u r e s . T h u s B u t i n o v singles o u t a c o m p l e x t r a c e d in t h e m a t e r i a l o n P a p u a n s a n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c for t h e n e o l i t h i c e r a . In t h a t c o m p l e x t h e previously p r o d u c t i v e e c o n o m y is c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e c l a n f o r m of c o m m u n i t y a n d t h e n u c l e a r f o r m of t h e f a m i l y , c l a n f o r m of k i n s h i p a n d i n h e r i t a n c e . 1 9 T r i g g e r a n d o t h e r ' n e w a r c h a e ology ' a d h e r e n t s a r e evolving t h e n o t i o n of a c o m p o n e n t (or s u b s y s t e m ) of a n i n t e r r e l a t e d c o m b i n a t i o n of c u l t u r a l f e a t u r e s , w h i c h d e v e l o p s in c e r t a i n ecological c o n d i t i o n s . 2 0 O p p o r t u n i t i e s , w h i c h a r e e v i d e n t l y fairly large, a r e o f f e r e d in this field b y m a t h e m a t i c a l m e t h o d s of s y s t e m s analysis. Since t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c m e t h o d is r e s t r i c t e d b y limits of t i m e a n d of s u b j e c t m a t t e r , t h e m e t h o d of survivals is a n i m p o r t a n t s u p p l e m e n t t o it. It m a y b e e x t e n d e d t o all t h e stages of t h e h i s t o r y of p r i m i t i v e m a n k i n d a n d is used for t h e s t u d y of s u p e r - s t r u c t u r a l p h e n o m e n a (i.e. i n s t i t u t i o n s a n d i d e a s ) t o t h e s a m e e x t e n t as for basis p h e n o m e n a ( t h o s e p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e e c o n o m i c s p h e r e ) . T h i s is e x p l a i n e d b y t h e f a c t t h a t s u p e r - s t r u c t u r a l f o r m s h a v e a relative a u t o n o m y a n d t h e f u r t h e r a w a y t h e s e f o r m s a p p e a r to b e f r o m t h e i r s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o u n d a t i o n , t h e g r e a t e r t h e a u t o n o m y . T r u e , t h e m e t h o d of survivals, like t h e very n o t i o n of survival, h a s c o m e u p a g a i n s t s t r o n g criticism in t h e W e s t , especially f r o m f u n c t i o n a l i s t - e t h n o g r a p h e r s , a n d also f r o m s o m e res e a r c h e r s in t h e Soviet U n i o n . 2 1 T h e o b j e c t i o n s c o n c e r n , a b o v e all, T a y l o r ' s c o m p a r i s o n of a survival w i t h r u d i m e n t s in a living o r g a n i s m , t h e singling o u t of a survival's d i s c r e p a n c y f r o m a given s t a t e of c u l t u r e as the m a i n t r a i t of t h a t survival; its inexplicability in t e r m s of a given c u l t u r e . T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a survival is d o u b t f u l i n d e e d : h a r d l y a n y o n e will find s u c h survivals of t h e p a s t w h i c h w o u l d not u n d e r g o a c h a n g e t h r o u g h c o n d i t i o n s of a later p e r i o d , a n d w h i c h w o u l d not a c q u i r e a n e w c o n t e n t or b e c o m e t h e f u n c t i o n a l e l e m e n t s of t h e s y s t e m w h i c h h a s a b s o r b e d t h e m . If this is so, t h e very m e t h o d of survivals w o u l d lose its f o u n d a t i o n . H o w e v e r , a n o t h e r view of t h e survival is possible: a survival of t h e p a s t w h i c h h a s r e t a i n e d its old f o r m b u t a c q u i r e d a n e w c o n t e n t . I n t h i s case t h e a n a l y s i s of t h e o u t w a r d specifics a l o n e offers c e r t a i n o p p o r tunities for t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of p h e n o m e n a b e l o n g i n g t o t h e previous historical e p o c h s . T h e r e is t h e classical e x a m p l e of t h e c u s t o m of a v o i d a n c e a m o n g affines. R a d c l i f f e - B r o w n s e e m s to b e r i g h t in saying t h a t , f u n c t i o n a l l y , t h e y p r e v e n t e d q u a r r e l s . But this f u n c t i o n obviously d o e s not c o r r e s p o n d to t h e very strict f o r m of i n t e r d i c t i o n s w h i c h , as w a s convincingly proved by T a y l o r , could arise o n l y w i t h a c h a n g e of c u s t o m s , in this c a s e t h e locality of m a r r i a g e .

92

P a r t I I : The distinctiveness of the primitive

T h e m e t h o d of survivals is not a n easy o n e , of c o u r s e , a n d m a y o p e n u p a p o s s i b i l i t y of d i f f e r e n t , a n d s o m e t i m e s a r b i t r a r y , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . T h u s , v a r i o u s r e s e a r c h e r s a s s o c i a t e t h e c u s t o m s a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h c h i l d r e n a r e b r o u g h t u p in o t h e r families ( f o s t e r a g e ) , with t h e echoes of g r o u p m a r r i a g e , or w i t h a v u n c u l a t e , or w i t h t h e s a m e processes a r i s i n g d u r i n g t h e e p o c h of c l a s s - f o r m a t i o n , or w i t h r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n vassal a n d s u z e r a i n in e a r l y f e u d a l society. 2 2 O f these i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , t h e last t w o find c o n f i r m a t i o n in historicale t h n o g r a p h i c m a t e r i a l i n d i c a t i n g a g r a d u a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of given c u s t o m in t h e p r o c e s s of t h e d i s i n t e g r a t i o n of t h e t r i b a l s y s t e m a n d the f o r m a t i o n of society. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e first t w o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s p r e s e n t a p u r e l y logical c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d c a n h a r d l y b e s u b s t a n t i a t e d , since t h e f o s t e r a g e c u s t o m h a s not b e e n n o t e d in a n y of t h e p r i s t i n e tribes. T h u s , a p r o p e r a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e m e t h o d of survivals for retrospective r e c o n s t r u c t i o n r e q u i r e s a n e c e s s a r y a n a l y s i s of their firm roots in a n o t h e r s t a g e . T h e e v a l u a t i o n of s o u r c e s , w h i c h is t h e f o u n d a t i o n of t h e history of society, is c o n s i d e r a b l y e n l a r g e d b y c o m p l e m e n t i n g t h e m e t h o d of e t h n o g r a p h i c a n a l o g u e s w i t h t h e m e t h o d of survivals. T h u s , a l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e n o r e l i a b l e e t h n o g r a p h i c a n a l o g u e s for t h e late paleolithic, a r e s e a r c h e r c a n ' p l u n g e ' i n t o t h a t e p o c h b y s t u d y i n g t h e survivals preserved in t h e a n a l o g u e s of t h e s u b s e q u e n t a r c h a e o l o g i c a l e p o c h s . A n e x a m p l e of this is f u r n i s h e d b y t h e i n t e r e s t i n g a t t e m p t s of Y u . I . S e m e n o v t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h e e a r l y f o r m s of r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n , t h e o r i g i n a l localised c l a n , a n d t h e n o n - l o c a l g r o u p m a r r i a g e o n t h e b a s i s of survivals. 2 5 T h e r e a r e other, narrower, m e t h o d s by which ethnographic analogues e n t e r t h e h i s t o r i c a l p a s t . A m o n g t h e m is t h e s t u d y of oral t r a d i t i o n s , in p a r t i c u l a r , views of t h e h i s t o r i c a l p a s t of t h e given peoples, i.e. t h e o r a l h i s t o r i o g r a p h y of t h e a b o r i g i n e s . Soviet a n d foreign e t h n o g r a p h e r s alike h a v e d e v o t e d special w o r k s to t h e m e t h o d e m p l o y e d in this k i n d of r e s e a r c h . 2 4 I w o u l d like t o s t r e s s h e r e t h e i n c r e a s i n g role p l a y e d b y t h e e l a b o r a t i o n of t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c m e t h o d s u s e d in t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e history of p r i m i t i v e society. A s d i s t i n c t f r o m p a l e o a n t h r o p o l o g y a n d a r c h a e o l o g y , w i t h t h e i r v i r t u a l l y i n e x h a u s t i b l e possibilities of o b t a i n i n g n e w f a c t u a l d a t a b y w a y of e x c a v a t i o n s , e t h n o g r a p h y h a s , o n t h e w h o l e , e x h a u s t e d its field r e s o u r c e s . T h e few t r i b e s t h a t h a v e not b e e n s t u d i e d a n d n o w live, a c c o r d i n g t o s o m e sources, in t h e b a c k w o o d regions of A u s t r a l i a , N e w G u i n e a a n d A m a z o n i a , a r e unlikely to a d d m u c h to t h e t o t a l v o l u m e of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a c c u m u l a t e d b y e t h n o g r a p h y . T h i s also a p p l i e s to t h e official a n d n a r r a t i v e s o u r c e s c o n t a i n i n g e t h n o g r a p h i c inf o r m a t i o n . I n t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s a p r i m a r y s i g n i f i c a n c e is a t t a c h e d to t h e f u r t h e r i m p r o v e m e n t , in k e e p i n g w i t h u p - t o - d a t e d e m a n d s , of t h e m e t h o d s u s e d in t h e t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e d a t a w h i c h o u r scie n c e possesses t o d a y . It w o u l d b e a m i s t a k e , h o w e v e r , to o v e r e s t i m a t e t h e p o t e n t i a l of t h e

Pershits : Ethnographic

reconstruction of primitive society

93

methods described here for a reliable e t h n o g r a p h i c reconstruction of all concrete institutions a n d forms of the primitive social formation. M o r e often than not, we are compelled to make up for the lack of factual d a t a by hypotheses, a n d a r e able to produce judgments with certainty only about the outlines of social development. But hypotheses, and not merely empirical observations, are necessary for the development of theoretical generalisations, a n d their role in the history of primitive society is no smaller t h a n it is in any other science. As new facts are being a c c u m u l a t e d , some hypotheses are inevitably s c r a p p e d , as were some of the suppositions by M o r g a n concerning the early forms of marriage, while others are refined a n d find a new confirmation, as was the c a s e with his thesis about the emergence of a 'political'society on the basis of the establishment of private ownership, which was specified a n d developed by the M a r x i s t science. Such a logical process of perfecting scientific knowledge does not detract from the important role of theory and of broad theoretical inquiry. T h e s e constitute the only way of getting one's bearings in the vast, and at times controversial, a m o u n t of factual d a t a provided by the study of the history of primitive society.

NOTES 1 W . Nippold, Die Anfange des Eigentums bei den Naturvölkern und die Entstehung des Privateigentums, T h e H a g u e , 1954; ' U b e r die A n f a n g e des S t a a t s l e b e n s bei den Naturvolkern', ^eitschr. f . Ethnologie, 1956, vol. 18. T h e latest bulletin on m o d e r n AngloAmerican and F r e n c h literature: N . M . Keizerov a n d G . V . M a l t s e v , ' C o n t e m p o r a r y bourgeois theories of the origin of political power". Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1974, no. 6 (in Russian). 2 E. G e l l n e r , ' T h e Soviet and the savage', Current Anthropology, 1 9 7 5 , vol. 16, no. 4, 599. 3 See Ε . Λ . H o e b e l , Anthropology: the Study of Man, N e w Y o r k , 1966. D . S . M a r s h a l l , ' G e n e r a l a n t h r o p o l o g y : strategy of h u m a n s c i e n c e ' , Current Anthropology, 1967, vol. 8. 4 N. O e s t r e i c h Lurie, ' E t h n o h i s t o r y : an " e t h n o l o g i c a l " point of view', Ethnohistory, 1966, vol. 13, 1 - 2 . C . H u d s o n , ' F o l k history a n d e t h n o h i s t o r y ' , Ethnohistory, 1966, vol. 13. 5 K . J . Narr, ' V o r d e r a s i e n , Nordafrika und E u r o p a ' , Abriss der Vorgeschichte, M u n i c h , S. 5, 1957. 6 See Yu. P. Averkieva, ' E t h n o l o g y a n d cultural (social) a n t h r o p o l o g y in the W e s t ' , Snvietskaia Etnografia, 1971, no. 5, 15 (in R u s s i a n ) . C. H u d s o n . ' T h e historical a p p r o a c h to a n t h r o p o l o g y ' . Handbook of Social and Cultural Anthropology, C h i c a g o , 1973. p. 112. 8 Y . G . C h i l d e , Social Evolution, L o n d o n . 1951. S . J . de L a e t . I.'Archaeologie et ses Problèmes. B e r c h e n - B r u x e l l e s , 1954, p. 138. 9 Y . P . L u i b i n , The Stone. Age in the Territory of the USSR, M o s c o w , 1970, p. 4 0 (in Russian). P.I. Borisovskii, ' T h e p r o b l e m s of the f o r m a t i o n of h u m a n society and the archaeological discoveries of the last ten years', in Lenin \ Ideas in the Study of the History of Primitive Society. Stave-Owning Society and Feudalism. M o s c o w , 1970. p. 74 (in R u s s i a n ) . 10 Y u . V . B r o m l e y and A . I . Pershits, ' F . Engels a n d the p r o b l e m s of primitive history', in The Problems of Ethnography and Anthropology in the Light of the Scholarly Inheritance of F. Engels. M o s c o w , 1974, p. 34 (in R u s s i a n ) . 11 L. Binford, ' M e t h o d o l o g i c a l considerations of the a r c h a e o l o g i c a l use of e t h n o g r a phic data', in Man the Hunter, ed. R . B . L e e and V . DeV'ore. C h i c a g o . 1968. ρ 2 7 0 .

94

P a r t i i : The distinctiveness

oj the

primitive

12 V . R . K a b o , ' T h e history of primitive society a n d e t h n o g r a p h y : to the p r o b l e m of t h e reconstruction of the past on t h e basis of e t h n o g r a p h i c d a t a ' , in Hunters, Gatherers, Fishermen, Leningrad, 1972, p. 61 (in R u s s i a n ) . 13 S.N. Artanovskii, The Historical Uniqueness of Mankind and the Mutual Influence of Cultures, Leningrad, 1967, p. 5 (in R u s s i a n ) . 14 A . M . Khazanov, ' T h e primitive periphery of pre-capitalist societies', in Primitive Society: Basic Problems of Development, Moscow, 1975, p. 194 (in R u s s i a n ) . 15 M . Sahlins, Stone Age Economics, C h i c a g o - N e w York, 1972, p. 8. 16 K.C. C h a n g , ' M a j o r aspects of the interrelationship of archaeology a n d ethnology: some t h o u g h t s on c o m p a r a t i v e m e t h o d in cultural anthropology', in Methodology in Social Research, New York, 1968, p. 240. 17 M . G . Levin a n d N . N . Cheboksarov, 'Economic-cultural types and historicoe t h n o g r a p h i c regions: t o w a r d s t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of the problem', Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1968, no. 2. N.N. Cheboksarov a n d I.A. Cheboksarova, .\ations, Races, Cultures, Moscow, 1971, pp. 169ff (both in R u s s i a n ) . 18 J . G . Clark, 'Archaeological theories a n d interpretation: old world', Anthropology Today, Chicago, 1957, p. 335. 19 N.A. Butinov, ' P r i m i t i v e - c o m m u n a l s t r u c t u r e : basic stages a n d local variations', Problems in the History of Pre-Capilalist Societies, vol. 1, Moscow, 1968, p. 155 (in R u s s i a n ) . 20 B. Trigger, Beyond History: the Methods of Prehistory, New York, 1968. 21 V . R . Kabo, ' T h e p r o b l e m of survivals in e t h n o g r a p h y ' , Documents of the Eastern Commission of the Geographical Society of the USSR, Pubi. 1 (2), Leningrad, 1965; ' T h e history of primitive society a n d e t h n o g r a p h y ' , Hunters, Gatherers, Fishermen, pp. 56ff (both in Russian). 22 M . M . Kovalevskii, Law and Custom in the Caucasus, vol. 1, Moscow, 1890, pp. 14ff. M . O . Kosven, Ethnography and History of the Caucasus, 1961, pp. 111 ff. A.Ya. Gurevich, Problems of the Origin of Feudalism in Western Europe, Moscow, 1970, pp. 79ff. V.K. G a r danov, Fosterage, Moscow, 1973 (all in R u s s i a n ) . 23 Yu.I. Semenov, The Origins of Humanity, Moscow, 1966; The Origins of Family and Marriage, Moscow, 1964 (both in R u s s i a n ) . 24 J . Vansina, Oral Tradition: a Study of Historical Methodology, Chicago, 1965. C. H u d s o n , in Ethnohistory, vol. 13. S . M . A b r a m z o n a n d L.P. Potapov, 'Folk ethnology as one of t h e sources for the study of ethnic a n d social history: on the basis of d a t a d r a w n from Turkic-speaking n o m a d s ' , Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1975, no. 6 (in R u s s i a n ) .

JAMES WOODBURN Hunters and gatherers today and reconstruction of the past In the past few years a substantial amount of important new detailed field research has been carried out among contemporary hunting and gathering societies. 1 T h i s is an appropriate time to take stock and to think carefully about what these societies have in common and how they may differ, if at all, from the hunters and gatherers of the past. W h a t inferences, however tentative, can we make about hunters and gatherers of the late pre-neolithic period, the few thousand years before the development of agriculture and pastoralism? Projection backwards seems to me as a social anthropologist to be an enormously difficult task and likely to yield no more than, at best, plausible hypotheses. But it is a pleasure to be asked to make the attempt at a conference with Soviet anthropologists who are, by long tradition, so much more accustomed to think in historical terms than we are. T h e major issue I shall discuss is what, if anything, is really distinctive about the economy and social organisation of contemporary hunters and gatherers when compared with other non-literate, non-centralised, non-industrial peoples. In other words, do those societies which by definition share the characteristic that their members obtain their food and other requirements directly from wild, natural sources, also in consequence share a particular type of economy? Does direct extraction of material requirements from nature constrain the way in which people work and the way in which the yield of their work is distributed? And does obtaining requirements in this particular manner determine or limit the type of social relationships and social groupings that are established in these societies ? O f course, even if we are able to establish distinctive characteristics of contemporary hunters and gatherers, it does not automatically follow that these are a product of hunting and gathering per se, or that they would apply to ancient hunters and gatherers. W e would have to pose the following additional supplementary questions : 1. Is what is distinctive a product of the particular environments

96

F a r t II : The distinctiveness

of the primitive

(often tropical forest, arid a n d infertile semi-desert, or arctic wasteland - a r e a s c o m m o n l y b o t h i s o l a t e d a n d relatively u n s u i t a b l e for a g r i c u l t u r e o r p a s t o r a l i s m ) in w h i c h c o n t e m p o r a r y h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s live a s c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e v e r y m u c h w i d e r r a n g e of e n v i r o n m e n t s u s e d by h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s in t h e p r e - n e o l i t h i c p e r i o d ? 2. Is w h a t is d i s t i n c t i v e a p r o d u c t of t h e c o n t a c t s i t u a t i o n , of t h e p o l i t i c a l a n d e c o n o m i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s w h i c h exist, a n d h a v e l o n g e x i s t e d , between m a n y h u n t i n g groups a n d their non-hunting neighbours? 3. Is w h a t is d i s t i n c t i v e a p r o d u c t of a l o n g p e r i o d of c u m u l a t i v e evolu t i o n ( o r of d e g e n e r a t i o n o r b r e a k d o w n ) since t h e s o - c a l l e d n e o l i t h i c revolution? T h e t w o m o s t o b v i o u s w a y s of p r o c e e d i n g w o u l d b e e i t h e r t o a i m t o select o u t p a r t i c u l a r h u n t i n g a n d g a t h e r i n g societies w h i c h a r e c l a i m e d t o b e in s o m e w a y v i r g i n , u n c o n t a m i n a t e d b y t h e e v e n t s of t h e p a s t t e n t h o u s a n d y e a r s , a n d s u i t a b l e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e m o d e l s for t r u e p r e neolithic m a n ; or, alternatively, to try from the start to generalise from a r e a s o n a b l y w i d e r a n g e of s t u d i e s of c o n t e m p o r a r y h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s w i t h o u t p r e j u d g m e n t s a b o u t their virginity. I favour this a l t e r n a t i v e p r o c e d u r e . I d o n o t believe t h a t a h u n t i n g a n d g a t h e r i n g w a y of life c a n b e i n s t a n t l y c r e a t e d by a n y set of i n d i v i d u a l s w h o c h o o s e t o s t a r t t o live b y h u n t i n g a n d g a t h e r i n g . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e c o m p l e x k n o w l e d g e , skills a n d social r e l a t i o n s h i p s n e c e s s a r y t o exploit a n y h a b i t a t efficiently by h u n t i n g a n d gathering, while m a i n t a i n i n g a d e q u a t e n u t r i t i o n a n d r e l a t i v e s t a b i l i t y of p o p u l a t i o n n u m b e r s a n d density, c a n only b e achieved over a t i m e - s p a n of m a n y generations. But it is of n o c o n c e r n t o m e h e r e t o e s t a b l i s h w h e t h e r t h e a n c e s t o r s of m e m b e r s of t h o s e s o c i e t i e s w h i c h I s h a l l b e d i s c u s s i n g h a v e a l w a y s b e e n h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s : p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e y a r e efficient h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s t o d a y , w h e t h e r t h e i r a n c e s t o r s m a y at s o m e t i m e o r o t h e r have lived by f a r m i n g s e e m s to m e to b e irrelevant. M y c o n c e r n is not w i t h h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s a s fossils, a s s u r v i v o r s m i r a c u l o u s l y p r e s e r v i n g p a l a e o l i t h i c o r m e s o l i t h i c t r a i t s i n t o t h e p r e s e n t , b u t as t h e living a n d efficient p r a c t i t i o n e r s of a m o d e of s u b s i s t e n c e w h i c h , if u n d e r s t o o d , mayallow us to m a k e some limited generalisations about others with similar m o d e s of s u b s i s t e n c e b o t h in t h e p r e s e n t a n d t h e p a s t . U n t i l q u i t e r e c e n t l y c o n v e n t i o n a l views of t h e n a t u r e of h u n t i n g a n d g a t h e r i n g societies w e r e b a s e d to a r e m a r k a b l e extent on evidence f r o m t h e A u s t r a l i a n A b o r i g i n e s . E s p e c i a l l y in m a t t e r s r e l a t i n g to k i n s h i p a n d religious o r g a n i s a t i o n , t h e A u s t r a l i a n s were usually given p r i d e of place. In t h e w o r k of M o r g a n , D u r k h e i m a n d m o r e r e c e n t w r i t e r s , t h e k i n s h i p a n d m a r r i a g e p r a c t i c e s of A u s t r a l i a n A b o r i g i n e s w e r e , d i r e c t l y o r indirectly, t a k e n to r e p r e s e n t a r c h e t y p a l early or e l e m e n t a r y f o r m s of social o r g a n i s a t i o n . It b e c a m e c u s t o m a r y u n t i l o n l y a b o u t t e n y e a r s a g o t o t h i n k of h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s a s t y p i c a l l y living in e x o g a m o u s , p a t r i lineal (or, at l e a s t , p a t r i l o c a l ) h o r d e s or b a n d s , e a c h of w h i c h j o i n t l y a n d e x c l u s i v e l y h e l d a c l e a r l y d e f i n e d t e r r i t o r y for its m e m b e r s . R e c e n t

W o o d b u r n : Hunters and gatherers

97

d a t a h a v e a l t e r e d t h e s t e r e o t y p e in t w o d i f f e r e n t r e s p e c t s . H i a t t 2 a n d o t h e r s h a v e d e n i e d t h e g e n e r a l e x i s t e n c e of h o r d e s in A u s t r a l i a a n d h a v e a r g u e d t h a t t h e s o c i o - e c o n o m i c u n i t s of A u s t r a l i a n A b o r i g i n e s w e r e f a r m o r e flexible in m e m b e r s h i p a n d w e r e n o t r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e u s e of a p a r ticular territory. B u t a f a r m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l c h a l l e n g e b o t h t o t h e p a t r i l o c a l b a n d stereotype a n d to other conventional ideas a b o u t h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s h a s c o m e f r o m new d a t a on societies w h i c h differ radically f r o m t h e A u s t r a l i a n s . T h e s e s o c i e t i e s a r e o n e s in w h i c h o r g a n i s a t i o n - n o t j u s t local o r g a n i s a t i o n - is very flexible a n d in w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l s a r e r e l a tively f r e e t o select o r r e j e c t t h o s e w i t h w h o m t h e y a r e t o a s s o c i a t e s o c i a l l y - in r e s i d e n c e , in t h e f o o d q u e s t , in t r a d e a n d e x c h a n g e , in r i t u a l c o n t e x t s . I n t h e s e s o c i e t i e s k i n s h i p a n d c o n t r a c t link i n d i v i d u a l s b u t c o n s t r a i n t h e m f a r less t h a n t h e y d o in m o s t o t h e r societies. P e o p l e a r e not h e a v i l y d e p e n d e n t o n specific o t h e r p e o p l e for a c c e s s t o t h e i r basic r e q u i r e m e n t s . In general, food, w a t e r , r a w materials a n d o t h e r necessities a r e o b t a i n e d relatively easily w i t h o u t e l a b o r a t e a n d sust a i n e d c o o p e r a t i o n a n d w i t h little, if a n y , c o m p e t i t i o n or c o n f l i c t o v e r a c c e s s to r e s o u r c e s . T e r r i t o r i e s , if t h e y a r e d e f i n e d a t all, d o n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y c o n s t r a i n i n d i v i d u a l c h o i c e of r e s i d e n c e o r use of r e s o u r c e s . N o m a d i c r e s i d e n t i a l g r o u p i n g s c h a n g e c o n s t a n t l y in size a n d c o m p o s i t i o n . If l i n e a g e , c l a n o r a n y o t h e r t y p e of k i n s h i p g r o u p is r e c o g n i s e d , it m a y give t h e i n d i v i d u a l a s e n s e of i d e n t i t y b u t p r o v i d e s h i m with no substantial rights, a n d b u r d e n s h i m with no substantial duties. T h e limited material assets which are held are mostly self-acquired a n d b o t h inheritance a n d succession are u n i m p o r t a n t . But I should say at o n c e t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e s e societies l a c k m a n y of t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s f a m i l i a r t o a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s , it w o u l d b e e n t i r e l y m i s l e a d i n g t o see t h e m a s b e i n g in s o m e w a y d e f i c i e n t o r d e f e c t i v e ; t h e i r s o c i a l o r g a n i s a t i o n is c e r t a i n l y n o t a n a r c h i c , d i s o r d e r e d o r l a c k i n g in s y s t e m . T o u n d e r s t a n d the new data, I think we m u s t m a k e a distinction bet w e e n t w o t y p e s of e c o n o m i c s y s t e m - t h o s e in w h i c h t h e r e t u r n for l a b o u r ( t h e y i e l d for l a b o u r ) is d e l a y e d a n d t h o s e in w h i c h it is, in g e n e r a l , i m m e d i a t e . 3 I n t h e vast m a j o r i t y of h u m a n societies, t h e r e t u r n o n t h e l a b o u r of m o s t p e o p l e , m o s t of t h e t i m e , is d e l a y e d . A m o n g f a r m e r s - ranging from n o m a d i c pastoralists a n d s w i d d e n farmers with a relatively s i m p l e t e c h n o l o g y t o t h e m o s t t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d f a r m e r s of t o d a y - t h e s y s t e m of p r o d u c t i o n involves intrinsic d e l a y . T h e r e is a l w a y s a p e r i o d of w e e k s , m o n t h s , o r e v e n y e a r s , b e t w e e n p l a n t i n g a n d harvesting, or b e t w e e n r e a r i n g a n d milking or killing a d o m e s t i c a n i m a l , in w h i c h p e o p l e a p p l y t h e i r l a b o u r b e f o r e a y i e l d b e c o m e s a v a i l a b l e as a r e w a r d for t h e i r l a b o u r . T h i s yield, o r s o m e p a r t of it. is t h e n a l l o c a t e d in s o m e w a y o r o t h e r to p r o v i d e for t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e p a r t i c i p a n t or p a r t i c i p a n t s . W h i l e r e c o g n i s i n g t h e i m m e n s e v a r i e t y of s y s t e m s of p r o d u c t i o n a n d of a l l o c a t i o n , it is i m p o r t a n t not to d i s r e g a r d c e r t a i n f u n d a m e n t a l s i m i l a r i t i e s : t h e e x i s t e n c e of d e l a y i m p o s e s b a s i c o r g a n i s a t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s for a set of o r d e r e d ,

98

P a r t 11 : The distinctiveness

of the primitive

differentiated, jurally defined relationships t h r o u g h which crucial goods a n d services will be t r a n s m i t t e d in a specified a n d regulated manner. In which societies is there i m m e d i a t e r e t u r n on labour? I want to talk here mainly a b o u t those h u n t i n g and gathering societies in which individuals a n d groups go out for p a r t of most days to obtain their food a n d o t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t s which are t h e n consumed for the most part on that p a r t i c u l a r d a y or casually over the days that follow. M e m b e r s of such societies avoid long-term c o m m i t m e n t s in using their labour and they are not c o n c e r n e d to develop stores of food or other possessions; even their tools a n d w e a p o n s a n d other technical items used in obtaining food a n d o t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t s are, in general, of types which do not involve s u b s t a n t i a l investment of time. W h a t I want to stress is that both economic systems based on delayed return a n d systems based on i m m e d i a t e r e t u r n are c o m m o n a m o n g h u n t i n g a n d gathering societies, 4 b u t only d e l a y e d - r e t u r n systems occur a m o n g farmers. 5 T o classify h u n t i n g a n d g a t h e r i n g societies into those with economy a n d social organisation based on immediate return, a n d those with economy a n d social organisation based on delayed return, is surprisingly easy. T h e polarity is nearly always m a r k e d . In each type there are a whole r a n g e of p h e n o m e n a which a p p e a r to be closely d e p e n d e n t on each other. 6

Hunters and gatherers with delayed-return

systems

In this category I would include, provisionally, the following: 1. Part-time hunters, w h o also, for at least p a r t of the year, cultivate their own crops or herd their own stock (such as the Sirionó, the N a m bikwara, the Lele, the Bisa, the Nyamwezi, the Lapps, the Barasana). Even in those cases in which agriculture occupies a r a t h e r small proportion of their time a n d energy, if it is to be efficiently practised with systematic l a b o u r input at a p p r o p r i a t e times, t h e n the social organisation will be of t h e d e l a y e d - r e t u r n type. 2. Sedentary or semi-sedentary

hunters and gatherers

(such as the H a i d a ,

the K w a k i u t l a n d the Ainu). A sedentary way of life seems always to involve a m e a s u r e of p r o p e r t y a c c u m u l a t i o n a n d storage a n d some division of fixed resources a m o n g the m e m b e r s of the c o m m u n i t y . 3. Fishermen who invest : h u n t e r s a n d gatherers w h o d e p e n d heavily on fishing with boats, or m a n - m a d e d a m s , weirs a n d large-scale fish traps (such as some, at least, of the Eskimo). 4. Trappers who invest: h u n t e r s a n d gatherers w h o make extensive use of pit t r a p s , dead-fall t r a p s , stockades or other traps involving a substantial input of labour. ( C o n t e m p o r a r y peoples in this category are usually p a r t - t i m e h u n t e r s - but m a n y prehistoric h u n t e r s and gatherers, some s e d e n t a r y a n d some not, fall into this category. )

W o o d b u r n : Hunters and gatherers

99

5. Beekeepers who invest: h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s w h o m a k e e x t e n s i v e use of m a n - m a d e beehives. ( A g a i n u s u a l l y t h e s e a r e p a r t - t i m e h u n t e r s . But g r o u p s s u c h a s t h e M o u n t a i n D o r o b o 7 c a n b e i n c l u d e d . ) 6. Mounted hunters: h u n t e r s w h o invest in h o r s e s ( s u c h as t h e P l a i n s Indians). 7. The Australian Aborigines. In this c a s e a l o n e , I s p e c i f y o n l y t h e p e o p l e w i t h o u t at this s t a g e m e n t i o n i n g a n y a s p e c t of t h e i r m o d e of s u b s i s t e n c e . I will, of c o u r s e , r e t u r n to this s u b j e c t . T h e a r g u m e n t is t h a t h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s falling i n t o t h e first six of t h e s e r o u g h l y d e f i n e d g r o u p i n g s , are, in t e r m s of b o t h t h e i r e c o n o m y a n d t h e i r social o r g a n i s a t i o n , m o r e like f a r m e r s ( t h o u g h u s e f u l dist i n c t i o n s c a n b e m a d e b e t w e e n t h e m a n d f a r m e r s ) t h a n t h e y a r e like those hunters a n d gatherers with systems based on i m m e d i a t e return.

Immediate-return

systems

A m o n g h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s w i t h e c o n o m i c s y s t e m s a n d social o r g a n isation based on i m m e d i a t e return I would include, provisionally, t h e f o l l o w i n g p e o p l e s : t h e ! K u n g B u s h m e n of B o t s w a n a a n d N a m i b i a 8 , t h e M b u t i of Z a i r e 9 , t h e H a d z a of T a n z a n i a 1 0 , t h e M a l a p a n t a r a m (Hill P a n d a r a m ) of S o u t h I n d i a " , t h e P a l i y a n of S o u t h I n d i a 1 2 a n d p r o b a b l y t h e B a t e k N e g r i t o s of M a l a y s i a " . All t h e s e societies a r e n o m a d i c a n d positively value m o v e m e n t . T h e y d o not a c c u m u l a t e p r o p e r t y b u t c o n s u m e it, give it a w a y , g a m b l e it a w a y or t h r o w it a w a y . M o s t of t h e m h a v e k n o w l e d g e of t e c h n i q u e s for s t o r i n g f o o d b u t use t h e m o n l y occ a s i o n a l l y t o p r e v e n t food f r o m g o i n g r o t t e n r a t h e r t h a n t o save it for s o m e f u t u r e o c c a s i o n . T h e y t e n d to use p o r t a b l e , u t i l i t a r i a n , easily a c q u i r e d , r e p l a c e a b l e a r t e f a c t s - m a d e w i t h real skill b u t w i t h o u t h o u r s of l a b o u r - a n d avoid t h o s e w h i c h a r e fixed in o n e place, h e a v y , e l a b o r ately d e c o r a t e d , r e q u i r e p r o l o n g e d m a n u f a c t u r e , r e g u l a r m a i n t e n a n c e , j o i n t w o r k by several p e o p l e or a n y c o m b i n a t i o n of t h e s e . 1 4 T h e s y s t e m is o n e in w h i c h p e o p l e travel light, u n e n c u m b e r e d , as t h e y see it, b y possessions a n d b y c o m m i t m e n t s . Perhaps to illustrate what I m e a n by i m m e d i a t e r e t u r n I should q u o t e a trivial b u t g r a p h i c i n s t a n c e d e s c r i b e d b y a c o l o n i a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r t r a v e l l i n g a m o n g t h e H a d z a in T a n g a n y i k a m o r e t h a n fifty y e a r s ago. H e w r o t e : At t h e e n d of o n e of m y visits to t h e m I f o u n d myself w i t h a live ox, originally i n t e n d e d as bait for a t r o u b l e s o m e lion, o n m y h a n d s . T h e b e a s t w a s c e r t a i n t o die, having b e e n for d a y s a m o n g t h e tsetse fly, a n d as we h a d m e a t in a b u n d a n c e I p r e s e n t e d it t o t h e K a n g e j u [ H a d z a ] , w h o h a d never t a s t e d beef. A l t h o u g h I w a s leaving t h e m with more g a m e meat t h a n they could possibly c o n s u m e , including

100

P a r t i i : The distinctiveness of the primitive

t h e c a r c a s s e s of t w o r h i n o c e r o s , t h e y s c o u t e d m y s u g g e s t i o n t h a t t h e y s h o u l d k e e p t h e ox alive u n t i l t h e y a c t u a l l y n e e d e d it, a n d as I s t a r t e d I s a w t h e m s h o o t i n g it w i t h a r r o w s . 1 5 T h e b e h a v i o u r w h i c h s u r p r i s e d t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r need not s u r p r i s e us. It is n e i t h e r a b e r r a n t n o r i r r a t i o n a l b u t is w h o l l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h H a d z a v a l u e s a n d H a d z a o r g a n i s a t i o n . E n c u m b r a n c e s are u n a c c e p t a b l e a n d p e o p l e s i m p l y d o not t a k e o n even s h o r t - t e r m c o m m i t m e n t s w h i c h m i g h t p r o v i d e a few a d d i t i o n a l d a y s of d e s i r a b l e food. T h e r e is n o b a s i s for a n y o n e t o t a k e o n t h e w o r k a n d t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of looking a f t e r t h e a n i m a l , t h e m e a t of w h i c h w o u l d b y c u s t o m b e s h a r e d b y all. E q u a l l y , w h a t e v e r o p p o s i t i o n i n d i v i d u a l s m i g h t c o n c e i v a b l y h a v e to t h e policy of i m m e d i a t e s l a u g h t e r , t h e y w o u l d h a v e n o b a s i s for i n t e r v e n t i o n t o diss u a d e t h o s e w h o w i s h e d t o kill t h e a n i m a l a t o n c e . I a m c o n f i d e n t t h a t if a s i m i l a r i n c i d e n t h a d o c c u r r e d d u r i n g m y o w n field r e s e a r c h , t h e o u t come would have been m u c h the same. T h e a v a i l a b l e d a t a o n t h e s e societies d e m o n s t r a t e q u i t e c l e a r l y t h a t we c a n n o t a t t r i b u t e t h e d i s t i n c t i o n I a m m a k i n g to s i m p l e e n v i r o n m e n t a l factors. It is easy to a s s u m e f r o m o u r o w n sedentary ethnocentric s t a n d p o i n t t h a t p e o p l e w h o h a v e t h e m e a n s to b e s e d e n t a r y , will b e s e d e n t a r y , w h o h a v e t h e m e a n s t o s t o r e food, will store f o o d , a n d w h o h a v e t h e k n o w l e d g e a n d skills t o m a k e a n d a c c u m u l a t e p r o p e r t y (for t h e m s e l v e s o r t h e i r g r o u p ) , will d o so. N o n e of t h e s e g r o u p s live in a h a r s h e n v i r o n m e n t in w h i c h , given t h e k n o w l e d g e a n d skills a v a i l a b l e t o t h e m , t h e y h a v e to live in t h e w a y t h e y do. N o n e a r e e x c l u d e d b y t h e difficulties of t h e i r e n v i r o n m e n t or b y t h e l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e i r t e c h n o l o g y f r o m h a v i n g a s y s t e m w i t h t h e stress o n d e l a y e d r e t u r n . (As t h e a r g u m e n t in t h e l a t e r p a r t of this p a p e r will s h o w , I a m not a r g u i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a l f a c t o r s a r e totally i r r e l e v a n t ) . L a n d use b y h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s is not as d i f f e r e n t f r o m l a n d use b y f a r m e r s as m i g h t at first a p p e a r 1 6 . B o t h h u n t i n g a n d g a t h e r i n g a n d a g r i c u l t u r e involve m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e e n v i r o n m e n t , p a r t l y d e l i b e r a t e , p a r t l y i n a d v e r t e n t . N o m a d i c h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s a l w a y s live at very low p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t i e s ( u s u a l l y f a r less t h a n o n e p e r s o n p e r s q u a r e m i l e ) a n d t h e i r effect o n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t is a c c o r d i n g l y less o b v i o u s . It is a l s o less o b v i o u s b e c a u s e i n c r e a s e in s o m e wild species of p l a n t or a n i m a l a n d d e c r e a s e in o t h e r s is f a r less visible ( a n d far less r e a d i l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e ) t h a n t h e r e p l a c e m e n t of wild species of p l a n t o r a n i m a l b y d o m e s t i c a t e d species. Yet t h e ecological effects of, for e x a m p l e , t h o s e h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s w h o s y s t e m a t i c a l l y use fire to b u r n t h e vege t a t i o n f r o m very l a r g e a r e a s in o r d e r to drive g a m e or in o r d e r t o i n d u c e f r e s h g r o w t h of y o u n g g r a s s t h a t will a t t r a c t t h e g a m e , a r e very s u b s t a n tial—far more substantial sometimes t h a n the clearance a n d cultivation of s o m e few a c r e s b y t h e f a r m e r . " All c o n t e m p o r a r y h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s a r e highly skilled a n d selective u s e r s of t h e i r e n v i r o n m e n t : c h o i c e s a r e c o n s t a n t l y b e i n g m a d e about which animals to h u n t and which vegetables to gather. T h e s e

W o o d b u r n : Hunters and gatherers

101

c h o i c e s h a v e a n effect o n t h e f u t u r e a v i l a b i l i t y of t h e r e s o u r c e s . It is q u i t e m i s l e a d i n g t o a r g u e , as s o m e w r i t e r s do, t h a t t h e so-called neolithic revolution gave increased control over the e n v i r o n m e n t . W h a t it did w a s t o p r o v i d e c o n t r o l of a n e w a n d d i f f e r e n t t y p e w h i c h p e r m i t t e d a m u c h greater population density. H u n t e r s a n d gatherers may control t h e i r f u t u r e food s u p p l i e s b y c u l l i n g g a m e a n i m a l s selectively, by o p e r a t i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s o n h u n t i n g w h i c h h a v e t h e effect of p r o v i d i n g a close season, by using vegetable sources with discretion a n d replanting port i o n s of root so t h a t t h e p l a n t s r e g e n e r a t e , b y e x t r a c t i n g only p a r t of t h e h o n e y f r o m wild b e e s ' n e s t s so t h a t t h e sites a r e not d e s e r t e d a n d b y m a n y o t h e r s i m i l a r t e c h n i q u e s of c o n s e r v a t i o n w h i c h s u g g e s t t h a t t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n h u n t i n g a n d g a t h e r i n g a s a s y s t e m of u n p l a n n e d e x t r a c t i o n , a n d c u l t i v a t i o n as a s y s t e m of p l a n n e d p r o d u c t i o n is n o t valid. S o m e h u n t i n g a n d g a t h e r i n g t e c h n i q u e s - t h e m a k i n g of s t o c k a d e s , pit t r a p s , weirs, d a m s etc. - m a y even involve m o r e s u b s t a n t i a l p l a n n e d c a p i t a l i n v e s t m e n t t h a n is u s u a l in s i m p l e s y s t e m s of a g r i c u l t u r e n o t involving i r r i g a t i o n . T h e d i s t i n c t i o n w h i c h s h o u l d b e m a d e is b e t w e e n n a r r o w l y e x t r a c tive h u n t i n g a n d g a t h e r i n g - w h i c h in its e x t r e m e f o r m m a y involve w h a t a m o u n t s t o a r e p u d i a t i o n of all m e a s u r e s of c o n s e r v a t i o n , of all i n v e s t m e n t in fixed a s s e t s , a n d of all a t t e m p t s a t p l a n n e d d e v e l o p m e n t of r e s o u r c e s - a n d h u n t i n g a n d g a t h e r i n g w i t h a n e m p h a s i s o n , at least, s h o r t - t e r m c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d r e s o u r c e d e v e l o p m e n t w h i c h is a n a l o g o u s in m a n y r e s p e c t s to f a r m i n g . 1 8 I u s e t h e t e r m repudiation d e l i b e r a t e l y . T h e e x t r a c t i v e a p p r o a c h to h u n t i n g a n d g a t h e r i n g is a s t r a t e g y develo p e d over t i m e u s u a l l y as a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o a c o n s e r v a t i o n a p p r o a c h , a n d not in i g n o r a n c e of t h e possibility of c o n s e r v a t i o n ; a l t h o u g h I c a n i m a g i n e ecological a n d o t h e r f a c t o r s w h i c h m i g h t f a v o u r o n e a p p r o a c h r a t h e r t h a n t h e o t h e r , I c a n n o t i m a g i n e a n y e n v i r o n m e n t in w h i c h e i t h e r of t h e t w o s t r a t e g i e s is i m p r a c t i c a b l e . Λ p r e l i m i n a r y review of s o m e of t h e l i t e r a t u r e s u g g e s t s t h e o b v i o u s : t h o s e w h o c o n s u m e m o s t of t h e i r food o n t h e d a y t h e y o b t a i n it a n d w h o a r e u n c o n c e r n e d a b o u t s t o r a g e , also a p p e a r to b e relatively u n c o n c e r n e d a b o u t c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d a b o u t t h e p l a n n e d d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e i r resources. T h e p o i n t c a n b e m o s t c o n v e n i e n t l y i l l u s t r a t e d f r o m m y o w n field r e s e a r c h . T h e H a d z a d o not r e p l a n t a n y p a r t of t h e r o o t s t h e y dig u p ; t h e y select t h e b i g g e s t a n d best g a m e a n i m a l s to kill - u s u a l l y t h e m a t u r e m a l e s - not b e c a u s e t h e y a r e m a l e s a n d c a n b e c u l l e d w i t h o u t r e d u c i n g t h e b r e e d i n g p o t e n t i a l of t h e h e r d , b u t s i m p l y b e c a u s e t h e y offer t h e best i m m e d i a t e r e t u r n ; in h a r v e s t i n g b e r r i e s , e n t i r e b r a n c h e s a r e o f t e n cut f r o m t h e t r e e s t o e a s e t h e p r e s e n t p r o b l e m s of p i c k i n g w i t h out r e g a r d t o f u t u r e loss of y i e l d ; all h o n e y a n d g r u b s in w i l d b e e s ' n e s t s a r e e x t r a c t e d a n d m o r e o f t e n t h a n not c o n s u m e d at o n c e , 1 9 w i t h o u t leaving a n y of t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e nest to e n c o u r a g e t h e b e e s to s t a y . 2 0 T h e H a d z a c o n s t a n t l y set fire to g r a s s a n d d r y s c r u b in t h e i r a r e a . U s u a l l y this h a p p e n s by a c c i d e n t or as a c o n s e q u e n c e of s o m e c h i l d r e n ' s g a m e . I d o not recall a n y o n e e x p r e s s i n g a n x i e t y a b o u t t h e effects

102

Part II : The distinctiveness of the primitive

of b u s h fires except o n r a r e occasions w h e n they t h r e a t e n a site w h e r e people a r e c a m p i n g . " Most c a m p sites a r e located in rocky a r e a s a w a y f r o m v u l n e r a b l e a r e a s of dry vegetation. In societies with systems b a s e d o n d e l a y e d r e t u r n , for a n y individual to secure t h e yield, or some p a r t of the yield, f r o m his l a b o u r h e d e p e n d s o n others. Usually this d e p e n d e n c e (or i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e ) will be m a n i fest in t h e work process itself w h e r e t h e f a r m e r , for e x a m p l e , will almost invariably pool his l a b o u r w i t h o t h e r s - at least with his wife, a n d usually d u r i n g t h e l a b o u r p e a k s of t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l cycle w i t h several o t h e r s - b u t , e q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t , h e d e p e n d s o n c o o p e r a t i o n with o t h e r s for t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e g r o w i n g crops, of his use-rights to t h e l a n d o n w h i c h they a r e growing a n d of t h e yield w h e n he o b t a i n s a n d stores it. Societies w i t h systems b a s e d o n i m m e d i a t e r e t u r n a r e potentially free f r o m this d e p e n d e n c y . I n d i v i d u a l s h a v e m u c h m o r e direct access to their basic subsistence r e q u i r e m e n t s - food, w a t e r , r a w m a t e r i a l s for t h e i r tools etc. - w i t h o u t e n t e r i n g into n e c e s s a r y c o m m i t m e n t s to a n d d e p e n d e n c i e s o n others. T h e a d u l t i n d i v i d u a l is potentially a u t o n o m o u s , a n d it is not, in practice, r a r e in s o m e of t h e s e societies t o find individuals living entirely o n t h e i r o w n as h e r m i t s for long periods. (According to M a r s h a l l " this does not, however, a p p l y to t h e ! K u n g . ) Let m e illustrate t h e access to s u b s i s t e n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s e n j o y e d by t h e H a d z a . A m o n g t h e H a d z a , g r o u p s of w o m e n go out a l m o s t every d a y with s o m e of the c h i l d r e n t o g a t h e r wild roots a n d berries. T h e r e a r e no b o u n d a r i e s a n d t h e y c a n go w h e r e v e r they choose. Decisions a b o u t w h e r e to go a n d w h a t food to seek a r e m a d e casually, o n a n ad hoc basis, w i t h o u t systematic p l a n n i n g . E a c h a d u l t w o m a n collects for herself. Usually, t h o u g h , especially w h e n roots a r e being g a t h e r e d , o n e o r m o r e fires a r e lit w h e r e t h e w o r k is going o n a n d t h e w o m e n c o n g r e g a t e a n d eat t o g e t h e r m u c h of t h e food t h e y have o b t a i n e d . T h i s is d o n e in a free a n d easy w a y with t h e various w o m e n providing food a n d each w o m a n not necessarily e a t i n g t h e s a m e food, or even the s a m e a m o u n t as she h a s provided. C h i l d r e n also w o r k , if t h e y choose, a n d c o n t r i b u t e if they choose. E a c h w o m a n carries her r e s i d u a l food back to c a m p , t h o u g h she m a y well give s o m e a w a y e i t h e r w h e r e t h e food is o b t a i n e d or on arrival in c a m p or, m o r e p a r t i c u l a r l y , w h e n she has cooked t h e food in c a m p . But she is u n d e r n o o b l i g a t i o n to provide vegetable food for a n y o n e a p a r t f r o m h e r small c h i l d r e n : even her h u s b a n d h a s no clear right to food g a t h e r e d by his wife. H o w e v e r , a n y o n e w h o is p r e s e n t w h e n food is being eaten, w h e t h e r o r not it is cooked food, c a n n o t , in practice, b e refused. M e n o b t a i n most of their food t h r o u g h t h e i r o w n efforts. Unlike t h e w o m e n , they usually go off into t h e b u s h individually. W h i l e w a l k i n g a r o u n d looking for g a m e a n i m a l s t o h u n t o r a wild b e e s ' nest t o raid, they pick e n o u g h berries to satisfy t h e i r h u n g e r . If they succeed in o b t a i n i n g s o m e honey or killing a s m a l l a n i m a l , it will usually be prepared, cooked a n d eaten on the spot. O n l y when the hunter has satisfied his o w n h u n g e r will he b r i n g the s u r p l u s back into c a m p . M y

W o o d b u r n : Hunters and gatherers

103

impression is t h a t on the m a j o r i t y of occasions w h e n a m a n r e t u r n s to c a m p , he is e m p t y - h a n d e d b u t his h u n g e r is satisfied. O n l y w h e n a large a n i m a l is killed are t h e r e i m p o r t a n t obligatory sharing rules a n d what h a p p e n s t h e n will be discussed later. A crucially important point is that the obligatory s h a r i n g rules relate not to basic subsistence b u t to a n eagerly desired increment above basic subsistence. Individuals c a n a n d do meet their nutritional r e q u i r e m e n t s easily without entering into d e p e n d e n c y o n others. T h e h u n t i n g a n d g a t h e r i n g techniques of some of the other peoples included in m y list as having systems b a s e d on immediate r e t u r n involve less individual activity a n d more cooperation t h a n in the case of the H a d z a . T h e M b u t i Pygmies a p p a r e n t l y g a t h e r wild fruits a n d roots in a m a n n e r not very different f r o m the H a d z a . 2 5 But h u n t i n g is a cooperative venture: w o m e n a n d children drive g a m e animals, large a n d small, into a semi-circle of nets set u p by the m e n . T h e yield is s h a r e d out a m o n g t h e various p a r t i c i p a n t s as soon as they return to c a m p . 2 4 T h e point t h a t I w a n t to stress here is t h a t this is cooperation of a very specific sort. W i t h i n the r a t h e r b r o a d limits set by the optimal n u m b e r s for a n efficient h u n t , " a n y o n e w h o is present m a y participate a n d is entitled to a p r o p o r t i o n of the yield. T h e r e is no c o m m i t m e n t to participate a n d n o basis for exclusion f r o m participation. E a c h h u n t is complete in itself a n d p a r t i c i p a t i o n t o d a y a p p a r e n t l y carries no obligation to p a r t i c i p a t e t o m o r r o w . T h e !Kung B u s h m e n h u n t large g a m e a n i m a l s in groups usually composed of f r o m two to four or five men. M a r s h a l l 2 6 tells us : T h e composition of the h u n t i n g p a r t y is not a m a t t e r of strict convention or of anxious concern. Whoever t h e hunters are, the m e a t is shared a n d everyone profits. T h e m e n a r e free to organise their hunting parties as they like. N o categories of consanguineous kin or affines are p r o h i b i t e d f r o m h u n t i n g together, whether or not they have t h e joking relationship or practice the sitting a n d speaking avoidances. M e n f r o m different b a n d s m a y h u n t together. Both M b u t i a n d ! K u n g cooperation in t h e h u n t is f u n d a m e n t a l l y different from cooperation in agricultural systems where at least the core m e m b e r s of t h e productive g r o u p are not an ad hoc aggregation but are a set of people b o u n d by m o r e e n d u r i n g ties of kinship or of contract. In hunting a n d g a t h e r i n g societies, rules governing the distribution of large game a n i m a l s c o m m o n l y differ f r o m rules governing the distribution of o t h e r food. Even if the a n i m a l h a s been killed by a single individual h u n t i n g entirely on his own a n d using a personally-owned bow a n d a r r o w or other w e a p o n , he will be obliged to share the m e a t a n d cannot h o a r d it for his own use or the use of his own domestic group. Whatever the m o d e of h u n t i n g - w h e t h e r hunters go out as indi-

104

Part 11 : The distinctiveness of the primitive

viduals or as p a r t of a t e a m - the system of distribution seems uniformly to require extensive, obligatory sharing. But the type of sharing varies. A m o n g t h e H a d z a p a r t of t h e meat is reserved for the initiated m e n w h o eat it in secret. E l a b o r a t e sanctions protect their rights. Part of the r e m a i n d e r is given to t h e h u n t e r ' s wife's parents, if they are present, a n d the rest is d i s t r i b u t e d widely a m o n g all in t h e c a m p . Indeed the n u m b e r of people in a c a m p is affected by this system of distribution: people - especially good h u n t e r s - will not r e m a i n for long in a c a m p where t h e n u m b e r of people is too great for a n a d e q u a t e a m o u n t of meat f r o m each kill to be o b t a i n e d . I should p e r h a p s stress again t h a t the c a m p is a n extremely u n s t a b l e unit: people are constantly moving in a n d moving out b u t all w h o are present receive m e a t irrespective of their relationship to others w h o a r e present. T h e system of distribution m a r k s out a n d reinforces t h e m u t u a l interests firstly of initiated m e n as a category a n d secondly of the m e m b e r s of a c a m p at any particular time. It does not m a r k out a n d reinforce specific kinship ties (apart from the tie with parents-in-law which I shall discuss later) or any type of c o n t r a c t u a l tie between, say, h u n t i n g p a r t n e r s . T h e individual h u n t e r s u r r e n d e r s his yield to a n ad hoc ephemeral g r o u p of initiated m e n a n d a n equally e p h e m e r a l c o m m u n i t y . His s u b s e q u e n t rights to meat from other kills a r e n o greater a n d no less t h a n those of other men, w h e t h e r they be h u n t e r s or those w h o choose not to h u n t . W h a t I a m concerned to show h e r e is t h a t t h e system of distribution does not provide for delayed r e t u r n . Individual h u n t e r s are not able to invest the yield of their l a b o u r in specific social relationships (apart f r o m the relationship with parents-in-law) in order to establish future claims on those who have received meat from them. 2 8 From the limited evidence available, I have not so far established to my satisfaction the extent to which the same principle applies in o t h e r h u n t i n g a n d gathering societies but, since this is intended as a p a p e r to provoke discussion r a t h e r t h a n as a definitive s t a t e m e n t , I a m willing to h a z a r d the guess t h a t in those societies in which i m m e d i a t e r e t u r n is stressed, roughly similar a r r a n g e m e n t s will a p p l y , " while in those societies with delayed r e t u r n individual hunters will, in general, s u r r e n d e r their rights to a substantial p a r t of the meat of a n i m a l s t h e y have killed to specific individuals on w h o m they will in f u t u r e be able to m a k e enforceable claims which are greater t h a n the claims they enjoy simply as m a l e m e m b e r s of the s a m e residential c o m m u n i t y . Of course, if they are expected to give m e a t to a particular kinsman, t h e claims established are likely to b e expressed in t e r m s of the unspecific a n d long-term m o r a l obligations of kinship. If, on the other h a n d , they are expected to give to a c o n t r a c t u a l p a r t n e r of some sort, t h e claim established is likely to be more specific, more carefully calculated a n d p r o b a b l y relatively short-term. In these societies with systems based on i m m e d i a t e return, the emphasis on generalised m u t u a l i t y r a t h e r t h a n on specific individual c o m m i t m e n t s applies not only in m e a t - s h a r i n g contexts but m o r e generally. Individuals are not b o u n d to others by what can, for con-

W o o d b u r n : Hunters and gatherers

105

venicnce, be described as load-bearing relationships; 5 0 relationships d o not c a r r y a heavy b u r d e n of goods a n d services t r a n s m i t t e d b e t w e e n the p a r t i c i p a n t s in recognition of claims or obligations. T o avoid misu n d e r s t a n d i n g I should stress t h a t I a m certainly not suggesting t h a t kinship is u n i m p o r t a n t in i m m e d i a t e - r e t u r n systems - only that its significance is different. It is quite usual in i m m e d i a t e - r e t u r n systems for kinship t e r m s to be very widely used to a d d r e s s a n d to refer to o t h e r m e m b e r s of the c o m m u n i t y : indeed m a n y of these systems are universal kinship systems in which everyone - or at least everyone within t h e political c o m m u n i t y - is able to define a kinship or quasi-kinship tie to everyone else. T h e kinship m e t a p h o r (which, of course, intrinsically suggests connectedness) is a n a p p r o p r i a t e w a y of m a r k i n g out categories of people with w h o m one has something in c o m m o n , with w h o m social relationships are, in principle, amicable, a n d m u t u a l s h a r i n g c a n occur. However w h e t h e r or not they are universal in the sense described above, kinship systems in societies with a n organisation of i m m e d i a t e - r e t u r n type are usually, in contrast to d e l a y e d - r e t u r n systems, not elaborately differentiated. T h e total n u m b e r of distinct categories of kinsmen (and of affines) is usually very small a n d often m a n y of the category t e r m s are used self-reciprocally in a d d r e s s . T h e absence a m o n g adult m e m b e r s of the same sex of differential access to resources, to wealth a n d to knowledge together with the absence of differentiated b i n d i n g claims a n d obligations (and of t h e relations of a u t h o r i t y a n d d e p e n d e n c e that are implicit in those p a r t i c u l a r claims a n d obligations which are both i m p o r t a n t a n d significantly a s y m m e t r i c a l ) leaves for kinship in i m m e d i a t e - r e t u r n systems the role of defining a limited r a n g e of variations on the t h e m e of expected m u t u a l i t y . (I leave aside for t h e present the variable ways in which m a r r i a g e a b l e categories are defined in i m m e d i a t e - r e t u r n systems.) T h e distinction b e t w e e n these different types of m u t u a l i t y is often not m u c h stressed a n d individuals m a y be able to reclassify their relationships with others casually a n d o p p o r tunistically without evoking disapproval. In some instances classification by kinship is merged with classification by age (as in the M b u t i instance) a n d by personal n a m e (as in the ! K u n g instance) which makes application of terms to a wide r a n g e of people simpler t h a n it would otherwise be a n d increases the possibilities for o p p o r t u n i s t i c classification in terms of whatever type of m u t u a l i t y seems a p p r o p r i a t e at a particular time. All H a d z a treat each other as kin a n d a p p l y kinship t e r m s to each other; kin expect m u t u a l i t y f r o m each other a n d should not be a n t a g o n istic but there is no expectation, even in t h e closest kinship ties, of strong moral c o m m i t m e n t . H a d z a a b a n d o n the seriously ill w h e t h e r they are their close kin or not. T h e y recognise t h e obligation to leave the sick person his or her personal possessions a n d a small supply of food a n d water but they do not usually accept t h e c o m m i t m e n t t o carry t h e sick a n d to care for t h e m until they recover.' 1 T h e evidence suggests to me that the strong morally-binding c o m m i t m e n t to kin t h a t we find so

106

Part 11 : The distinctiveness of the primitive

c o m m o n l y in societies with delayed r e t u r n is c r e a t e d by t h e c o n s t a n t t r a n s m i s s i o n of i m p o r t a n t goods a n d services. As b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t imm e d i a t e - r e t u r n systems, t h e r e does seem to b e a g r a d i e n t in t h e extent to w h i c h active m u t u a l i t y is fostered. A m o n g t h e ! K u n g the i m p o r t a n c e of m u t u a l i t y is greatly e m p h a s i s e d b o t h in ritual contexts a n d in o r d i n ary secular life in w h i c h t h e c o n s t a n t a n d w i d e s p r e a d t r a n s m i s s i o n of small gifts a n d services seems to c o n t r i b u t e s u b s t a n t i a l l y to a m i c a b l e social relationships. M a r s h a l l b r i n g s out well t h e t e x t u r e of t h e s e relationships. T h e gifts a r e simple tokens of generosity a n d friendly intent. T h e trivial ' d e b t s ' i n c u r r e d a r e q u i t e unlike t h e b i n d i n g j u r a l o b ligations of d e l a y e d - r e t u r n systems. A n d as M a r s h a l l says ' n o o n e w a s d e p e n d e n t u p o n a c q u i r i n g objects by gift-giving'. 5 2 S y s t e m s of i m m e d i a t e r e t u r n offer to t h e individual, so long as he retains his h e a l t h a n d s t r e n g t h , a r a t h e r special type of p e r s o n a l a u t o n o m y a n d security. H i s lack of d e p e n d e n c e o n o t h e r s for access to crucial assets a n d t h e ease with w h i c h he c a n segregate himself f r o m all w i t h w h o m h e is in d i s p u t e w i t h o u t sacrificing a n y i m p o r t a n t interests, greatly r e d u c e t h e scope for conflict. In c o n t r a s t , systems b a s e d o n d e l a y e d r e t u r n offer g r e a t e r security in sickness a n d frail old age b u t involve serious risks of c o m p e t i t i o n a n d conflict over access to crucial assets a n d m u c h less p e r s o n a l a u t o n o m y . I have stressed t h e lack of b o t h individual a n d j o i n t investment in m a terial assets in societies with i m m e d i a t e - r e t u r n systems. But w h a t a b o u t investment in 'social c a p i t a l ', in culture, in k n o w l e d g e a n d skills ? H o w is this acquired, replenished a n d transmitted from one generation to t h e n e x t ? If i n h e r i t a n c e is negligible, if c h i l d r e n a r e not d e p e n d e n t m a t e r i a l l y o n t h e i r p a r e n t s or o n o t h e r m e m b e r s of t h e p a r e n t a l g e n e r a t i o n for long, if p a r e n t s have little a u t h o r i t y a n d t h e r e is little f o r m a l i n s t r u c t i o n by p a r e n t s in k n o w l e d g e a n d skills, h o w t h e n is c u l t u r a l c o n t i n u i t y m a i n t a i n e d ? All I c a n d o here in relation to these i m p o r t a n t issues is to m a k e a few brief c o m m e n t s . I m m e d i a t e - r e t u r n systems a r e strongly oriented to t h e p r e s e n t . T h e almost total a b s e n c e of strong c o m m i t m e n t s to specific o t h e r p e o p l e deriving f r o m t h e past ( a n d similarly of obligations i n c u r r e d in t h e p r e s e n t w h i c h w o u l d r e q u i r e c a r e f u l p l a n n i n g for f u t u r e r e c i p r o c a t i o n ) is linked, as I have suggested in a n earlier p u b l i c a t i o n , w i t h a lack of concern a b o u t t h e past or t h e f u t u r e . " It is also t h e case t h a t in i m m e d i a t e - r e t u r n systems p e o p l e o f t e n d o not, at least explicitly, seem to value their o w n c u l t u r e a n d i n s t i t u t i o n s very highly a n d m a y , indeed, not b e a c c u s t o m e d to f o r m u l a t i n g w h a t their c u s t o m is or w h a t it o u g h t to be. D i s p u t e p r o c e d u r e s w h i c h in o t h e r societies often provide a n i m p o r t a n t p u b l i c p l a t f o r m for t h e assertion of c u l t u r a l n o r m s a n d values, d o not usually provide s u c h a p l a t f o r m in these societies. W e have here a n a p p a r e n t l y u n p r o p i t i o u s c o m b i n a t i o n : c u s t o m w h i c h is not clearly f o r m u l a t e d , a p p a r e n t l y not very highly v a l u e d a n d w h e r e t h e m e c h a n i s m s for t r a n s m i t t i n g it f r o m one g e n e r a t i o n t o t h e

W o o d b u r n : Hunters and gatherers

107

next m i g h t seem to be deficient. Yet cultural continuity seems to me to be m a i n t a i n e d in these societies without special problems. Claims old a n d new t h a t these societies m a y be culturally impoverished and have ' r e g r e s s e d ' are often based on curious a n d misleading conceptions of progress a n d , even when more satisfactorily formulated, have not so far been s u p p o r t e d by convincing evidence a n d have not taken a d e q u a t e account of the cultural complexity that has been described by recent fieldworkers. In societies with i m m e d i a t e - r e t u r n systems, transmission of knowledge a n d skills within the peer g r o u p is often particularly i m p o r t a n t . A m o n g the H a d z a , for example, boys learn their bow-anda r r o w h u n t i n g knowledge a n d techniques a n d their tracking skills mainly informally from other boys only a little older t h a n themselves a n d this m o d e of transmission operates effectively in passing on what is certainly complicated a n d difficult material - more complicated and difficult, I would guess, t h a n the knowledge a n d skills required by m e m b e r s of m a n y farming societies. If anthropologists still believe that the transmission of knowledge a n d skills in small-scale societies from one generation to the next depends on the authority of the senior generation over the junior, on the at least partial acceptance by the j u n i o r generation of that authority and on ties of binding kinship linking the two generations, then, I think, the evidence from immediate-return systems shows that this view should now be discarded. T h e authority a n d the binding kinship which are so characteristic of delayed-return systems are associated with the transmission of exclusively-held rights to i m p o r t a n t property but are not necessary for the inter-generational transmission of knowledge a n d skills available either to all m e m b e r s of the c o m m u n i t y or at least to all m e m b e r s of the same sex or age group. T h e point in the discussion has now been reached at which I must come back to the Australian Aborigines a n d the issue of w h e t h e r they do, or do not, have a system of delayed return. Let us start by looking very briefly at some aspects of their culture a n d social organisation which differ radically f r o m those of immediate-return hunter-gatherers. T h e y have a variety of b o u n d e d kinship a n d other groups, m e m b e r s h i p of which involves specific, ascriptive entitlements a n d duties. Interpersonal kinship relationships are very obviously load-bearing: kinsmen recognise a wide variety of specific differentiated rights and obligations to each other a n d to their various affines. T h e moral c o m m i t m e n t of kin to each other appears, even in ecologically difficult areas, to rule out the a b a n d o n m e n t of the sick and the aged. Some kinsmen a r e d e p e n d e n t on others for access to 'assets' which they need to achieve fully-fledged adult status a n d those w h o are dependent are subject to the authority of those on w h o m they depend. T h e r e are conflicts of interest between individuals a n d between groups over assets a n d these lead to fighting a n d accusations of witchcraft a n d sorcery. T h e Australians have an elaborate religious life which is controlled by the older m e n w h o partially exclude w o m e n a n d younger m e n from access to secret religious knowledge. M e n give a n d receive

108

Part 11 : The distinctiveness of the primitive

w o m e n in m a r r i a g e . In spite of m u c h local variation in c u l t u r e a n d social organisation, these characteristics I have outlined - in general so unlike those of i m m e d i a t e - r e t u r n systems - a p p e a r to be c o m m o n to all A u s t r a l i a n Aborigines. It would be h a r d to a r g u e that these characteristics, or some of t h e m , are derived in some way f r o m the ecology since Aborigines live, or until recently lived, in a strikingly wide r a n g e of different h a b i t a t s f r o m very fertile areas rich in wild food to some of the most arid a n d least fertile a r e a s i n h a b i t e d by h u m a n beings a n y w h e r e in the world. Are there, then, consistencies in the tools, equipment, techniques a n d work practices used to o b t a i n food a n d other necessities, a n d in the social relations utilised in the food quest, which t r a n s c e n d the variation in h a b i t a t ? Interestingly enough, t h e r e are indeed some consistencies both in the technology a n d the social relations of p r o d u c t i o n b u t w h a t is striking is t h a t w h a t is general is relatively simple tools a n d techniques involving relatively little investment of time a n d effort (and not in this respect dissimilar f r o m the technology of i m m e d i a t e - r e t u r n h u n t e r s a n d gatherers) t o g e t h e r with a r a t h e r limited degree of coordination a n d cooperation in the work of p r o d u c i n g t h e e q u i p m e n t a n d in the food quest itself (the extent of cooperation a p p e a r s in general to b e n o greater t h a n we find a m o n g those with a n i m m e d i a t e - r e t u r n system). Moreover the food o b t a i n e d in h u n t i n g a n d g a t h e r i n g is, in general, o b t a i n e d a n d c o n s u m e d on t h e s a m e day. So, in w h a t c a n be generalised a b o u t t h e m e a n s of subsistence a n d the most obvious relationships used in obtaining subsistence, we find little t h a t is c o o r d i n a t e with the e l a b o r a t i o n of, and the s t r e n g t h of, A u s t r a l i a n interpersonal a n d g r o u p relations. However, t h e r e are some r a t h e r r a r e b u t very interesting local exceptions to t h e general situation I have described in w h i c h t h e r e is substantial investment in h u n t i n g a n d gathering technology a n d delayed r e t u r n on labour deployed. I shall discuss some of these r a t h e r exceptional cases later. In order to u n d e r s t a n d A u s t r a l i a n systems in general we must b r o a d en the notion of p r o d u c t i o n . In Australia, as in m a n y f a r m i n g systems, the notions of p r o d u c t i o n a n d r e p r o d u c t i o n are linked. All over A u s t r a lia, irrespective of the local ecology, m e n consider themselves to be concerned in a long-term productive enterprise in which they assert control over a n d b r i n g u p their d a u g h t e r s (or their sisters, their sisters' d a u g h ters or other junior female relatives), negotiate over their marriages and eventually decide w h e n they will m a r r y a n d who the h u s b a n d s will be. M e n c o m b i n e with other m e n in asserting control over t h e w o m e n a n d in asserting t h e right to d e t e r m i n e their destination in m a r r i a g e . M e n are d e p e n d e n t on their fathers or o n their m o t h e r ' s b r o t h e r s or o t h e r senior relatives for help in obtaining wives a n d await t h e right in their t u r n to a c q u i r e control over t h e disposition of their o w n j u n i o r female relatives. I d o n ' t think it would be too misleading a n analogy, c r u d e t h o u g h it m a y a p p e a r at first sight, to describe A u s t r a l i a n s as f a r m e r s in disguise w h o are concerned with f a r m i n g (and f a r m i n g out) their

W o o d b u r n . Hunters and gatherers

109

w o m e n . Of course, in a n y m o r e detailed discussion it would be essential to discuss the p a r t played by t h e w o m e n themselves. Obviously m u c h the greater part of t h e work of looking after a n d bringing u p d a u g h t e r s falls o n their m o t h e r s r a t h e r t h a n on their fathers. In s o m e A u s t r a l i a n societies w o m e n have m u c h influence on t h e destination of their d a u g h ters in m a r r i a g e . A n d the brides themselves are not to be t r e a t e d as no more t h a n m e r e objects t o be m a n i p u l a t e d in a g a m e played by their senior male (and female) relatives. Control over w o m e n is also used to convert w h a t would otherwise be only i m m e d i a t e s h o r t - t e r m rights in self-acquired a n d g r o u p - a c q u i r e d foodstuffs a n d o t h e r materials into specific long-term claims. In A u s t r a lia, it seems to be generally t h e case that a wife is obliged to go out a n d gather food for her h u s b a n d a n d t h a t a m a n is obliged to h u n t for his father-in-law or for other senior m a l e kin of his wife. M y a r g u m e n t , then, is t h a t the A u s t r a l i a n system is clearly based on a system of longterm r e t u r n on labour. I a m not, of course, suggesting that t h e A u s t r a l i a n s are in a n y way u n u s u a l except in c o m p a r i s o n with o t h e r h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s w h o o b t a i n food in a similar way. M a n y primitive a n d p e a s a n t f a r m e r s (who, of course, also have d e l a y e d - r e t u r n systems) c a n also be said, in a sense, to ' p r o d u c e ' or to ' f a r m ' w o m e n . But my a r g u m e n t does not d e p e n d on t h e analogy I a m m a k i n g a n d I do not insist on it. T h e i m p o r t a n t point, on w h i c h I d o insist, is t h a t , w h e t h e r or not A u s t r a l i a n m e n (or m e n of o t h e r societies) c a n be said in any sense to ' p r o d u c e ' or ' f a r m ' w o m e n , they d o m a i n t a i n a n d t r a n s m i t long-term rights over their female kin, a n d t r a d i t i o n a l A u s t r a l i a n social organisation in all its variety is to be seen as centrally a n d essentially connected with the m a i n t e n a n c e , m a n i p u l a t i o n a n d transmission of these long-term rights. Let me now r e t u r n to two r a t h e r interesting local exceptions in which there is evidence of a substantial element of delayed r e t u r n in t h e system of food p r o d u c t i o n : C o n t r a r y to the general idea t h e m a i n food supply a m o n g aborigines, except at certain restricted seasons of t h e year, is not a n i m a l , but vegetable, a n d in A r n h e m L a n d u p w a r d s of sixty food p l a n t s are known. Some of these a r e local a n d are o b t a i n e d m o r e or less casually a n d in small q u a n t i t y . But a comparatively small n u m b e r , which constitute staple foods, are g a t h e r e d in great bulk, which c a n be measured in tons, a n d these p l a n t s provide as regular a harvest of food as cultivated gardens. In E a s t e r n A r n h e m L a n d t h e most important of the staple foods are qatu, the fruit of a C y c a d , . . . . T h e fruit of the Cycad, qätu, which was mentioned above, must be soaked for a period of f r o m t h r e e to five days to leach out soluble poison which it contains. After this it is g r o u n d , m o u l d e d into a cake which m a y weigh several p o u n d s , w r a p p e d in a neat parcel in p a p e r b a r k , a n d cooked in hot ashes, w h e n it bears a r e s e m b l a n c e

110

Part 11 : The distinctiveness of the primitive

to a very heavy, coarse, unleavened bread. Vast quantities of rjätu are gathered in the course of the year. It has the merit that, unlike most other foods of the aborigines which must be eaten immediately after preparation, it can be kept for some days or weeks. T h e fact that it is very abundant gives rjatu a special value in native economy, for it enables the women to maintain an adequate food supply on ceremonial occasions when hundreds of people are gathered in one camp for weeks or months at a time, who could not otherwise be supported for such periods on local resources. 34 This is a particularly interesting instance and one that would be surprising in a system based on immediate return. Thomson mentions the storing of two uncooked plant foods, Buchanania Muelleri and Parinarium Nonda,iB but nonetheless it is clear that most sources of food are not stored here or, apparently, elsewhere in Australia. From a very different part of Australia, South Western Victoria, there is a recently published report of elaborately-constructed eel traps : At the confluence of this creek with the marsh observed an immense piece of g r o u n d - t r e n c h e s and banks resembling the work of civilised man but which on inspection were found to be the work of the aboriginal natives - purpose consisted for catching eels - a specimen of art of the same extent I had not before seen . . . these trenches are hundreds of yards in length — I measured in one place in one continuous triple line for the distance of 500 yards. T h e triple water course led to other ramified and extensive trenches of a more tortuous form - an area of at least 15 acres was thus traced out. . . . These works must have been executed at great cost of labour. . . . There must have been some thousands of yards of this trenching and banking. T h e whole of the water from the mountain rivulets is made to pass through this trenching ere it reaches the marsh. . . There are other occasional instances in the literature of direct delayed return in the system of food-production and Professor D . J . Mulvaney tells me that there is some additional archaeological evidence. But what is surprising, when the social organisation of Australian Aborigines is compared with that of hunter-gatherers elsewhere, is not that these instances of direct delayed return in food production occur, but that they are so rare. Australian organisation would seem to be particularly well-adapted for the direct use of delayed return in food production. What can be said with confidence is that the delayed return which operates so generally in the assertion of rights over women in Australia is not to be treated as a product of the relatively rare delayed return operating in the technology and of the social relations of their food and other material production. The developmental scenario which the Australian data suggest is that delayed return operating in the 'production' of women provides, as I have described above, for the conversion of

W o o d b u r n : Hunters and gatherers

111

what would otherwise be only immediate short-term rights in selfacquired and group-acquired food into specific long-term claims. And, at the same time, delayed return operating in the 'production' of women facilitates (but, surprisingly, only in a few special cases) the development of food-production systems with a substantial and direct delayed-return ingredient as in the Arnhem Land a n d S.W. Victoria instances I have described. Looking again at some immediate-return systems - the Hadza a n d the !Kung for example - in the light of the Australian data, it becomes clear that, although in both societies (as generally in immediate-return systems) women give themselves in marriage (or at least have a clear and unambiguous right of refusal of any husband chosen for them), nevertheless the bridegroom does take on various long-term economic obligations to his affines. s ' In both societies the relationship to affines can be said to involve a delayed-return element though one that is apparently far less clear a n d less burdensome for the bridegroom than is usual in Australia. T h e routes in the difficult transition from immediate to delayed return are likely to be many a n d varied but one broad highway among them lies, I think, in the intensification of control by men of rights over women who are to be given in marriage. I should stress that I am not seeking to reduce social organisation in general in hunting and gathering societies to no more t h a n a mere epiphenomenon of technology and the organisation of the work process. What I a m saying is simply this: there does appear to be a direct connection between one particular aspect of the work process - its application through time in a systematic way to produce a delayed yield in the form of some recognised asset 58 - a n d certain specific aspects of social organisation. T h e connection is this: if there are delayed yields, then there must be organisation having the general characteristics I have outlined to control a n d apportion these delayed yields. The particular form the organisation will take cannot, however, be predicted nor can one say that the organisation exists in order to control and apportion these assets because, once in existence, the organisation will be used in a variety of ways, which will include the control and apportionment of assets, but which are not otherwise determined by this function. In societies without delayed yields and assets, we do not find delayed-return social organisation. 5 9 O n e task remains to be carried out in this paper: I must attempt to put the material in the paper into a historical framework and, in the process, to answer the questions posed at the beginning of this paper. The bulk of the paper provides the answer to the major issue raised on p. 95. What I see as distinctive about the economy and social organisation of hunters and gatherers should by now be clear. The first question on pp. 95-6 has been answered in part. Systems of immediate return and systems of delayed return can both occur in any environment. I do not believe that abundance and scarcity of food and other resources are, in themselves, likely to be crucial variables. T h e

112

Part 11 : The distinctiveness of the primitive

A u s t r a l i a n d e l a y e d - r e t u r n system operates in b o t h h a r s h a n d fertile areas. However, a r e a s w h e r e food storage is easy a n d obviously desirable - such as t h e arctic - are likely to favour the development of d e l a y e d - r e t u r n systems; it is, p e r h a p s , also relevant t h a t in t h e arctic c o o r d i n a t e d investment of time a n d effort in m a k i n g dwellings and clothing is m u c h m o r e likely since in this climate e l a b o r a t e a n d effective dwellings a n d clothing are so m u c h m o r e necessary. T h e availability of some prolific valued food or other m a j o r resource located at some p a r t i c u l a r site is likely to favour long-term settlement, together with the development by those w h o exploit the asset of conservation m e a s u r e s a n d / o r organisational m e a s u r e s to protect t h e asset f r o m outsiders. T h e s a l m o n rivers of the north-west coast of N o r t h A m e r i c a m a y fall into this category. Delayed r e t u r n is p r o b a b l e here. Finally t h e specialised exploitation of some single resource, a n d a c o n c e n t r a t i o n on this resource to the exclusion of almost all other sources of food, m a y , even w h e n the resource is not localised, tend to favour d e l a y e d - r e t u r n systems. Specialised reindeer h u n t e r s m a y be a n example. T h e use of a wide r a n g e of different resources a n d t h e dispersal of those resources so t h a t they c a n n o t readily be controlled or developed exclusively by any individual or g r o u p is likely, not to favour i m m e d i a t e r e t u r n , b u t to be n e u t r a l in relation to the t w o alternatives. T h e a n s w e r to the second question o n p. 96 is that t h e c o n t a c t situation a n d t h e political a n d economic relationships with n o n - h u n t i n g outsiders a r e relevant. T u r n b u l l 4 0 a n d G a r d n e r 4 1 both discuss societies with systems of i m m e d i a t e r e t u r n , a n d a t t r i b u t e the systems directly to the relationships with outsiders. T u r n b u l l , in his discussion of the M b u t i Pygmies, argues t h a t their mobility a n d flexibility are a m e a n s by which they seek to avoid political d o m i n a t i o n by t h e i r agricultural neighbours. G a r d n e r sees the situation more starkly a n d a r g u e s that the i m m e d i a t e - r e t u r n system of the Paliyan g r o u p s which he studied is pathological a n d the result of b r e a k d o w n caused by the d o m i n a n c e a n d exploitation of their p r e d a t o r y p e a s a n t neighbours. Both a u t h o r s are, I think, w r o n g in treating i m m e d i a t e r e t u r n as a n u n u s u a l system which requires special e x p l a n a t i o n . As the examples I have listed earlier in this p a p e r illustrate, the system is w i d e s p r e a d a n d not all the societies in question suffer f r o m exploitation by neighbours. At the s a m e time I think the idea should be t r e a t e d seriously a n d we s h o u l d consider w h e t h e r pressure f r o m outsiders is one of t h e factors w h i c h tends, in c o m b i n a t i o n with other factors, to p u s h societies t o w a r d s immedia t e - r e t u r n systems. I think it is plausible to suggest that it is a n d t h a t in a world consisting exclusively of h u n t e r s a n d gatherers, a higher proportion might have h a d d e l a y e d - r e t u r n systems. I w o u l d a d d that systems of i m m e d i a t e r e t u r n seem to be particularly well a d a p t e d to c h a n g e - in h a b i t a t , in the food base, in technology and in personnel. In the final question, I raised the issue of w h e t h e r w h a t is distinctive a b o u t h u n t e r s a n d g a t h e r e r s is a p r o d u c t of evolution (or d e g e n e r a t i o n ) since the so-called neolithic revolution. In ten or twelve t h o u s a n d years

W o o d b u r n : Hunters and gatherers

113

m u c h can h a p p e n , a n d I feel distinctly uneasy a b o u t speculating a b o u t such a vast period. W h a t I would say is t h a t t h e archaeological evidence suggests that most of the basic technical e q u i p m e n t available to m o d e r n hunters was already available in t h e pre-neolithic period. I d o u b t whether the availability of metal for spear- a n d a r r o w - h e a d s h a s greatly altered h u n t i n g techniques or m u c h increased productivity. T h e use of the horse by the Plains I n d i a n s a n d others w a s a far m o r e profound c h a n g e a n d h a d a d r a m a t i c effect on h u n t i n g success a n d consequently on g a m e populations. T h e development of a r r o w a n d spear poison m a y have some significance. T h e earliest record of a r r o w poison, as far as I a m a w a r e from m y own limited knowledge, is f r o m a Southern African h u n t i n g site of the m i d - t h i r d millenium B.C.42 W h e n ever it was first developed - a n d it m a y well long p r e - d a t e this finding — I suppose that it would t e n d to increase yield a n d to inhibit g r o u p h u n t ing a n d accordingly p e r h a p s lead to various c o n s e q u e n t i a l changes in economy a n d social organisation. 4 ® In principle, I c a n see no reason w h y m o d e r n h u n t e r s should be substantially unrepresentative of those in the past. T h e m a j o r difficulty is, I suppose, that our m o d e r n sample is small a n d , given the m u c h greater a b u n d a n c e of h u n t i n g societies at t h a t time, I would expect greater diversity in economy a n d in social organisation t h a n occurs in m o d e r n representatives of this way of life. I should stress, t h o u g h , that I a m not saying t h a t individual g r o u p s of hunters are likely to have remained u n c h a n g e d . It seems plausible to suggest that some m o d e r n hunters will have cultivated at some period in their history. I n d e e d we know this to be t h e case with some of the Plains Indians. I think it highly p r o b a b l e t h e r e will have been occasional changes f r o m delayed-return h u n t i n g a n d g a t h e r i n g to systems of i m m e d i a t e - r e t u r n h u n t i n g a n d g a t h e r i n g , a n d vice versa. T h e clear archaeological evidence for large t r a p sites a n d s u b s t a n t i a l sedentary communities in the pre-neolithic period is, I think, a n unmistakable indication t h a t systems of delayed r e t u r n existed at t h a t time. Immediate r e t u r n is a simpler system a n d one which is m o r e a d a p t a b l e to climatic a n d other c h a n g e : it is likely, in certain circumstances, to have provided advantages t h e n as now, a n d I would expect that some pre-neolithic societies will have h a d systems of this sort. Sadly, unlike some cases of delayed return, it p r o b a b l y leaves no distinctive archaeological evidence. Highly mobile groups with simple equipment are as likely to have h a d systems b a s e d on delayed r e t u r n as on immediate return. Systems of delayed r e t u r n c a n h a r d l y have s p r u n g fully fledged into existence a n d are likely at some stage to have been based on i m m e d i a t e return. T h e r e must p r e s u m a b l y have been a time when all societies h a d systems based on i m m e d i a t e r e t u r n . I will end with a c o m m e n t on polarity. Most anthropologists r e a d i n g this paper will be familiar with E d m u n d L e a c h ' s discussion of hierarchical gumsa a n d egalitarian gumlao political systems in H i g h l a n d B u r m a . These systems are seen as intrinsically u n s t a b l e a n d the soci-

114

Part II : The distinctiveness of the primitive

eties discussed by Leach oscillate between the two. 44 The modalities that I a m describing here are obviously far more stable and contain no obvious internal contradictions to cause a shift in polarity. 45 My suggestion that shifts in polarity can and do occur in both directions is speculative. But whether shifts do or do not occur, the polarity itself is, on the available evidence, a fact. Hunting and gathering societies are not arranged on a continuum but tend to cluster at one or other pole. Within each modality a whole range of aspects of the economy and the social organisation are congruent: I hope to explore further implications of the polarity and the congruence within each polarity in future papers. Finally let me stress that in making the distinction that I do, the aim is of course not just to construct yet another simple dichotomous classification. Unless the distinction I make allows us not merely to describe some of the variability between different hunting and gathering societies, but also to begin to explain it, my approach should not be accepted. *

I would like to acknowledge very helpful comments on material in this paper from the participants at Burg Wartenstein Seminar No. 70, from members of the Department of Anthropology at Cambridge and from my colleagues and students at the Department of Anthropology, London School of Economics. T h e material on the Hadza included in this paper was collected during seven periods of field research between 1958 and 1969 and generously funded by the following bodies: T h e Royal Society; the World Health Organisation; the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research; the East African Institute of Social Research; the Goldsmiths' C o m p a n y ; the Smuts Memorial Fund; the Sir Bartle Frere F u n d ; the M a r y Euphrasia Mosley Fund. NOTES 1 See, for example: R.B. Lee and I. DeVore (eds), Man the Hunter, Chicago, 1968. M G . Bicchieri (ed.), Hunters and Gatherers Today, New York, 1972. A.M. Reshetov (ed.), Hunters, Gatherers, Fishermen, Leningrad, 1972 (in Russian). 2 L.R. Hiatt, 'Local organisation among the Australian Aborigines', Oceania, 1962, 32. 3 This same distinction is further explored in others of my recent papers including 'Minimal politics: the political organisation of the Hadza of North Tanzania' in Politics in Leadership: A Comparative Perspective (ed. P. Cohen and W. Shack), Oxford, 1979, and a paper on Hadza sex roles read initially at a conference of the Association of Social Anthropologists in Swansea in 1977 and presented in revised form at a conference on Hunting and Gathering Socteties in Paris in 1978. There is some overlap between these papers in the descriptive formulation of the distinction. 4 In an important paper ('On the mode of production of the hunting band', in French Perspectives in African Studies (ed. P. Alexandre), London, 1973), Claude Meillassoux has independently developed a similar distinction though he uses it to draw out a contrast between hunters and gatherers and agriculturalists and does not acknowledge that many hunter-gatherers have delayed-return economies. As will be clear from my analy-

W o o d b u r n : Hunters

and gatherers

115

sis I d o not accept Meillassoux's m a j o r claim that ' t h e mode of exploitation of the land is determinant of the social, political a n d ideological processes of the hunting b a n d ' (ibid., p. 187). 5 Immediate-return systems are found in a few highly restricted a n d specialised contexts in industrial societies, discussion of which is outside the scope of this paper. 6 Perhaps though I should register a note of caution: this paper is not intended as a definitive statement. It is a preliminary formulation intended to elicit discussion. 7 R. Blackburn, Ά preliminary report of research on the Ogiek tribe of Kenya ', Discussion Paper no. 1, Institute for Development Studies, University College, Nairobi, 1970. R. Blackburn, ' Honey in Okiek personality, culture a n d society ', unpublished P h D thesis, Michigan State University, 1971. 8 R.B. Lee, MKung Bushman subsistence: an input-output analysis', in Environment and Cultural Behavior (ed. A P. Vayda), N e w York, 1969. R.B. Lee, ' T h e !Kung Bushmen of Botswana', in Bicchieri (ed.), op. cit. R.B. Lee, 'Work effort, group structure and land-use in contemporary hunter-gatherers', in Man, Settlement and Urbanism (ed. P.J. U c k o í / α Λ ) , London, 1972. R.B. Lee, 'Male-female residence a r r a n g e m e n t s a n d political power in h u m a n hunter-gatherers', Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1974, 3, 2. R.B. Lee a n d I. DeVore (eds), Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers: Studies of the .'KungSan and their Neighbors, Cambridge, Mass., 1976. L. Marshall, ' M a r r i a g e a m o n g !Kung Bushmen', Africa, 1959, X X I X , 4. L. Marshall, !Kung B u s h m a n bands, Africa, 1960, X X X , 4. L. M a r shall, ' T h e !Kung Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert', in Peoples of Africa (ed. J . L . Gibbs), London, 1965. L. Marshall, 'Sharing, talking and giving : relief of social tensions a m o n g !Kung Bushmen', in Lee a n d DeVore (eds), 1976, op. cit. 9 C . M . Turnbull, ' T h e Mbuti Pygmies: an ethnographic survey', Anthropological Papers ofthe American Museum ofNatural History, 1965, 50, 3. C . M . T u r n b u l l , Wayward Servants, London, 1966. 10 J . C . Woodburn, ' A n introduction to H a d z a ecology', in Lee a n d DeVore (eds), 1968, op. cit. J . C . W o o d b u r n , 'Stability a n d flexibility in H a d z a residential groupings', in Lee and DeVore (eds), 1968, op. cit. J . C . W o o d b u r n , 'Ecology, nomadic movement and the composition of the local group a m o n g hunters a n d gatherers: a n East African example and its implications', in U c k o i / a / . (eds), op. cit. 11 Β. Morris, 'An analysis of the economy and social organisation of the M a l a p a n t a ram, a South Indian hunting and gathering people', unpublished P h D thesis, University of London, 1975. B. Morris, ' T a p p e r s , t r a p p e r s a n d the Hill P a n d a r a m (South India)', Anthropos, 1977,72. 12 P.M. G a r d n e r , 'Symmetric respect a n d m e m o r a t e knowledge: the structure a n d ecology of individualistic culture', Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 1966, 22. P.M. G a r d n e r , 'Paliyan social structure', in Contributions to Anthropology: Band Societies (ed. D. Damas), National Museums of Canada Bulletin, 1969, no. 228, Anthropological Series no. 84. P.M. Gardner, ' T h e Paliyans', in Bicchieri (ed.), op. cit. 13 K.M. Endicott, 'Batek Negrito religion', unpublished P h D thesis, University of Oxford, 1976. 14 Production of artefacts may, however, involve some planning a n d some assembling of materials which cannot be done on the spur of the m o m e n t . For example, a Hadza poisoned arrow is made from a particular kind of wood which grows mainly in one area, a set of vulture wing-feathers, glue m a d e from a bulb to stick down the feathers, a thread made from impala ligament to hold t h e m in place, a metal arrow-head beaten cold from traded iron and arrow-poison m a d e either from the seeds of Strophantus eminii or the sap of Adenium sp. N o n e of these raw materials is very difficult to obtain, but obviously to assemble them does require some forethought. See J . C . Woodburn, Hunters and Gatherers: The Material Culture of the Nomadic Hadza, London, 1970, pp. 28-31. 15 F.J. Bagshawe, ' T h e peoples of the H a p p y Valley (East Africa). T h e aboriginal races of Kondoa Irangi, part II: the Kangeju', Journal of the African Society, 1924-5, X X I V , X C I V , p . 122. 16 Meillassoux's (op. cit., p. 192) interesting application of the distinction between

116

P a r t I I : The distinctiveness

of the

primitive

l a n d as a n instrument of labour for f a r m e r s a n d a subject of labour for h u n t e r - g a t h e r e r s c a n n o t , I t h i n k , b e s u s t a i n e d if t h e c r o s s - c u l t u r a l e v i d e n c e for h u n t e r - g a t h e r e r l a n d - u s e is t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t . 17 As D e s m o n d C l a r k p o i n t s o u t , t h e recently developed h y p o t h e s i s t h a t m a n m a y have b e e n r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e e x t i n c t i o n of a n u m b e r of t h e e a r l i e r Pleistocene f a u n a l species is e a s i e r to a c c e p t if this w a s a c c o m p l i s h e d t h r o u g h t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e i r h a b i t a t a n d food s u p p l y b y t h e c o n t i n u e d a n d u n c o n t r o l l e d use of fire, t h a n if it h a d b e e n a c h i e v e d b y killing t h e m off by t h e m o r e c o n v e n t i o n a l use of h a n d w e a p o n s . (J. Desm o n d C l a r k , The Prehistory of Africa, L o n d o n , 1970, p. 101.) 18 C o n s e r v a t i o n is, of c o u r s e , u s u a l l y p r a c t i s e d in a r a t h e r limited w a y even in most d e l a y e d - r e t u r n e c o n o m i e s . W h i l e p r o t e c t i o n of d o m e s t i c a t e d a n i m a l s , g r o w i n g c r o p s a n d use r i g h t s t o l a n d a r e p u r s u e d a n d m a i n t a i n e d vigorously a n d relatively effectively, t h e l o n g - t e r m c o n s e r v a t i o n of t h e l a n d over p e r i o d s of m a n y y e a r s to avoid d a m a g i n g e r o s i o n a n d t o m a i n t a i n fertility is far m o r e r a r e l y a m a t t e r of real a n d active c o n c e r n even w h e r e t h e n e c e s s a r y k n o w l e d g e , skills a n d t e c h n o l o g y a r e available. L o n g - t e r m p l a n n e d c o n s e r v a t i o n is only likely in c o n d i t i o n s of u n u s u a l political a n d e c o n o m i c stability. 19 S o m e t i m e s t h e h o n e y , b u t not t h e g r u b s , is kept for use in t r a d e . 20 M o s t wild b e e s ' nests a r e in hollow trees. Access is o b t a i n e d by c u t t i n g a hole large e n o u g h t o insert o n e ' s h a n d a n d a r m . If, a f t e r e x t r a c t i n g t h e c o n t e n t s , a s t o n e o r piece of w o o d is j a m m e d into t h e h o l e to block access by c r e a t u r e s larger t h a n bees, in t i m e t h e bees a r e likely t o r e t u r n . H a d z a will o c c a s i o n a l l y t a k e t h e t r o u b l e to pick u p a s t o n e o r piece of w o o d a n d t o u s e it for this p u r p o s e if o n e h a p p e n s to b e i m m e d i a t e l y to hand. 21 In o u r film a b o u t H a d z a h u n t i n g a n d g a t h e r i n g , a t o n e point t w o m e n , o u t seeking h o n e y , w a l k a w a y f r o m a fire t h e y have lit w i t h o u t e x t i n g u i s h i n g it. I h a v e s e e n this d o n e so m a n y t i m e s b y t h e H a d z a t h a t , in m a k i n g a n d e d i t i n g t h e film, m y c o l l e a g u e a n d I w e r e e n t i r e l y u n a w a r e t h a t t h e i r b e h a v i o u r m i g h t strike a u d i e n c e s as u n u s u a l . Yet a l m o s t every t i m e t h e film is s h o w n , s o m e o n e asks w h y t h e fire w a s not ext i n g u i s h e d . (J.C. W o o d b u r n a n d S. H u d s o n , The Hadza: The Food Quest of an East African Hunting and Gathering Tribe, L o n d o n , 1966 ( 1 6 m m film).) 22 M a r s h a l l , 1976, op. cit., p. 350. 23 T u r n b u l l , 1966, op. cit., p p . 166-8. 24 Ibid., p p . 157-8. 25 Ibid., p. 154. 26 M a r s h a l l , 1976, o p . cit., p. 357. 27 W o o d b u r n , 1972, op. cit., p. 199. 28 O f c o u r s e successful h u n t e r s w h o p r o v i d e m e a t r e g u l a r l y e a r n w i d e s p r e a d g o o d will - o n e m i g h t say t h e y a c q u i r e p r e s t i g e b u t I t h i n k this is p e r h a p s m i s l e a d i n g as t h e y e n j o y n o special s t a n d i n g in t h e c o m m u n i t y . T h e g e n e r a l goodwill they e a r n , a l t h o u g h it, too, c a n be in a s e n s e ' d r a w n o n ' , is to b e clearly d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t h e c l a i m s e s t a b lished by investing in specific social r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 29 I n t h e light of m a t e r i a l given b y M a r s h a l l (1976, op. cit., p p . 357-63) t h e dist i n c t i o n I a m m a k i n g s h o u l d b e d r a w n less s t a r k l y . 30 I use t h e t e r m ' l o a d - b e a r i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s ' for t h e close kinship a n d c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s of n o n - i n d u s t r i a l , d e l a y e d - r e t u r n societies to convey in s i m p l e t e r m s t h e point t h a t t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , u n l i k e t h o s e in i m m e d i a t e - r e t u r n systems, c a r r y a heavy a n d specifiable b u r d e n of goods a n d services t r a n s m i t t e d b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s in r e c o g n i t i o n of c l a i m s a n d o b l i g a t i o n s a n d t h a t this set of c o m m i t m e n t s c o n s t i t u t e s a n essential, basic, s u p p o r t i v e c o m p o n e n t in t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e wider s y s t e m of social relations a n d social g r o u p s in s u c h societies. 31 I d i s c u s s t h i s p r a c t i c e , a n d t h e insufficiency of ecological e x p l a n a t i o n s , in J . C . W o o d b u r n , D i s c u s s i o n s p a r t l i e in Lee a n d D e V o r e (eds) 1968, op. cit., p. 91. 32 M a r s h a l l , 1976, op. cit., p. 367. 33 W o o d b u r n , D i s c u s s i o n s p a r t l i e in Lee a n d D e V o r e (eds) 1968, op. cit., p. 91. 34 D . F . T h o m s o n , Economic Structure and the Ceremmnal Exchange Cycle in Arnhem ÍMnd,

W o o d b u r n : Hunters

and gatherers

117

M e l b o u r n e , 1949, p p . 21-3. 35 Ibid., p p . 23-4. 36 M a t e r i a l d a t e d J u l y 7th 1841 in G . A . R o b i n s o n , M a n u s c r i p t s a n d P a p e r s , Port Phillip P r o t e c t o r a t e , 1839-49, M i t c h e l l L i b r a r y , S y d n e y . C i t e d in H . L o u r a n d o s , ' A b o riginal settlement a n d l a n d - u s e in S o u t h W e s t e r n V i c t o r i a : a r e p o r t o n c u r r e n t fieldwork', The Artefact, 1976, 1 (4), p p . 182-3. 37 A m o n g t h e H a d z a , t h e m a i n o b l i g a t i o n is to t h e m o t h e r - i n - l a w . T h e f a t h e r - i n law will only be p r o v i d e d w i t h m e a t o r a n y o t h e r food if h e h a p p e n s t o b e living in t h e s a m e c a m p . Even t h e n t h e s o n - i n - l a w m a k e s his o w n decision a b o u t w h e t h e r or not t o go h u n t i n g . It is c o m m o n for f a t h e r s - i n - l a w t o b e given n o t h i n g . 38 W o r k does not p r o d u c e a s s e t s in a m e c h a n i c a l w a y . T o b e a s s e t s t h e y m u s t b e reco g n i s e d as scarce, as v a l u a b l e , as c o n t r o l l a b l e a n d as a v a i l a b l e for a l l o c a t i o n to s o m e p e o p l e a n d not to o t h e r s , or o n s o m e o c c a s i o n s a n d not o t h e r s . F o r e x a m p l e , h o w e v e r m u c h work m a y b e p u t into t h e r e a r i n g of d a u g h t e r s , rights over t h e sexuality of d a u g h ters o n l y b e c o m e a n asset to be a l l o c a t e d by t h e i r f a t h e r s or o t h e r senior m a l e relatives if these m e n have e n o u g h c o n t r o l over t h e i r d a u g h t e r s to b e a b l e to d e t e r m i n e their destin a t i o n in m a r r i a g e , o r at t h e very least, t o b e a b l e to b r e a k a m a r r i a g e if a d a u g h t e r ' s h u s b a n d fails to p r o v i d e r e c o m p e n s e t o his wife's s e n i o r m a l e relatives for t h e asset h e has received. 39 I w o u l d be p a r t i c u l a r l y g r a t e f u l if a n y r e a d e r of this p a p e r c o u l d d r a w m y a t t e n tion to e t h n o g r a p h i c i n s t a n c e s w h i c h a p p e a r t o b e e x c e p t i o n s to t h i s a s s e r t i o n . 40 T u r n b u l l , 1966, op. cit. 41 G a r d n e r , 1966, 1969 a n d 1972, op. cit. 42 C l a r k , op. cit., p. 157. 43 For nearly 20 y e a r s I h a v e b e e n t r y i n g t o interest a r c h a e o l o g i s t s in a s y s t e m a t i c search for evidence of use of a r r o w p o i s o n o r s p e a r p o i s o n in t h e m e s o l i t h i c a n d u p p e r palaeolithic of E u r o p e a n d in c o m p a r a b l e m a t e r i a l f r o m elsewhere. For r e a s o n s t h a t a r e not entirely clear to m e , not m u c h w o r k s e e m s to h a v e b e e n d o n e so far o n this topic. Any references to s u c h w o r k w o u l d b e m u c h a p p r e c i a t e d by t h e a u t h o r . 44 E . R . Leach, Political Systems of Highland Burma. L o n d o n , 1954. 45 I take u p , a n d m o d i f y , this point in a p a p e r on H a d z a sex roles r e a d initially at a c o n f e r e n c e of t h e A s s o c i a t i o n of Social A n t h r o p o l o g i s t s in S w a n s e a in 1977 a n d p r e s e n t e d in revised f o r m a t a c o n f e r e n c e o n Hunting and Gathering Societies in Paris in 1978.

J. GOODY Thought and writing In his book Thought and Language1 Vygotsky discussed the two distinct functions of language: external communication with other h u m a n beings and secondly, a n d equally important, the internal manipulation of inner thoughts. I don't wish to enter into any controversy about the relationship between thinking and language, partly because the definitional problems are more to the fore than the evidential ones, and partly because it is enough for my purpose to make the self-evident assumption stressed by Vygotsky that 'speech plays an essential role in the organization of higher psychological functions'. 2 By this assertion he meant that while practical intelligence was clearly to be found in nonlinguistic animals and in the pre-speech child, the interweaving of the symbolic (linguistic) and practical (e.g. tool-using) activities of the child were the very essence of complex h u m a n behaviour. T h e most significant moment in the course of a child's intellectual development is when speech and 'activities' converge. From there on speech not only accompanies much of the child's practical activity, but it plays a specific role in carrying it out. Social speech as well as egocentric speech, for example, enables him to plan more effectively. At a later stage the capacity to use language for problem-solving is turned inward, taking on an intrapersonal function in addition to the inter-personal one: ' T h e history of the process of the internalization of social speech is also the history of the socialization of children's practical intellect'. So while language is clearly both the result and prerequisite of communication between h u m a n beings, it is also critical for h u m a n cognitive processes in a more general sense, that is to say, for the internal as well as for the external manipulation of h u m a n thoughts. And while particular languages and dialects differ in the kinds of manipulation they encourage and permit, they clearly have an enormous amount in common in promoting classification, storage, organisation, retrieval and planning, not in a Whorfian (cultural) sense, but in a more general (structural and functional) sense. 3 In saying this I would wish to sidestep the Whorf-Chomsky debate concerning the particular or universal character of the relationship between language and ways of thinking, since there are viable alternatives to cultural particularism

120

Part 11 : The distinctiveness of the prim itive

a n d genetic universality, and it is to those that Vygotsky points w h e n he insists on the importance of the changes in the m o d e of c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d of the historical dimension in a more general sense. If we p r e s u m e some functional relation between language-using a n d the higher psychological functions, there is a n a priori case for a s s u m i n g that further changes in the mode of c o m m u n i c a t i o n might affect internal cognitive processes. In terms of the development of h u m a n society, a n d hence of h u m a n potentialities as well as achievements, the most i m p o r t a n t subsequent change is f r o m oral to w r i t t e n language, a shift which of course adds to rather t h a n replaces the cultural equipment available to a society. Moreover, it is a n a d d i t i o n in t e r m s of individual as well as historical development; m e n first learn to hear, then to speak, later to read, finally to write (though in the historical sequence, the hearing a n d speaking, like the reading a n d writing, are synchronic). T h e order is intrinsic in two ways. First, because the p e r p e t u a t i o n of a complex h u m a n culture depends at every level u p o n the individual being a receiver before becoming a t r a n s m i t t e r , a copyist before being a creator. O n c e again, we do not need to enter t h e empiricist-rationalist debate, since an internal structure is obviously r e q u i r e d before any message c a n be received at all, though the i m p o r t a n t question is the relation of t h a t structure to earlier simpler g r a m m a r s t h e child has to operate, a n d the relation of these to earlier messages. Secondly, because even with the advent of writing it is still in m a n y ways an oral language that one is engaged in writing (though the relationship varies from near identity to extreme diglossia). Reacting against their nineteenth c e n t u r y predecessors, most linguists in this century have given their exclusive a t t e n t i o n to oral language a n d have tended to treat written l a n g u a g e as a p u r e l y derivative p h e n o m e n o n . 4 T h e y have allowed little or no a u t o n o m y to the written channel (or register) a n d hence have tended to discount t h e possibility of its effect on cognitive processes. Anthropological theory, too, has often accepted the equation ' m a n = language', but avoided that which runs 'civilisation = writing'; a pervasive relativism blinded m a n y to the possibility that changes in the means of c o m m u n i c a t i o n s u b s e q u e n t to the adoption of speech m a y have i m p o r t a n t implications for the structure of ideas, as well as for the structure of society. C o n s e q u e n t l y their analyses tend to limit the implications to t h e most obvious material changes alone - changes t h a t centre a r o u n d inscribing clay, stone or paper with verbal signs, and their use as a bureaucratic device. Precisely the same tendency results from genetic a n d o t h e r universalisms; the search for a universal g r a m m a r , while taking forms that are peculiarly literate, tends to neglect the field of investigation into the differences between the syntactical structures of the written a n d the oral registers. T h e a s s u m p t i o n of a c o m m o n deep structure plays d o w n the significance of differences that lie at the level of use r a t h e r t h a n usage, of m a n i p u l a t i o n rather t h a n structure. It is strange that a g r o u p of h u m a n beings, who p r o b a b l y spend more time r e a d i n g a n d writing t h a n they

Goody: Thought and writing

121

do speaking a n d listening, have been so oblivious to t h e social a n d psychological implications of their craft. H a s the inclination t o w a r d s a mainly ' m e n t a l i s t ' social science, which a n a t t a c h m e n t to 'individualism' often e n c o u r a g e s (so too can a n overdose of culturalism), led to a disregard of the 'historical' a n d ' m a t e r i a l ' factors that Vygotsky's environment e n c o u r a g e d h i m to explore? In making this point we should of course acknowledge the work done by the T o r o n t o School, a n d by those they have influenced in various ways, e.g. Innis, Havelock, C a r p e n t e r , M c L u h a n , Goody, Goody a n d W a t t , Olsen. 5 O n the linguistic side, we should also recognise the insistence on writing as a separate channel, a distinct register, a n o t h e r style, in the work of Vachek a n d of Smith. 6 However, these linguists are mainly interested in problems in the learning of a n o r t h o g r a p h y (in this case, English) or in the teaching of reading. A n d while they both recognise the independence of the w r i t t e n register (which is not seen simply as a m a t t e r of coding a n d encoding s o u n d ) , Smith emphasises the lack of difference between t h e visual a n d t h e spoken modes, both referring back to a comm o n deep structure. T h e position suggested here is different. However we m a y visualise the deep s t r u c t u r e ( a n d it has b e e n variously a n d confusingly formulated) we assume t h a t , while the m i n d is in no sense a tabula rasa, its basic processes c a n a n d must be influenced by changes in the m e a n s of communication. Neither t h e spoken nor the written language are simply manifestations of some a b s t r a c t linguistic ability that lies for ever hidden in the depths, u n c h a n g i n g , sempiternal. W e accept a 'functional' view of cognitive processes. C h a n g e s in the m e a n s of c o m m u n i cation, changes that are external to the actor at least in the D u r k h e i m i a n sense, alter t h e r a n g e of possibilities, internal as well as external. T h e point c a n be illustrated by m e a n s of what may seem a trivial example. In the train j o u r n e y f r o m the outskirts to the centre of m a n y capital cities, a considerable n u m b e r of individuals spend the first half hour of each d a y e n g a g e d in a t t e m p t i n g to solve the crossword puzzles that a p p e a r in their favourite newspapers. A special kind of ability a n d motivation is required for such activity, the kind of ability that is summarised in the p h r a s e a 'crossword puzzle m i n d ' . From the standpoint of a n i m m e d i a t e calculation of means-ends relationships, such activity is pointless, invented for its o w n sake, a ' g a m e ' . But pointless as it is in the short term, it leads to a heightened consciousness of linguistic usage as well, p e r h a p s , as stimulating a n interest in other types of problemsolving. Yet such an activity is entirely dependent upon the existence of writing a n d indeed a p p e a r s early on in the history of written cultures. T h e first crossword has been recorded by Zandee 7 in ancient Egypt, but acrostics, the visual m a n i p u l a t i o n of linguistic signs, were a c o m m o n feature of Egyptian texts a n d form an important element in the O l d Testament.' T h e example of the crossword puzzle is less trivial t h a n it might

122

Part II: The distinctiveness of the primitive

a p p e a r , since the kind of problem-solving it involves comes close to the definition of the cognitive process itself: 'going b e y o n d the information given' 9 , ' i n f o r m a t i o n , extraction a n d organisation'. 1 0 Yet this particular activity might p e r h a p s be r e g a r d e d as a special cognitive style which, while not absent f r o m oral cultures, is e n c o u r a g e d by literacy in a whole variety of ways. For r e a d i n g a n d writing, w h i c h are frequently solitary pursuits, seem to s t i m u l a t e self-reflection, w h i c h in t u r n stimulates certain f o r m s of p r o b l e m - p o s i n g a n d problem-solving. T h e s e forms of activity have a n obvious relationship to c e r t a i n d o m i n a n t elements in the t h o u g h t processes of o u r o w n society. However, in other situations a n d in m a n y simpler cultures, problem-solving was p e r h a p s of less i m p o r t a n c e t h a n problem-avoidance. T h e crossword is based on a m a t r i x of c o l u m n s a n d rows, the elements of w h i c h (letters) a d d u p in various directions. T h e numerical c o u n t e r p a r t is the magic s q u a r e , w h i c h substitutes n u m b e r s for letters in a m a n n e r c o m m o n to m a n y cabalastic, astrological a n d magical works that e m a n a t e d f r o m the M i d d l e East after t h e development of writing a n d which still c o m m a n d a large a n d enthusiastic following. Substitute words for letters as the elements of t h e m a t r i x a n d we get a table, t h a t God-sent i n s t r u m e n t of m u c h early written activity, b u r e a u c r a t i c a n d intellectual, a n i n s t r u m e n t t h a t is still used by anthropologists, psychologists and seekers after knowledge of all kinds, to organise a n d formalise their i n f o r m a t i o n into classificatory f r a m e works, systems of v e r b a t i m recall a n d p l a n s for f u t u r e action. While all writing a d d s a visuo-spatial d i m e n s i o n to l a n g u a g e (which hitherto h a d only a n a u d i o - t e m p o r a l one), such formalised g r a p h i c a r r a n g e m e n t s provide precise spatial locations for (principally) n o u n s a n d n u m b e r s . At the s a m e t i m e they not only extract, codify a n d s u m m a r i s e a great deal of i n f o r m a t i o n otherwise e m b e d d e d in the flux of experience, b u t they also m a k e it possible to m a n i p u l a t e , re-organise a n d reformulate this i n f o r m a t i o n in a m a n n e r t h a t is virtually inconceivable in the purely oral context. It is on this latter point t h a t I w a n t to place t h e m a j o r stress. T h e results of this ' e x t e r n a l ' activity (the m a k i n g a n d m a n i p u l a t i o n of t a b u l a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n ) a r e frequently internalised by being placed in the long t e r m m e m o r y , f r o m w h e n c e they are retrieved as oral products. O r a l a r i t h m e t i c is of this kind, based as it is u p o n the multiplication tables universally f o u n d on t h e backs of copy books or exercise books. T h e table itself as well as its c o n t e n t s are b o t h p r o d u c t s of the visual r a t h e r t h a n the a u r a l mode, for as a n activity multiplication (as distinct from successive addition) seems d e p e n d e n t u p o n the existence of graphic system, at least b e y o n d t h e e l e m e n t a r y stage. J u s t as the electronic calculator has m a d e oral multiplication partially obsolete, so the arithmetic table improved u p o n earlier processes of calculation. In oral society multiplication is virtually non-existent. While addition itself is based u p o n c o u n t i n g a set of objects themselves or, m o r e abstractly, by direct visual r e p r e s e n t a t i o n (as with t h e a b a c u s ) , c o u n t i n g individual

Goody: Thought and writing

123

items could be replaced by the cognitive process that has been called subitising, a kind of visual estimating of items of six and below, limits that seem to be set by structural features of the human brain. 1 1 W h a t is significant about the dominant use of language in early writing systems is that so much of the product displays a very different syntactical structure from speech. Indeed the written register is also, but less radically, to be distinguished from the oral on the level of semantics, stylistics and pragmatics. O n the syntactical level, much linguistic usage does not possess a sentence structure, much less the continuous pattern of give-and-take that marks most oral discourse. In some cases the flow of speech may be arrested by the 'reduction to writing'. But in much earlier verse what is reduced is not speech, though it is clearly language. T h e s e early written products often consist not of sentences but of separated words, arranged in some kind of list. In Mesopotamia, most of these lists are of a bureaucratic kind, involved in some aspects of the economy or the polity. T h e same is true of other Mediterranean societies. R e m e m b e r the excitement provoked by the decipherment of Linear B ? But disappointingly to many, the secrets revealed were not earlier versions of Homeric or Hesiodic myth. T h e secrets unlocked were rather of the order rams ewes goats

2 4 7

Apart from these bureaucratic lists we find a large number of lexical lists of trees, roles, classes of various kinds etc. which possess several characteristics that make them differ from the categories that usually emerge in oral communication: First, they consist of isolated lexemes abstracted from the flow of speech, and indeed from almost any 'context of action' except that of writing itself. Secondly, the lists are formalised versions of classificatory systems that are to some extent implicit in language use, but they go beyond those classificatory systems in important ways that I have tried to indicate elsewhere. 1 2 Let us now consider the relation of this argument concerning the role of writing in the development of 'thought' to the evidence from recent linguistic and psycholinguistic work. W e shall be concentrating here, not so much on the issues of how far the content and indeed the strategy of communication differs, which we have touched upon in other discussions, but on three central issues that have been of more immediate concern to contributors to these fields: first, the differences between languages that have been written and those that have not, secondly, between the written and oral registers of the same language, and thirdly between the performance of individuals in the written and in the oral registers. T h e available material on these differences is very limited, mainly because (as I have suggested) the real significance of the problem has not been recognised. Systematic treatment of the difference between those languages that have been written and those that have not

124

Part 11 : The distinctiveness of the primitive

is virtually non-existent, although the number of hints, guesses and assumptions are legion. T h e second aspect, the difference between the written and oral registers of the same language, has been the subject of some discussion. O n e recent contribution by Huddleston 15 compares a rather limited range of material, namely the use of relative clauses, in scientific texts and in the oral discourse of university-educated individuals (see also Quirk; Crystal and Davy 14 ). Internal and nonrestricted clauses, which represent elaborate interruptions of the flow of speech, are more common in the written texts. So too is the avoidance of the relative pronoun at the end of the sentence, a point which leads Huddleston to comment that 'the influence of the prescriptive grammarian is clearly greater in the more carefully constructed written language'. 15 The comment is illuminating for it indicates the connection between the construction o f ' g r a m m a r s ' and the existence of the written register, as well as suggesting the feedback of those formalised statements of 'rules' on the written, a n d to a lesser extent, the spoken language (see Bourdieu 1 6 for his criticism of the notion of'rule'). Little systematic work has been done on the general problem but it is possible to indicate some of the likely differences between the written and spoken registers, anyway as far as English is concerned. These turn upon: 1. T h e length of sentences (increasing in writing) 2. Differences in construction, with dependent clauses becoming more frequent t h a n conjunctions 3. Increased nominalisation as against a preference for verbalisation in speech, a process that is connected with a b s t r a c t i o n " 4 T h e completion of sentences is more imperative: sentences are rarely left hanging in the air but the written language systematically extracts lexemes (especially nouns) from the context of the sentence, as in a dictionary. 5. Rules are more clearly restraining, e.g. in the matter of split infinitives in English 6. There is a tendency to use longer words 7. There is greater variety in e.g. the selection of adjectives 8. T h e order becomes more complex, partly because of the ability to scan backwards as well as forwards (e.g. in written German). As Levinson points out, sentence complexity is difficult to define a n d hence there is some inconsistency between this observation and that of Portnoy (below). Both, however, seem to me reconcilable. It is a question of a more adequate definition of the variables. 9. Greater lexical stability O n the third question, concerning the differences in the linguistic behaviour of the same set of individuals, depending upon which register, oral or written, they are using, psycholinguistic studies appear to shed some light on the influence of modes of communication. A

Goody : Thought and writing

125

recent paper by Portnoy 1 * summarises previous investigations as well as analysing the author's own empirical results. Before discussing these results it is in order to make some general points. First, the samples in these various studies were relatively homogeneous and consisted mainly of well-educated individuals, that is, those possessing great familiarity with the written mode. T h e exception to both the rule of homogeneity a n d of advanced education (though see also the study of Bushnell 19 ) is the comparative work by Simmons on deaf and hearing children aged eight to fifteen. In other words these investigations did not attempt to assess the influence of differences in literate attainment on oral behaviour. Nevertheless some interesting points emerge on which there is a considerable degree of agreement and which are confirmed by the tests carried out by Portnoy. She found that oral and written samples varied systematically with respect to word diversity and word redundancy; the written samples showed more diversity and the oral more redundancy. Indeed increased word diversity in written samples had earlier been reported by a series of investigators working with college students. As far as the general characteristics of words are concerned, shorter words are generally found in oral discourse, longer ones in written language (Kaump, Green, Devito,*0 but Bushnell* 1 found no difference). Sentence characteristics tend to reverse the trend in that the oral sentences were longer, in a sense more complex, and they contained more imperative, interrogative and exclamatory sentences but less declarative ones. Portnoy also tested for the comprehensibility of the oral and written utterance of a set of individuals. This was done by means of the 'cloze' procedure, which involves the elimination of every fifth word from a passage composed either orally or in writing (other 'cloze' procedures use existing texts). After a certain delay the passages are fed back to the respondents who have provided them, as well as to others. T h e degree of fit between the later response and the earlier text, assessed both grammatically and semantically, provides a measure of comprehensibility. It turned out that, taking the two samples as a whole, there was no significant difference. However, taking each pair of responses for every respondent, significant differences in comprehensibility were found between the productions of individuals in these two registers and they were therefore grouped into Speakers and Writers. It is the latter who, both in speaking and writing, tend to use longer words; the use of shorter words by the Speakers corresponds to the general tendency of oral communication, where comprehensibility is often a matter of repetition and simplicity. These consclusions reinforce everyday observation. Writers are not necessarily Speakers, nor Speakers Writers. Indeed, one is struck by the fact that some students who seem inarticulate in seminars may write excellent answers to examinations. H a d one been judging from speech alone, the linguistic performance of such students would have been a prime example of Bernstein's 'restricted code', demonstrating their

126

P a r t 11 : The distinctiveness of the primitive

u r b a n w o r k i n g - c l a s s origin. But this p a r t i c u l a r use of l a n g u a g e is not s i m p l y a m a t t e r of a r e s t r i c t e d p a t t e r n of c o m m u n i c a t i o n b r o u g h t a b o u t b y t h e i n t i m i d a t i n g c o n t e x t of t h e s e m i n a r ; t h e s a m e restricted vocabu l a r y , t h e repetitive use of w o r d s a n d simplified g r a m m a r c a n b e o b s e r v e d in r e l a x e d as well as in f o r m a l s i t u a t i o n s . Yet s o m e of these individuals, w h o d i s p l a y e d a r e s t r i c t e d c o d e in speech, e m p l o y a very e l a b o r a t e o n e in w r i t i n g . W h a t d o e s this say a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of s p e e c h to w r i t i n g a n d of b o t h to l a n g u a g e ? W h a t does it say a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of class to c o d e s ? T o t a k e t h e last p o i n t first, w h i l e u r b a n working-class speech m a y be m o r e r e s t r i c t e d (on a series of simple criteria s u c h as w o r d diversity) t h a n t h a t of t h e m i d d l e class, this r e s t r i c t i o n m a y b e c o n n e c t e d to t w o r a t h e r c o n t r a d i c t o r y factors. I n t h e first place, it m a y result f r o m a d e l i b e r a t e r e s t r i c t i o n o n v e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n in a g r o u p s i t u a t i o n w h e r e t h e use of w o r d diversity is h e l d to b e f a n c y , intellectual, u n m a n ly. C o m m u n i c a t i o n in a n a r m y b a r r a c k s , for e x a m p l e , m a y involve t h e d e l i b e r a t e s u p p r e s s i o n of diversity, in w o r d , d r e s s a n d action, a n d the use of a l l - p u r p o s e a d j e c t i v e s s u c h a s ' b l o o d y ' w h i c h convey little except emphasis; the schoolchild's superlatives do the same job, a n d one m i g h t a d a p t t h e p h r a s e s of B e r n s t e i n a n d M a l i n o w s k i to s p e a k of ' a res t r i c t e d c o d e of e m p h a t i c c o m m u n i o n ' . I n t h e s e c o n d place, while t h e c o n t e n t of u t t e r a n c e m a y restrict t h e e x p l o i t a t i o n of linguistic resources, it s e e m s likely, given t h e e v i d e n c e q u o t e d earlier, t h a t w r i t i n g e n c o u r a g e s e l a b o r a t i o n . L a n d s b e r g e r 's c o m m e n t u p o n t h e divergence of w r i t t e n f r o m oral f o r m s in a n c i e n t M e s o p o t a m i a m a k e s this point q u i t e clearly; t h e w r i t t e n register s y s t e m a t i c a l l y prevents ' a r c h a i c ' f o r m s f r o m sliding i n t o oblivion. T h u s o n t h e o n e h a n d we c a n see B e r n s t e i n ' s restricted code 2 2 as b e i n g a d e l i b e r a t e l i m i t a t i o n o n t h e t o t a l r a n g e of linguistic expression in s o m e c o n t e x t s (e.g. g r o u p c o n v e r s a t i o n ) as distinct f r o m its m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e e x p l o i t a t i o n in o t h e r s (e.g. t h e a d d r e s s to the u n i o n m e e t i n g ) . T h e i m p l i c a t i o n is t h a t s u c h a ' c o d e ' is not limited t o o n e class n o r does it r e p r e s e n t t h e t o t a l linguistic b e h a v i o u r of those w h o a d o p t s u c h restrictions. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , e d u c a t i o n in literate f o r m s is clearly r e l a t e d to t h e s y s t e m of s t r a t i f i c a t i o n ( t h o u g h b y p r o v i d i n g a c h a n n e l of m o b i l i t y as well as c o n f i r m i n g h i g h e r s t a t u s ) . It could b e said t h a t literacy i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s e s a c r i t e r i o n of a c h i e v e m e n t w h i c h a p p e a r s to ( a n d to s o m e e x t e n t does) r e p l a c e a s c r i p t i o n . But in fact, family c i r c u m s t a n c e p l a y s a n o t a b l e p a r t in s u c h a c h i e v e m e n t a n d h e n c e disguises a c e r t a i n p e r p e t u a t i o n of t h e status quo. T h e g r e a t e r e l a b o r a t i o n of t h e w r i t t e n register is likely to affect t h e oral style of those w h o s p e n d a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of t h e i r t i m e in r e a d i n g a n d w r i t i n g , not only o n o r a t o r i c a l occasions b u t in o r d i n a r y d i s c o u r s e as well. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , p e r f o r m a n c e in t h e s e d i f f e r e n t registers m a y differ s u b s t a n t i a l l y b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s so t h a t we h a v e t o b e c a r e f u l a b o u t a l l o c a t i n g t h e m to o n e p a r t i c u l a r c a t e g o r y ; it is a n o t h e r m a t t e r with t h e i r p e r f o r m a n c e in a particular register (or in a particular context). T h e r e is one other factor

G o o d y : Thought and writing

127

to be t a k e n into account : working-class speech m a y be restricted by the u r b a n environment a n d industrial conditions. O n the o t h e r h a n d , the limited access to literacy that u r b a n life offers provides a n o p p o r t u n i t y for the a u t o d i d a c t a n d the scholarship boy. T h i s discussion raises a general point a b o u t the n a t u r e of'restrictive codes' or n o n - s t a n d a r d speech. Before typing individuals according to these t e r m s a n d relating such typing to class, one should b e a r in m i n d that individuals are not limited to o p e r a t i n g in one such code, a n d t h a t a n individual's p e r f o r m a n c e in t h e written register m a y be at odds with his p e r f o r m a n c e in the spoken one. Since in most literate cultures u p p e r speech is closer to the written register, it is plainly m o r e difficult for those a c c u s t o m e d to so-called n o n - s t a n d a r d English to learn how to read a n d write. For, contrary to the views of C h o m s k y a n d other linguists, t h e p r o b l e m of teaching r e a d i n g is not simply o n e of ' b r i n g i n g into consciousness a system that plays a basic role in t h e spoken language i t s e l f ' ; " it is a question of learning a variety of l a n g u a g e that m a y be considerably different in significant features from, say, L o w l a n d s Scots or B i r m i n g h a m English. Such a task is perfectly possible; everyone succeeds at it to some extent. But it has to be recognised that for some groups the process m a y be quite different f r o m learning to read one's m a t e r n a l tongue a n d closer to the task of schoolchildren in West Africa w h o have to do their lessons in A r a b i c or English, t h a t is, in nonm a t e r n a l languages. T h e reasons why c h i l d r e n whose m a t e r n a l t o n g u e is of limited circulation work in these other languages are similar to those that force English children to learn to r e a d a special type of language, a n d they are reasons which, given t h e n a t u r e of literate culture, are not easy to set aside. Bernstein's distinction between ' r e s t r i c t e d ' a n d ' e l a b o r a t e d ' codes, 2 4 characterising working-class a n d middle-class children respectively, is seen by K a y as a m a t t e r of the increasing a u t o n o m y of t h e linguistic c h a n n e l ; the 'richer speech style' or code is 'precise a n d logically explic i t ' . " It is associated with the difference b e t w e e n local a n d world languages a n d t h e mechanisms a p p e a r to be increasing specialisation (which involves lexical specialisation) a n d t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of writing. T h e lexical elaboration of world languages is paralleled by the lexical usage of the middle classes who employ those languages, a n d has to be contrasted with the languages of local cultures or s u b o r d i n a t e classes. Lexical elaboration entails (according to recent theory) g r a m m a t i c a l structure, for 'lexical items are inextricably i n t e r m e s h e d in the s e m a n tic a n d transformational structure of language'. 2 6 Lexical elaboration is not simply a m a t t e r of using m o r e words, b u t of the n a t u r e of t h e lexical increase was well as the different use of the same words. If lexical elaboration is associated with the increasing a u t o n o m y of the linguistic channel, then one of the p r i m e movers in this trend is the use of writing. For written l a n g u a g e is partly cut off f r o m the context that face-to-face communication gives to speech, a context that uses multiple channels, not only the purely linguistic one, a n d which

128

Part 11 : The distinctiveness of the primitive

therefore does not have to be so decontextualised, so abstract, so formal, either in content or in form. But is the difference b e t w e e n lower a n d u p p e r speech only a m a t t e r of the latter having a d o p t e d the more a u t o n o m o u s m o d e ? Surely there is also a 'hierarchical b a c k l a s h ' which m e a n s that, for example, the a d o p t e d or t r a n s f o r m e d speech of a n i m m i g r a n t c o m m u n i t y might be less e l a b o r a t e t h a n their African language, a n d hence one might possibly talk of actual impoverishment, of underdevelopment (while recognising the p r o b l e m s of m e a s u r e m e n t a n d the errors of those w h o have failed to treat ' d i a l e c t ' differences in their o w n right) in a sense more concrete t h a n the notion of relative deprivation would alone suggest. Relative deprivation m a y actually restrict speech forms. In discussing the relationship b e t w e e n oral a n d written behaviour in the s a m e a n d different individuals belonging to a single 'speech comm u n i t y ' , it h a r d l y needs saying t h a t oral behaviour is learned earlier a n d informally, in a family setting, whereas writing is learned later, a n d usually in t h e m o r e formal setting of the school ; t h o u g h this is not t h e o r etically necessary, the teaching of r e a d i n g a n d writing often involves a more a u t h o r i t a r i a n situation a n d set of procedures t h a n the t r a n s m i s sion of spoken l a n g u a g e . Moreover, while t h e latter is critical to t h e h u m a n condition, t h e f o r m e r is in a sense optional. I r e m a r k e d earlier t h a t little systematic work h a d been done o n the first p r o b l e m a r e a , n a m e l y the relationship between oral a n d w r i t t e n languages (e.g. H o p i a n d English), as distinct from the difference between w r i t t e n a n d oral registers of t h e same l a n g u a g e 2 ' a n d individual p e r f o r m a n c e s in these registers. 2 8 A tentative link b e t w e e n the two t h e m e s is provided by the work of some writers c o n c e r n e d with p r o b l e m s of o r t h o g r a p h y , a n d specifically with the t e a c h i n g of English both as a foreign language (e.g. P u l g r a m , Vachek 2 9 ) a n d to native speakers themselves. T h e general situation, both empirically a n d theoretically, has recently been reviewed by Smith®0 w h o has s u m m a r i s e d research and tried to integrate relevant findings with the work of C h o m s k y a n d Halle. s l H e starts from a n ass u m p t i o n we have b e e n c o n c e r n e d to stress, that writing is not simply a m a t t e r of recording sound, t h a t is, speech. In English, he argues, t h e r e is a lack of c o r r e s p o n d e n c e at the level of spelling; the correspondence is at a ' d e e p e r ' , ' u n d e r l y i n g ' level, for 'English o r t h o g r a p h y is m o r e closely related to underlying aspects of l a n g u a g e involving m e a n i n g t h a n to the s o u n d p a t t e r n of a n y one dialect'.® 2 Looking at evidence from linguists a n d psychologists ( W a r d h a u g h , Joos, M i l l e r " ) h e sees no evidence of differences in the g r a m m a t i c a l structure or lexicon of written a n d oral registers, only of different proportions of occurrence a n d degrees of complexity, 5 4 leading him to conclude that 'Speech a n d writing are variants or alternative forms of the same language', while rejecting ' t h e m o r e superficial proposition t h a t writing is speech written d o w n ' . Smith is led by the a r g u m e n t of C h o m s k y and Halle to state t h a t

G o o d y : Thought and writing

129

since English o r t h o g r a p h y is related to ' a n u n d e r l y i n g abstract level of language a n d not to s o u n d ' , 'differences in spoken dialect should not be relevant to r e a d i n g ' . " English o r t h o g r a p h y is the o p t i m a l system for all dialects a n d it is a n 'egregious error to a s s u m e t h a t w r i t t e n l a n g u a g e is s o m e h o w a closer representation of a p a r t i c u l a r . . . s t a n d a r d dialect t h a n of a n y other'. In a p p a r e n t modification of this assertion he notes that if anything, written l a n g u a g e s h o u l d be r e g a r d e d as ' a dialect in its own right'. If this is so, t h e n surely one dialect c a n resemble a second more closely t h a n a third, a n d the dialect of w r i t t e n English is likely to resemble the speech of clerical r a t h e r t h a n m a n u a l workers, not necessarily because of closeness of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n (it has b e e n a r g u e d t h a t classical Chinese never w a s a spoken l a n g u a g e ) b u t because of feedback, syntactical, lexical a n d stylistic, of the w r i t t e n o n the oral register. While Smith recognises t h e ' i n d e p e n d e n c e ' of text f r o m utterance, his particular use of the model of d e e p a n d surface s t r u c t u r e treats the f o r m e r a s a constant ( a m o n g variable dialects) a n d as d o m i n a t i n g , in a vectorial sense, the surface. T h i s rationalist position, which fails to take account of the historical situation, t u r n s l a n g u a g e into a n entity of dubious status a n d fails to allow for a n y feedback f r o m external c h a n g e s either over the short or t h e long t e r m . T h e position is not altogether dissimilar f r o m t h a t a d o p t e d by liberal-minded psychologists w h o r e g a r d capacities as c o n s t a n t a n d achievement as t h e variable. In a general sense this is obviously true. But at a n o t h e r level it distracts f r o m interesting possibilities relating to research a n d policy. Glick®6 suggests t h a t cognitive processes c a n be thought o f a s : 1. the extraction a n d organisation of empirical information by m e a n s of concept behaviour, systems of classification, which are partly dependent u p o n specific languages, a n d partly on the world out t h e r e (Rosch"), 2. the formation of p l a n s for b e h a v i o u r (Miller, G a l l a n t e r a n d Pibram"), 3. the elaboration of m o r e general theories a b o u t the world ( W e r n e r and Kaplan"). I would suggest that in each of these areas t h e r e is substantial if unsystematic evidence to suggest that cognitive processes are affected in important ways by writing, as we have seen in the reference to a d m i n i s trative lists, conceptual listing, the whole development of m o r e regular a n d systematic observations of the world a r o u n d us a n d the incorporation of religious ideas in holy books. For a n exception to the general neglect of this topic, see Greenfield. 4 0 These brief c o m m e n t s suggest h o w the m a t e r i a l we have e x a m i n e d on the difference between written a n d oral l a n g u a g e s or registers, limited as it is, displays s o m e striking similarities to a n o t h e r difference, which has been talked a b o u t in vague cultural terms. T h i s is the differ-

130

Part 11 : The distinctiveness of the primitive

enee between w h a t Lévi-Strauss refers to as the domesticated a n d the savage, what others refer to as primitive a n d advanced, or simple a n d complex. Some m a j o r differences touched u p o n in this discussion can reasonably be attributed to the advent of writing a n d its subsequent developments - the formalisation of discourse, the extension of abstraction, of logic (e.g. the syllogism) a n d of rationality, not in the sense that philosophers usually mean, but in a more restricted fashion that refers to the analysis of formal propositions in ways that seem to depend u p o n visual inspection a n d material manipulation. T h e different implications of oral and written communication for cognitive development m a y also have important physiological correlates, arising out of the hemispheric differences in the brain which influence the processing of sensory material. Laterality studies have shown that the left hemisphere is superior in the recognition of oral materials, while the right is specialised for the recognition of non-verbal shapes, patterns a n d nonsense figures.41 T h e hemispheric preferences for nominal as against physical analysis emerge in a preference for serial as against parallel processing of linguistic stimuli that can be performed either verbally or visuo-spatially. 4 2 ' T h e perceptual specialization of the left hemisphere extends to . . . virtually any type of acoustic material with a linguistic r e f e r e n t . ' " Interestingly the effect increases the more language-like the material. Zurif a n d Sait 4 4 'presented dichotically lists of syllables read as a list a n d read as a sentence, with proper intonation, a n d found greater laterality with sentence-like material'. 4 5 We may note in passing that latéralisation a p p e a r s to be a specifically h u m a n trait (animals are randomly left or r i g h t - h a n d e d ) a n d probably connected with the development of language; moreover the only demonstrable sex differences in cognitive processes a m o n g h u m a n s have to do with differences in latéralisation that affect visuo-spatial ordering and verbal ability. T h e profound social, psychological, and possibly physiological effects of language on cognitive processes need little stressing; that other changes in the system of interpersonal c o m m u n i cation may have parallel effects should occasion no surprise. I want to conclude with a remark on reading rather t h a n writing, for it is of more general relevance, particularly in an era when the printed word supplements the written. Travelling in a c o m m u t e r train I have had the experience of observing oyer three-quarters of the individuals present engaged in the same pattern of 'linguistic' communication, with the same set of absent actors, ignoring all those who were physically present. T h e y were reading the one available evening newspaper. This kind of activity involves the shift from the largely interactional, contextual use of language (often with an emphasis on strategies that minimise linguistic elaboration a n d have immediate reference) to a use that is silent, impersonal a n d decontextualised (often with an emphasis on maximal elaboration, encouraging self-reflection u p o n a text rather t h a n participation in an utterance). T h e full implications of such a shift for cognitive processes have hardly begun to be assessed. Some of the

G o o d y : Thought and writing

131

implications are emerging f r o m cross-cultural research in the sphere of e d u c a t i o n . In t h e review of psychological work on cognitive development to which I have already referred, Glick acknowledges the need to break d o w n the global variables of schooling. W h e n we do so we find that a good c a n d i d a t e for the effective factor is ' t r a i n i n g a n d reading', 4 6 w h e r e the work of Gibson et al.*1 has s h o w n how achievement in this area alters the w a y in which ' f o r m d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s ' are m a d e , a n d m a y increase the relevance of ' f o r m ' w h e n there are alternative systems of classification. A n o t h e r i m p o r t a n t finding is t h a t of Greenfield et al.** where the a u t h o r s argue for the i m p o r t a n c e of t r a i n i n g in t h e written language to increase the use of t h e hierarchical devices that a l a n g u a g e contains. For writing must take l a n g u a g e out of t h e ' i m m e d i a t e referential context'. C o n c e p t s are t h e n more easily m a n i p u l a t e d , m o r e easily t u r n e d upside down. T h e individual 'is freed f r o m the i m m e d i a t e contexts of the things thought a b o u t . ' 4 9 H e r e once again, external factors play an i m p o r t a n t role in internal processes. For e x a m p l e , the particular activity in which my c o m m u t e r s were e n g a g e d clearly d e p e n d e d not merely u p o n writing, but u p o n the presence of t h e p r i n t i n g press. In this way the e x a m p l e serves as a n illustration of how developments in the technology of the intellect (and specifically in g r a p h i c systems) affect cognitive processes. W h i c h is not, of course, to deny t h a t other factors such as class, ideology or position in t h e sibling g r o u p do not also have a p a r t to play in these processes, a n d it is the a t t e m p t to uncover these different influences in social situations t h a t is the task of the social sciences. T h e decontextualisation, impersonalisation a n d complexity are to be linked not only with literacy in itself, b u t with communication in class or caste societies, w h e r e the experiential context of speakers a n d listeners cannot be a s s u m e d to be similar, m a k i n g it necessary for linguistic acts to be m a d e m o r e explicit. Both writing a n d class are linked to historically specific situations, a n d seem to have some similar influences u p o n processes of c o m m u n i c a t i o n . *

I a m most grateful for the thoughtful c o m m e n t s of Ernest Gellner, Mike Smith a n d Steve Levinson, as well as for discussions with P e n n y Brown on the differences in registers. T h e use of the pair, ' u t t e r a n c e ' a n d 'text', I have borrowed from David Olsen. M y paper is p e r h a p s a curious e x a m p l e of ' w e s t e r n ' a n t h r o p o l o g y , both in its concerns a n d in its m e t h o d . I c a n only say that it emerges from a conception of the interaction of intensive a n d extensive m e t h o d s which implies not only the m a t i n g of theoretical a n d empirical enquiry, but also the use of an historical f r a m e of reference as well as a systemic one.

132

Part II : The distinctiveness

of the

primitive

NOTES 1 L.S. Vygotsky, Thought and Language, Cambridge, Mass., 1962 (English translation). 2 L.S. Vygotsky, Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Cambridge, Mass., 1978 (English translation). 3 F.H. Lenneberg, 'Cognition in ethnolinguistics', Language, 1953, 29, 463-71, reprinted P.Adams (ed.) Language in Thinking (Penguin Modern Psychology Readings), London, 1972. 4 L. Bloomfield, Language, New York, 1933. 5 H. Innes, Empire and Communication, Oxford, 1950, and The Bias of Communication, Toronto, 1951. E.A. Havelock, Preface to Plato, Cambridge, Mass., 1963, Prologue to Greek Literacy, Cincinnati, 1973, and 'The origins of western literacy', in Monograph Series, 1976, no. 14, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. E. Carpenter, Oh, What a Blow that Phantom Gave Me.', New York, 1973. M. McLuhan, The Gutenberg Galaxy, Toronto, 1951. E.A. Havelock, Preface to Plato, Cambridge, Mass., 1963, Prologue to Greek and I.P. Watt, 'The consequences of literacy', Comparative Studies m History and Society, 1977, 5, 304-45. D R. Olsen, 'From utterance to text', in H. Fisher and R. DiezGurerro (eds) Language and Logic in Personality and Society, New York, 1976. 6 J. Vachek, Written Language: General Problems and Problems of English (Janua Linguarum, Series Critica, 14), The Hague, 1973. F. Smith, 'The relations between the spoken and the written language', in E. and L. Lenneberg, Foundations of Language, vol. 2, London, 1975. 7 J. Zandee, 'An Egyptian crossword puzzle', Ex Oriente Lux, Leiden, 1966. 8 J.J. Clère, 'Acrostiches et mots croisés des anciens Egyptiens', Chronique d'Egypte, 1938, 25, 35-58. A. Demsky, Ά proto-Canaanite abecedary dating from the period of the Judges', 1977 (unpublished). 9 J.S. Bruner, Beyond the Information Given, London, 1974. 10 J. Glick, 'Cognitive development in cross-cultural perspective', in F.D. Horowitz (ed.) Review of Child Development Research, Chicago, 1975, 4. 11 E.L. Kaufman et al. 'The discrimination of visual number', Am. J. Psych., 1949, 62, 498-525. G.A. Miller, 'The magical number seven, plus or minus', Psychol. Rev., 1956,63,81-97. 12 J.Goody, The Domestication of the Savage Mind, Cambridge, 1977. 13 R.D. Huddleston, The Sentence m Written English, Cambridge, 1971. 14 R. Quirk, 'Relative clauses in educated spoken English', in Essays on the English Language, London, 1968. D. Crystal and D. Davy, Investigating English Style, London, 1969. 15 Huddleston, op. cit., p. 262. 16 P. Bourdieu, Outlineofa Theory of Practice (translated R. Nice), Cambridge, 1977. 17 G. Fielding and E. Coope, 'Medium of communication, orientation to interaction, and conversational style', paper presented at the Social Psychology Section Conference of the British Psychological Society, 1976. P. Brown and C. Fraser, 'Nominal and verbal language styles' (forthcoming). 18 S. Portnoy, Ά comparison of oral and written behavior', in K. Salzingerand R.S. Feldman (eds) Studies in Verbal Behaviour, New York, 1973. 19 P.P. Bushneil, An Analytic Contrast of Oral with Written English, Bureau of Publications, Teachers'College, Columbia University, 1930. 20 E.A. Kaump, 'An analysis of the structural differences between oral and written language of 100 secondary school students', unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1940. J.R. Green, Ά comparison of oral and written language: a quantitative analysis of the structure and vocabulary of a group of college students', unpublished PhD dissertation, New York University, 1958. J.A. Devito, 'Comprehension factors in oral and written discourse of skilled communicators', Speech M onographs, 1965, 32, 124-8

Goody: Thought and writing

133

21 Bushneil, op. cit. 22 Β. Bernstein, 'Elaborated and restricted codes: their social origins and some consequences', i n j . G u m p e r t z and D. Hymes (eds), The Ethnography of Communication, American Anthropologist, 1964,66, 6, pt 2. 23 N. Chomsky, 'Phonology and reading', in H. Levin and J.P. Williams (eds), Basic Studies in Reading, New York, 1970. 24 Bernstein, op. cit. 25 P. K a y , ' L a n g u a g e evolution and speech style', 1971 (unpublished). 26 Ibid. 27 Huddleston, op. cit. 28 Portnoy, op.cit. 29 E. Pulgram, 'Phoneme and grapheme: a parallel', Word, 1951, 7, 15-20, and 'Graphic and phonic systems: figures a n d signs', Word, 1965, 21, 208-24. Vachek, op. cit. 30 Smith, op. cit. 31 Ν. C h o m s k y a n d M . Halle, The Sound Pattern of English, New York, 1968. 32 S m i t h , o p . cit., p. 347. 33 R. W a r d h a u g h , Reading: A Linguistic Perspective, New York, 1969. M. Joos, ' T h e five clocks', Int. J. Am. Linguistics, 1962, monograph 28. G.A. Miller, Language and Communication, New York, 1951. 34 Smith, op. cit., p. 348. 35 Ibid., p. 352. 36 Glick,op.cit. 37 E. Rosch, ' H u m a n categorisation', in N. W a r r e n (ed.) Advances in Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 1, London, 1976. 38 G.A. Miller, E. Gallanter, and K. Pibram, Plans and the Structure of Behavior, New York, 1960. 39 H. W e r n e r a n d Β. Kaplan, Symbol Formation, New York, 1963. 40 P.M. Greenfield, O r a l or written language: the consequences for cognitive development in Africa, the U. S. and England', Language and Speech, 1972, 169-78. 41 M.J. White, 'Laterality differences in perception: a review', Psychological Bulletin, 1969,72, 387-405. G. Cohen, 'Hemispheric differences in serial versus parallel processi n g ' , J . Exp. Psychol., 1973, 97, 349-56. 42 Cohen, op. cit., p. 355. 43 M. P. Bryden a n d F. Allard, 'Dichotic listening and the development of linguistic processes', in M. Kinsbourne (ed.) Hemispheric Asymmetry ofFunction, London, 1974. 44 E.B. Zurif and P.E. Sait, ' T h e role of syntax in dichotic listening', Newspsychologia, 1970,8, 839-44. 45 B r y d e n a n d A l l a r d , op. cit.,p. 15. 46 Glick, op.cit., p. 627. 47 E.J. Gibson et al. Ά developmental study of the discrimination of letter-like forms', J . Comp. andPhys. Psych., 1962, 55, 897-906. 48 P.M. Greenfield et al. ' O n culture and equivalence II', in J.S. Bruner et al. (eds) Studies in Cognitive Growth, New York, 1966. 49 Glick, op. cit., p.634.

LAWRENCE KRADER The origins of the state among the nomads of Asia Theory of the state in general T h e state is the product of that society which is divided into two classes of people, a class composed of those directly engaged in social production, and a class of those who are not so directly engaged. T h e social product is conformably divided into two parts, a part which is applied to the reproduction of the direct producers as a social class, and a surplus which is appropriated to the maintenance of the class of those whose relation to production in the society is indirect. T h e direct producers in the society labour, work and toil both for themselves and for these others, whose relation to social production is either indirect or nonexistent ; it is these others that the social surplus supports. T h e state is the organisation of society for the regulation of the relations both within and between the social classes. Yet the relations of the two social classes to the state differ; it is in the interest of that class in the society which appropriates the social surplus produced that the agencies of the state are active. T h e class-divided society is composed of the rulers, who have appropriated the social surplus, and the ruled, who are the direct producers in the society. T h e nature of the class interest and the class oppositions is a matter that must be explored in another context. T h e relation of the individuals of the ruling class to the interest of this social class and to the state will be considered in the following pages. T h e social class of the direct producers has no immediate interest in the formation of the state. O n the contrary, as we shall see, this social class maintained a number of archaic collective institutions, which had been evolved long before the formation of the state ; these institutions, as gentes, sibs, clans, kin village communities, continued in being among them long after the state was formed as the over-arching power in the society. These institutions of the collectivity had long maintained the functions of keeping the peace, resolving conflicts both within and between the clans and villages, attacking and defending in war, and continued to do so after the formation of the state. T h e agencies of the state,

136

Part 11 : The distinctiveness of the primitive

w h e n established, took over these same functions of t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of justice, conduct of war a n d diplomacy; at this point the interests of the social classes were divided. T h e archaic collective institutions had formerly resolved conflicts or m a i n t a i n e d the peace internally in the interest of the social whole, in this case the whole c o m m u n i t y , clan or tribe. T h e agencies of the state now defended, w a r r e d , both in the interest of the state a n d that of the social whole. It is a double interest, conflicting internally within itself; on the one side it is the interest of the state as the representative of the social class for w h o m it is organised, on the other the interest of the social whole. T h e state is formed by a n d out of the relations of these classes in society to one a n o t h e r a n d to the social whole, it is f o r m e d as the society is divided a n d internally opposed. It is not f o r m e d by the ruling class, for that class has to be established in the first place by the process of social division in order to fulfill its ruling function. It would be a n error to take the interest of the ruling class to be the process of f o r m a t i o n of the state itself, for that class did not form the state in its own interest. O n the contrary, the interest of the ruling class emerged out of the formation of the ruling class. T h e two are mutually supportive, and reinforce each other, they are not identical. T o hold that the ruling class formed the state in its own interest would be a teleological int e r p r e t a t i o n of history. It is sometimes held t h a t the state is identical with the society in which it is found; that the state is c o m p o s e d directly of people. T h i s usage merely multiplies terms without necessity. T h e state is neither identical with h u m a n society in general nor with class-divided society, nor with any particular society. T h e state is t h e organisation of a particular kind of society, which is class-divided society; the state is in its abstract m e a n i n g the principle of that society, t h o u g h concretely it is t h e organisation itself. W e will consider its f u r t h e r concretion below. H u m a n societies have been classified according to habitat, w h e t h e r tropical, desert, t e m p e r a t e or polar; they have been classified according to their mythologies, whether solar or l u n a r ; they have been classified as m a t r i a r c h a l or patriarchal. Here one principle will be a p p l i e d : h u m a n societies are of two types, on the one h a n d they are non-divided, forming an undifferentiated whole; on the o t h e r they are divided into classes according to the relations of the m e m b e r s of the society to social production, to the surounding n a t u r e a n d to t h e technology of t h e society. T h e non-divided, undifferentiated society is the primitive society; the divided society is civilised society, or civil society, it is the society with the state, or political society. T h e primitive society is founded on the primitive economy, primitive relation to n a t u r e a n d technology, whose principle is that the unit of p r o d u c t i o n coincides with the unit of c o n s u m p t i o n ; the relations of production are such t h a t each works for the other, a n d this work relation is reciprocated by the other. T h e civil society is founded on the division a n d opposition between t h e social classes, whereby one of these classes labours a n d works in the society

K r a d e r : The origins of the state among the nomads of Asia

137

and o n the n a t u r a l s u r r o u n d i n g s both for its own m a i n t e n a n c e a n d rep r o d u c t i o n as a class ; at t h e s a m e time it labours a n d works for a n o t h e r social class, which l a b o u r a n d work is not returned. T h e latter is the principle of non-reciprocity; it is the principle of the political as opposed to primitive e c o n o m y ; it is that on which the state is founded, a n d is p r e s u p p o s e d by t h e latter. T h e society with the state is a small p a r t of the n u m b e r of societies of the h u m a n kind, a n d covers a n extremely small time period of the entire history of h u m a n i t y . It is a recent p h e n o m e n o n , p e r h a p s no more t h a n five t h o u s a n d years old, b u t has engulfed virtually all h u m a n i t y during the few millennia since its inception. It has come to d o m i n a t e the history of m a n k i n d because no p o w e r on e a r t h is c o m p a r a b l e to it. T h e r e are those such as David E a s t o n a n d Radcliffe-Brown w h o would suppress the idea of t h e state by the elimination of the term. T h e i r m a i n reason a p p e a r s to be t h a t the t e r m has proved too complex. T h i s is the opposite of the multiplication of terms without necessity: it is its diminution or reduction, likewise without necessity. T h e fact that a t e r m has been misused, or t h a t its object is too complex is no reason in itself to discard it. T h e r e have also been those in the past, such as Meyer or Koppers, a n d the present, such as Hoebel, w h o would m a k e the state identical with h u m a n society as a whole. Not only is this the multiplication of terms without necessity, as in the preceding case; it f u r t h e r confuses the issue of government versus the state. T h e element of self-government m a y be f o u n d in any h u m a n society, however informal that government m a y be. T h e m o d e of government of the Eskimos, Pygmies, A n d a m a n Islanders a n d Tierra del Fuegians, is informal, discontinuous, detectable with difficulty, a n d scarcely vested, but it is government, a n d as such is concerned with the resolution of conflict, m a i n t e n a n c e of internal a n d external peace of the society a n d the conduct of war. G o v e r n m e n t is a function of the state which, however, is conducted outside the limits of the state. In the m a t t e r ofjustice there is, moreover, a c o n t r a d i c t i o n between government a n d the state, for while justice is concretely the concern of government, it is not concretely the concern of the state. O n t h e contrary, the state is in the abstract concerned with justice as a b s t r a c t u m . In the society with t h e state the distinction between authority a n d power is made. Power lies with the organisation of society that has centralised its internal m e a n s of regulation and control; authority lies with the people as a whole. (This distinction was affirmed by Cicero, in ancient R o m e . ) T h e centralisation of the power in t u r n is negated in civil society. O n the one h a n d , it is there negated by the division and opposition between the social classes that make it u p ; an external negation. O n the other h a n d , it is internally negated by the opposing interests of the individuals within the ruling class. These latter individuals have in c o m m o n their private interests as a class, which is their class interest. T h e s e class interests come into conflict with each other. T h e means of social regulation by the state are directed to the overcom-

138

P a r t II : The distinctiveness of the primitive

ing of t h e o p p o s i t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e social classes a s t h e y a r e t o t h e overc o m i n g of t h e o p p o s i t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r e s t s w i t h i n t h e r u l i n g class. T h e social o r g a n i s a t i o n is t h u s m a d e i n t o t h e political r e g u l a t i o n a n d c o n t r o l of t h e society in this c a s e ; it is, a b o v e all, r e g u lation a n d c o n t r o l t h r o u g h the political e c o n o m y . T h e o p p o s i n g interests between a n d within the classes t h a t m a k e u p the society of the political e c o n o m y a r e t h e subject of t h e political r e g u l a t i o n a n d c o n t r o l . T h e s t a t e is t h e f o r m a l o r g a n i s a t i o n of t h e society of political e c o n o m y ; t h e i n f o r m a l e l e m e n t s of t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n of t h e h u m a n b e i n g a n d h u m a n society fall o u t s i d e its p u r v i e w . T h e h u m a n i n d i v i d u a l exists only as a f o r m a l b e i n g in r e l a t i o n to t h e s t a t e ; t h e h u m a n i n d i v i d u a l e x t r u d e s t h e f o r m a l b e i n g , as t h e legal p e r s o n , civil p e r s o n , persona civilis or moralis, Rechtsperson, etc. to meet t h e r e l a t i o n r e q u i r e d of a n d t o t h e state. T h e h u m a n society e x t r u d e s t h e f o r m a l side of its o r g a n i s a t i o n as t h e s t a t e to d e f i n e a n d r e l a t e to t h e legal or civil p e r s o n a l i t y of t h e individual h u m a n b e i n g . T h e s t a t e is t h e f o r m a l o r g a n i s a t i o n of c l a s s - c o m p o s e d a n d classo p p o s e d h u m a n society. O n t h e o n e h a n d , we h a v e s e e n t h a t it is t h e abstract principle of this formal organisation, w h e t h e r it b e the society of t h e asiatic, slave or servile m o d e s of p r o d u c t i o n , or t h a t of t h e m o d e r n society of p r o d u c t i o n of c a p i t a l . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e s t a t e is c o n c r e tised in p a r t i c u l a r states, a n c i e n t a n d m o d e r n .

The state in nomadic society T h e n o m a d i c societies of c e n t r a l a n d m i d d l e A s i a d e v e l o p e d t h e s t a t e , b o t h in its a b s t r a c t a n d c o n c r e t e f o r m s , in t h e c o u r s e of t h e i r h i s t o r y over t h e p a s t t h r e e m i l l e n n i a . T h e s t a t e s of t h e s e n o m a d s first a p p e a r e d d u r i n g t h e first m i l l e n n i u m p r i o r to t h e m o d e r n e r a o n t h e m a r g i n s of t h e history a n d t e r r i t o r y of t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l p e o p l e s of C h i n a , I n d i a , Persia. It is s o m e t i m e s m a i n t a i n e d t h a t t h e T u r k s , M o n g o l s a n d o t h e r n o m a d s of i n l a n d Asia h a d not d e v e l o p e d t h e state. T h a t t h e y h a d developed the state a t h o u s a n d or more years after the agricultural peoples h a d d o n e so is c l e a r ; t h a t t h e y h a d d e v e l o p e d t h e s t a t e in r e l a t i o n to, a n d in o p p o s i t i o n to t h e s t a t e f o r m a t i o n of t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l p e o p l e s n o less so. B u t this is not to say t h a t t h e n o m a d s d e v e l o p e d n o s t a t e a t all. O n t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e y developed t h e s t a t e , at first as a m a r g i n a l a n d emergent historical p h e n o m e n o n in E u r a s i a a n d Africa, later as a fullyfledged e l e m e n t of t h e history of t h e s e r e g i o n s of t h e w o r l d . In o r d e r to c o m p r e h e n d t h e p l a c e of t h e n o m a d s in w o r l d h i s t o r y , it is first n e c e s s a r y to g r a s p t h e division of l a b o u r in society b e t w e e n n o m a d s a n d a g r i c u l t u r a l peoples, w h i c h will b e h e r e set forth in t h e light of t h e history of East a n d Central Asia. T h e n o m a d s of Central Asia m a k e their historical a p p e a r a n c e in t h e c o n f e d e r a t i o n of t h e H s i e n Pi d u r i n g t h e latter p a r t of t h e first m i l l e n n i u m b e f o r e t h e m o d e r n e r a , in conflicts w i t h t h e C h i n e s e of t h e early C h ' i n d y n a s t y . T h e r e c o r d s f r o m t h e

K r a d e r : The origins of the state among the nomads of Asia

139

a n n a l s of this early Chinese d y n a s t y mention briefly their relations with the nomads. At a later time, d u r i n g the course of the first millennium of the present era, t h e relations were m a d e firm, were deepened and extended between the Chinese on t h e one side, the Turks, Mongols, a n d M a n c h u s on the other. With the s u b s e q u e n t development of writing a m o n g the latter, we have come to have not only the viewpoint of the ruling class of the Chinese but also t h a t of the n o m a d s . T h e T a t a r s are social groups which comprise the Altaic language community. A m o n g t h e m are the Uygurs, Kök T u r k s (Blue T u r k s ) , O r k h o n a n d Yenisey Turks, T ' o Pa, T ' u - c h ü e h , Yüeh-chih, Kyrgyz, J o u - J a n ( J u a n - J u a n ? ) , Mongols proper, N a i m a n , Kereit, K a r a Kitan, Pohai, Chin, Liao, Manchus. They were commonly termed Tatars singly or collectively. T h e Hsien Pi were perhaps a confederation of the ancestors of some of these, together with non-Altaic speakers whose descendants live in Siberia, or lived there. T h e inhabitants of the Mongol steppes d u r i n g the past two millennia have been sometimes T u r k s , sometimes Mongols. T h e i r m a i n economic basis has been pastoral n o m a d i s m . It is sometimes claimed that they also practiced agriculture. It is difficult to deny this, but that is not the point. T h e i n h a b i t a n t s of Mongolia, such as have been already mentioned, were mainly pastoralists, supplementing their subsistence by a minor a m o u n t of agriculture, a n d by exchanging their pastoral (also hunting a n d gathering) p r o d u c t s with the products of their agricultural neighbours. T h e forces t h a t held the T a t a r s to their m a j o r economic concern, pastoralism, were both internal and external. T h e internal force was the weight of tradition, or customary practice; the external was the weight of the p r o d u c t i o n by the agricultural neighbours and the exchanges with t h e m . T h e transcontinental network of exchanges held b o t h sets of practices in place. Behind a n d underlying this exchange network lies a vast system of the division of labour in society in Asia, such as is c o m p r e h e n d e d with difficulty within E u r o p e a n history, extending quantitatively a n d qualitatively beyond E u r o p e a n historical experience a n d categories of history. T h e n o m a d s of Asia lived a n d still live in tents, being without fixed abode, breeding domesticated livestock in herds, primarily sheep, goats, cattle, horses and camels, and moving from one pasture to the next, according to the season, with them. T h e y exchanged the surplus products of their n o m a d i c life with those of the agricultural peoples: livestock on the hoof a n d its products — wool, peltries, leather, felt - for agricultural products. T h e Chinese exchanged their products, such as rice, tea a n d cotton, to meet the w a n t s of the nomads. T h e nomads met the w a n t s of the Chinese, providing sheep flesh for their diet, cavalry for the armies, post horses, ceremonial steeds and transport camels. In other parts of Eurasia there is a division of labour within the village, or within the producing unit, whether the country, province, or the nation as a whole, whereby t h e exchange of pastoral for cultural

140

Part 11 : The distinctiveness of the prim itive

p r o d u c t s is c a r r i e d out. In N o r t h C h i n a a n d n e i g h b o u r i n g C e n t r a l Asia, however, t h e r e h a s b e e n a great specialisation of social p r o d u c tion o n either side of t h e G r e a t Wall of C h i n a , w h e r e b y the n o m a d i c T u r k s a n d M o n g o l s have h a d a m a j o r c o n c e r n w i t h stockbreeding, a n d b u t a m i n o r c o n c e r n with a g r i c u l t u r e , a n d t h e Chinese, pred o m i n a n t l y a g r i c u l t u r a l , devoted only a small p a r t of their social l a b o u r a n d l a n d to cattle, camel, sheep or horse raising. E a c h side was d e p e n d e n t to this degree o n t h e e x c h a n g e of p r o d u c t s . T h e a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n is intensive, t h e p a s t o r a l extensive. T h e h e r d s of t h e n o m a d s e x t e n d over vast a r e a s , t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n by c o m p a r i s o n is c o n c e n t r a t e d . In c o n s e q u e n c e , t h e s a m e n u m b e r of people live by t h e p a s t o r a l p r o d u c t i o n in a t e r r i t o r y w h i c h is o n e h u n d r e d times g r e a t e r in extent t h a n t h a t of t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s . T h e nomadic peoples of Turkestan, in M i d d l e a n d West Asia, have a pattern t h a t is n e i t h e r as e x t r e m e l y specialised as t h e p a s t o r a l i s m of M o n g o l i a n o r as diversified as t h e E u r o p e a n . T h e t r a d i t o n a l E u r o p e a n r u r a l economy was maintained by agricultural and animal h u s b a n d r y practices generally w i t h i n t h e village, f r o m t h e I b e r i a n p e n i n s u l a to t h e Alps a n d R u s s i a . T h e K a z a k h s a n d U z b e k s of M i d d l e Asia, traditionally pastoralists, u n d e r t o o k a n a p p r e c i a b l e if l i m i t e d a m o u n t of a g r i c u l t u r e in their w i n t e r c a m p s a n d p a s t u r e s . T h e s e peoples, t o g e t h e r with the n e i g h b o u r i n g Kirgiz, a n d T u r k m e n , w e r e e n g a g e d historically in e x c h a n g e s of their p a s t o r a l p r o d u c t w i t h t h e i r a g r i c u l t u r a l n e i g h b o u r s , j u s t as were t h e M o n g o l s . T h e social division of l a b o u r in t r a d i t i o n a l E u r o p e a n p r a c t i c e fell t h u s within t h e e t h n i c g r o u p s . In W e s t Asia the social division of l a b o u r was m a i n t a i n e d b e t w e e n t h e e t h n i c g r o u p s ; in East Asia t h e r e was developed to a g r e a t e r e x t r e m e t h e division of l a b o u r b e t w e e n these e t h n i c g r o u p s a n d p e o p l e s t h a n in W e s t Asia. T h i s vast, c o n t i n e n t - w i d e e x c h a n g e s y s t e m in Asia w a s f r e q u e n t l y int e r r u p t e d ; it w a s defective. T h e institutions w h i c h w e r e e n g a g e d in the e x c h a n g e s were not well or efficiently developed, in c o n t r a s t with the w o r l d - w i d e oil, coal, steel, cotton, rice, m e a t a n d wool m a r k e t s of the m o d e r n period of c a p i t a l p r o d u c t i o n . T h e i n t e r r u p t i o n s of the great e x c h a n g e s p r o d u c e d r a i d s a n d wars, i n d e e d they led to c o n q u e s t of either side by the other, t h e n c e to c o n q u e s t d y n a s t i e s w h i c h a p p e a r f r o m t i m e to t i m e in C h i n e s e history : t h e T ' o - p a Wei, C h i n , Liao, Y u a n (Mongol) and Ch'ing (Manchu). Attention has frequently been drawn to the w a r s of c o n q u e s t b e t w e e n n o m a d i c T a t a r s a n d C h i n e s e . T h i s is the a b n o r m a l condition. C u s t o m a r i l y t h e C h i n e s e a n d t h e n o m a d i c T a t a r s e x c h a n g e d s u r p l u s p r o d u c t s w i t h o n e a n o t h e r - t h e y did so over a period of t h o u s a n d s of years. T h e T u r k s a n d M o n g o l s h a d a class-divided society d u r i n g the period of o u r c o n c e r n . T h e social class of direct p r o d u c t i o n , the h e r d s m e n a n d their families, w e r e e n g a g e d in p a r t in t h e p r o d u c t i o n of their o w n m a i n t e n a n c e , a n d in p a r t in the p r o d u c t i o n of a s u r p l u s . A p a r t of this s u r p l u s w a s set aside for the p u r p o s e of e x c h a n g e . T h e s e i m m e d i a t e p r o d u c e r s (arat in M o n g o l ) at the s a m e t i m e p r o d u c e d a s u r p l u s w h i c h

K r a d e r : The origins of the state among the nomads of Asia

141

was a p p l i e d in part to the m a i n t e n a n c e , in traditional times, of their ruling class, the K h a n s , a n d the military leaders, ministers, courtiers a n d r e t i n u e of the K h a n s . T h e ancient a n d m o d e r n T a t a r s were alike divided into two social classes, the class of herdsmen, w h o were direct p r o d u c e r s in the society, a n d the class of aristocracy or nobility, for w h o m a social surplus was p r o d u c e d . W e have seen that the social surplus was circulated in two directions: to the neighbouring agricult u r a l peoples a n d to the ruling class of the T a t a r s . T h e product of t h e exchange f r o m the agricultural side was in t u r n divided between t h e c o m m o n people a n d the ruling class: silks, jewels a n d other s u m p t u a r y wares were for the use of the ruling class, while the tea, rice, etc. were c o n s u m e d by b o t h classes in society. Slaves are also found in the the old, or traditional T a t a r polity, b u t their economic i m p o r t a n c e was minor. T h e ancient Hsien Pi h a d a ruling s t r a t u m of princes, or aristocracy. W h e t h e r they actually f o r m e d a social class or not is difficult to perceive from the written record, which has come to us only from the C h i n e s e side. T h e chiefs of the Hsien Pi m a y have been the leaders of a confederation of tribes, or alternatively they m a y have been an actual ruling class. If the former, t h e n we have a case of an emerging state; if the latter, t h e n the state was already in being. W i t h o u t stirring up this p r o b l e m of the early form of the T a t a r polity, we note that the state amongst these peoples has u n d e r g o n e its historical development. It is of interest to observe t h a t the state amongst t h e m can be traced from its early beginnings, in the period of its coming into being, through its full historical florescence d u r i n g the past two t h o u s a n d years a m o n g the Turks, Mongols a n d M a n c h u s (who were originally n o m a d s of a different type f r o m t h e others). T h e historical records of Blue (Kök) Turks, the O r k h o n and Yenisey Turks, the Mongols a n d the M a n c h u s provide good accounts of the formation of p a r t i c u l a r states a m o n g the nomadic peoples. T h e bestknown of these, in the E u r o p e a n accounts, is that of the Mongol e m p i r e of the twelfth to fourteenth centuries. T h e Mongol society at the beginning of this period, in t h e twelfth century, was already a society divided into hereditary classes. T h e father of Chingis K h a n , Yesügei Bagatur, belonged to the lower s t r a t u m of the nobility. Mongol society was divided into social classes of rich a n d poor, Chingis K h a n himself in t h e course of his life passed from the extreme of poverty to that of wealth. During this period, the classes in Mongol society were stabilised a n d the oppositions between t h e m were carried forward principally in the same form, with certain modifications to be mentioned below, down to the beginning of the twentieth century. T h e Mongol empire in that period was founded on the conquests effected over neighbouring p a r t s of East, South and West Asia a n d Eastern E u r o p e by the Mongol State. T h a t state was the product of a class-divided society, the classes of the society having mutuallyopposed relations to the m e a n s of production. O n the one side, there were the direct producers in the society: the herding people and their

142

P a r t 11 : The distinctiveness of the primitive

families who had been organised from time immemorial into kinvillages, lineages and clans. The 'Secret History' of the Mongols, a document compiled in the thirteenth century, traces the genealogy of the emperor, Chingis Khan, over twenty-four generations; the Secret History covers the transition from myth to history, and the transition of the Mongols before the formation of the state. T h e twenty-four generations of the genealogy are not to be taken in the literal sense, in which five centuries of human history are covered, but indicate that the transition had been made by them from a primitive forest people to the pastoral society of the steppes, with a political economy and the state. At the same time, the social organisation of kin-village communities, clans and clan confederations which was maintained by them from the prehistorical period through the empire of Chingis Khan, is recorded in the Secret History; this organisation survived even into the twentieth century, although it has been much disrupted latterly. T h e folk-historical element of the Secret History is relevant to both the ancient past and to the recent history of the Mongols. The social class of the Mongol herding families maintained its traditional communal and consanguineal organisation down to the period of state formation among them, and indeed long after the first introduction of the state, after the stabilisation of the relations between the social classes, and indeed even into the period of its disruption of the traditional economy and society in the early twentieth century. The institutions of collective life survived among the clans of herdsmen, the institution of individualism was developed but in a very minor degree among this class. The ruling class of traditional Mongol society on the contrary was early on formed along the lines of individualism; central to this formation was the figure of the Khan, who personified the state. Chingis Khan gathered about himself in the last decades of the twelfth a n d the beginning of the thirteenth centuries warriors who had given up their occupation as herdsmen, had been torn forth from their kin-villages. They swore their allegiance to the Khan, served him as soldiers, advisers, ministers, and bore a personal relation to him, which was formalised as the relation of n'ôxïit, 'friends'. Much has been written about the nôxïit, retainers of the emperor. It has even been thought that they were feudal lords. That of course they were not. They took their oath as the followers of the Khan, and stood in a relation that was bound to his person. They maintained a private relation as the intimates of the emperor, each side knew the strengths and weaknesses of the other. This is the subjective aspect of their relation. Objectively, their relation was a formal one; it is a relation to the state personified in the Khan, the oath of allegiance was to the personification of the state. The state is the sum of the formal relations of the individual h u m a n being, just as it is the sum ofthe formal relations of the society. For their service to the state, the retinue received great rewards and punishments as great for their disservice, for negligence, misfeasance, malfeasance or

K r a d e r : The origins of the state among the nomads of Asia

143

non-feasance in office. It is for this public career that they h a d formally b r o k e n with their birthright. T h e y were the broken m e n on the one side, the m e n t o r n forth f r o m the villages on the other. T h e s e retainers were individuals, their individuality was expressed within the framework of the thirteenth-century Mongol society a n d state. T h e brief s t a t e m e n t s of t h e Secret History recount their names, their characteristic traits, w h e t h e r bravery or cunning, a n d the particularities of their relations to the K h a n , whether of jealousy, generosity, zealous service, fear or pride. T h e Secret History is a n account in the service of the state, a n d the individualism is that of the ruling class in that service a n d selfservice. T h i s contradiction was no more overcome in t h e history of t h e particular form of the state a m o n g the Mongols t h a n it was in the history of the particular form of the state in nineteenthc e n t u r y E u r o p e a n capitalism. At that later time the ideology of individualism achieved one of its high points of expression in philosophy, r o m a n c e , poetry a n d song, again centred on the figure of the e m p e r o r (Napoleon a n d Napoleonism). Yet one of the functions of the state is to contain the extreme forms of individual interests as they conflict with each other within the ruling class. T h e formation of the state is therefore asymmetrical in the history of the Mongols, as it is in the history of the state in Europe, Africa, a n d elsewhere in Asia. O n the one h a n d , the tradition of the collectivity is carried forward in the c o m m u n a l organisation of the villages a n d clans of the Mongols; this is the characteristic of the h e r d s m e n , labouring a m o n g the herds. O n the other h a n d , the individuality is developed a m o n g the warriors, the great men, ministers in the service of the prince, as it is a m o n g t h e nobility a n d the princes themselves. W e have said that a modification was introduced into the Mongol class structure. Following the conversion to B u d d h i s m in the late sixteenth century, m a n y h e r d s m e n entered into the service of the Buddhist lamaseries, serving t h e r e not as monks or disciples, but as h e r d s m e n . T h e s e families of herders no longer served the traditional princes a n d clan chiefs, but l a b o u r e d in the monasteries, tending, herding, milking, shearing wool, m a k i n g butter, or kumys, etc. T h e i r relations were new, a n d at the same time traditional. T h e lamaseries profited f r o m the surplus produced, exchanged a n d sold by the h e r d s m e n ; the h e r d s m e n paid a form of tithe or tribute to the lamaseries, but were freed from imposts to the secular authorities by this means. T h e y were b o u n d to the service of t h e lamaseries, j u s t as the traditional herding families were b o u n d to the service of the princes, noyot. Both forms of labour in the Mongol society were unfree. T h e theory has been circulated about that the Mongol arat were feudal serfs. This m a y be true, but if so, then feudalism is given a different interpretation a n d m e a n i n g thereby. T h e feudalism of the E u r o p e a n model, in the middle ages, had a n u m b e r of characteristic features in c o m m o n with the Mongol. E a c h society was divided into classes, each h a d formed a state. T h e state sovereignty in each was acknowledged,

144

P a r t 11 : The distinctiveness of the primitive

p e r s o n i f i e d in a r u l e r , or o v e r l o r d . Social l a b o u r in b o t h cases w a s u n f r e e . T h e l a b o u r i n g class in e a c h society p r o d u c e d a s u r p l u s t h a t w a s a p p r o p r i a t e d b y t h e r u l i n g class, t h e s u r p l u s b e i n g in t h e f o r m of s u r p l u s l a b o u r or a s u r p l u s p r o d u c t w h i c h w a s e x t r a c t e d in k i n d ; m o n e y p l a y e d v i r t u a l l y n o role w h a t s o e v e r in e i t h e r case. T h e r u l i n g class in M o n g o l i a as in E u r o p e a n f e u d a l i s m w a s a n a r i s t o c r a c y , t h e o v e r l o r d w a s a p r i n c e , k i n g or e m p e r o r , f r e q u e n t l y elected b y his r e t a i n ers, t h e b r o k e n m e n in b o t h societies. T h e o v e r l o r d h a d a p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n to his vassals in t h e E u r o p e a n society, to his r e t i n u e in b o t h . T h e y s t o o d , in o n e sense, in r e l a t i o n to h i m as clients t o p a t r o n . T h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t r a d i t i o n a l M o n g o l a n d E u r o p e a n f e u d a l society a n d t h e s t a t e is n o less p r o f o u n d . All M o n g o l s , c o m m o n e r s a n d nobility, h a d a c o m m o n d e s c e n t . T h i s w a s not so in E u r o p e a n f e u d a lism, w h e r e it w a s a g r a v e i n s u l t t o i m p u t e c o m m o n b l o o d t o a n o b l e f a m i l y . T h e o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n t o w n a n d c o u n t r y s i d e , as b e t w e e n t h e p r o d u c t of t o w n i n d u s t r y a n d t h e p r o d u c t of t h e l a n d , w h i c h w a s p r e s e n t in E u r o p e a n f e u d a l i s m , w a s a b s e n t in the t r a d i t i o n a l M o n g o l e c o n o m y . In b o t h t h e t r a d i t i o n a l M o n g o l e c o n o m y a n d in t h a t of E u r o p e a n f e u d a l i s m a s u r p l u s w a s e x t r a c t e d f r o m t h e direct p r o d u c e r s , as w e h a v e seen. T h a t s u r p l u s w a s a p p r o p r i a t e d , w h e t h e r in l a b o u r or in k i n d , b y t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e r u l i n g class a c t i n g at o n c e as l a n d o w n e r s a n d as l a n d l o r d s in f e u d a l E u r o p e . A s l a n d o w n e r s t h e y e x t r a c t e d t h e s u r p l u s , w h e t h e r in l a b o u r or in kind, as g r o u n d r e n t , in t h e i r p r i v a t e c a p a c i t y ; as l a n d l o r d s t h e y e x t r a c t e d t h e s u r p l u s l a b o u r or s u r p l u s p r o d u c t as t a x in t h e i r p u b l i c c a p a c i t y . R e n t a n d t a x c o i n c i d e d in f e u d a l E u r o p e d u r i n g t h e m i d d l e ages, t h e r e l a t i o n of l a n d o w n e r a n d l a n d l o r d c o i n c i d e d , t h e p u b l i c s p h e r e w a s not d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t h e private sphere. In traditional Mongolia, the private and public spheres w e r e not at first d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , r e n t a n d t a x c o i n c i d e d , l a n d o w n e r a n d l a n d l o r d w e r e o n e a n d t h e s a m e p e r s o n . But d u r i n g t h e n i n e t e e n t h a n d t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r i e s , a n i m p o r t a n t d i s t i n c t i o n is t o b e n o t i c e d in t h e t r a d i t i o n a l h e r d i n g e c o n o m y of t h e M o n g o l s . T h e s e c u l a r p r i n c e s h a d p r i v a t e h e r d s a s o p p o s e d to t h e h e r d s of t h e s t a t e t r e a s u r e ; t h e r e l a t i o n of t h e h e r d i n g f a m i l i e s of t h e c o m m o n s t o t h e o n e d i f f e r e d f r o m t h e i r r e l a t i o n to t h e o t h e r . Social l a b o u r of t h e M o n g o l h e r d s m e n in t h e priv a t e c a p a c i t y , xamjilga, in t h e service of t h e p r i n c e , was d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e social l a b o u r of t h e arai, w h i c h w a s n e i t h e r distinctively p u b l i c n o r p r i v a t e . It w a s , in e i t h e r case, b o u n d l a b o u r , u n f r e e l a b o u r . T h a t w h i c h is s h a r e d b e t w e e n t h e M o n g o l society in its t r a d i t i o n a l f o r m a n d E u r o p e a n f e u d a l society is n o t in a n y w a y specific t o t h e t w o of t h e m , b u t is s h a r e d w i t h society in a n c i e n t R o m e , a n d w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l civil society a n d s t a t e in A f r i c a . T h i s h a s t o b e resolved if f e u d a l i s m is t o b e i m p u t e d t o t h e m e d i a e v a l M o n g o l society. T h e t r a d i t i o n a l M o n g o l n o m a d i c society w a s a society w i t h a f o r m of political e c o n o m y , civil society a n d t h e s t a t e . T h e e c o n o m y u n d e r w e n t a n i n n e r e v o l u t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h r e g a r d to t h e a p p r o p r i a t i o n a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e s u r p l u s p r o d u c e d in t h e society. T h a t s u r p l u s , at

K r a d e r : The origins of the state among the nomads of Asia

145

first i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l y p r i v a t e a n d p u b l i c , later c a m e to b e differe n t i a t e d as p r i v a t e o n t h e o n e h a n d , p u b l i c o n t h e o t h e r , in o n e sector of t h e e c o n o m y , while at t h e s a m e t i m e , t h e identity of t h e t w o sides w a s m a i n t a i n e d in a n o t h e r sector of t h e M o n g o l e c o n o m y . It h a s b e e n s o m e t i m e s h e l d t h a t t h e s u r p l u s p r o d u c e d in t h e political e c o n o m y a n d society is not d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t p r o d u c e d in t h e primitive e c o n o m y a n d society. T h u s , in the latter 'something extra, for a guest, or for a feast ' is o f f e r e d in proof t h a t t h e s u r p l u s is f o u n d in b o t h primitive a n d political e c o n o m i e s . T h a t is not relevant to o u r m a t t e r , for in t h e primitive econo m y no d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n is m a d e b e t w e e n p r o d u c t i o n in t h e family a n d p r o d u c t i o n in society, j u s t as n o d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n is t h e r e m a d e b e t w e e n t h e division of l a b o u r in t h e family a n d t h e division of l a b o u r in society. In t h e political e c o n o m y , o n t h e c o n t r a r y , a f a m i l y m a y p r o d u c e a n d set aside for a guest o r a feast, b u t this s u r p l u s is distinct f r o m t h e p r o d u c t i o n in society of s u r p l u s v a l u e as s u r p l u s l a b o u r or p r o d u c t . T h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t w o f o r m s of s u r p l u s w a s m a n t a i n e d in t h e traditional M o n g o l society, j u s t a s t h e division of l a b o u r in t h e family w a s distinct f r o m t h e division of l a b o u r in society, in t h e f o r m of t h e division of l a b o u r b e t w e e n t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l a n d p a s t o r a l societies. T h e s e differe n t i a t i o n s w e r e m a i n t a i n e d in t h e t r a d i t i o n a l M o n g o l political economy a n d society, where they continued to exist side by side from the era of t h e M o n g o l e m p i r e d o w n to t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e t w e n t i e t h century. T h e state a m o n g the n o m a d s u n d e r w e n t its inner evolution. Consider t h e b e g i n n i n g s of t h e s t a t e in t h e first m i l l e n n i u m b e f o r e t h e present era a m o n g t h e n o m a d s of A s i a : it is b a r e l y evolved. T h e r e c o r d s p e r t a i n i n g t o its existence a r e few, t h e n o m a d s t h e m s e l v e s h a d n o writing, their s t a t e w a s e p h e m e r a l , a n d soon d i s a p p e a r e d f r o m view. T h e state a m o n g t h e later n o m a d s w a s m o r e stable, a n d f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e first m i l l e n i u m of t h e p r e s e n t p e r i o d w a s a l m o s t c o n t i n u o u s l y in existence. T h e history of t h e s t a t e a m o n g t h e n o m a d s is e p i t o m i s e d by t h e history of t h e i r i n d i g e n o u s w r i t t e n r e c o r d s a n d of t h e i r script. ( T h e relation b e t w e e n t h e f o r m a t i o n of t h e s t a t e a n d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e script is not a c h a n c e c o r r e l a t i o n , b u t a c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h i n t e r a c t i n g c o n s e q u e n c e in t h e service of t h e f o r m e r . ) T h e script a n d r e c o r d s of t h e a n c i e n t U y g u r s , t h e ' r u n i c ' i n s c r i p t i o n s of t h e O r k h o n a n d Yenisey T u r k s , the w r i t i n g s of t h e M o n g o l s in t h e scripts w h i c h a r e derived f r o m the Indo-Tibetan (Phagspa, Indie Devanagari) and from the Uyguric, a n d the M a n c h u r e c o r d s in a script derived f r o m t h e latter, t o g e t h e r m a k e up a t h e s a u r u s of t h e activities of t h e n o m a d i c s t a t e in t h e first a n d second m i l l e n n i a of t h e p r e s e n t era. T h e n o m a d s evolved t h e s t a t e in relation to t h e m o r e stable, m o r e c o n t i n u o u s , m o r e a d v a n c e d , m o r e ancient a n d m o r e 'civilised' s t a t e of t h e i r a g r i c u l t u r a l n e i g h b o u r s . T h e two sides together formed a great, barely integrated, defective economic a n d social u n i t y in t h e past, w h i c h w a s c o m p o s e d of a n i n t e r c o n nected n e t w o r k of e c o n o m i c , political a n d bellicose relations, b e t w e e n the specialised a g r i c u l t u r a l a n d h e r d i n g peoples. T h i s n e t w o r k s p r e a d

146

P a r t 11 : The distinctiveness of the primitive

over the larger parts of East, Central, West and South Asia, determining the formation on the state as abstractum in its several parts, and as concretum in the history of the particular peoples, agricultural on t h e one side, nomadic on the other. The network was, to begin with, an exchange system of the specialised farming and herding production unities. The social division of labour between them was integrated in a great market and tribute system that spread over the entire continent. The evolution of the market system over the world to the point attained in the present capital market can be traced. T h e religious, political, etc. systems over Asia reinforced this defective unity of exchange. Historically, the state was not discovered by the nomads of Central and Middle Asia, nor was it invented by them; the state is no one's discovery or invention. T h e state is the product of particular social conditions, whereby society, divided into opposed social classes, produces a central organism of political authority within its midst, the entity in its abstract form which arches over the entire society. Concretely and historically, the state controls and regulates the relations between and within the social classes by means of particular agencies. The state is not there for control and regulation; that is a false teleology. T h e state is the abstract expression of this centralised control and regulation. The means for that control and regulation are the concrete social agencies of extraction of surplus labour and surplus product from the immediate producers in society, the distribution thereof, the collection of rent and tax, juridical administration, military and police actions, the maintenance of records and archives, post and communication at home and abroad. The state in concrete-historical form was developed among agricultural people in the 'old world' and the new, and among nomadic peoples of Eurasia and Africa. The state is older, more stable, associated with more complex development and undertakings among certain agricultural peoples in ancient Egypt, China, or Persia than among nomadic peoples. Yet it is false to consider the latter as the reflex of the former, or as merely occupying the interstices between the agricultural spaces. O n the contrary, the state, in its inner nature, form, content and function is the same abstract entity throughout its various concrete-historical changes in external form.

Comment on theory and method The history of nomadism and of the state among the nomadic societies of Asia is complex, for, just as there are many nomadic societies, so there are many histories, which interact with each other and with the neighbouring agricultural and hunting societies. In order to elucidate the historical process of state origin a n d formation, one may take as the point of departure those societies wherein the state has not been formed historically by inner moments, or insufficiently formed, e.g. among the

K r a d e r : The origins of the state among the nomads of Asia

147

T u v i n i a n s ; or one m a y take as the point of d e p a r t u r e those societies in which t h e state has been formed by inner m o m e n t s of their history, e.g. the Kök T u r k s , the Mongols, the O r k h o n a n d Yenisey Turks. It is f r o m the latter history t h a t the analysis m a d e here has taken its point of d e p a r t u r e . T h e formation of t h e state has been followed from its found a t i o n in history, the formation of the opposed social classes in the n o m a d i c societies. Plainly, one does not start with the history of those n o m a d i c societies in which t h e state has not been developed, if one proposes to write the history of the formation of the state ; on the contrary, classless societies are introduced into the analysis in order to d e m o n strate the presence or absence of the historical conditions necessary for the p h e n o m e n o n u n d e r investigation. Next, t h e hypothesis is sometimes advanced that the state, if formed a m o n g n o m a d i c societies, is formed only in conjunction with the formation of t h e state a m o n g the agricultural societies. Such a n hypothesis is f o u n d e d o n the theory of diffusionism, which has little to offer to t h e present stage of the discussion of the theory a n d history of the state. T h e state was first f o r m e d in Asia, in all probability, a m o n g the agricultural peoples. T h e n o m a d i c societies stand in both direct a n d indirect relation to this early state formation. However, to limit the discussion to these historical p h e n o m e n a is to focus the attention only on the surface, the s u p e r s t r u c t u r e , a n d to w i t h d r a w it from its p r o p e r object, the foundation. T h e presence of class-divided societies a m o n g nomadic T u r k s a n d Mongols in ancient a n d mediaeval times is historically attested; these societies have formed the state a m o n g themselves. T h e historical m o m e n t s of state formation a m o n g them, issuing f r o m the formation a n d opposition of the social classes there, as between the c o m m o n herding families on the one h a n d , a n d the nobility on the other, are different from the historical m o m e n t s of state formation a m o n g the agricultural Chinese, Persians, or peoples of India. T h e first thing to be said therefore is t h a t the state in the n o m a d i c societies h a d a different historical origin a n d course t h a n t h a t a m o n g the agricultural peoples. T h e second is that all these historical p h e n o m e n a are variants of a single institution, the state, whose variant forms are in interaction with each other a n d with the whole. T h e theory of the origin a n d n a t u r e of the state in general has been well developed in the nineteenth a n d twentieth centuries. T h e historical process of t h e state formation a m o n g the n o m a d s of Middle, C e n t r a l (Inner) Asia in particular has been brought out by the orientalists, historians a n d ethnologists in the same time period. H e r e the general theory a n d the p a r t i c u l a r historical process are brought together.

PART III The distinctiveness of the ontemporary world

YU. BROMLEY The object and the subject-matter of ethnography As is generally known, two opposed but dialectically related tendencies mark the rapid development of contemporary science. O n the one h a n d there is an increasing specialisation of scientific disciplines in an attempt to deepen the analysis of the area studied; on the other the emergence of new 'border' disciplines, dictated by the need for a comprehensive study of objective reality. T h e contemporary advance of science as a whole is achieved by the fusion of these contrary trends. This pattern should be taken into account when outlining the profile of any science, and in particular when considering the question of the profile of contemporary ethnographic investigations. It applies, first of all, to their specialisation, which requires a more specific delimitation of ethnography from contiguous disciplines. A pre-condition for attaining this end is to delimit the specific object of investigation, and then its subject-matter. It is true that the concepts 'the object' and 'the subject-matter' in scientific knowledge are still defined in diverse ways, and sometimes the two are not differentiated at all. However, these concepts do not coincide, and their confusion makes it rather difficult to delimit those sciences which study one and the same object. As far as the concept of'the object' of cognition is concerned, it is best to use it, in our view, to denote that part of objective reality which is the area investigated. When speaking o f ' t h e subject-matter' of knowledge we mean that which constitutes for every given science the aggregate of specific properties and regularities which govern the development of objective reality and which are investigated by that science alone. The singling out of these properties of the investigated area already constitutes a result of the study of it. Thus the object of investigation in different sciences may be the same, while the subject-matter of investigation is different. For example, in the broad sense of the word, the object of investigation in physics and chemistry is nature as a whole, but the subject-matter of the first science is its physical properties (the physical form of the

152

P a r t 111 : The distinctiveness

of the contemporary

world

motion of matter), whereas the s u b j e c t - m a t t e r of the second is its chemical properties (the chemical form of the motion of matter). At the same time the above-mentioned identification of the object and the subject-matter of investigations can be explained, in our opinion, by the fact that in some cases their delimitation is either very difficult or simply impossible. This applies above all to those sciences which express the existence of different scientific m e t h o d s of discovering objective reality (for example philosophy, logic, m a t h e m a t i c s , statistics, etc.). T h e hierarchical structure of objects of investigation should also be taken into account, as it allows us to identify not only the total object of the given science taken as a whole, b u t also the immediate objects of separate investigations carried out within its framework. T h u s if the object of investigation in genetics is the whole organic world, the immediate objects of particular genetic studies m a y be flies, mice or h u m a n beings. T h e subject-matter in most sciences is stratified, and the presence of different investigation zones in t h e m is so manifest that it does not require any special illustration. From the m o m e n t that e t h n o g r a p h y (ethnology) emerged, the most diverse viewpoints concerning the object of its inquiry were aired. Some scientists considered this object to be m a n , some culture, a n d others society. But according to the most widespread opinion, it is peoples which form the m a i n object of ethnography. In our opinion, there ought to be no direct contradiction between the n a m e of a scientific discipline and the n a m e of its object (or subjectmatter) of investigation (for example, it is hardly suitable to apply the term zoology to the science studying plants), otherwise serious difficulties will arise in achieving the neccssary consensus and the t e r m will not be able to convey meaning a n d scientific sense. In other words, there should be a certain conformity between the n a m e of a scientific discipline and the objective reality studied by it (identity is, however, not obligatory or even desirable, as for instance in the case of the word 'history'). In our particular case we find that the n a m e of our science - ethnography (or ethnology) - points directly to a definite category of objective reality, the 'ethnos'. As for the second part of the term, even if derived from the ancient Greek ' g r a p h o ' , it does not necessarily m e a n that the science in question is merely descriptive. In this connection geography is a good illustration, since it studies also the regularities of certain spheres of nature. T h e same applies to e t h n o g r a p h y which in the USSR combines both descriptive a n d theoretical levels of investigation. T h a t is why in the U S S R e t h n o g r a p h y a n d ethnology are practically synonyms, though traditionally the first is used m o r e often. Hence o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of e t h n o g r a p h y largely depends on the kind of social c o m m u n i t y we define by the t e r m ' e t h n o s ' . In ancient Greek this word had approximately ten meanings, including such variations as a people, a tribe, a crowd, a group of people, aliens, a herd, etc. T h e

B r o m l e y : The object and the subject-matter of ethnography

153

t e r m ' e t h n o s ' in m o d e r n s c i e n c e is not p o l y s e m a n t i c t o t h e s a m e e x t e n t , b u t so f a r t h e r e is n o c o n s e n s u s o n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n b o t h of t h e t e r m itself a n d of its m a i n derivatives: ' e t h n i c c o m m u n i t i e s ' a n d ' e t h n i c ' . All e x i s t i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s c a n g e n e r a l l y be divided into t w o m a i n g r o u p s . O n t h e o n e h a n d , t h e r e is t h e n o t i o n t h a t ' e t h n o s ' is ' a c o m p a r a t i v e l y small c o m m u n i t y with a p r e d o m i n a n t l y archaic character'.1 O n the o t h e r h a n d , this t e r m c a n b e r e g a r d e d as a n e q u i v a l e n t for t h e w o r d ' p e o p l e ' , i n c l u d i n g not only s m a l l c o m m u n i t i e s b u t also t h o s e w i t h millions of m e m b e r s a n d e m b r a c i n g not only b a c k w a r d p e o p l e s b u t also t h o s e in highly d e v e l o p e d s t a t e s . 2 In R u s s i a n e t h n o g r a p h y t h e t e r m ' e t h n o s ' w a s used f r o m t h e very beg i n n i n g t o d e n o t e ' a p e o p l e ' . 3 T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e t e r m survives in Soviet e t h n o g r a p h y a n d its u s e h a s b e c o m e p a r t i c u l a r l y w i d e s p r e a d in recent d e c a d e s . 4 T o d e f i n e t h e o b j e c t of e t h n o g r a p h i c - e t h n o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s by u s i n g t h e t e r m ' e t h n o s ' as m e a n i n g ' a p e o p l e ' in a g e n e r a l sense is, in o u r o p i n o n , p e r f e c t l y j u s t i f i e d . It w o u l d h a r d l y b e correct to limit t h e scope of this o b j e c t t o s m a l l a n d b a c k w a r d c o m m u n i t i e s . It is not only c o m p a r a t i v e l y s m a l l c o m m u n i t i e s , s u c h as t h e H o p i s , B o t o c u d o s , a n d Aleuts, b u t also s u c h large ' e t h n o s e s - p e o p l e s ' , as t h e R u s s i a n s , t h e English, t h e J a p a n e s e , t h e F r e n c h , etc., w h i c h a r e c o m p o s e d of m a n y millions. In a n effort to d e t e r m i n e t h e s e c o m m o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e s of ethnoses-peoples w h i c h d i s t i n g u i s h t h e m f r o m o t h e r h u m a n c o m m u n i t i e s we m u s t b e a r in m i n d t h a t e t h n o s e s b e l o n g to t h a t variety of c o m m u n i t i e s w h i c h e m e r g e as a result of t h e n a t u r a l - h i s t o r i c a l p r o c e s s a n d not as a result of t h e given p e o p l e ' s will. At t h e s a m e t i m e we m u s t r e m e m b e r t h a t e t h n o s e s are c o m p l e x f o r m a t i o n s ; e a c h possesses not only a c e r t a i n i n t e r n a l u n i t y b u t also specific f e a t u r e s w h i c h d i s t i n g u i s h it f r o m all o t h e r f o r m a t i o n s of t h e s a m e t y p e . A p a r t i c u l a r role is p l a y e d b y t h e e t h n i c c o n s c i o u s n e s s of t h e m e m b e r s of a n e t h n o s b o t h t h r o u g h m u t u a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d b y d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n as a w h o l e f r o m o t h e r similar c o m m u n i t i e s w i t h a ' w e - t h e y ' a n t i t h e s i s . A n d w h e n we s p e a k , for e x a m p l e , a b o u t t h e F r e n c h e t h n o s - p e o p l e , it a l w a y s implies t h a t it h a s definite f e a t u r e s d i s t i n g u i s h i n g it f r o m all o t h e r p e o p l e s a n d t h a t this d i f f e r e n c e is c o n s o l i d a t e d t h r o u g h e v e r y d a y e t h n i c c o n s c i o u s n e s s . At t h e s a m e t i m e it w o u l d b e a n o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n t o c o n f i n e t h e essence of e t h n o s to t h e e t h n i c c o n s c i o u s n e s s of its m e m b e r s , w h i c h delimits a given e t h n o s f r o m all o t h e r s i m i l a r c o m m u n i t i e s ; u n d e r l y i n g this e t h n i c c o n s c i o u s n e s s a r e t h e distinctive f e a t u r e s of e a c h e t h n o s w h i c h exist i n d e p e n d e n t l y a n d w h i c h e x p r e s s its i n n e r integrity. Evid e n t l y it is t h e s t a b l e p r o p e r t i e s of t h e e t h n o s t h a t s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d , since e t h n o s e s - p e o p l e s as a r u l e c o n t i n u e to exist over m a n y , m a n y centuries. But w h a t a r e t h e s p h e r e s of t h e objective existence of t h e s e properties? At first sight it m a y seem t h a t t h e s e a r e p r e d o m i n a n t l y t h e e x t e r n a l distinctive p e c u l i a r i t i e s of p h y s i c a l types of people, i.e., racial f e a t u r e s .

154

Part III : The distinctiveness of the contemporary world

However, in reality racial features do not as a rule play any essential ethnic-differentiating role. This is due not only to the fact that 'pure', racially unmixed, peoples do not exist, but also to the fact that there are no clear-cut anthropological boundaries between contiguous ethnosespeoples belonging to one of the great races. T h a t is why the attempts to determine a people's ethnic identity on the basis of external physical-anthropological features are usually of a very indefinite character. This also explains the fact that cases where racial features act as the main ethnic indicators are rather exceptional. Such cases generally occur when the neighbours of an ethnos belong to other great or small races. Among all human characteristics the group-specific features of culture, using this word in its broadest sense, are of more significance for ethnic delimitation than physical appearance. By the group-specific features of culture we mean an aggregate of specifically h u m a n activity and its results. It is in the very sphere of culture thus interpreted that all the principal distinguishing features of ethnoses-peoples are usually concentrated. It is not by chance that we notice in everyday life such stable components of culture as language, religion, folk art, folklore, customs, rites, norms of behaviour, habits, etc. It is true that for some time now attention has been drawn to the fact that no single cultural component may be regarded as an indispensable ethnic-differentiating indicator. However, it would be incorrect to deny on these grounds that culture has its ethnic functions. It shows merely that no one single specific individual cultural component, but the whole complex of inherent, specific cultural features characterise an ethnos. And if, say, language and ethnos, linguistic and ethnic division, always coincided, then the differentiation of these concepts would be devoid of sense. Ethnoses differ from each other also in some various psychological particulars, mainly in the nuances and style of expressing psychological traits common to all mankind. These particular features in the aggregate may be designated as the ethnic (national) character. Ethnic consciousness, i.e. the realisation by members of an ethnos that they belong to it, is an indispensable ethnic feature. It is connected with the ability to separate themselves from other ethnoses and manifests itself first of all in the use of a common name which the ethnos gives to itself (ethnonym). An important component of ethnic consciousness is the belief in a common origin. Its reality is derived from common historical destinies of ethnos members throughout the whole period of its existence. Common characteristics of culture and psychology, ethnic consciousness and an ethnonym may be regarded in our opinion as ethnic features proper. T o a greater or lesser extent the members of every ethnos necessarily possess such features, irrespective of whether they live within a compact area or are dispersed (for example, the Armenians of the USSR, Syria and the USA.). Accordingly, an ethnic community proper or ethnos in the general

Bromley : The object and the subject-matter of ethnography

155

sense of the word m a y be defined as a n historically formed aggregate of people w h o share relatively stable specific features of culture (including l a n g u a g e ) a n d psychology, a n a w a r e n e s s of their unity a n d their difference f r o m other similar groups, a n d an e t h n o n y m which they have given themselves. W e p r o p o s e to use the t e r m 'ethnicos' to denote the e t h n o s in this general sense. But ethnicos is not a n isolated p h e n o m enon. In reality it has no existence a p a r t from social institutions p r o p e r at various levels (from family to state). It is necessary to note the conventional delimitation of ethnic p h e n o m e n a p r o p e r a n d social p h e n o m e n a p r o p e r ; by the latter we u n d e r s t a n d essentially class a n d professional relations a n d corresponding institutions. T h e 'social' in t h e richer sense of the word, of course, includes the ' e t h n i c ' and, consequently, ethnoses themselves a r e social p h e n o m e n a . O f t e n the m a i n p a r t of a given ethnicos is c o n t a i n e d within the boundaries of a single state (a social o r g a n i s m ) . I n such cases we deal with special formations which we propose to call 'ethnosocial organisms', (abbreviated ESO). S u c h formations, together with ethnic (cultural) unity usually possess territorial, economic, social a n d political unity (that is, so to say, the m a x i m a l variant). But the m a i n c o m p o n e n t s of the ethnosocial organism are u n d o u b t edly o n the one h a n d ethnic, a n d o n the other socio-economic factors. 5 Socio-economic factors which f o r m the basis of all social p h e n o m e n a , including ethnic p h e n o m e n a , are m o r e flexible t h a n the latter. It is this relative conservatism a n d a certain independence of strictly ethnic features t h a t m a k e it possible for one a n d the same ethnicos (in reference to its ethnic p a r a m e t e r s ) to c o n t i n u e its existence d u r i n g several socioeconomic formations. F o r e x a m p l e the U k r a i n i a n ethnicos has existed u n d e r feudalism, capitalism a n d socialism. But a n ethnosocial o r g a n i s m is a n o t h e r matter. It belongs to a definite socio-economic f o r m a t i o n which unavoidably gives it a specific character. It is this fact t h a t essentially underlies the way ethnic communities c a n be distinguished by type according to the stages of the historical evolution of society. E x a m p l e s of this are the tribe, the nationality (narodnost), t h e bourgeois a n d the socialist nation, which are terms used in Soviet social scientific literature. T h e first of such types of c o m m u n i t y is r e g a r d e d as t h e m a i n type at the stage of primitive society; the second is typical for the slave-owning a n d feudal periods; the t e r m ' n a t i o n ' is used to denote only the ESO of capitalist a n d socialist societies. In contrast to the ESO, t h e nation, the r e m a i n i n g ethnicoses of capitalist a n d socialist societies ( a n d sometimes even of pre-capitalist societies) are generally called 'nationalities' (natsionalnost). Such a concept of ethnoses as the m a i n objects of study by ethnog r a p h y (ethnology) does not, however, rule out disagreement on the definition of its subject-matter. T h i s manifested itself vividly in the oped, w h e t h e r small or large, which existed in the past a n d which still exist are e n c o m p a s s e d by the scope of the e t h n o g r a p h e r ' s scientific interests.

156

P a r t 111 : The distinctiveness of the contemporary world

T h e idea t h a t all e t h n o s e s - p e o p l e s f o r m the m a i n object of e t h n o g r a p h y ( e t h n o l o g y ) does not, however, r u l e out d i s a g r e e m e n t o n the d e f i n i t i o n of its s u b j e c t - m a t t e r . T h i s m a n i f e s t e d itself vividly in the f o r m a t i v e p e r i o d of Soviet e t h n o g r a p h i c a l science. At t h a t t i m e t h e r e w a s a t e n d e n c y , o n t h e o n e h a n d , t o confine e t h n o g r a p h y to s t u d y i n g only a r c h a i c ' s u r v i v a l ' p h e n o m e n a a n d , o n the o t h e r h a n d , to consider e t h n o g r a p h y , or r a t h e r e t h n o l o g y , as a s u p e r - d i s c i p l i n e c l a i m i n g to s t u d y p r a c t i c a l l y all t h e c o m p o n e n t s of social life. S u c h d i s a g r e e m e n t in d e t e r m i n i n g t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r of e t h n o g r a p h y still to s o m e extent persists. It is evident, however, t h a t t h e first of t h e a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d t e n d e n c i e s implies t h e n o t i o n t h a t t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r of e t h n o g r a p h y ( e t h n o l o g y ) is a k i n d of peau de chagrin since a r c h a i c p h e n o m e n a are increasingly d i s a p p e a r i n g f r o m t h e life of peoples. D e s p i t e its a p p a r e n t b r e a d t h , t h e s e c o n d t e n d e n c y a f f o r d s n o b e t t e r p r o s p e c t for t h e science of e t h n o s e s . It c r e a t e s i n s u p e r a b l e difficulties in delimiting t h e s p h e r e s of i n q u i r i e s of e t h n o g r a p h y a n d those of n u m e r o u s o t h e r scientific disciplines w h i c h s t u d y d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s of p e o p l e s ' lives. S u c h difficulties have b e c o m e especially evident in c o n n e c t i o n with t h e r a p i d d e v e l o p m e n t of c o n c r e t e sociological investigations, since these t h e m selves c l a i m to e m b r a c e p r a c t i c a l l y all a s p e c t s of the e v e r y d a y life of society. All t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s u r g e n t l y raise t h e q u e s t i o n of criteria for d e t e r m i n i n g t h e s p h e r e of t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r of e t h n o g r a p h i c (ethnological) science (as well as of socio-cultural anthropology), a n d delimiting it f r o m c o n t i g u o u s disciplines. O n e of t h e t r a d i t i o n a l a n s w e r s to t h i s q u e s t i o n in o u r l i t e r a t u r e is that e t h n o g r a p h y studies 'folk' culture. However, this cannot be regarded as sufficient, a n d not only b e c a u s e t h e adjective ' f o l k ' is p o l y s e m a n t i c . T h e m a i n p r o b l e m is t h a t r e f e r e n c e to ' f o l k ' c u l t u r e inevitably raises a new q u e s t i o n ; in w h a t w a y does e t h n o g r a p h y differ f r o m s u c h disciplines as t h e history of folk a r c h i t e c t u r e , t h e history of folk music, folklore studies, etc. S o m e t i m e s t h e m a i n specificity of t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c s t u d y of c u l t u r e , as well as t h a t of p e o p l e s as a whole, is seen in its m e t h o d of direct o b s e r vation. H o w e v e r , it is difficult to a c c e p t this viewpoint, too. First, this m e t h o d is widely used in o t h e r disciplines (in folklore art studies, for e x a m p l e ) . Secondly, e t h n o g r a p h y does not confine itself to this m e t h o d in s t u d y i n g c o n t e m p o r a r y peoples. T h e o p i n i o n h a s b e e n recently e x p r e s s e d t h a t t h e specific viewpoint of e t h n o g r a p h y ( e t h n o l o g y ) c o n c e r n i n g its subject is d e t e r m i n e d b y its p r o b l e m s . 6 But t h e n t h e q u e s t i o n arises, w h a t a r e the criteria for singling out t h e s e p r o b l e m s ? T h e a b s e n c e of a n a n s w e r to this q u e s t i o n leaves o p e n t h e possibility of m a k i n g a r b i t r a r y choices in such p r o b lems. It is generally k n o w n t h a t the s u b j e c t - m a t t e r of science c a n n o t b e det e r m i n e d a r b i t r a r i l y a n d d e p e n d s , a b o v e all, o n singling out f r o m the s u m total those p r o p e r t i e s i n h e r e n t in its object w h i c h form t h e object of

B r o m l e y : The object and the subject-matter of ethnography

157

i n v e s t i g a t i o n b y t h e science in q u e s t i o n . H e n c e t h e v i e w p o i n t is d e t e r m i n e d not by a n a r b i t r a r y c h o i c e of p r o b l e m s b u t b y t h e p r e s e n c e in the o b j e c t of c e r t a i n specific p r o p e r t i e s . In o u r c a s e s u c h a n o b j e c t is t h e e t h n o s - p e o p l e . It is evident t h e r e f o r e t h a t it is a m o n g its t y p o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e s t h a t we s h o u l d look for c r i t e r i a for d e t e r m i n i n g t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r of e t h n o g r a p h y ( e t h n o l o g y ) . W h a t f e a t u r e s c a n be c o n s i d e r e d a s s u c h ? D o u b t l e s s t h o s e w h i c h c a n be called ethnic a n d through which the ethnos m a y be distinguished f r o m o t h e r h u m a n c o m m u n i t i e s . O n t h e o n e h a n d , t h e s e a r e t h e feat u r e s w h i c h b r i n g t o g e t h e r all t h e m e m b e r s of t h e e t h n o s ( i n t r a - e t h n i c i n t e g r a t i o n ) , a n d o n the o t h e r h a n d , t h e f e a t u r e s w h i c h s e p a r a t e it f r o m other similar communities (inter-ethnic differentiation). As m e n t i o n e d above, such functions are carried out, together with language, mainly by t h e c o m p o n e n t s of t r a d i t i o n a l e v e r y d a y c u l t u r e ( c u s t o m s , r i t u a l s , folk a r t , folklore, e t c ) . T h e specific p e c u l i a r i t i e s of t h e s e c o m p o n e n t s distinguish one ethnos from another. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e c r i t e r i o n for singling o u t t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r of e t h n o g r a p h y ( e t h n o l o g y ) s h o u l d , in o u r o p i n i o n , b e a n e x a m i n a t i o n of e t h n o s c o m p o n e n t s t h r o u g h t h e p r i s m of t h e e t h n i c f u n c t i o n s c a r r i e d out b y t h e s e c o m p o n e n t s . O w i n g to t h e g r e a t e r o b v i o u s n e s s of t h e i r e t h n i c - d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g p r o p e r t i e s ( e t h n i c specificity), it is precisely t h e s e f e a t u r e s w h i c h serve as a s t a r t i n g - p o i n t for s i n g l i n g o u t t h e s c o p e of t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r of e t h n o g r a p h i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . B u t e t h n o g r a p h y ( e t h n o l o g y ) is c a l l e d u p o n to reveal a p i c t u r e of a n e t h n o s a s a w h o l e - not only its e t h n i c - d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g f e a t u r e s b u t also t h o s e w h i c h it s h a r e s w i t h o t h e r e t h n o s e s . T h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e specific a n d t h e s h a r e d is a l w a y s a n indivisible p r o c e s s . T h a t is w h y a c o m p a r a t i v e s t u d y of e t h n o s c o m p o n e n t s a s t h e m a i n m e t h o d of d e t e r m i n i n g its specific f e a t u r e s inevitably p r e s u p p o s e s a l s o l o c a t i n g t h o s e f e a t u r e s w h i c h it s h a r e s w i t h o t h e r e t h n o s e s . S o m e f e a t u r e s m a y t u r n out to be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of all e t h n o s e s p a s t a n d p r e s e n t , i.e., t o b e c o m m o n t o all m a n k i n d ; o t h e r f e a t u r e s m a y t u r n o u t to b e specific t o o n l y s o m e g r o u p s of e t h n o s e s a n d t h u s t h e s e will b e specific in t h e i r o w n way. T h e m a i n z o n e of e t h n o g r a p h i c ( e t h n o l o g i c a l ) i n v e s t i g a t i o n is d e t e r m i n e d t h r o u g h t h e s t u d y of t h e e t h n o s a n d its c o m p o n e n t s w h i c h reveals t h e i r e t h n i c - d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g f e a t u r e s . It s e e m s self-evident t h a t given s u c h a n a p p r o a c h to the p r o b l e m t h e n u c l e u s of e t h n o g r a p h y ( e t h n o l o g y ) will b e the s t u d y of t h a t layer of c u l t u r e , in its b r o a d e s t m e a n i n g , w h i c h fulfils e t h n i c f u n c t i o n s , a n d a b o v e all, of t r a d i t i o n a l , everyday culture. H o w e v e r , t h e role of t r a d i t i o n a l , e v e r y d a y c u l t u r e is far f r o m i d e n t i cal at d i f f e r e n t s t a g e s of social d e v e l o p m e n t . M o r e o v e r , t h e t e m p o r a l p a r a m e t e r s of t r a d i t i o n s a r e d i f f e r e n t : in s o m e c a s e s old a r c h a i c t r a d i t i o n s prevail, a n d in o t h e r s n e w o n e s a r e f o r m e d . In p r e - c l a s s a n d early class societies c u l t u r e is c o - e x t e n s i v e w i t h its e v e r y d a y t r a d i t i o n a l - a r c h a i c layer. It is o w i n g t o t h i s l o n g - r e c o g n i s e d

158

Part III : The distinctiveness of the contemporary world

fact that when dealing with backward peoples who have no written language ethnography (ethnology) studies their culture as a whole; ranging from their methods of economic activity to their religious beliefs a n d language. Moreover, owing to the syncretism of social life, in this case the whole social sphere of their life, a 'socionormative' culture enters the framework of ethnographic studies. T h e effective monopoly of ethnography in the study of archaic features of economically backward peoples has led to its active participation in the working out of the problems of the primitive society. However, in our own time scientific and technological revolution and social progress are accompanied by the rapid disappearance of archaic phenomena. Hence one of the most important tasks of ethnographers today a n d in the near future is to record such archaic phenomena as still exist. T h e character of these records and their significance largely depend on whether the ethnographer deals with archaic phenomena of backward peoples or with the survivals which still exist in highly industrialised societies. In the first case, data on the archaic components of the life of peoples in some measure throw additional light on the problems of the history of early class and sometimes of pre-class societies. In the case of archaic forms surviving in the everyday life of peoples of highly industrialised countries, the study of these forms frequently makes it possible to get a n idea of the everyday life led by such peoples at least a century or more ago. It should be borne in mind, however, that in such cases the survivals of archaic phenomena are being rapidly replaced by professional, urbanised culture. Therefore the problem of recording them acquires great urgency. It is not by chance that ethnographers who study the peoples of highly industrialised countries pay special attention to this aspect. The widespread publication in recent years, in most European countries, of historico-ethnographic atlases, an important way of recording traditional culture, constitutes striking evidence of this. T h o u g h the uncovering of archaic phenomena is very important for ethnography it would be a mistake to devote this discipline wholly to the study of surviving social antiquities. This concerns especially the ethnoses of highly developed class societies. True, in studying them the aim of investigation remains in the final analysis the same as in studying ethnoses of pre-class and earlyclass societies, i.e. to shed light on the whole complex of characteristic features of ethnic communities. But such unity of final aim cannot, nevertheless, serve as sufficient grounds for transferring mechanically to the studies of the peoples of developed countries those ideas about the profile of ethnographic science which had been formed in studying peoples without written languages and whose whole life, as mentioned before, is full of archaisms. It is necessary to take into account the fact that in class socioeconomic formations the content of the object of ethnographic investigations changes substantially. It becomes exceedingly romplex and

Bromley : The object and the subject-matter of ethnography

159

m a n y - s i d e d . C e r t a i n s p h e r e s of social life b e c o m e greatly i n s u l a t e d as a result of the development of the productive forces. Economic specialisation a n d d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of t h e s p h e r e s of p r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n s u m p tion o c c u r a n d this process b e c o m e s especially intensive w i t h t h e rise of c a p i t a l i s m . T h e social s t r u c t u r e b e c o m e s m o r e c o m p l e x . T h e f o r m e r s y n c r e t i s m in c u l t u r e d i s a p p e a r s , its c o m p o n e n t s b e c o m e differe n t i a t e d . P r o f o u n d differences a p p e a r in t h e m o d e of life of classes a n d social g r o u p s , r u r a l a n d u r b a n i n h a b i t a n t s , b e t w e e n folk a n d professional c u l t u r e . T h e scientific a n d t e c h n o l o g i c a l revolution influences e t h n i c c o m m u n i t i e s greatly. T r u e , this i n f l u e n c e is d u a l in c h a r a c t e r ; o n t h e one h a n d , it p r o m o t e s a n e q u a l i s a t i o n of t h e c u l t u r a l levels of e t h n i c c o m m u n i t i e s , the i n t e r p é n é t r a t i o n of c u l t u r e s , t h e i r s t a n d a r d i s a t i o n a n d u n i f i c a t i o n ; o n t h e other, m a s s m e d i a m a y s t r e n g t h e n ethnic consciousness a m o n g t h e b r o a d m a s s e s of the p o p u l a t i o n . A n d this, in t u r n , h a s a reverse influence o n intellectual c u l t u r e , i m p a r t i n g e t h n i c significance to those of its c o m p o n e n t s w h i c h formerly were of little i m p o r t a n c e in this respect, o r even fulfilled n o e t h n i c f u n c t i o n s at all. O n t h e whole, as s t a n d a r d i s e d forms of c u l t u r e s p r e a d m o r e widely, t h e e t h n i c specificity of c o n t e m p o r a r y p e o p l e s is g r a d u a l l y , as it were, shifting f r o m t h e s p h e r e of m a t e r i a l c u l t u r e i n t o t h e s p h e r e of intellectual c u l t u r e . T h e e m e r g e n c e of new t r a d i t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e in t h e s p h e r e of everyday c u l t u r e , s h o u l d b e b o r n e in m i n d . At t h e s a m e time, professional activity in t h e s p h e r e of intellectual c u l t u r e is p l a y i n g a n ever g r e a t e r e t h n i c role in highly developed c o u n t r i e s , especially in those cases w h e n its a c h i e v e m e n t s p e n e t r a t e i n t o t h e e v e r y d a y life of people. As a result, e t h n i c f u n c t i o n s a r e c a r r i e d o u t b y new, c o m p a r a tively stable c o m p o n e n t s of intellectual c u l t u r e r a t h e r t h a n b y a r c h a i c survivals. T h e s e new c o m p o n e n t s f r e q u e n t l y i n c l u d e e l e m e n t s of old t r a d i t i o n s t h o u g h in m o d i f i e d f o r m s . All this raises a set of p r o b l e m s for m o d e r n e t h n o g r a p h y (ethnology) c o n n e c t e d with t h e s t u d y of c o n t e m p o r a r y peoples ( i n c l u d i n g t h o s e of industrially developed c o u n t r i e s ) as a living reality. N a t u r a l l y , in this case most a t t e n t i o n s h o u l d still b e p a i d to those s p h e r e s of a p e o p l e ' s life in w h i c h its c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e s manifest t h e m s e l v e s most vividly. A n d this, as a l r e a d y m e n t i o n e d , m a i n l y c o n c e r n s t h e intellectual cult u r e of peoples, t h e i r social psychology. In providing a c o n c r e t e o u t l i n e for e t h n o g r a p h i c investigations a n d its prospects, w e m u s t not forget t h a t e t h n o s e s a r e not m e r e l y a s u m of s e p a r a t e c o m p o n e n t s b u t c o n s t i t u t e integral systems. T h e necessity for a c o m p r e h e n s i v e s t u d y of these systems has led to t h e e m e r g e n c e of a series of b o r d e r l i n e disciplines linking e t h n o g r a p h y w i t h related sciences; e t h n i c g e o g r a p h y , e t h n i c a n t h r o p o l o g y , e t h n o - d e m o g r a p h y , ethno-linguistics, ethno-sociology, etc. S o m e of these b o r d e r disciplines have a l r e a d y existed for s o m e t i m e a n d have s u c c e e d e d in m o r e or less proving their significance; others, t h o u g h they a r e only n o w m a k i n g

160

P a r t i l i : The distinctiveness of the contemporary world

their first steps, u n d o u b t e d l y have good prospects. Ethnoses are d y n a m i c systems. Hence one of the most important tasks of e t h n o g r a p h y is to study the changes which take place in them, i.e., the ethnic processes. T h o u g h in the past these processes were rather slow, in the end they led to the disappearance of some ethnic units a n d the emergence of others. It is for this reason in particular that Soviet e t h n o g r a p h e r s pay considerable attention to the question of the origin of peoples (ethnogenesis) which they study jointly with archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, etc. T h e ethnographic study of m o d e r n ethnic processes is of quite a different character. In the course of these processes intensive changes take place in the various c o m p o n e n t s of ethnic communities. Consequently, the scientist studying m o d e r n ethnic communities should focus his attention on the changes which occur in their demographic, social, cultural, linguistic a n d other parameters. T h e increasing intensification of ethnic processes in the m o d e r n world gives special significance to these studies a n d predetermines their further prospects. Thus, the concept of e t h n o g r a p h y (ethnology) as the science of ethnoses does not encourage pessimism about the progressive disappearance of its own subject-matter. So long as peoples exist, e t h n o g r a p h y (ethnology) preserves its object of investigation, a n d not only as the historic past but also as current reality. But the relative significance of diverse zones in the subject-matter of ethnographic investigations is changing with changes in ethnic specificity. Moreover, in the course of social progress the subject-matter of ethnography is becoming increasingly complex, setting itself ever new areas of inquiry.

NOTES 1 R. Naroll, O n ethnic unit classification', Current Anthropology, 1964, vol. 5, no. 4. 2 F. Barth, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, Bergen, 1970. 3 N. Mogilyansky, 'Ethnography and its tasks', Russian Anthropological Society Journal. St. Petersburg, 1909, vol. 3 (in Russian). 4 P. Kushner, 'National consciousness as an ethnic indicator', Brief Reports of the Institute of Ethnography, M o s c o w , 1949, no. 8; 'Ethnic territories and boundaries', TIE ,4.V SSSR, M o s c o w , 1951, vol. 15. S. Tokarev, 'The problem of types of ethnic communities', Problemy Filosofa, M o s c o w , 1964, no. 11. V. Kozlov, The Dynamics of the .Vumencal Strength of Peoples, M o s c o w , 1969. Yu. Bromley, 'Concerning the characteristics of the concept ethnos', Races and Peoples, M o s c o w , 1971, issue 1. K. Chistov, 'The ethnic c o m m u n i t y , ethnic consciousness and s o m e problems of intellectual culture', Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1972, no. 3 (all in Russian). 5 Yu. Bromley, ' T h e term ethnos and its definition', Sonet Ethnology and Anthropology Today, T h e Hague-Paris, 1974. 6 S. Tokarev, ' T h e tasks of ethnographical studies of peoples of industrial countries'. Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1967, no. 5.

T. DRAGADZE The place of 'ethnos ' theory in Soviet anthropology A n e n d e a v o u r to p l a c e a n t h r o p o l o g y a m o n g s t t h e sciences c a n imply e s t a b l i s h i n g b o u n d a r i e s for t h e discipline. It s e e m s t o m e t h a t this is the w a y m a i n s t r e a m Soviet scholars in recent y e a r s h a v e e x p r e s s e d their u n d e r s t a n d i n g of w h a t a n t h r o p o l o g y is a b o u t , b y e n u n c i a t i n g in a d v a n c e the scope of the field a n d , t h r o u g h a p r o c e s s of e l i m i n a t i o n , arriving at a n u n e q u i v o c a l definition of t h e s u b j e c t . I n t h e W e s t we have also b e e n s t r u g g l i n g over t h e n a t u r e of t h e discipline, o n e f o r m of t h e deb a t e b e i n g t h e discussion o n ' n e w a n t h r o p o l o g y ' as well as ' o l d ' . 1 I k n o w t h a t several colleagues s h a r e m y e m b a r a s s m e n t w h e n e v e r stud e n t s ask m e t o define a n t h r o p o l o g y even in a c a d e m i c t e r m s . It w a s t h e r e f o r e with great p l e a s u r e t h a t I e m b a r k e d o n a n a t t e m p t to learn a little a b o u t t h e Soviet u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e discipline. T h e r e h a s b e e n a new a p p r a i s a l of its place in t h e social sciences, a l t h o u g h Soviet scholars, when assessing the development of their subject, have generally p r e f e r r e d to stress c o n t i n u i t y r a t h e r t h a n n e w d e p a r t u r e s . I t h i n k t h a t Soviet social scientists, a n d a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s in p a r t i c u l a r , c a n be said to o p e r a t e in a closed c o n c e p t u a l s y s t e m in t h a t it is spelled out a prion; t h e ' r u l e s of the g a m e ' a r e k n o w n b y t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s a n d they are t h e t e r m s in w h i c h v e n t u r e s into a n a l y s i s a r e assessed. H o w ever, within this system, discussion is i n t e n s e a n d lively. I n d e e d , t h e present d e b a t e o n ' e t h n o s ' is such t h a t n e a r l y every s t a t e m e n t I shall record here h a s b e e n challenged, so this c a n merely b e a s u m m a r y of some of t h e m a i n c o n t e n t i o n s , each of w h i c h h a s by n o m e a n s received full a c c e p t a n c e . In this system, however, t h e u n c h a n g i n g e m p h a s i s which Gellner sensed so well is on t h e close c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n history a n d a n t h r o p o l o g y . 2 T h e historical p r i n c i p l e is t h e m a i n a n a l y t i c a l tool a n d historicism t h e m a i n e x p l a n a t o r y device to h a v e b e e n used t h r o u g h o u t t h e Soviet period. T h e historical d i m e n s i o n included in every s t u d y - seeing social p h e n o m e n a as b e i n g in a s t a t e of flux, c o n t a i n i n g e l e m e n t s of t h e past a n d moving t o w a r d s s o m e n e w f o r m nevertheless a n t e d a t e s the a d o p t i o n t h e r e of M a r x i s t t h e o r y . T h i s w a y of t h o u g h t s t e m s f r o m a n u n i n t e r r u p t e d , d e e p - r o o t e d intellectual

162

P a r t i l i : The distinctiveness of the contemporary world

t r a d i t i o n which was universal until it was rejected by the structural-functionalists in the West. 3 It is useful to a d d t h a t h u m a n history h a d been seen by Soviet scholars as following a universal 'stages of hist o r y ' development, the implications of which are usually studied by the philosophers a n d a d o p t e d s u b s e q u e n t l y by the anthropologists for their o w n use. 4 It is imperative to state here that in the West we also operate within closed frameworks, a l t h o u g h less obviously so, a n d the Soviet a p p r o a c h is salutory since it e n h a n c e s o u r a w a r e n e s s of our inherent limitations. Above all, we find with o u r Soviet colleagues the freshness of a theoretical f r a m e w o r k which is relatively s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d a n d uncluttered. You need only refer to Professor Bromley's definitive work Ethnos and Ethnographys to realise that a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the t e r m ' e t h n o s ' is central to any a p p r e c i a t i o n of recent views on the n a t u r e of anthropology which Soviet scholars offer. I n no u n c e r t a i n terms Bromley states that the object of anthropological e n q u i r y is the ethnos as a social unit. M a n as a social being can be e x a m i n e d in a great n u m b e r of ways, as can the collectivities in which he participates. Unlike other researchers, however, anthropologists should specialise in studying m a n in his capacity as member of a n 'ethnos', the nature of these 'ethnoses' and their history. For example, ethnic consciousness is the anthropologist's special field, whereas 'collective consciousness' tout court is not. T h r o u g h this division of l a b o u r a m o n g the h u m a n sciences a n t h r o p o l o g y acquires a n a u t o n omy which sets it a p a r t f r o m history a n d sociology, t h e latter being a discipline which has been gaining m o m e n t u m in the U S S R since the late 1960s. T h e concept ' e t h n o s ' has u n d e r g o n e a long process of refinement a n d redefinition since it was first e l a b o r a t e d by Shirokogoroff. 6 But I shall take m y cue f r o m the most recent publication I have received from Moscow, Contemporary Ethnic Processes in the I'SSR.1 Giving an overall, working definition, Bromley a n d Kozlov write: E t h n o s (in t h e n a r r o w sense of the t e r m ) can be defined as a firm aggregate of people, historically established on a given territory, possessing in c o m m o n relatively stable particularities of language a n d culture, a n d also recognizing their unity a n d difference from other similar formations (self a w a r e n e s s ) a n d expressing this in a self-appointed n a m e (ethnonym).® W h y such a g r o u p is called a n ' e t h n o s ' a n d not by some other n a m e can be partly a c c o u n t e d for by pointing out t h a t in Soviet terms the word 'society' is t h e M a r x i a n t e r m for a p a r t i c u l a r socio-economic formation: feudal society, capitalist society. Similar difficulties arise with the use of t e r m s such as ' c o m m u n i t y ' , ' g r o u p ' , 'nationality', ' n a t i o n ' a n d ' p e o p l e ' - narod in R u s s i a n - which for some time have h a d definite, acknowledged m e a n i n g s which a r e best not t a m p e r e d with. They too are all associated with a n d confined to p a r t i c u l a r stages of history. I would

D r a g a d z e : The place of 'ethnos ' theory in Soviet anthropology

163

v e n t u r e t h e r e m a r k t h a t a n y w a y M a r x i s t s c h e r i s h t h e i r use of t e r m i n o logy m o r e t h a n most n o n - M a r x i s t s , r e g a r d l e s s of w h i c h t r a n s l a t i o n . Soviet scholars h a v e m a i n t a i n e d t h a t s o m e British a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s will talk of t h e N u e r ' p e o p l e ' , the B a n t u - s p e a k i n g ' p e o p l e s ' o r t h e C h i n e s e ' p e o p l e ' w i t h o u t a p a r t i c u l a r l y precise sociological definition of the g r o u p in q u e s t i o n . But m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l is t h e a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e t e r m ' e t h n o s ' is seen to be t h e e m b o d i m e n t of a n a s s u m p t i o n w h i c h reflects the special t y p e of c o r p o r a t e n e s s felt b y t h o s e w h o b e l o n g to it. A n e t h n o s is only a n e t h n o s if its m e m b e r s perceive it as such. T h i s c a n n o t be said so blithely of such w e s t e r n c o n v e n t i o n s as t h e use of t h e t e r m ' t r i b e ' , t h e very notion of w h i c h is s o m e t i m e s c o n f u s i n g to t h o s e to w h o m it is s u p p o s e d to a p p l y . 9 A n e t h n o s is a n unit, at least for t h e m o s t c o m m i t t e d Soviet c o n t e n ders, w h i c h is not b o u n d to a n y p a r t i c u l a r historical stage of societal d e v e l o p m e n t . Its c h a r a c t e r is d e p e n d a n t , b u t not its very existence. T o d r a w a s i m p l e a n a l o g y : the existence of a l a n g u a g e is not b o u n d to a n y p a r t i c u l a r stage of history a l t h o u g h it u n d e r g o e s m o d i f i c a t i o n s in a n y p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s . A n overflogged r e m a r k , b u t o n e w h i c h highlights the analogy, is that the basic g r a m m a r of a n y given language changes little over time, a l t h o u g h its v o c a b u l a r y is t r a n s f o r m e d c o n s i d e r a b l y . For e t h n o g r a p h e r s c a u g h t in t h e t r a p of t h e s y s t e m of historical stages, a n e t h n o s is a useful a n a l y t i c a l device, b e i n g a n u n i t w h i c h c a n be t r a c e d vertically t h r o u g h history. A n a t i o n o r a society c a n n o t be t r e a t e d in the s a m e way. T h e y dissolve at c e r t a i n stages a n d f o r m a g a i n . T h i s m e a n s t h a t for 'societies' o n e h a s a c o n c e p t u a l vision of h o r i z o n t a l s t r a t a . A n e t h n o s is a n entity t h a t c a n b e a n a l y s e d vertically u p t h r o u g h these s t r a t a , a very h a n d y m o d e l for a n historically m i n d e d Soviet a n t h r o p o l o g i s t . I n d e e d , these e t h n o s e s c h a n g e t h e i r c h a r a c t e r as t h e y pass t h r o u g h t h e s t r a t a , but t h e y d o not lose t h e i r i d e n t i t y as e t h n o s e s a n d their b o u n d a r i e s as units. ' T h e U k r a i n i a n e t h n o s ' , for i n s t a n c e , 'existed u n d e r f e u d a l i s m a n d c a p i t a l i s m a n d c o n t i n u e s t o exist u n d e r s o c i a l i s m ' w r i t e s Bromley. 1 0 T h i s a s s e r t i o n h a s by no m e a n s f o u n d a c c e p t a n c e a m o n g all t h e p a r ticipants in t h e c u r r e n t e t h n o s d e b a t e s , w h i c h h a v e b e e n s p a r k e d off by T o k a r e v ' s a t t e m p t to formalise t h e links b e t w e e n historical stages a n d types of e t h n o s . " S o m e have m a i n t a i n e d t h a t e t h n o s e s c a n only exist within t h e c o n d i t i o n s of pre-capitalist f o r m a t i o n s . O t h e r s , such as Gumilev, a l t h o u g h using q u e s t i o n a b l e a n d u n p o p u l a r a r g u m e n t s , steadfastedly p r o c l a i m the u b i q u i t y of e t h n o s in t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y world scene. H e writes: ' T h e r e is not a single p e r s o n in t h e e a r t h w h o is not in an e t h n o s . Every p e r s o n w h e n asked, " W h o a r e y o u ? " will a n swer, " R u s s i a n , F r e n c h , Persian or M a s a i " , w i t h o u t t h i n k i n g . ' 12 But he p e r t u r b e d his r e a d e r s by s u g g e s t i n g t h a t since this p h e n o m e n o n is o m n i p r e s e n t , it expresses such a d e e p psychological e l e m e n t in h u m a n s which causes t h e m to ascribe themselves to a n e t h n o s , t h a t it c a n a l m o s t be said to be biological. All Soviet e t h n o g r a p h e r s a r e a n x i o u s to disavow any 'biological' element in t h e s t u d y of e t h n o s especially if it could

164

P a r t i l i : The distinctiveness of the contemporary world

d e n o t e some sort of racist overtone. ( G u m i l e v w o u l d s h a r e this c o n c e r n a n d so it w a s u n f o r t u n a t e t h a t he should have m i s u s e d his vocabulary. ) F o r instance, w h e n s t u d y i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n i n t r a - e t h n i c e n d o g a m y a n d t h e survival of a n e t h n o s , B r o m l e y stresses t h a t it is the c a p a c i t y for t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n of c u l t u r e a l o n e w h i c h is affected by i n t e r m a r r i a g e . " A n e t h n o s is never e q u a t e d w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r physical t y p e , a l t h o u g h t h e t w o occasionally coincide at a given stage of history. For Shirokogoroff ' e t h n o s r e g u l a t i o n ' w a s d e p e n d a n t o n t h e i n t e r p l a y b e t w e e n t h r e e factors: t h e ecological c o n d i t i o n s to w h i c h the e t h n o s h a d to a d a p t , its relations with o t h e r e t h n o s e s a n d t h e size of its p o p u l a t i o n . H e t h e n set these factors out in e q u a t i o n s to qualify t h e potentialities of e a c h element. For e x a m p l e , t h e h i g h e r t h e 'level of cult u r e ' o f t h e e t h n o s , t h e less intensive t h e v a r i a t i o n s in p o p u l a t i o n . 1 4 T h i s t e n d e d to evoke a p i c t u r e of t h e e t h n o s in its s t a t e as a primitive h o r d e , w h i c h for some scholars is all a n e t h n o s ever is, a n y w a y . For those w h o see its c o n t i n u i t y into c o m p l e x society, a ' s t a g e s of h i s t o r y ' f r a m e w o r k h a s to b e e l a b o r a t e d m o r e t h o r o u g h l y . Specifically, d u r i n g m y research in M o s c o w , I w a s told t h a t the great d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e Soviet u n d e r s t a n d i n g of ' e t h n o s ' a n d t h e A m e r i c a n school of M e a d a n d Benedict (cf. Patterns of Culture) is t h a t t h e Soviet n o t i o n o f ' e t h n i c specificity' c a n n o t b e seen, t o use sociological j a r g o n , as a n i n d e p e n d e n t variable. If a static m o d e l for society w e r e to be used, if t h e ' e t h n o g r a p h i c p r e s e n t ' were t o b e a n a c c e p t e d convention, it w o u l d b e different. But if, like all social p h e n o m e n a , e t h n o s categories m u s t b e observed t h r o u g h o u t t h e i r p a t h of historical evolution, t h e n these will a p p e a r m o r e fluid, m o r e versatile, a n d t h e r e b y m o r e e n d u r ing. Inevitably, t h e c u r r e n t Soviet a x i o m is t h a t a n e t h n o s is always a s y s t e m whose b i n d i n g characteristics a r e d e p e n d e n t o n t h e e c o n o m y , history a n d politics of t h e d a y . I will not try to p a r a p h r a s e t h e a c c o u n t s of a favourite t h e m e offered by Soviet a u t h o r s elsewhere, in English. 1 5 T h e implications are obvious e n o u g h : in its p a t h t h e e t h n o s unit will be m o u l d e d into very different shapes a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t y p e of society in w h i c h it exists. Predictably, Bromley a n d Kozlov d i s t i n g u i s h t h r e e types of c o m m u n i t y in w h i c h a n e t h n o s m i g h t find e x p r e s s i o n : the t r i b e for ' p r i m i t i v e ' society, w h e r e its m e m b e r s stress t h e closeness of k i n s h i p ties a n d c o m m o n descent f r o m a u s u a l l y m y t h i c a l a n c e s t o r ; the n a t i o n for capitalist a n d socialist society; w h e r e a s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c for slaveo w n i n g a n d f e u d a l society is the narodnost, a ' p e o p l e ' s o m e w h e r e b e t w e e n a t r i b e a n d n a t i o n for w h i c h t h e r e is n o a d e q u a t e English t r a n s l a t i o n . 1 6 S o m e t i m e s it will be t h e c o m m o n l a n g u a g e w h i c h a p p e a r s as t h e salient b i n d i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , at o t h e r t i m e s t h e religious belief system, or t h e s h a r e d e c o n o m y (e.g. p a s t o r a l i s m ) or t h e w a r m a c h i n e in times of political e x p a n s i o n . Y o u n a m e it a n d you m i g h t find it. A n a n a l o g o u s a p p r o a c h is used in t h e W e s t w h e n we t e a c h t h e history of t h e family, b u t in t h e Soviet case o p p o r t u n i s t choices d o not s t e m f r o m a n a r g u m e n t in functionalist t e r m s .

D r a g a d z e : The place of 'ethnos 'theory in Soviet anthropology

165

Ultimately, a n ethnos might be said to be a group in the Durkheimian sense insofar as its m e m b e r s share a collective representation: they believe that they are a g r o u p of people apart because they share some u n i q u e features in c o m m o n . T h e c o m p o n e n t s - t h e ' m e a n i n g ' - o f this p a r t i c u l a r collective representation will vary t h r o u g h time, as it is t r a n s m i t t e d from generation to generation. But what is the ' c o n s t a n t ' ? I would suggest that this is seen to be the actual label. Ethnos is not a 'geist'. It is a g r o u p of people giving themselves a c o m m o n label - the e t h n o n y m . T h i s label, which expresses their distinctiveness from other similar groups, is the basis of their self-definition (and therefore the basis of the ethnos's existence). T h i s point was m a d e succinctly, I think, by Kriukov in a s e m i n a r p a p e r last year in Moscow, ' T h e evolution of ethnic self-awareness a n d the problem of ethnogenesis', which he illustrated with reference to the ancient Greeks a n d the ancient Chinese. I do not know w h e t h e r this interesting paper has been p u b lished yet. 1 7 T h e b o u n d a r i e s of the ethnos might or might not coincide with those of a g r o u p participating in any given social organisation. It is i m p o r t a n t to r e m e m b e r this when Soviet a u t h o r s follow an ethnos across the great divide between the antagonistic a n d the nonantagonistic forms of society. It seems to me that an ethnos is seen to be moving along a sort of c o n t i n u u m from social organisation in its early stages to cognitive field in its later (socialist) stage. (By the same token can I submit that one is moving towards what can be called a 'cultural'model?)18 T h e r e has recently been increasing interest in ethnicity a m o n g western social scientists. For instance, Glazer a n d M o y n i h a n published a large collection of articles in 1975, 19 a n d a n ASA M o n o g r a p h was brought out in 1974 on u r b a n ethnicity. 2 0 Ethnicity is studied within the context of conflict theory with inequality as its theme. Ethnic groups are culturally b o u n d e d b u t politically a n d economically maintained. David Parkin, following A b n e r Cohen, writes: I would put my view [on a definition of ethnicity] in the form of a simple e q u a t i o n : ethnicity = a) the articulation of cultural distinctiveness in b) situations of political conflict or competition. 2 1 According to this school, ethnic self awareness arises as a reaction to the social forces of actual or potential deprivation. In these t e r m s a dialogue with Soviet scholars would be problematic. T h i s is not because, when they write about ethnoses in the USSR today, they never depict t h e m as suffering in competition one with the other. It would not be enough merely to question whether Soviet society is nonantagonistic a n d classless. You could use your own convictions a n d rewrite some ethnographies 2 2 but you would not have grappled with the essence of Soviet ethnos theory. T o my knowledge there has not been any recent Soviet literature

166

Part III : The distinctiveness of the contemporary world

devoted specifically to t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n class a n d e t h n o s . M y motive for m e n t i o n i n g it h e r e is merely b e c a u s e w e s t e r n colleagues cont i n u a l l y q u e s t i o n m e a b o u t it, a l t h o u g h I w o u l d have p r e f e r r e d to leave this discussion to t h e Soviet scholars at t h e conference. As far as I c a n tell, they m a i n t a i n t h a t ethnoses c a n b e cut across internally by class divisions b u t e t h n o s a n d class a r e not seen as a l t e r n a t e b u t as c o m p l e m e n t a r y a n a l y t i c categories. For class c o n c e p t s b e l o n g to t h e h o r i z o n t a l s t r a t a of social analysis, e t h n o s c o n c e p t s to vertical analysis. T h e y w o u l d m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e history of class struggles a n d t h e history of ethnoses c a n b e a n a l y s e d c o n c u r r e n t l y , t h u s a d d i n g a f u r t h e r d i m e n s i o n to a M a r x i a n s t u d y of social c h a n g e . M e m b e r s of the s a m e class f r o m different e t h n o s e s - e a c h w i t h their u n i q u e e t h n i c c h a r a c t e r - c a n c o m e t o g e t h e r for p u r p o s e s of class solidarity, a n d e t h n i c self a w a r e n e s s is not seen as a 'false consciousness '. A c c o r d i n g to most Soviet scholars, self ascription to a n e t h n o s is not a f o r m of s p o n t a n e o u s response. In p a r t i c u l a r it is not merely a r e s p o n s e to the agonies of c a p i t a l i s m . It arises f r o m the inner e x p e r i e n c e of c o u n t less g e n e r a t i o n s w h o simply perceive t h a t , for e x a m p l e , as T u r k s they are different to t h e F r e n c h . O v e r a long period, surviving t h e convulsions of social c h a n g e , T u r k i s h n e s s per se is c o n t i n u o u s a n d stable a l t h o u g h it will a s s u m e very d i f f e r e n t forms. T h e i n t e r p l a y b e t w e e n t h e e t h n o s e s is such t h a t T u r k s a n d F r e n c h m i g h t c o m b i n e to fight c o m m o n oppressive forces, they m i g h t s h a r e the s a m e level of technology, they m i g h t even s h a r e a c o m m o n g o v e r n m e n t , b u t they will fight in the T u r k i s h style a n d t h e F r e n c h style, will speak T u r k i s h a n d F r e n c h , will have a T u r k i s h a n d a F r e n c h symbolic o r d e r . It is t h e p a r a d i g m a t i c n a t u r e of T u r k i s h n e s s a n d F r e n c h n e s s - w h i c h , for e x a m p l e , A r d e n e r in a n early f o r m u l a t i o n w o u l d p e r h a p s have called a ' t e m p l a t e ' 2 3 - w h i c h s h o u l d f o r m t h e object of o u r e n q u i r i e s as a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s . T h u s it is the r e s i d u e category o n e c a n t u r n to w h e n , having e x h a u s t e d t h e possibilities of analysis a c c o r d i n g to t h e c a n o n s of socio-economic history, o n e seeks to perceive w h a t r e m a i n s as a r e c u r r i n g t h e m e w i t h i n t h e b o u n d a r i e s of T u r k i s h n e s s a n d F r e n c h n e s s . T h e s t u d y of e t h n i c specificity will entail c o m p a r a t i v e analysis t h r o u g h o u t . A s t r a n d of t h o u g h t arising f r o m this position is t h a t e t h n i c specificity c a n b e seen as t h e objective j u s t i f i c a t i o n for a subjective a w a r e n e s s of affiliation to a given ethnos. It is in these t e r m s t h a t Bromley e l a b o r a t e d his typology of e t h n o s hierarchies to a c c o u n t for t h e p h e n o m e n o n of p e o p l e seeing themselves as, for e x a m p l e , Slav, R u s s i a n a n d D o n C o s s a k simultaneously. 2 4 M o r e i m p o r t a n t in u n d e r s t a n d i n g S o v i e t ' e t h n o s ' t h e o r y is to n o t e t h e a p p r o a c h used to diagnose t h e o n c o m i n g d e a t h of a n e t h n o s . A g a i n , this point has b e e n dealt with a d m i r a b l y in English t r a n s l a t i o n a n d I shall not r e p e a t a r g u m e n t s expressed so m u c h b e t t e r by t h e Soviet a u t h o r s t h e m s e l v e s . " In brief, i n t e r m a r r i a g e with o t h e r e t h n o s e s ' s m e m b e r s , c o n q u e s t by a n d intense contact w i t h other e t h n o s e s , r e m o val f r o m a c o m m o n territory a n d o t h e r similar conditions c a n e r o d e t h e

D r a g a d z e : The place of 'ethnos ' theory in Soviet anthropology

167

salience of ethnic self-labelling. But the study of ethnic specificity t h r o u g h time is nevertheless deemed to be the m a i n task of Soviet anthropologists, because it is believed that the specifics of a d o m i n a n t , host ethnos will always be modified by the ethnoses they a b s o r b (or the 'ethnicoses' they a b s o r b - the t e r m Bromley has used to denote ethnic g r o u p s not living on their own territory). T h e extreme position, a d m i t tedly one which I have not encountered in the literature yet, which follows, would be to m a i n t a i n that ethnic specific qualities will all die totally only if all m e m b e r s of the given ethnos who possess t h e m were to be physically e x t e r m i n a t e d , in isolation. In the case of the U S S R , Bromley a n d Kozlov declare that, should it become a melting pot of e t h noses, the new m a c r o - e t h n o s would contain ethnic specifics of every e t h n o s present today. 2 6 Chlenov, a y o u n g Soviet scholar - again his views would be challenged by several of his colleagues - has tentatively put f o r w a r d a practical proposal to help the acceptance of the i m p o r t a n c e of ethnic specificity as the object of our studies. T h u s , although it is not entirely representative of the m a i n opinions, I have found guidance to clues for u n d e r s t a n d i n g how a n t h r o p o l o g y 2 ' can be c o m p r e h e n d e d as a discipline i n C h l e n o v ' s article: O n the internal articulation of e t h n o g r a p h i c s c i e n c e ' " where he suggests alternative ways of classifying information in libraries. H e gives a h u m o u r o u s account of current library catalogue titles devised for this purpose. H e m a i n t a i n s that etnografia is not t h e social history of primitive society as has been traditionally t h o u g h t in the U S S R , but r a t h e r is the study of ethnos in all its manifestations, where social history is only relevant when it deals with ethnic specificity. He suggests t h a t material should be classified according to new indices: T h e specificity of etnografia c o m p a r e d with other social sciences, (sociology, history, law, economics a n d soon) i s t o b e f o u n d i n i t s 'conjunctive c h a r a c t e r ' . An ethnos contains m a n y of the same traits as h u m a n society as a whole. It is well known that it is difficult to t r a c e the boundaries b e t w e e n a n ethnos a n d a social group of a n o t h e r c h a r acter. And the various aspects of h u m a n society's existence (social organisation, production, law, etc.) are studied by different sciences. Accordingly, etnografia is m a d e u p of a conglomeration of scientific disciplines, each of which is tightly linked to a ' c o r r e s p o n d i n g ' social or natural science a n d can only be distinguished from it by the specifics of its subject m a t t e r . Before characterising the actual system of internal articulation, a few remarks on the terminology used here: it seems to me that in Russia the use of the term etnografia has b e c o m e traditional a n d h a b i t u a l and there is absolutely no need to substitute it with any other t e r m , for example with 'narodovedenie' [volkskunde?] or 'ethnology' or others. As for the internal subdivisions of etnografia, there is no [established] tradition yet and so I propose to use the right combination of the element ' e t h n o - ' with other words to depict the

168

Part 111 : The distinctiveness ojthe contemporary world

s e p a r a t e c o m p o n e n t s of etnografia : 1. E t h n o l o g y . S u b j e c t m a t t e r : e t h n o s as a s y s t e m in s y n c h r o n y a n d d i a c h r o n y . T h e m o r e general q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the existence of a n e t h n o s , e t h n o s philosophy, t h e relationship b e t w e e n e t h n o s a n d c u l t u r e , e t h n o s t h e o r y , e t h n o s typologies, e t h n o s origins, t h e c h a r a c ter of e t h n i c c o n t a c t s , ethnogenesis, e t h n i c history. C o r r e s p o n d i n g sciences : history a n d philosophy. 2. E t h n o s o c i o l o g y . Subject m a t t e r : social o r g a n i s a t i o n of the e t h n o s . Social o r g a n i s a t i o n , social control, i n t e r r e l a t i o n s of people w i t h i n a n e t h n o s , t r a d i t i o n a l social s t r u c t u r e s , legal e t h n o l o g y , political e t h n o l o g y a n d so on. C o r r e s p o n d i n g sciences: sociology, law, political science a n d history. 3. E t h n o e c o n o m i c s . Subject m a t t e r : the o r g a n i s a t i o n a n d c u l t u r e of p r o d u c t i o n a n d its uses within a n ethnos. G e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s of e c o n o m i c e t h n o l o g y , e c o n o m y (khozaistvo), m a t e r i a l c u l t u r e . C o r r e s p o n d i n g science: economics. 4. Ethnofolkloristics. Subject m a t t e r : e t h n i c expressions of ' s p i r i t u a l c u l t u r e ' . W a y of life [byt], oral folklore, d e c o r a t i v e art a n d m u s i c folklore, ideas a b o u t t h e world, r u d i m e n t s of scientific k n o w l e d g e . C o r r e s p o n d i n g sciences: folkloristics, art a n d m u s i c studies. 5. E t h n o l i n g u i s t i c s . Subject m a t t e r : l a n g u a g e as a m e a n s of c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h i n a n d b e t w e e n ethnoses. L a n g u a g e a n d e t h n i c t h o u g h t , e t h n o s e m a n t i c s , genetic ethnolinguistics, b i l i n g u a l i s m , l a n g u a g e c o n t a c t s , politics of l a n g u a g e , e t h n o - o n o m a s t i c s . C o r r e s p o n d i n g science: linguistics. 6. E t h n o g e o g r a p h y . Subject m a t t e r : t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n e t h n o s a n d g e o g r a p h i c a l e n v i r o n m e n t . E t h n o s ecology, e t h n o d e m o graphy, ethnocartography, ethnobotany, ethnozoology. Corresponding sciences: geography, demography, ecology and cartography. 7. E t h n o p s y c h o l o g y . Subject m a t t e r : s t a b l e p s y c h i c c h a r a c teristics of t h e e t h n o s . G e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s of e t h n o p s y c h o l o g y , c u l t u r e a n d p e r s o n a l i t y , axiology, t h e e t h n o g r a p h y of t e a c h i n g a n d e d u cation, e t h n o s e x o l o g y , the position of unsocial g r o u p s w i t h i n the e t h n o s ( y o u t h a n d t h e a g e d ) , relations b e t w e e n t h e sexes, a t t i t u d e s to w o m e n , etc. C o r r e s p o n d i n g science: psychology a n d social p s y c h o logy. [Italics m i n e . T . D . ] 8. E t h n o r e l i g i o u s studies. S u b j e c t m a t t e r : e t h n i c p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s of religion. C o m p a r a t i v e studies of religious systems, the r e l a t i o n s h i p of religion w i t h o t h e r characteristics of t h e e t h n o s , p o p u l a r beliefs, s u p e r s t i t i o n s , m y t h o l o g y . C o r r e s p o n d i n g science: religious studies. 9. E t h n o b i o l o g y . Subject m a t t e r : biological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e e t h n o s . Physical a n t h r o p o l o g y of t h e e t h n o s , m e d i c a l a n t h r o p o l o g y , t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a n e t h n o s a n d race, social a n d c u l t u r a l aspects of i n t e r - r a c i a l relations. C o r r e s p o n d i n g sciences: physical a n t h r o p o l o g y , m e d i c i n e a n d sociology. 10. S u b s i d i a r y disciplines in etnografia., the history of etnografia,

D r a g a d z e : The place of 'ethnns ' theory in Soviet anthropology

169

t e a c h i n g m e t h o d s for etnografia, m u s e u m work, archive work a n d source studies. It is easy to take issue with Chlenov over several c o m p o n e n t s of his scheme, in p a r t i c u l a r n u m b e r s seven, eight, a n d nine, except t h a t he is a t t e m p t i n g to catalogue material already written as well as that which he anticipates in the future. Above all he tends to a s s u m e t h a t the m a terial to be classified concerns ethnoses in what he would see as their pre-scientific stage. It is true that Soviet anthropologists do accept an u n q u e s t i o n a b l e distinction between pre-scientific a n d scientific ' m o d e s of t h o u g h t a n d the bulk of excellent Soviet e t h n o g r a p h i c field work has traditionally been concentrated on issues untypical of m o d e r n life. Nevertheless, I still a m u n d e r the impression that the theory of e t h n o s is seen as a m e a n s by which Soviet anthropology can successfully claim a u n i q u e stake in the study of c o n t e m p o r a r y society. As for the p a r t i c u l a r study of ethnos, ethnicity a n d ethnic specificity, ultimately the difference between the western and Soviet a p p r o a c h is p e r h a p s merely a question of emphasis. W h e n trying to u n t a n g l e the frequent confusion of ethnic c h a r a c t e r a n d ethnic group, of c u l t u r e a n d structure, western scholars see ethnic self-awareness as implying a cohesive social organisation, whereas on this point the Soviet e m p h a s i s is often m i n i m a l . I a m intrigued, however, as to w h e t h e r in simple t e r m s one m u s t assume t h a t a n ethnos is merely some sort of e p i - p h e n o m e n o n where, from a p a r t i c u l a r socio-economic formation, the a r r o w s of causality point in one direction only, or w h e t h e r - more interestingly - t h e r e is a sense in which an ethnos, or at least some elements of ethnic specificity, have a general, ' p a r a d i g m a t i c ' a u t o n o m y . In conclusion, I m u s t confess that I have overstated t h e a r g u m e n t in order to be polemical. But this is because I looked forward so greatly to an o p p o r t u n i t y at the forthcoming conference to learn m o r e f r o m o u r Soviet colleagues w h o have so m u c h to contribute to enrich o u r discipline.

NOTES 1 I have in mind such statements as those of R. N e e d h a m , ' T h e future of social anthropology; disintegration or metamorphosis', Anniversary Contributions to Anthropology: Twelve Essays, Leiden, 1971. Banaji, 'Crisis in British anthropology', New l-eft Review, 1970, no. 64. Previously published in the Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford. E. Ardener, 'The new anthropology and its critics', MAN, 1971, N.S., vol. 6, no. 3; also discussions at the decennial meeting of the Association of Social Anthropologists, 1973, entitled ' N e w departures in anthropology'. 2 E. Gellner, ' T h e Soviet and the savage', Current Anthropology, 1975, vol. 16, no. 4. 3 See my c o m m e n t s on E. Gellner in Current Anthropology, 1975, vol. 16, no. 4. 4 For a fine e x a m p l e of recent philosophy, see Y. Boroday, V.J. Kelle and E. G. Plimak, The Principle of Histoncism in the Cognition of Social Phenomena, M o s c o w , 1972 (in Russian).

170

P a r t 111 : The distinctiveness

of the contemporary

world

5 Yu. V. B r o m l e y , Ethnos and Ethnography, M o s c o w , 1973, (in R u s s i a n ) . 6 I a m i n d e b t e d to E. L e a c h for i n f o r m a t i o n . S . M . S h i r o k o g o r o f f (1887-1939) lect u r e d in V l a d i v o s t o k in 1921 a n d 1922 b e f o r e leaving t h e Soviet U n i o n for good, so his i n f l u e n c e t h e r e h a s b e e n indirect. H e p u b l i s h e d Ethnos, S h a n g h a i , 1923, a book based o n these lectures. A n E n g l i s h version, Ethnical Unit and Milieu, w a s p u b l i s h e d in S h a n g hai, 1924. 7 Yu. V. B r o m l e y et al. (eds), Contemporary Ethnic Processes in the USSR, M o s c o w , 1975 (in R u s s i a n ) . 8 Ibid. p . 1 1 . 9 E . W . A r d e n e r , ' L a n g u a g e , e t h n i c i t y a n d p o p u l a t i o n ' in ' T h e p o p u l a t i o n f a c t o r in A f r i c a n s t u d i e s ' , p a p e r p r e s e n t e d t o t h e A f r i c a n S t u d i e s A s s o c i a t i o n , 1972, p u b l i s h e d in Studies m Social Anthropology (ed. J . B e a t t i e a n d Y. L i e n h a r d t ) , O x f o r d , 1975, p p . 343-53. 10 Y u . V. B r o m l e y , ' E t h n o s a n d t h e e t h n o s o c i a l o r g a n i s m ' , Ethnologia Slavica, vol. 3, Bratislava, 1971 (in R u s s i a n ) . 11 S.A. T o k a r e v , ' T h e p r o b l e m s of t y p e s of e t h n i c c o m m u n i t y : notes t o w a r d s e t h n o g r a p h i c m e t h o d o l o g y ' , Voprosi Filosophii, M o s c o w , 1964, (in R u s s i a n ) . H e revived t h e interest in ' e t h n o s ' w h i c h w a s t o u c h e d o n by P.I. K u s h n e r as e a r l y as 1949, a n d in t h e early 1950s. 12 L N . G u m i l e v , ' O n t h e t e r m " e t h n o s " ' , Papers of the Geographical Society, Leni n g r a d , 1966 (in R u s s i a n ) . 13 Y . V . B r o m l e y , ' E t h n o s a n d e n d o g a m y ' , Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1969, no. 9; a n d t h e discussion o n this p a p e r in Sovietskaia Etnografìa, 1970 (in R u s s i a n ) . 14 S h i r o k o g o r o f f , Ethnical Unit and Milieu (in R u s s i a n ) . 15 Y . V . B r o m l e y (ed. ), Soviet Ethnology and Anthropology Today, T h e H a g u e , 1974. 16 B r o m l e y et al. (eds), o p . cit., p. 12. 17 M . K r i u k o v , I n s t i t u t e of E t h n o g r a p h y , A c a d e m y of Sciences, M o s c o w . 18 I k n o w ' c u l t u r e ' is a t e r m n e e d i n g a r e - t h i n k . See Z . B a u m a n , Culture as Praxis, L o n d o n , 1972. 19 N. G l a z e r a n d D . M o y n i h a n (eds), Ethnicity: Theory and Experience, H a r v a r d U n i versity Press, 1975. 20 A. C o h e n (ed.), Urban Ethnicity, A S A M o n o g r a p h 12, L o n d o n , 1974. 21 D . P a r k i n ' C o n g r e g a t i o n a l a n d i n t e r p e r s o n a l ideologies in political e t h n i c i t y ' , in C o h e n (ed.), Urban Ethnicity. 22 See t h e p o s i t i o n of D. L a n e , ' E t h n i c a n d class s t r a t i f i c a t i o n in Soviet K a z a k h s t a n . 1917-1939', Comparative Studies in History and Society, vol. 17, C a m b r i d g e , 1975. 23 E . W . A r d e n e r in M . D o u g l a s (ed.), Witchcraft: Confessions and Accusations, ASA M o n o g r a p h 9 , 1 9 7 0 , p. 156. 24 Y u . V . B r o m l e y in Papers Presented to the 8th World Congress of Sociology, T o r o n t o , 1974. 25 See in p a r t i c u l a r Papers Presented to the 8th World Congress of Sociology, T o r o n t o , 1974. B r o m l e y (ed.), Soviet Ethnology and Anthropology Today. Also, f o r t h c o m i n g , T . D r a g a d z e (ed.), Readings in Contemporary Soviet Anthropology, O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press. 26 Y u . V . B r o m l e y a n d V . l . Kozlov, ' L e n i n i s m a n d e t h n i c processes in t h e L ' S S R ' , Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1970, no. 1 (in R u s s i a n ) . 27 Etnografia in R u s s i a n , not s i m p l e t o t r a n s l a t e . E x c e p t in t h e e x t r a c t f r o m C h l e n o v I have r e n d e r e d it t h r o u g h o u t as ' a n t h r o p o l o g y ' or ' e t h n o l o g y ' , as a p p r o p r i a t e in E n g l i s h usage. E t n o l o g i a is r e n d e r e d only as ' e t h n o l o g y '. 28 M . A . C h l e n o v , ' O n t h e i n t e r n a l a r t i c u l a t i o n of e t h n o g r a p h i c science', Paper to the Moscow branch of the Geographical Society, 1973 (in R u s s i a n ) .

L. DROBIZHEVA Ethnic sociology of present-day

life

In the Soviet Union ethnography does not confine itself to archaic societies, but also undertakes the study of well-developed urbanised nations, of their past and present. When modern urbanised nations become the object of research, ethnography, while maintaining a fairly broad range, nevertheless restricts its scope, since ethnographers can use data concerning the life of these nations drawn from other sciences. So they do not need to investigate all the aspects of the life of a nation, as specialists in historical ethno-sociology are obliged to do when studying archaic nations, or as social anthropologists do in their work. But since the ethnical development of a nation is influenced by factors other than ethnical (social and economic above all), in its study of modern nations ethnography co-operates with other sciences, and especially with sociology. This interaction has led to co-operation with the two sciences and given rise to such new scientific mixtures as ethnosociology. (In the USSR modern ethno-sociology researches into present-day life, as distinct from historical ethno-sociology which studies the past.) When the object of study is a community possessing not merely shared cultural elements, but also socio-economic ones, which makes it an ethno-social entity, then ethnographers and sociologists enter a common area of research. So ethno-sociology studies the interaction and the mechanism of this interrelation of ethnic, social and sociopsychological phenomena. Socio-economic changes determine not only internal ethnic development, but also influence the ethnic processes stimulated by inter-ethnic contacts. T h e direction of ethnic influence depends largely on the political position, educational level and social structure of the interacting nations. Ethno-social processes and their mutual influence are the object of ethno-sociological study. Ethno-sociology undertakes research into the social structure of nations, the impact of social factors on the preservation of cultural traditions, the spread of innovations, and inter-ethnic relations. It particularly stresses social variety and the socio-economic conditions of the functioning of culture.

172

Part III: The distinctiveness of the contemporary world

Of the two trends t h a t have emerged in ethno-sociological studies, one deals with social processes and characteristics in the ethnic environments, a n d the other with ethnic processes in social groups. Therefore, while e t h n o g r a p h y most frequently u n d e r t a k e s research into the separate subsystems of the ethnic organism, such as, for instance, rites, interiors a n d exteriors of houses, food, ethnic features of a family, etc., ethno-sociological study is focused on ethno-social processes. It is difficult, consequently, to s h a r e the view t h a t all studies of ethnic p h e n o m e n a in present-day life should be regarded as ethnosociological. 1 Some scholars m a i n t a i n that ethnology a n d sociology differ in their methods. 2 But it is c o m m o n knowledge that the same m e t h o d s m a y be applied in different sciences. T h e r e f o r e it would be w r o n g to describe research as sociological or ethnological processing solely from the m e t h o d used. T h e problems studied by Soviet ethno-sociologists are close to those examined by social anthropologists a n d western sociologists dealing with 'ethnic groups'. A classical example of this kind of sociological research written f r o m the viewpoint of an 'ethnic g r o u p ' is the well-known study by T h o m a s a n d Znanecki, The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (1918). In such cases researchers concentrate on an ethnic g r o u p which is normally an explicit minority in one or a n o t h e r state.® However, in contrast with this, ethno-sociology in the Soviet U n i o n gives priority to studying large peoples of the Union a n d A u t o n o m o u s Soviet Republics. In western sociology there are other t r e n d s as well. T h e y focus a t t e n tion not on an individual ethnic group b u t on relations between two or more groups. T h i s area of research is often referred to as the sociology of racial a n d ethnic relations. T h e terms they use are: competition, conflict, accommodation, assimilation a n d the like. In the postwar period western sociologists have t u r n e d more to p r o b lems of discrimination and prejudice. In Racial Cultural Minorities: Analysis of Prejudice and Discrimination by Sympson a n d Inger (3rd ed., 1965), a very well-known work of this kind, the two a p p r o a c h e s , one from the viewpoint of social interaction, a n d the other dealing with social problems and with prejudice, are combined. In such studies, 4 the investigation of the social structure of the contacting groups, of cultural and historical factors, is pursued with a view to the analysis of interethnic relations a n d intercourse. In Soviet ethno-sociology the study of the social s t r u c t u r e of peoples and their cultural development has a special significance. A c h a n g e in the social a n d cultural characteristics is e x a m i n e d in order to trace the development of the peoples a n d the directions of socio-ethnic processes. T h e study of relations between groups, of the real inter-ethnic intercourse and contacts - attitudes, say, at home, at a factory, an office, a n d in other spheres - is one of the trends of ethno-sociological research in the Soviet Union. T h i s trend also borders on psychology. T h e scholars working in this sphere concentrate on bringing out conditions p r o m o t -

D r o b i z h e v a : Ethnic sociology ofpresent-day life

173

i n g t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s a m o n g n a t i o n s . T h i s is closely l i n k e d to t h e s t u d y of t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of c u l t u r e s , since social interests a n d o r i e n t a t i o n s obviously c a n a l i s e this process. T h e shift of specifically e t h n i c e l e m e n t s in m o d e r n society t o t h e s p h e r e of its c u l t u r a l life a c c o u n t s for t h e g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n p a i d by Soviet scientists t o s u c h s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l p h e n o m e n a a n d processes a s e t h n i c a t t i t u d e s , o r i e n t a t i o n s , i n t e r e s t s a n d values. T h i s t e n d s to b r o a d e n t h e r a n g e of q u e s t i o n s t o b e s t u d i e d b y ethno-sociology, w h i c h b r i n g s it n e a r e r to p s y c h o l o g y . R e c e n t y e a r s h a v e seen a n i n c r e a s e of interest in such socio-psychological themes as the link of social stratificat i o n w i t h t h e e t h n i c a w a r e n e s s of p e o p l e s , a n d t h e cross-fertilisation of c u l t u r e s , etc. It is only n a t u r a l t h a t , b e i n g l o c a t e d at t h e c r o s s r o a d s of e t h n o g r a p h y , sociology a n d p s y c h o l o g y , t h e s e a s p e c t s a r e viewed a s intermediate. A l t h o u g h its b o u n d a r i e s a r e q u i t e relative, t h e ' r e s e a r c h a r e a ' s u b s t a n t i a l l y d e t e r m i n e s its s p e c i a l m e t h o d o l o g y . T h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n e t h n o g r a p h i c a n d sociological r e s e a r c h lies in t h e fact t h a t t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c a p p r o a c h rests a b o v e all o n t h e e x a m i n a t i o n of a single a s p e c t , a i m i n g t o reveal w h a t is e t h n i c a l l y specific, w h i l e the sociological a p p r o a c h t o t h e o b j e c t of r e s e a r c h r e q u i r e s t h a t g e n e r a l similarities b e s t u d i e d in t h e first place. T h e m o n o g r a p h i c studies of r u r a l a r e a s b y e t h n o g r a p h e r s a n d sociologists a r e a c a s e in p o i n t . T h e e t h n o g r a p h e r s w e r e i n t e r e s t e d in t h e e t h n i c f e a t u r e s of a specific village, w h i l e t h e sociologists seek in it a r e f l e c t i o n of g e n e r a l p h e n o m e n a , of s o m e thing that is generally characteristic for m e m b e r s of a socialist f a r m cooperative.5 E t h n o - s o c i o l o g y develops o n t h e b o r d e r l i n e of t h e t w o sciences, a n d h e n c e m u s t evolve a n a p p r o a c h w h i c h will e n s u r e t h e s t u d y of t h a t which is ethnically specific in close c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h a t w h i c h is g e n e r a l . E t h n o - c u l t u r a l p h e n o m e n a a r e viewed by e t h n o - s o c i o l o g y in conn e c t i o n w i t h e c o n o m i c , socio-political a n d p s y c h o l o g i c a l p h e n o m e n a of t h e life of a society. T h i s goes t o s h o w t h a t a c o m p r e h e n s i v e , a g g r e g a t e a p p r o a c h is i n d i s p e n s a b l e for e t h n o - s o c i o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h . T r u e , e t h n o g r a p h e r s also h a v e in m i n d t h e i n f l u e n c e of a social s y s t e m as a w h o l e w h e n t h e y d e s c r i b e m a r r i a g e s , b i r t h a n d b u r i a l rituals, t h e h a b i t s of p e o p l e living in cities a n d in t h e c o u n t r y s i d e . T h e t e n d e n c y t o w a r d a c o m p r e h e n s i v e a p p r o a c h in s t u d y i n g e t h n i c p r o cesses a n d p h e n o m e n a does not i m p l y a s h a r p d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n e t h n o g r a p h i c a n d e t h n o - s o c i o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h . T h i s a p p r o a c h is s o u g h t by all specialists, b u t it is not a l w a y s possible t o achieve it (for i n s t a n c e , b e c a u s e of t h e lack of t h e r e q u i r e d sources, or of t h e i r c o m p a r a b i l i t y ) . For this r e a s o n o n e will o f t e n find a n a l l - r o u n d a p p r o a c h in e t h n o g r a p h y w i t h i n its o w n b o u n d s . W h e n s t u d y i n g c u l t u r e , this a p p r o a c h r e q u i r e s , for i n s t a n c e , t h a t all its a s p e c t s b e c o v e r e d b y a given piece of r e s e a r c h , while t h e s t u d y of t h o s e e c o n o m i c a n d political p h e n o m e n a w h i c h d e t e r m i n e c u l t u r a l dev e l o p m e n t b u t a r e o u t s i d e t h e c u l t u r a l s p h e r e is not n e c e s s a r y . F o r this

174

Partili: The distinctiveness of the contemporary world

reason, in the course of ethnographic research into the life of modern urbanised peoples, changes in the socio-political system, social structure and economic progress are viewed as fundamental elements, but are not studied by the ethnographers directly. Ethnographers use knowledge accumulated by other special sciences. Herein lies one of the differences between ethnographic and ethno-sociological research, for the latter takes the economic, social, psychological and, of course, ethnic phenomena in the life of nations as the direct objects of study. Each of these phenomena is examined in close relationship with all the others, and the very mechanism of this relationship is studied. This is achieved through a comprehensive approach involving several sciences. Ethnic sociology requires that ethnic, social, economic and psychological phenomena should be recorded in a way which would allow scientists to regard them in close correlation and within the limits of a clearly defined object. Such a comprehensive approach in ethno-sociological research is already adopted at the stage when a research programme is being drawn up, when questionnaires, interviews and plans for observation are being prepared, and statistical and other clerical documents are being selected to ensure the objectivity of information. For instance, during the ethno-sociological investigation conducted in the rural areas of the T a t a r Autonomous Republic, Moldavia, Georgia, Estonia, Uzbekistan and the Russian Federation, so-called 'passports' were made for the countryside in the regions where field interviews were taken. This was done so as to combine the socio-psychological information concerning people's opinion and behaviour with information concerning the field of their activity. Recorded in those 'passports ' were data on the economic situation on collective farms, on material and cultural conditions of life and other factors of the environment which, when processed in a computer, were tied in with the data registered in the questionnaires. 6 In other cases the necessary objective data on the environment were recorded in the questionnaires so that they could be compared directly with the views and estimates given by the subjects. In ethnography it is permissible to establish the composition of a population on the basis of the statistical data and through information provided by questionnaires, while the rites, customs, folk poetry and other aspects are studied on the basis of the information obtained from the people interviewed. In ethno-sociology, on the other hand, mass processes are analysed. In this case research is focused on the participation of specific groups of the population in folk arts and crafts, in ritual behaviour, etc. Participation in feasts and one or another traditional manner of behaviour is examined in combination with the socio-cultural characteristics of groups of people and the specifics of their social environment. Ethno-sociological researchers take into consideration both the general social conditions of a macro-environment and the specific conditions of a micro-environment. For this reason some or other

Drobizheva : Ethnic sociology of present-day life

175

ethno-social interactions are analysed in cities a n d villages with different levels of urbanisation, in a concrete social e n v i r o n m e n t a n d in various types of situations (for instance, a situation of social changes or stability, of long-established or recent inter-ethnic contacts, their c h a r acter, etc.)· T h i s methodological a p p r o a c h leads to a situation in which t h e conclusions a n d hypotheses in ethno-sociological research are often f o r m u l a t e d in a m a n n e r consonant with probability theory. For instance, direct contacts p r o m o t e ethnic relations between persons, provided there is m u t u a l interest, a n d provided interaction a m o n g e t h n i c groups is d u r a b l e enough. 7 Both the e t h n o g r a p h e r a n d sociologist always b e a r in m i n d that the c o m m o n elements to be examined u n d e r g o c h a n g e with time. T h e r e fore a n historical a p p r o a c h is applied in s t u d y i n g t h e m . Besides, in ethno-sociology the changes are always registered in a quantitatively definite form, m a k i n g it possible to forecast processes. T h e forecasting of p h e n o m e n a a n d processes is also facilitated by the study of an ethnic attitude in different age-groups, t h e a p p r o a c h to various ethnic distinctive traits in material a n d intellectual culture, a n d to diverse n o r m s of behaviour. For example, a q u e s t i o n n a i r e asks in w h a t m a n n e r a person's wedding p a r t y was held a n d w h a t kind of wedding he would like his children to have; or w h e t h e r a person wears national costume a n d w a n t s to see it available at large. A l t h o u g h it is known t h a t in various situations m e n ' s actions often diverge f r o m their expressed views, they none-the-less reflect possible changes. T h e developmental trends are f u r t h e r identified by studying qualitative changes in growing social groups. H e r e is a simple e x a m p l e of this : a growth of t h e u r b a n population in a n e t h n i c e n v i r o n m e n t will obviously bring a b o u t a unification in the m a t e r i a l c u l t u r e of a nation. In ethno-sociological studies, analysis is c o n d u c t e d on t h e basis of various sources: statistical d a t a , d o c u m e n t s provided by government offices a n d public organisations, observation, etc., with public opinion polls normally being the m a i n source. M o r e often t h a n not t h e polls are carried out in a c c o r d a n c e with a s t a n d a r d p r o g r a m m e , a n d m o r e rarely they are based on open-ended interviews. D u r i n g the polls the individual is a source of information. In a r c h a i c societies one or a n o t h e r person or a small group of persons could have a fairly t r u e picture of what was c o m m o n a m o n g t h e m all, w h e r e a s this is not the case with advanced a n d socially differentiated peoples. T h e individual is not only a representative of a n ethnic c o m m u n i t y , b u t also of a social group. In m o d e r n society, which is socially differentiated, age difference, too, is of great significance. H e n c e opinion polls are held on a m a s s scale a n d t h u s become representative. In this way ethnic sociology, like sociology in general, is concerned with the individual qualities of a person (such as his capability for comprehension, communication and other similar qualities that may interest a psychologist), but in their typical aspects: social, professional a n d demographic traits, including those which are characteristic of a

176

Part 111 : The distinctiveness of the contemporary world

person as a m e m b e r of a n ethnic group. H e n c e in studying an individual t h e r e also arises a special aspect, namely, that of t h e individual in interaction with other m e m b e r s of the ethnic c o m m u n i t y . T h e methodological premise of research into intra-ethnic a n d interethnic orientations a n d into the behaviour of the individual is t h e notion that the individual is in interaction with his environment in which some cultural values or other are p r e d o m i n a n t , a n d that they are influenced by a specific situation. T h u s t h e c h a n g i n g a t t i t u d e to the elements of material a n d intellectual c u l t u r e reflects their t r a n s f o r m a t i o n in the life of society. Since it is t h e m a s s processes which are studied by ethno-sociology, they are analysed through statistical regularities. Recently ethnographers have been m a k i n g use of statistical descriptions a n d questionnaires which were s o m e t i m e s processed by c o m p u t e r s . So t h e use of quantitative m e t h o d s does not necessarily m e a n that a given research should be r e g a r d e d as ethno-sociological. Likewise the use of some or other m e t h o d s of research, such as, for instance, an opinion poll or observation, still allow one to class a study as either ethno-sociology or e t h n o g r a p h y . O n l y the subject as a whole, the methodological app r o a c h , a n d t h e m e t h o d s of research in c o m b i n a t i o n with the technique e n s u r i n g t h e r e q u i r e d professional level of a research, c a n enable one to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a research is e t h n o g r a p h i c or ethno-sociological. But we do not at all insist on such a strict delimitation. All t h a t is professionally necessary, a n d is most i m p o r t a n t in a research, is an a d e q u a t e reflection of real life. In the past d e c a d e representative ethno-sociological investigation has been c a r r i e d out in t h e U S S R a m o n g such large peoples as Georgians, Uzbeks, M o l d a v i a n s , E s t o n i a n s a n d T a t a r s , a n d also a m o n g the R u s s i a n s living in some a r e a s of t h e R u s s i a n Federation a n d in the republics of the peoples listed above. T h i s investigation was c o n d u c t e d in a c c o r d a n c e with the p r o g r a m m e called O p t i m i s a t i o n of socio-cultural conditions for development a n d for bringing the Soviet peoples closer t o g e t h e r ' (research was h e a d e d by Yu.V. A r u t y u n y a n ) ; f u r t h e r m o r e , a research t h a t was close to ethno-sociology was carried out a m o n g U d m u r t s a n d M o r d o v i a n s (supervised by V.V. Pimenov). 8 T h e first results of ethno-sociological studies were published in the book, The Social and the National (Moscow, 1973, in R u s s i a n ) , a n d a n u m b e r of articles. T h e research c o n d u c t e d in the T a t a r Republic, representative for the T a t a r a n d R u s s i a n population, was in its way exp e r i m e n t a l . L a t e r its p r o g r a m m e was extended 9 a n d researches were carried out in the various U n i o n Republics. As h a s been stated, ethno-sociological research was c o n d u c t e d in two inter-related directions. In one of t h e m comparative analysis m a d e it possible to d e t e r m i n e the influence of ethnic distinctive traits on social processes a n d p h e n o m e n a ; the other determined the d e p e n d e n c e of ethnic changes on social factors. T h e s e ethno-sociological studies have considerably extended o u r

Drobizheva : Ethnic sociology of present-day life

177

knowledge of modern nations, including their culture, social pattern and way of life. Previously the proportion of workers, farmers and intellectuals in a nation could be established on the basis of sociological data. Now there is a possibility of showing their internal composition, the professional and educational level of different strata of the population, a n d of their social and cultural needs and interests. T h e research has also made it possible to bring out the significance of various strata-forming factors for socialist nations today. T h u s the theoretical elaboration and practical investigation of such factors as the nature of work, and the role of the individual in the organisation of labour, have revealed their most essential significance for the distinctions between industrial workers and intellectuals and, inside these categories, between various groups according to their professional level and function. T h e study of this problem also had its ethnic aspect. T h e internal proportions of the socio-ethnic groups of the Soviet Union have a steady tendency to approach the same level, which reflects the process in which the levels of their economic and cultural development are drawing closer to one another. However, because of the specialisation and co-operation of the national economies of the constituent republics, and also because of historical traditions, the proportion of the rural population, and in particular of collective farmers, will also continue to be of considerable size in the future. Therefore the increasing similarity between the socio-class groups, caused by the growth of skilled and educated strata, is of great significance for overcoming the existing differences in the social pattern of diverse peoples. The ethno-sociological investigations have shown that the professional a n d educational level tends to rise among the rural population, among collective farmers, and especially among young people. This points to an important direction in the convergence in the socio-class pattern of nations. Not only are the proportions of the socio-class groups becoming more similar in the Soviet Union, but also, as was confirmed by concrete studies, the differences between them are disappearing as their professional and educational levels even out. The research undertaken in Moldavia has shown, for instance, that Moldavian and Russian young people within the age-group twenty to twenty-four have the same professional level, while among those who are in their forties the level is twice as high for Russians. 1 0 Ethno-sociological studies have shown the significance of the factors determining social mobility among Soviet nations, education being the most effective channel of social advancement. T h e Soviet state has provided conditions for eliminating the social and cultural backwardness of nations. Ethnic sociologists have recorded instances of accelerated social mobility, such as the mobility of Tatars, Moldavians and Uzbeks in comparison with Russians. Under present-day conditions, however, nationality has no substantial influence on the socio-professional position of a person.

178

Part III : The distinctiveness of the contemporary world

H i g h social mobility affects ethnic changes. Research in the r e p u b lics mentioned above has shown that in the growing groups of the population, where the professional level keeps rising, forms of culture a p p e a r to be the most integrated; their interest in the literature a n d art of other nations is greater. But it would be a n oversimplification to believe that ethnic distinctiveness is on the wane. T h e mobile strata, above all the recent village dwellers w h o arrived in cities, have not only a d a p t e d themselves to the new environment but have also carried folk traditions along with them, a d d i n g a new ethnic dimension to the u r b a n environment. T h u s , t h e study of the cultural characteristics of social groups often helps one to look into the n a t u r e of ethnic changes. In the cultural sphere, ethno-sociological studies have m a d e it possible to discern the changes in t h e orientations toward professional a n d folk cultures, toward the cthnically original and integrated forms, or the forms existing in other nationalities. T h e functioning of culture was studied in various socio-professional groups. T h i s h a s enabled scholars to show interaction between cultures. A m o n g T a t a r s , Moldavians, Georgians, Estonians a n d R u s s i a n s living together in the national republics, one generalisation is valid today: there is more in c o m m o n in the culture of the people w h o are of different nationalities but are in one social group, t h a n a m o n g different social groups of one nationality. C u l t u r a l similarity is m o r e obvious on the educational level, in the extent to which various ethnic groups are informed in scientific a n d socio-political spheres. T h e distinctive elements are retained more in the perception of emotionally-coloured cultural information, a n d in the n o r m s a n d m a n ners of social intercourse. It has been proved by using mass d a t a that t h e cross-fertilisation of cultures is most vigorous in professional spheres. T h e more a d v a n c e d a professional culture is, the more it is capable of m u t u a l penetration. T h e folk arts a n d folklore are less susceptible to m u t u a l borrowings. T h e folk traditional forms, including customs a n d rites, are r e t a i n e d in the versions which are in keeping with present-day norms of the life of society. For instance a m o n g Georgians, Moldavians a n d Uzbeks, the love of folk songs a n d dances happily co-exists with their interest in music hall songs, or s y m p h o n y music a n d ballet. (Sixty to eighty per cent of those polled in the three republics have said they are keen on folk dances a n d music.) At the same time the customs that used strictly to regulate m e n ' s behaviour are dying out. T h i s process is more active in the groups w h o s e professional a n d educational level is the highest. T h e d i s a p p e a r a n c e of the traditional norms of behaviour associated with religion is proceeding especially fast with the rise in the professional skills. Ethno-sociological studies in general have shown on a b r o a d e r scale the norms, values a n d orientations in life a m o n g the nationalities of the Soviet Union. T h i s area of research which borders on psychology is now

Drobizheva : Ethnic sociology ofpresent-day life

179

a t t r a c t i n g great interest. T h e family is k n o w n to play a considerable role in the transmission of cultural traditions to t h e next generation. Ethno-sociological studies have notably e x t e n d e d the range of questions about the family previously investigated by ethnographers. F u r t h e r aspects are considered t o d a y w h e n s t u d y i n g the social a n d cultural characteristics of the family a n d the social status, educational level a n d cultural interests of t h e family m e m b e r s ; also the influence of these characteristics on the relationships in the family, the n u m b e r of children born to it, a n d the c h a n g e of traditions in t h e bringing u p of children. T h e social advancem e n t of t h e h u s b a n d a n d wife a n d their children's careers are analysed, a n d the psychological climate of the family is examined. Special a t t e n t i o n is given to mixed families, to their growing n u m b e r in view of the theoretical probability of mixed marriages in an ethnic c o m m u n i t y a n d t h e self-identification, in ethnic terms, of the juveniles of these f a m i l i e s . " T h e study of inter-ethnic relations as relations between ethnic g r o u p s is one of the aspects of ethno-sociological research, as we have m e n t i o n e d above. T h e s e relations are studied t h r o u g h the analysis of the concrete actions of m e n a n d t h r o u g h their attitudes a n d orientations. Here, as the empirical investigations have shown, the socio-political conditions of contacts are of decisive significance. T h e socio-cultural, historical, individual a n d situational factors determining inter-ethnic relations are studied in concrete terms. T h e research has shown with quantitative precision t h a t the favourable, friendly type of inter-ethnic relations is p r e d o m i n a n t . T h e a t t i t u d e to various types of contacts - business, neighbourly, family a n d friendly - is, according to ethno-sociological research, influenced a m o n g s t different peoples of the U S S R both by general a n d specific factors. T h u s , t h e attitude to mixed (inter-ethnic) marriages is precisely d e t e r m i n e d by cultural factors, while the attitude to production a n d business contacts is determined by social a n d professional interests a n d situational factors. T h e r e is a certain connection between the attitudes t o w a r d various forms of social intercourse. But it is not so rigid as to e n s u r e t h a t the attitude to the closer kinds of contacts (as those in a family) automatically entails a similar attitude to any other contacts. ( T h e so-called Bogardus gradation of social distance is based on the a s s u m p t i o n that such a direct dependence does exist.) T h i s is p r o b a b l y explained by the fact that friendly a n d favourable attitudes are most widespread in the inter-ethnic relationships in the U S S R (for instance, such attitudes were observed a m o n g eighty to ninety per cent of the largest groups of Moldavians, T a t a r s a n d Russians living in T a t a r i a a n d Moldavia). 1 2 A considerable part of the population is neutral to contacts with other nationalities. Therefore, a negative a t t i t u d e of some people to one or a n o t h e r type of contact is very rare a n d does not conform to the favourable attitudes to other types o f c o n t a c t .

180

Part 111 : The distinctiveness of the contemporary world

Ethno-sociological studies have also shown that attitudes to interethnic intercourse and to national culture are influenced by diverse factors.

NOTES 1 See 'Session on the outcome of field research in 1973', Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1974, no. 65 (in Russian). 2 R. Cresswell, 'Ethnologie et sociologie: problème de collaboration', L'Homme, 1967.no. 1,84. 3 S e e J . H a r d i n g et al., 'Prejudice and ethnie relations', The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 15, 2nd ed., 1969. 4 See D. Sympson a n d D . M . Inger, 'Sociology of racial and ethnic relations', Sociology Today: Problems and Prospects, New York, 1972. T . F . Pettigrew, ' R a c e relations in the USA', American Sociology, New York-London, 1968. 5 Yu. V. Bromley, Ethnos and Ethnography, Moscow, 1973, p. 249 (in Russian). 6 See Yu. V. Arutyunyan, Social Structure of Rural Population of the USSR, Moscow, 1971, p. 351; 'Socio-cultural aspects of development a n d drawing nations together in the U S S R ' , Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1972, no. 3 (both in Russian). 7 See Yu. V. A r u t y u n y a n (ed.), The Social and the National, Moscow, 1973, pp. 282-3 (in Russian). 8 See A r u t y u n y a n , in Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1972, no. 3. 9 See E.K. Vasilyeva et al., 'Contemporary ethno-cultural processes in U d m u r t y a ' , Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1970, no. 2 (in Russian). 10 Soviet People: New Historic Entity, Moscow, 1975, p. 315 (in Russian). 11 See L.N. Terentyeva, ' T h e determination of the national identity by teenagers in nationally-mixed families', Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1969, no. 3 (in Russian). 12 See A r u t y u n y a n (ed.), The Social and the National. L . M . Drobizheva, ' T h e strengthening of similarity in the cultural development of nations', in Istoria SSSR, 1972, no. 4 (in Russian).

T. SHANIN The conceptual reappearance of peasantry Anglo-Saxon social science

in

O n e of the most interesting manifestations of h u m a n t h o u g h t is the way concepts a n d p r o b l e m s a p p e a r and disappear in the public eye a n d in t h e scholar's m i n d . T h a t seems particularly t r u e within t h e social sciences. T h e unfolding reality a n d its contradictions - the stuff h u m a n biographies a n d social history are m a d e of - doubtless provide a determ i n a n t of it. Yet t h a t is not all, for h u m a n consciousness a n d t h o u g h t are not simply reflections of ' t h e objective', b u t display c o m p l e x a n d p a r t l y - a u t o n o m o u s characteristics of their own. T h o s e include t h e rich t e x t u r e o f ' m e a n i n g s a n d designs and c o m m u n i c a t i o n s . . . s y m b o l s . . . manipulative interpretations . . . (which) s t a n d . . . between consciousness a n d existence'. 1 F u r t h e r m o r e , specific items of t h o u g h t are e m b e d d e d in general Weltanschauung, categories a n d theoretical stands, conscious a n d unconscious as they may be a n d linked in t u r n in m u t u a l i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e with the collective experience. T h e study of p e a s a n t societies within ' w e s t e r n ' scholarship is a case in point. As in c o n j u r o r ' s tricks or hairdressing fashions, tendencies have a p p e a r e d , d i s a p p e a r e d a n d r e a p p e a r e d again. T h e underlying reasons for this c h e q u e r e d intellectual history is neither frivolous nor accidental. T o u n d e r s t a n d it is to learn s o m e t h i n g a b o u t t h e history a n d political economy of the world at large as well as a b o u t the way ideologies work a n d change.

Now you see it, now you don't T h e crucial historical experience which has influenced collective consciousness the world over has been that of the industrial revolution a n d the establishment of a world-wide system of capitalist political economy. W h a t e v e r its origins a n d causes, still u n d e r debate, the results envelop us all, colouring perception, d e t e r m i n i n g plausible taxonomies, weighing heavily on knowledge. It was linked directly with a general outlook which a s s u m e d and preached t h e unilinear, necessary,

182

Part III : The distinctiveness of the contemporary world

never e n d i n g a n d positive ' p r o g r e s s ' of h u m a n i t y f r o m b a r b a r i s m to t r u e civilisation - which was m o r e or less s y n o n y m o u s with advanced science a n d technology. Large-scale, mechanised m a s s - p r o d u c t i o n was taken as necessarily a d v a n t a g e o u s and so was accumulation of capital, u r b a n life a n d formal e d u c a t i o n . In our field of interest, the results of all this differed in different regions. A three-fold division can be clearly spotted b e t w e e n countries at the core of industrialisation/capitalism processes, their class p e r i p h e r y to the East, a n d the colonial or semicolonial countries. 2 D u r i n g t h e five d e c a d e s divided by t h e beginning of the twentieth c e n t u r y the m a i n s t r e a m of t h o u g h t within t h e capitalist ' c o r e ' e q u a t e d p e a s a n t e c o n o m y a n d society with ' o u r ' past a n d with b a c k w a r d n e s s of less developed a n d less f o r t u n a t e 'others', to be e r a d i c a t e d as soon as possible. Specificity of p e a s a n t social structure, economy, behaviour was d i s c a r d e d altogether or else defined as cultural inertia a n d / o r prej u d i c e . R u r a l sociology first flourished in the USA. It was first t a u g h t at C h i c a g o University in 1892. In 1917 a section of rural sociology was established within t h e A m e r i c a n Sociological Association. It a i m e d at t h e m a x i m i s a t i o n of t h e profits of a capitalist f a r m e r / e n t r e p r e n e u r a n d at the ironing out of p a t c h e s of ' b a c k w a r d n e s s ' still evident in the countryside. So did its c o u n t e r p a r t within a g r a r i a n economics. C o n ceptually, b o t h in scholarly a n d p o p u l a r images, p e a s a n t c o m m u n i t i e s c a m e to play the implicit role of the opposing pole, c o u n t e r p a r t a n d at times ' b o g e y m a n ' to those c o m m u n i t i e s which were m o d e r n , advanced a n d successful w i t h i n dualistic societal taxonomies. Even the word ' p e a s a n t ' w a s d i s a p p e a r i n g f r o m usage or else was used as an a b u s e signifying crassness, illiteracy a n d stupidity. T h e sidelines of this prevailing view c a m e to reflect the beginnings of d i s e n c h a n t m e n t with the ' n e w world'. O n the one h a n d , a variety of reactionary ideologies c a m e to exult in the virtues of p e a s a n t r y , f r o m poetic expressions of belief in joys of n a t u r a l living to fears of the G e r m a n a n d F r e n c h general staff of losing a pool of healthy a n d stupid a r m y recruits. M o r e seriously, the social critics of capitalism f r o m de Tocqueville o n w a r d s have generated some light from p e a s a n t / n o n p e a s a n t c o m p a r i s o n , pin-pointing some lost qualities within m o d e r n life, or else, like D u r k h e i m , have considered the possibilities of recapt u r i n g some of these qualities for c o n t e m p o r a r y use within a process of 'social engineering'. T h e centre of systematic studies of p e a s a n t r y was d u r i n g this period firmly placed in Central a n d Eastern Europe. In those countries a highly sophisticated intelligentsia politically c o m m i t t e d to nationalism a n d / or liberalism a n d / o r p o p u l i s m a n d / o r socialism was faced with a massive p e a s a n t r y - the poorest a n d most oppressed segment of its nations. T h e ideologies a n d politics of the struggle for modernisation a n d / o r d e m o c r a c y a n d / o r justice necessarily related to the peasant majorities in those societies, b o t h the m a j o r object a n d the possible carrier of c h a n g e or else t h e m a i n bottle-neck of any advance. O n the eve of the

S h a n i n : The conceptual reappearance ofpeasantry

183

First W o r l d W a r the intellectual and political a t t e m p t s to look at a n d activate peasantries were often m a t c h e d by the p e a s a n t s ' o w n efforts to establish viable political movements in defence of their own political interests, e.g. in Poland, R u m a n i a , Bulgaria, D e n m a r k , etc. All this resulted in a flourishing of studies of p e a s a n t r y on both the empirical a n d theoretical levels. Works like those by K a u t s k y or David in Germ a n y , Boyer in Austria, Chuprov, Lenin a n d C h e r n e n k o v in Russia, a n d Znaniecki in Poland, or, on the m o r e empirical level, R u s s i a n b u d g e t studies of p e a s a n t households or Polish studies of p e a s a n t corres p o n d e n c e , are still relevant a n d often in m a n y respects u n s u r p a s s e d . A variety of disciplines shared in this: sociology, ethnography, economics, history, etc. N o r was it merely a n extension of prevailing disciplinary models, theories a n d methods, for m u c h of it a s s u m e d , delineated a n d analysed the p e a s a n t r y as a social entity a n d a t t e m p t e d to build the theoretical tools necessary for this task. W i t h i n ' t h e third region' of colonial a n d semi-colonial countries ' w e s t e r n ' d o m i n a t i o n was reflected in the g r o w t h of a n t h r o p o l o g y as a discipline specifically devoted to the primitive, small scale a n d exotic, if not bizarre. A basic conceptual dualism between West and East, with an underlying c o n n o t a t i o n of advanced as opposed to b a c k w a r d or even good or 'as-it-should-be' versus b a d a n d 'to-be-overcome', led to concentration on the 'primitives ', i.e. the t e m p o r a r i l y or eternally backw a r d . T h e ideological support of colonial rule implicit in it or even explicitly offered, was answered especially in the twentieth c e n t u r y by 'native' literature of protest often c o n c e r n e d with p e a s a n t life a n d conditions. 3 T h e work of a few liberal scholars within the colonial establishment has a i m e d at similar issues. 4 While often very illuminating, it suffered badly f r o m the limited, u n s t r u c t u r e d a n d p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r of the relevant sources, part a n d parcel of the way the e d u c a t i o n a l a n d research world-system was organised, centred a n d controlled. It is the c h a r a c t e r of the increasingly global scholarly establishment which d e t e r m i n e d the place of peasant research within its central Anglo-Saxon c o m p o n e n t . O n the one h a n d , the disregard of specific studies of p e a s a n t r y in the West was partly mitigated by the crossfertilisation of C e n t r a l a n d East E u r o p e a n perspectives with the works of T h o m a s a n d Znaniecki, Lenin, a n d Sorokin acting as bridges, a n d as accepted classics of sociological a n d economic t h o u g h t (Chayanov a n d Prokopovich's work caused a similar effect in G e r m a n y ) . 5 O n the other h a n d , such organisation of study accepted a hierarchy of i m p o r t a n c e and a s s u m e d necessary direction of development by which, in Plekhanov's r e m a r k a b l e phrase, ' p e a s a n t r y did not exist, historically speaking'. T o be forward-looking a n d progressive was to assign concern with p e a s a n t s to the past, the transient, a n d the irrelevant. T h e alternative was to d e n o u n c e t h e m as cruel b a r b a r i a n s w h o block the advance of well-being a n d h u m a n i s m ; this gave a strong emotional c h a r g e to the issue. This was b e h i n d the nearly total silence concerning peasants which

184

Part III : The distinctiveness of the contemporary world

c o m m e n c e d at the end of the 1920s a n d continued for a b o u t three decades. T h e West entered an economic crisis a n d t h e n a world war. As usual, crisis bred self-centredness which makes 'fringes' disappear. In G e r m a n y a n d in Eastern Europe, the rapid spread of nationalist ideologies a n d dictatorships led to the oppression both of peasant political movements a n d of radical social sciences mainly concerned with social underdogs. Pro-peasant reactionary rhetoric was increasingly used instead of studies of peasantry, as well as all sorts of social critiques. In the U S S R collectivisation has both abolished the very subject m a t t e r of small-holder economy a n d destroyed or restricted the most brilliant of its students, Marxist a n d non-Marxist alike. As usual, studies in colonies a n d semi-colonies faithfully reflected metropolitan social sciences or else were closely controlled a n d repressed. W i t h few exceptions 6 the scholarly field of peasant studies passed rapidly into oblivion. Looking back it seems clear that by t h e 1950s the m a i n factors which eventually led to a m a j o r upswing of p e a s a n t studies were already present or surfacing. Yet the awareness of t h e m was lagging. T h e analysts of industrial societies were happily e x p e r i m e n t i n g with development theories of planning, econometrics, functions of f u r t h e r advance a n d new technologies of computing. T h e non-industrial societies were optimistically tackling the task of joining the ' i n d u s t r i a l ' club. T h e Anglo-Saxon modernisation theories repeated on a s o m e w h a t more sophisticated level the basic beliefs of its evolutionist predecessors of half a century ago: the necessity for everybody was r a p i d unilinear a n d positive advance from b a r b a r i s m to civilisation - envisaged as industrial capitalist s o c i e t y - w i t h the possible addition of the c o m p o n e n t s of a welfare state. In this context, p e a s a n t r y has indeed not existed or else has existed as a marginal nuisance, spontaneously d i s a p p e a r i n g or to be finally removed from the scene by state institutions, education, etc. T h e few critics o f ' m o d e r n i s a t i o n t h e o r y ' were usually disregarded as eccentrics as were the still very few academics w h o b e g a n the initial slow rehabilitation of specific concepts a n d terminologies concerning peasant studies. 7

Back into the scholar s eye T h e Anglo-Saxon academic literature of the 1960s has experienced a virtual explosion of studies devoted to p e a s a n t r y . Both the term a n d its scholarly content were suddenly revitalised. A virtual flood of articles a n d books was supplemented by a m o u n t i n g ' c o n s u m e r p r e s s u r e ' of scholars and students which brought dozens of seminars a n d conferences into being. T h e actual interests a n d potential results are p r o b a b l y even greater t h a n the r e m a r k a b l e list of new publications indicates, for figures of publications a n d n u m b e r s of new students c o m i n g into the field are still on the increase. Even t h e politicians seemed to join the

Shanin: The conceptual reappearance ofpeasantry

185

s t a m p e d e , led by Ministers of State urgently gathering in R o m e in 1975 to discuss 'world h u n g e r ' while the chief of T h e International Bank was defining the p r o b l e m o f ' w o r l d poverty' as revolving primarily a r o u n d t h e economics of 'the millions of small subsistence farms ' which m e a n t t h e need 'to redefine the objective a n d m e a s u r e m e n t of d e v e l o p m e n t ' . ' T h i s all raises the questions o f ' w h y ? ' , ' w h a t ? ' a n d 'so w h a t ? ' concerning this shift of scholars ' attention. Before t u r n i n g to the content a n d significance of this particular renaissance of concern with peasantry, let us say something a b o u t the roots of its r e - a p p e a r a n c e . T h e s e seem to reflect the collapse of ' m o d e r n i s a t i o n ' both as a policy a n d a theory explaining the c o n t e m p o r a r y world, along with a n u m b e r of other developments both of a political and conceptual nature. ' N o t so long ago the e a r t h n u m b e r e d 2,000,000,000 i n h a b i t a n t s : 500,000,000 m e n a n d 1,500,000,000 natives. T h e former had the W o r d , t h e o t h e r s h a d the use of it. ^ Sartre's p r o n o u n c e m e n t took its d r a m a t i c force f r o m the real enough d r a m a of colonialism a n d its rapid disintegration. It was closely followed by a not less shattering discovery that, in s o m e essentials, colonialism is very m u c h still with us, part of a world s u d d e n l y enlarged by increasingly global politics, economics a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n s . All this provides the setting for the conceptual rea p p e a r a n c e of p e a s a n t r y in o u r times. By 1960 it became painfully clear that developing societies d o not ' c a t c h u p ' with industrial ones - the gap was widening. N o r were these societies simply proceeding along the p a t h of those w h o did it already. F r a n k s ' phrase 'the development of underdev e l o p m e n t ' grasped it neatly - it was not simply backwardness a n d slowness in ' t a k e o f f ' b u t something different in character, u n e x p e c t e d a n d disagreeable, shattering political structures a n d optimistic m o d e r n i s a t i o n theories alike. Not only in a relative but in a n absolute sense, poverty has been spreading in sections of the world p o p u l a t i o n depicted by scholars as mainly rural, small-holding, village-bound, family-farming: in a word, peasant. N e w awareness of n u m b e r s a n d t r e n d s b e g a n to c o m e to the surface. For example, the share of p e a s a n t s within the Mexican population was decreasing but their actual n u m b e r s are today larger t h a n at the beginning of the century a n d continue to rise. Indeed, Brazil 10 has been undergoing virtual ' r e p e a s a n t a t i o n ' in some of its regions as part of the rapid capitalist advance of the society as a whole. T h e collapse of simple technological solutions b a s e d on ' m o r e a n d more', the fact that the green revolution could simultaneously increase production of food-stuffs and lead to increasing h u n g e r of the p e a s a n t majority, placed the stress again on social a n d political structures rather t h a n technologies. 1 1 Nor did the political or military strategists fare much better t h a n the sociologists a n d economists of the modernisation school. Chinese peasants were manifestly p r o d u c i n g something socially different from rapid industrialisation a n d urbanisation, without a drop in s t a n d a r d s of living a n d

186

Part 111 : The distinctiveness of the contemporary world

with m a r k e d political devotion. T h e V i e t n a m e s e p e a s a n t s proved 'historically existent' to t h e point of m a k i n g history - the first power to achieve t h e impossible by defeating the U S A militarily a n d politically. Peasants s t u b b o r n l y refused to fit concepts a n d predictions. A variety o f ' d e p e n d e n c y theories' has recently entered the breach left by the collapse of ' m o d e r n i s a t i o n ' perspectives as a new accepted vogue, to claim t h a t exploitation on a world scale is at the root of the ' u n d e r d e v e l o p m e n t '.'* T h e y claim multi-directionality of development d e t e r m i n e d by inequalities within the world society. Capitalism did not simply t u r n everything it touched into its own image, b u t rather stabilised, r e p r o d u c e d or even p r o d u c e d a n e w non-capitalist social structures. N o r was simple parallel development enough of a n explan a t i o n - t h e global i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e c a m e into focus. Industrialisation in the core countries could, at least in principle, stabilise some basic p e a s a n t characteristics of a majority of m a n k i n d . T h e exceptional significance of studies of peasantry, not only past but present, was theoretically clinched by Barrington M o o r e ' s claim that the way the p e a s a n t r y d i s a p p e a r s makes a decisive i m p a c t on a society's subsequent d e v e l o p m e n t . " T h e c h a r a c t e r of p e a s a n t r y a n d its social setting seems crucial even to t h e f u t u r e of post-peasant societies.

Concepts and blinds T h e c o n c e p t u a l content of the r e - a p p e a r a n c e of peasants as a n issue of p r i m a r y a n d long-term i m p o r t a n c e within t h e social sciences reflects t h r e e basic s u b - p r o b l e m s : t h e definition a n d the delineation of the p h e n o m e n o n , the claim to its specificity a n d its disciplinary setting. T h e r e are two m a j o r ways to make p e a s a n t r y disappear, by definition or, more exactly, by t h e lack of one. Firstly, it m a y result from a d o p t i n g a t a x o n o m y of societies which m a k e p e a s a n t s fall into a mixed bag or into a residual category, together with pastoral nomads, traditional merchants, non-Christian priests a n d oriental gentry, undivided a n d conceptually indivisible. T h e second is to focus attention on heterogeneity or changeability of the p e a s a n t societies, concluding t h e r e b y t h a t a n y generalisation about t h e m is spurious or misleading. T h e developments in the theoretical s t a n d of a large majority of A m e r i c a n anthropologists c a n be used here as a relevant example. O n the one h a n d the empiricist tendency has been rife, focussing specifically on a single village or tribe 'of one's o w n ' . Endless specifications of detail were often m i s c o n s t r u e d as proof of the necessity of methodological n o m i n a l i s m . Simultaneously, basic taxonomy of ' m o d e r n versus primitive' was often a d o p t e d with a clear u n d e r t o n e o f ' u s versus t h e m ' a n d with the disciplinary assignment of ' t h e m ' to anthropology. A small tribe or a tribal village was then accepted explicitly, or implicitly, as the basic a r c h e t y p e of w h a t is to be studied. Peasants have subsequently d i s a p p e a r e d as a n analytically definable entity into the general

S h a n i n : The conceptual reappearance of peasantry

187

category o f ' b a c k w a r d ' or else into the residue of those w h o d o not quite fit either of the polarities a s s u m e d . T h e ability of a conceptual f r a m e w o r k to focus as well as to disperse a t t e n t i o n can be amply d e m o n s t r a t e d here. A conceptual re-tooling was directly related a n d m u t u a l l y d e t e r m i n e d with the current regenera t i o n of the interest in peasants. T h e s e c o n c e p t u a l c h a n g e s took s h a p e in a t w o - p r o n g e d way, closely related to t h e works of Redfield a n d Wolf respectively. Redfield has f o u n d b o t h the accepted t a x o n o m i c dualism a n d t h e consequent definition of a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s ' tasks as relating exclusively to 'folk-communities' increasingly restrictive a n d disorientating in relation to peasants. His solution was to try a n d develop a n earlier cryptic r e m a r k by K r o b e r , w h o defined p e a s a n t r y as ' p a r t societies with part culture'. T h e restrictive dualistic t a x o n o m y was thereby o p e n e d u p into a tripartite or a three-stage conceptualisation within which every society progressed f r o m a ' f o l k - c o m m u n i t y ' ( a u t o n o m o u s , self-centred a n d of ' m e c h a n i c a l solidarity' to use the D u r k h e i m i a n n o t i o n ) to a m o d e r n society (necessarily i n t e r - d e p e n d e n t a n d of ' o r g a n i c solidarity'), via a t h i r d type, or stage, defined by the necessary relation between r u r a l segments a n d a n u r b a n centre, the second 'societal h a l f ' focussing political p o w e r a n d formal (written) culture. 1 4 Peasantry as a social entity was structurally defined by the c h a r a c t e r of its relation to the u r b a n i t é s a n d delineated t h e r e b y f r o m o t h e r i n h a b i t a n t s of t h e pre-industrial a n d pre-capitalist societies. T h e historicity a n d heterogeneity of peasant societies were partly provided for in Redfield's discussion o f ' p e a s a n t s on the m a k e ' a n d p e a s a n t s " c o n c e p t u a l edge'. I S O n the other h a n d , Wolf has d r o p p e d altogether t h e formal dualism of cultures as the starting point of t h e definition of p e a s a n t s a n d t u r n e d to the content of peasant e c o n o m y a n d societal life. 16 Specific agricult u r a l production, a n d the w a y of living a t t a c h e d to it, was used as the basic way to delineate the entity u n d e r investigation. Its diversity a n d basic dynamics were consequently conceptualised by t h e analysis of agricultural eco-types as well as the content of its societal setting a n d participation in market economy. 1 7 T u r n i n g f r o m the e x a m p l e to the general characteristics of the conceptual field, there seemed to be four major, partly over-lapping, traditions in operation. First, p e a s a n t s were a p p r o a c h e d as the productive a n d oppressed m a j o r i t y at the historical stage directly preceding capitalism (feudal?) or its r e m n a n t s in the c o n t e m p o r a r y world. Secondly, p e a s a n t s were defined in terms of a cultural lag, i.e. as representatives of p a t t e r n s of consciousness typical of earlier national traditions. Thirdly, p e a s a n t s were defined in terms of a specific e c o n o m y rooted in either p a r t i c u l a r agriculture or in the w a y the family-farm unit of production operates, or both. Fourthly, Redfield's a n d some o t h e r definitions placed p e a s a n t s in relation to the basic societal d u a l i s m suggested by D u r k h e i m , T ö n n i e s a n d M a i n e , etc. E a c h of these a p p r o a c h e s focusses on specific aspects of peasant social life, a n d , whilst illuminating them, obscures other aspects. T h e growing awareness of the limitation inhe-

188

Part III : The distinctiveness of the contemporary world

rent in each single a p p r o a c h explains the growth of a t t e m p t s to combine these various viewpoints. T h e s e integrations of diverse theoretical tendencies are sometimes consistent a n d sometimes merely eclectic. 1 *

The issue of specificity and academic

disciplines

Whichever definition is adopted, the conceptual significance of peasantry as a problematic is rooted in the a p p r o a c h a d o p t e d to the u n d e r lying issue of the specificity of peasant economy a n d society. It goes without saying t h a t peasants differ in different societies, regions, villages a n d households a n d t h a t such a n a s s u m p t i o n does not challenge, as such, the possibility or need for relevant,generalisations. Also, typical characteristics of p e a s a n t r y c h a n g e in time. (So does the c h a r a c t e r of other social entities — characterisation a n d typification are not evidence of stagnation but tools of analysis and yardsticks of processes.) If p e a s a n t social structures do not consistently differ from others or c a n n o t be meaningfully delineated as such, two things would follow. First, all one c a n hope to achieve is to collect a n d classify additional d a t a reflecting various areas, periods a n d samples. N o significant theoretical advance is possible or necessary here, for theoretical tools developed elsewhere can be put to use more or less directly, e.g. neo-classical economics or sociological studies of mobility within u r b a n society. Secondly, the wave of peasant studies a n d publications is to be t r e a t e d partly as a n answer to p r a g m a t i c needs of governments, otherwise as a n intellectual fashion d u e to subside, but not as a conquest of new conceptual fields. O n the other h a n d , should the conceptual specificity of peasants be accepted, the i m p o r t a n c e of the recent advance increases. T h i s has been indeed the a p p r o a c h of the most significant recent writings, which describe 'vertical segmentation' as a specific characteristic of political action, a n d strategies of the use of family labour defying narrowly economic rationales, etc. provide examples of application of such a general attitude. T h e first publications in English of two earlier classics were particularly significant here: M a r x ' s Grundrisse a n d C h a y a n o v ' s The Theory of Peasant Economy.19 It is in the a t t e m p t s to develop, often to integrate and to relate these theoretical approaches to more recent e m p i r i - , cal findings, that recent studies of p e a s a n t r y have m a d e their most significant theoretical advance. Closely related to the discussion of the present specificity have b e e n t h e linked issues of the disintegration of p e a s a n t r y a n d the possible dynamics of its stabilisation or even reappearance. During the last generation 'depeasantation' proceeded along two major channels: spont a n e o u s a n d state-directed. T h e s p r e a d of m a r k e t relations concerning goods and labour, a n d the penetration a n d unification of rural a r e a s by b o t h state bureaucracies a n d mass media, have played here a m a j o r

S h a n i n : The conceptual reappearance ofpeasantry

189

role. Structural aspects of inequality within u r b a n / r u r a l relations, as expressed in the extraction of surplus, cultural hegemony a n d political domination have been increasingly studied during the last five years. Linked with this is the growing problem of evaluation of the s h o r t - t e r m and long-term results of a g r a r i a n reforms introduced by n u m e r o u s governments a n d aiming at diverse a n d often contradictory ends such as p r o d u c t i o n increase, providing the needs of industrialisation, social equality, a n d justice. A ' n o specificity' s t a n d m a k e s all those issues theoretically vague, to be referred to only in quantitative terms. Finally, the issue of the specificity of peasant social structure a n d its studies is linked to the disciplinary framework of analysis a n d t h e way the academic c o m m u n i t y operates. T h r o u g h the media of conferences, j o u r n a l s , university d e p a r t m e n t s , a n d a p p o i n t m e n t a n d p r o m o t i o n s procedures, disciplinary theoretical ' p a r a d i g m s ' are established a n d reinforced. T h e s e include a variety of theoretical assumptions a n d ways of questioning as well as basic archetypes of the relevant d a t a (or w h a t is considered to be such d a t a ) . At least four m a j o r disciplines have been involved in the recent studies of peasantry in the Anglo-Saxon countries : economics, sociology, anthropology a n d history. A possible comp o n e n t of the theoretical difficulties encountered is the fact that in each of those disciplines within the Anglo-Saxon realm, t h e traditionally established starting point a n d archetypal d a t a are ' o f f ' t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y peasantries as we know t h e m . Be it large scale capital enterprise or a national economy for t h e economists, a successful capitalist f a r m e r to the rural sociologists, a small tribal c o m m u n i t y to the anthropologists or societal past to the historians - concepts a n d theories are b a d l y stretched in encompassing the p h e n o m e n o n . T o an extent difficulties which follow have resulted in a t t e m p t s to solve such problems by a multi-disciplinary a p p r o a c h , combining for example anthropologists a n d economists in research a n d training, 2 0 which until now did not make much headway. '

Where to? C a n one predict, or extrapolate from this, future trends a n d tendencies described above? T h e r e is of course no simple solution there. S h o u l d the recent wave of interest in peasantry be simply representative of the severity of a social problem, the issue of peasant poverty a n d therefore the exposition a n d analysis of peasantry is probably with us to stay. Should it be treated simply as a fashion, the wave of interest would necessarily be followed by a turning away of its exponents from a s t u d ied a n d trivialised subject to something ' f r e s h ' a n d 'new'. Both the pressure of social p r o b l e m s and fashionable tendencies play their role, but two other d e t e r m i n a n t s seem more central. Firstly, the political context of the issue, usually not the politics of p e a s a n t r y but r a t h e r the

190

Partili: The distinctiveness of the contemporary world

politics of those who try to handle peasants, defined ' t h e field'. More broadly, that has to do with the relations between the 'third world' and the other two. Secondly, it is the way the issue of specificity o f ' t h e field', which is set within the conceptual realm of academic convention (which calls in turn for further explanation) has been playing a major role. Whatever the future, the renaissance of this field of study has played a major role in the advance of sociological theory by adding to it comparative understanding, theoretical sophistication and radical political ' p u n c h ' . In this sense it has served social scientists well. So well indeed as to obscure at times the fact that half of mankind goes on facing the hardships of temporary peasanthood quite oblivious of the intellectual fashions in a world as remote as the moon, and often as barren.

NOTES 1 C. W r i g h t Mills, ' T h e c u l t u r a l a p p a r a t u s ' , Power, Politics and People, N e w York, 1963, pp. 4 - 5 . 2 T h e division suggested follows I. W a l l e r s t e i n , The Modern World System, N e w York, 1974. 3 For s o m e w h a t later e x a m p l e s , see N g o V i n h Long, Before the Revolution: the Vietnamese Peasants under the French, C a m b r i d g e , 1973. 4 E.g. H . H . M a n n ' s studies of I n d i a g a t h e r e d in The Social Framework of Agriculture, L o n d o n , 1968. 5 W . I . T h o m a s a n d F. Z n a n i e c k i , The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, N e w York, 1918. P.A. Sorokin, F.F. Z i m m e r m a n a n d C . J . G o l p i n , Systematic Source Book in Rural Sociology, N e w York, 1965. 6 E.g. C . M . A r e n s b e r g , The Irish Countryman, N e w York, 1937. 7 E.g. R . Firth, Malay Fishermen: their Peasant Economy, L o n d o n , 1946. P. Redfield, Peasant Society and Culture, C h i c a g o , 1960. 8 M c N a m a r a W a s h i n g t o n A d d r e s s , World Bank Annual Report, 1974. 9 S a r t r e ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n to F. F a n o n , The Wretched of the Earth, H a r m o n d s w o r t h , 1967, p. 8. 10 E.g. J . R . B . Lopes, ' C a p i t a l i s t d e v e l o p m e n t a n d a g r a r i a n s t r u c t u r e in Brazil', C e b r a p , 1976, ms. 11 ' U N R I S D - G l o b a l T w o , S u m m a r y o f c o n c l u s i o n s ' , G e n e v a , 1 9 7 3 , m s . 12 P r o c e e d i n g f r o m P. B a r a n t o A. E m m a n u e l , S. A m i n a n d I. W a l l e r s t e i n . 13 B a r r i n g t o n M o o r e , The Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, H a r m o n d s w o r t h , 1966. 14 R . Redfield, The Little Community, C h i c a g o , 1965 ; Peasant Society and Culture, C h i c a go, 1960. R. Redfield a n d M . B . Singer, ' T h e c u l t u r a l role of cities', Economic Development and Social Change, 1954, vol. 3. 15 Redfield, Peasant Society and Culture, p p . 20, 21. 16 E. Wolf, Peasants, N e w York, 1966. 17 Ibid. E. Wolf, ' T y p e s of L a t i n A m e r i c a n p e a s a n t r y : a p r e l i m i n a r y d i s c u s s i o n ' , American Anthropologist, 1955, vol. 57. 18 For e l a b o r a t i o n see T . S h a n i n , ' P e a s a n t r y : d e l i n e a t i o n of sociological c o n c e p t a n d a field of s t u d y ' , European Journal nf Sociology, 1971, 12, 289-300; T . S h a n i n (ed.), Peasants and Peasant Societies, H a r m o n d s w o r t h , 1971. 19 K. M a r x , Grundrisse, H a r m o n d s w o r t h , 1972, first p u b l i s h e d in p a r t as Pre-

S h a n i n : The conceptual

reappearance

of peasantry

191

Capitalist Economic Formations, London, 1965. A. Chayanov, The Theory of Peasant Economy, New York, 1966. 20 T . Shanin, ' T h e nature a n d logic of peasant economy', Journal of Peasant Studies, 1973, vol. 1, nos 1 and 2.

PART IV Anthropology and

psychology

MEYER FORTES Anthropology and the psychological disciplines* T h e r e is a story - not altogether a p o c r y p h a l - a b o u t A.C. H a d d o n , the founding father of the British tradition of anthropological field research, which c a n aptly serve as a n introduction to what I w a n t to say. It is n a r r a t e d , 1 that when H a d d o n read the first ethnographic work of a now famous lady anthropologist, he reacted with incredulity. After a while, it is said, he r e m a r k e d that w h e n he organised the T o r r e s Straits Expedition of 1898, he took out with h i m three psychologists ( W . H . R . Rivers, C.S. M y e r s and William M c D o u g a l l ) . H e did so in t h e expectation t h a t psychology was the key to u n d e r s t a n d i n g the m i n d a n d ways of thought of the native peoples of Australia a n d New Guinea. (As M r s . H i n g s t o n - Q u i g g i n notes in her e n c h a n t i n g biography of H a d d o n . ) Alas however, he went on, he was disappointed in this - as for e x a m p l e in Rivers's experimental studies of colour discrimination. ' B u t now', he concluded, Ί see that I should have taken out not a t e a m of psychologists b u t a lady novelist. ' M u c h has h a p p e n e d in the development of both anthropology a n d psychology since 1898, not to speak of t h e efflorescence of the e t h n o g r a phic novel of the post Second World W a r vintage in the 'developing' countries of Asia and Africa. But the dilemma foreshadowed in H a d d o n ' s remarks continues to dog our studies. T h u s on one side, in the interval since, there have grown u p vigorous movements rejecting the relevance of psychological investigations a n d theory for the analysis a n d interpretation of anthropological d a t a , and d e m o n s t r a t i n g by their success that significant results can be achieved by e m b r a c i n g these constraints. T h e t r i u m p h s of British socio-structuralist e t h n o g r a p h y in the fifties a n d sixties are witnesses to this, a n d the methodological implications were threshed out in the seminal book Closed Systems and Open Minds, edited by Devons a n d Gluckman. 2 T h u s , c o m m e n t i n g with approval on Victor T u r n e r ' s paper in this symposium, Devons a n d * I a m i n d e b t e d to the L e v e r h u l m e Trust for a grant t o w a r d s research a n d secretarial a s s i s t a n c e w h i c h g r e a t l y facilitated the p r e p a r a t i o n of this paper.

196

Part IV: Anthropology and psychology

G l u c k m a n declare that:® T u r n e r does not question that psychological drives a n d dispositions have contributed to these [i.e. N d e m b u ritual] developments. W h a t he insists is that a social anthropological analysis of these rites can be carried out independently of the psychological analysis of the same rites by relating t h e m to other facts in the socio-cultural system - the point that D u r k h e i m a n d m a n y others have e m p h a s i s e d . Later, they w a r n against the 'confusion' t h a t can arise f r o m 'undisciplined trespass on fields [such as psychoanalysis] one is not c o m p e t e n t to traverse. . . ,' 4 And this assertion is s u p p o r t e d by contrasting Evans-Pritchard's famous study of A z a n d e witchcraft, first published in 1937, 5 a n d K l u c k h o h n ' s almost simultaneous studies of N a v a h o witchcraft, first published in 1944.* E v a n s - P r i t c h a r d , we are told, 'eschews psychological interpretations' (e.g. reference to a psychological m e c h a n i s m such as projection) - that is, technically derived, as opposed to common-sense, psychological interpretations - a n d confines his analysis to the relations of ' m o d e s of t h o u g h t ' a n d to 'alleged feelings ' of envy or hatred, to what A z a n d e state as their beliefs within a 'self sealing a n d self supporting system' which e m b r a c e s a 'philosophy of morality as well as a theory of causation '.7 Kluckhohn, is, by contrast, criticised in p a r t i c u l a r for trespassing on t h e technical psychological field by concerning himself with 'latent functions', such as the ways witchcraft beliefs are s u p p o s e d (quoting K l u c k h o h n ) to 'allow expression of direct a n d displaced aggression . . .', or handling anxiety, a n d in general for a s s u m i n g without manifest evidence the operation of unconscious m e c h a n i s m s such as displacement, identification, projection, a n d so forth. 8 T h e m a i n point of this contrast is to claim t h a t E v a n s - P r i t c h a r d is methodologically more correct t h a n K l u c k h o h n insofar as he sticks to the level of observable d a t a a n d accepts 'naively' the s t a t e m e n t s of the A z a n d e themselves about their motives a n d beliefs, instead of resorting to technical psychological theory to i m p u t e to e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y m a n i fest actions a n d statements impulses a n d motives that a r e not d e m o n strable at the level o f ' n a i v e ' observation. T h e methodological dilemma, for t h a t is w h a t it is, t h a t Devons a n d G l u c k m a n are here a t t e m p t i n g to resolve goes back to t h e beginnings of scientific anthropology a n d arises not only over the p e r t i n e n c e of technical, as opposed to common-sense psychology, to t h e tasks of anthropology, but equally in connection with other formally nonanthropological branches of science a n d scholarship t h a t b e a r on the same subject m a t t e r - e . g . history, economics, linguistics, biology, a n d geography as well as the various ' - i s m s ' currently c o m p e t i n g for allegiance amongst us. In my view the issue is clouded if it is presented in t e r m s of abstract

Fortes : Anthropology and the psychological disciplines

197

m e t a - t h e o r y or in terms of relations between technically d e m a r c a t e d disciplines. In the context of practice the dilemma disappears and the critical context of practice for the anthropologist is the field situation. T h e D u r k h e i m i a n objective of simultaneous description a n d analysis of establishing the c h a r a c t e r a n d the inter-connections of the observed social a n d cultural facts without reference to extraneous variables r e m a i n s the p r i m a r y task of anthropological enquiry, but we must never forget t h a t the social a n d cultural facts identified by our ethnog r a p h i c a l techniques are in reality manifestations of complex states of affairs e n c a p s u l a t i n g a plurality of levels of existence, which can be differentiated by a p p r o p r i a t e techniques. Description more ethnographico locates a n d identifies the institutions, the p a t t e r n s of t h o u g h t a n d of belief a n d behaviour, the social arrangements a n d relationships, a n d so on a n d so forth, in short the facts of c u s t o m a n d of social structure, which constitute our primary d a t a . Analysis, in contrast, enables us to place particular descriptive facts in contexts of general implication, or to dissolve such facts into constituents a n d variables of more general range a n d to identify their m o d e s a n d m e c h a n i s m s of combination. If description gives us the phenotypical constants, analysis enables us to isolate the genotypical variables. But we remain, metaphorically speaking, at a ' h o r i z o n t a l ' level of investigation confined to identifying c o n c o m i t a n c e a n d consistency, or their contraries, contradiction a n d conflict, a m o n g s t a n d within the descriptive p h e n o m e n a , as long as we a d h e r e to the D u r k h e i m i a n p a r a d i g m . T o be sure this gives us a representation of s t r u c t u r e a n d it m a y also reveal some of the conditions that are necessary for the existence of the structure a n d some of the processes a n d m e c h a n i s m s that p r o d u c e it; a n d this is of first-rate imp o r t a n c e . But its focus is inevitably a n d primarily on questions of how the system works, r a t h e r t h a n on questions of why such institutions, beliefs, p a t t e r n s of behaviour, etc. occur in it. T o answer ' w h y ' type of questions we must seek hypotheses of a causal type to account for the phenotypical state of affairs; a n d to reach such hypotheses we have to u n d e r t a k e what, again metaphorically speaking, I would call 'vertical' analysis. This, to my mind, necessarily entails consideration of connections at other levels t h a n that of the ethnographically given. A n d Devons a n d G l u c k m a n are forced to confront this w h e n they try to argue that T u r n e r ' s statement that (quoting T u r n e r ) 'powerful unconscious wishes of a kind considered illicit by N d e m b u are expressed in it [the rite] ' a d m i t t e d l y derived as it is from applying psychoanalytic theory to the field d a t a , nevertheless falls within the b o u n d s of psychological naivety. 9 Answering critics for w h o m the occurrence in both tropical America a n d N o r t h America of the same g r o u p of myths is significant primarily as evidence of the peopling of America by successive waves of emigrants from Asia, Lévi-Strauss 1 0 remarks: ' E n posant ainsi le problème, on méconnaîtrait complètement le sens de notre enterprise. Nous ne cher-

198

Part IV : Anthropology and psychology

chons pas le p o u r q u o i de ces resemblances mais le c o m m e n t . ' T h i s is the crux - whether to confine ourselves rigorously to the 'comm e n t ' or to seek answers however inelegantly to the ' p o u r q u o i ' . For myself, a n d I believe for the m a j o r i t y of Anglo-(i.e. socio-) structuralists (as opposed to Gallo- or linguo-structuralists) the lure of the ' p o u r q u o i ' is irresistible. T h i s follows long-standing traditional interests reflected, for example, in Frazer's explanation of magical beliefs a n d practices by recourse to psychological assumptions a b o u t the association of ideas a n d defective primitive logic - which of course continues to flourish in its up-to-date dress o f ' m e t a p h o r ' a n d ' m e t o n y m ' . N o r should we forget that M o r g a n a t t r i b u t e d the systems of consanguinity which he analysed in his first great treatise, to underlying a n d i m m u t a b l e ideas or conceptions 'associated together in such fixed relations as to create a system of consanguinity, resting u p o n u n c h a n g e a b l e necessities'. 1 1 T o invoke property relations as the m a i n force b e h i n d the evolution of the family a n d of the state, as M o r g a n a n d later Engels a n d other writers since have done, is an exercise in the same direction; a n d so also, at a very different level is Malinowski's theory of culture as an a p p a r a t u s for satisfying basic h u m a n needs rooted ultimately in the biological constitution of m a n k i n d . In the specific case of the relevance of psychological theories a n d methods for the explanation of anthropological observations the question that, as we all know, has been of perennial concern to a n t h r o pologists, is t h a t of the n a t u r e of so-called 'primitive t h o u g h t ' in alleged contrast to or comparison with civilised thought. T h e ghosts of Lévy-Bruhl's hypotheses of pre-logical mentality a n d of mystical participation still h a u n t us, a n d hardly a year goes by without some re-examination of the issues he raised. Field observation convinced Malinowski, a n d has continually reinforced his conclusion, t h a t pre-literate or pre-scientific, i.e. 'primitive, ' peoples perceive the real world more or less as we do a n d show in their technology, a n d indeed in all their cust o m a r y ways, the same logical capacities that m o d e r n western m a n has, the key to the a p p a r e n t differences lying only in the premises from which they start. It is, therefore, of special interest to consider briefly the findings of the experimental psychologists who have, since the war, been very widely engaged in cross-cultural research on cognition a n d perception. F r o m the anthropological point of view, it is very i m p o r t a n t to note that these studies are, in the words of one authoritative work in this field, 'primarily interested in the study of various cultures in order to test the generality of hypothetical cognitive processes' established by research in western societies. 12 For this task the content of the cognitive activities observable in a particular society is of interest only to the extent that it influences or reflects the process or the capacity. In a sense the cross cultural studies of perception, cognition, a n d learning, - the range a n d extent of which c a n be gauged from B a r b a r a Lloyd's a d m i r a b l e review1® - mainly by t h e m e t h o d s of experimental psycho-

Fortes : Anthropology and the psychological disciplines

199

logy, c a n be seen as a n extension to the h u m a n sphere of the c o m p a r a tive research with a n i m a l s that goes back to T h o r n d i k e , Pavlov, a n d Köhler. A p p r o p r i a t e l y enough a p r o m i n e n t topic in these researches concerns the relationship of language to perceptual and cognitive perf o r m a n c e . Pursuing this line of enquiry, Cole et al. conclude from their e x p e r i m e n t s with Kpelle children a n d adults both non-literate a n d literate, t h a t 'Kpelle [like Americans] know a n d use taxonomic class relationships to s t r u c t u r e their verbal behaviour' 1 4 with more control a m o n g those w h o h a d some western-type schooling t h a n with the unschooled 1 5 a n d with variations due to age differences. T h e s e a n d other ingenious experiments lead to conclusions such as the following: In particular, we w a n t to emphasise our m a j o r conclusion that cultural differences in cognition [e.g. the contrast between the propensity of A m e r i c a n school children to follow general schemes, infer rules, a n d use t a x o n o m i c categories in their learning a n d other cognitive tasks a n d the m o r e restricted, more concept-based, performance of Kpelle children] reside more in the situations which particular cognitive processes are applied to t h a n in the existence of a process in one cultural g r o u p a n d its absence in a n o t h e r . Similar conclusions emerge f r o m the extensive cross-cultural research that has been devoted to testing Piaget 's theories of congitive development a n d performance. B a r b a r a Lloyd's analysis of the results of cross-cultural research on 'concrete operational t h i n k i n g ' illustrates their outcome well. Referring to some twelve studies in a range of cultural groups in Africa, N e w Guinea, a n d Asia, a n d including Australian aboriginal groups, she indicates that the cognitive skills which Piaget designates by the t e r m conservation (of substances, of weight, length, a n d q u a n t i t y ) are universal but that the quantitative a n d qualitative variations in the ways in which these skills are deployed in different cultural environments d e p e n d u p o n the experiences available to m e m b e r s of the society in question. T h u s the order in which different conservation skills a p p e a r evidently varies with the cultural experience available to a c o m m u n i t y , and schooling seems everywhere to foster cognitive p e r f o r m a n c e equal to what is found among, for example, American children. 1 6 W h a t then have these researches established? Briefly, a n d p e r h a p s somewhat crudely stated, it seems to me that what they have demonstrated is that the cognitive and perceptual abilities that have been identified amongst children and adults of western culture in Europe a n d America are universal h u m a n aptitudes a n d endowments. It has been shown also t h a t if the Piagetian models of the developmental stages and the m o d e s of operation of these abilities are accepted as stand a r d , the divergencies f r o m and a p p r o x i m a t i o n s to these models that have been observed a m o n g subjects of n o n - E u r o p e a n culture are

200

Part IV: Anthropology and psychology

directly a t t r i b u t a b l e to t h e influence of culture a n d social organisation a n d to some extent also of language. F r o m a n anthropological point of view m a n y if not most of the findings r e p o r t e d in these field studies which use the m e t h o d s of experimental psychology are of value primarily because they confirm conclusions r e a c h e d by the n a t u r a l history m e t h o d s of e t h n o g r a p h i c research which a p p r o a c h the same phenotypical d a t a of individual behaviour, t h o u g h t , a n d j u d g m e n t , as evidence of cultural material. T h i s is well b r o u g h t out in t h e Cole et al. study. Observations they report a b o u t the effect of western-type schooling, which equips the recipient with a cultural a p p a r a t u s that includes mere literacy at one end of the scale but m a y go as far as the most abstruse m a t h e m a t i c s at the other e n d of the scale, are to the point. Referring to this a n d related studies B a r b a r a Lloyd notes that ' t h e abstract t h o u g h t of formal operations p r o b a b l y d e p e n d s heavily on W e s t e r n type schooling' a n d adds, a p p r o p r i a t e l y , t h a t this is h a r d l y s u r p r i s i n g . " T h e anthropological model is clear. W h a t the e x p e r i m e n t a l psychologist identifies u n d e r such rubrics as cognition, perception, learning, a n d t h o u g h t , seen f r o m the anthropological angle, are instances of the use of a cultural outfit which t h e actor has been t r a i n e d to handle, a n d c a n in general be t r a i n e d to handle, at a n y rate up to a point, even if p a r t s or all of the outfit are of alien origin. T h i s is possible because the s a m e capacities, propensities, and dispositions, some certainly innate, others a c q u i r e d in the universal socialisation situations of, for example, m o t h e r a n d child relationships, are c o m m o n to all h u m a n i t y . W h e r e differences a p p e a r in the deployment of a n y items of a cultural outfit as between different h u m a n g r o u p s these are due, not to the absence of the basic a n d universal h u m a n e n d o w m e n t s , but to possible quantitative differences in their incidence or to differences in the ways in which they are harnessed to the work of living in society and of employing the cult u r a l e q u i p m e n t at their disposal for dealing with the n a t u r a l world. In t e r m s of a c u r r e n t cliché, we can conclude that h u m a n thought processes are the s a m e for all m a n k i n d a n d that variations in t h o u g h t p e r f o r m a n c e are d u e to c u l t u r a l not n a t u r a l differences. T o speak of c u l t u r e in t e r m s of a n ' a p p a r a t u s ' , or an ' e q u i p m e n t ' or in more general t e r m s as a form o f ' c a p i t a l ' , might seem too n a r r o w a n d instrumentalist a view. Alternatively I could, as I have d o n e elsewhere, suggest s u b s u m i n g the p h e n o m e n o n of custom, which is surely the core of culture, u n d e r the m o r e general or at least more tangible category of costume, or dress. T h e point a b o u t these m e t a p h o r i c a l descriptions is to e m p h a s i s e t h a t however diverse a n d varied the o u t w a r d a n d visible manifestations of c u l t u r e m a y be, underlying all of t h e m is the s a m e basic h u m a n e n d o w m e n t . N o w h e r e p e r h a p s has this been so well docum e n t e d as in c u r r e n t studies of cognitive systems, folk taxonomies, a n d mythology. If t h e r e is one t h i n g that Lévi-Strauss has insisted u p o n , it is surely that the logical procedures reflected in mythical thought a r e no different f r o m a n d no less systematic t h a n those that are followed in our

Fortes : Anthropology and the psychological disciplines

201

science a n d philosophy, the differences lying not in the way the h u m a n m i n d works but in the material with which it works in different societies. T h e field of cognition a n d perception is not the only psychological speciality in which it has proved to be r e w a r d i n g to test theories a n d models derived f r o m research in western societies by m e a n s of cross-cultural investigation. Extensive studies have also been m a d e crossculturally of the emotional a n d appetitive dispositions a n d of t h e factors that enter into the m a k e up of c h a r a c t e r a n d personality. T h e s e studies are well exemplified in cross-cultural research in psychiatry a n d in such basic psychiatric disciplines as psychoanalysis. A n d in m y view it is the researches in these fields t h a t are particularly relevant t o some of t h e longest s t a n d i n g p r o b l e m s of anthropology. T o begin with it is valuable to realise, as Kiev's review of the literature s h o w s , " t h a t t h e r e is now a m p l e evidence to c o n f i r m that the m a i n forms of psychiatric disorder identified in w e s t e r n societies also occur in oriental, African, a n d other non-western societies. T h e r e are, as he p u t s it, 1 9 'universal s y m p t o m p a t t e r n s in m a j o r psychiatric disorders'. W h a t differs f r o m culture to culture is t h e 'cultural colouring of beliefs, delusions, a n d behaviour p a t t e r n s , as well as differences in the kind, severity, a n d location of pathogenic factors'. T h e obvious inference is that the psychiatric evidence supports the conclusion suggested by cross-cultural studies of cognition a n d perception, n a m e l y , t h a t the u n d e r l y i n g psychological e n d o w m e n t of m a n k i n d in t h e fields of emotion a n d personality is the s a m e for all b r a n c h e s of h u m a n i t y . T h e s a m e psychopathological d i s t u r b a n c e s afflict all h u m a n races, b u t what varies is their incidence a n d the ways in which they a r e manifested in individual thought a n d behaviour. Even the forms of psychiatric d i s t u r b a n c e t h a t occur idiosyncratically in some societies a n d not in others, such as t h e acute a n d often homicidal m a n i a generally k n o w n as the amok syndrome, a n d c o m p a r a b l e less violent states of possession elsewhere found, exhibit m a n y features of psychopathology t h a t are c o m m o n a m o n g western patients. Anxiety states, phobias, a n d other s y m p t o m s of psychoneurosis on t h e one h a n d , a n d states of depression, delusions and hallucinatory experiences a n d similar s y m p t o m s of psychosis on the other, are of universal occurrence. W h a t particularly varies crossculturally is the ways in which psychiatric d i s t u r b a n c e s are interpreted a n d dealt with. A condition t h a t a w e s t e r n - t r a i n e d psychiatrist perceives as a state of depression, a n Ashanti diviner diagnoses as a n attack by witchcraft. W e should realise that w h a t is at issue here is not primarily a conflict between rational scientific theory a n d primitive superstition b u t a difference between two models of h u m a n n a t u r e . A n d this is where o u r distinctively anthropological task begins. This task is to try to u n d e r s t a n d a n d as far as possible to explain the uniquely h u m a n p h e n o m e n o n of custom, w h a t Cole et al. refer to as the 'contents'of cognition a n d perception. T o m a k e my point clearer let m e remind you t h a t the n a t u r a l science model of h u m a n n a t u r e , as of

202

P a r t IV : Anthropology and psychology

c o u r s e of t h e h u m a n o r g a n i s m , is c o m m o n l y a c c e p t e d a n d believed in b y l a y m e n as well as b y t h e e x p e r t s in o u r society. It is a c c e p t e d o n t r u s t as a u t h o r i s e d a n d i n d e e d p r e s c r i b e d w i t h i n o u r social system. It is cust o m a r y . C u s t o m , as we all t a k e for g r a n t e d , is a collective p o s s e s s i o n ; w h e r e t h e r e is c u s t o m , t h e r e is society, w h e r e t h e r e is society, t h e r e is c u s t o m . T h e q u e s t i o n t h a t I w a n t to p u t is t h e following: G r a n t e d t h e u n i f o r m i t y t h r o u g h o u t m a n k i n d , firstly of m a n ' s o r g a n i c c o n s t i t u t i o n , a n d s e c o n d l y of t h e psychological e n d o w m e n t of c a p a c i t i e s a n d dispositions, in w h a t w a y if at all c a n we r e l a t e t h e s e p a r a m e t e r s of i n d i v i d u a l e x i s t e n c e to t h e collective r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , as D u r k h e i m called t h e m , of c u s t o m ? M o r e specifically, a n d h e r e I h a v e in m i n d t h e point of view r e p r e s e n t e d b y D e v o n s a n d G l u c k m a n a n d s h a r e d b y a m a j o r i t y of soc a l l e d f u n c t i o n a l i s t a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s , is it e i t h e r possible, or useful, or n e c e s s a r y t o t a k e into a c c o u n t t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s , p r o p o s i t i o n s , a n d g e n e r a l i s a t i o n s of t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l sciences in o r d e r t o u n d e r s t a n d a n d p o s s i b l y e x p l a i n - i.e. e s t a b l i s h t h e ' p o u r q u o i ' o f - t h e p h e n o m e n o n of custom? A s I have a l r e a d y n o t e d , a t t e m p t s in this d i r e c t i o n go b a c k to o u r founding fathers. T h e y continue a n d proliferate, a notable example b e i n g t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d c o n t i n u e d vitality of t h e school of ' c u l t u r e a n d p e r s o n a l i t y s t u d i e s ' , in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , r e c e n t l y a u t h o r i t a t i v e l y r e v i e w e d in his b o o k o n t h e s u b j e c t b y R o b e r t A. Le Vine. 2 0 I cite his w o r k in p a r t i c u l a r b e c a u s e it focusses a t t e n t i o n o n w h a t is critical for resolving t h e d i l e m m a I a t t r i b u t e d a t t h e o u t s e t t o t h e r e m a r k s of A . C . H a d d o n , n a m e l y t h e c h a l l e n g e of t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c field e x p e r i e n c e . It is t h e r e t h a t o n e realises t h a t c u s t o m - w h e t h e r o n e t h i n k s of it in t e r m s of c o d e or in t e r m s of p a t t e r n s of b e h a v i o u r - h a s m e a n i n g only in t h e c o n t e x t of t h e social r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o w h i c h it gives s h a p e a n d c o n t e n t t h u s d e f i n i n g t h e i r l o c a t i o n in t h e collectivity of t h e society. M y conviction, t h a t we c a n m a k e little progress' t o w a r d s fully e x p l a i n i n g t h e ' p o u r q u o i ' of c u s t o m w i t h o u t r e c o u r s e to a p p r o p r i a t e p s y c h o l o g i c a l disciplines, c a n best, I t h i n k , b e j u s t i f i e d , or at least p u t to t h e test, b y s o m e a c c o u n t of h o w this w a s b r o u g h t h o m e to m e in t h e c o u r s e of m y o w n field r e s e a r c h . A few d a y s a f t e r a r r i v i n g in t h e a r e a of m y field w o r k a m o n g t h e T a l lensi of n o r t h e r n G h a n a , I w e n t r o u n d to t h e h o u s e of o n e of t h e local h e a d m e n t o i n t r o d u c e myself. W h i l e b e i n g s h o w n a r o u n d , I w a s invited i n t o t h e m a i n 'living r o o m ' of his s e n i o r wife. In t h e c o r n e r w a s a long s t r i n g net h a n g i n g f r o m a r a f t e r . It w a s filled w i t h n e a t l y p a c k e d c a l a bashes. I asked the good lady to show them to me a n d she courteously u n p a c k e d t h e m o n e b y o n e till she c a m e to t h e last o n e at t h e b o t t o m of t h e net. T h i s o n e she p o i n t e d out to m e was s p e c i a l ; it c o n t a i n e d six or seven s m a l l e r c a l a b a s h e s r e s t i n g o n e w i t h i n t h e o t h e r . T h i s she said w a s h e r kumpio, h e r ' d e a t h b o x ' . W h e n she died, she e x p l a i n e d , all h e r d o m e s t i c utensils w o u l d be divided u p a m o n g s t h e r d a u g h t e r s a n d d a u g h t e r s in l a w ; b u t this p a r t i c u l a r c a l a b a s h a n d its c o n t e n t s w o u l d go t o h e r firstborn d a u g h t e r ; until t h e n , she a d d e d , this d a u g h t e r w o u l d

Fortes : Anthropology and the psychological disciplines

203

never have been allowed to see the kumpio. M y field notes tell me t h a t I asked h e r if this was because she disliked or distrusted her firstborn d a u g h t e r . M y semi-literate interpreter found it difficult to convey the idea to her. However, she understood it well enough to shake her h e a d vigorously in denial. ' W e do it' she explained 'because o u r ancestors did it.' T h i s was my introduction to a complex of customary beliefs a n d practices the central i m p o r t a n c e of which in Tallensi kinship a n d family s t r u c t u r e a n d its religious extension into ancestor worship, in due course b e c a m e a p p a r e n t to me. As my stumbling u p o n it so easily a n d so early in my novitiate indicates, there is nothing secret or indeed even private a b o u t the c u s t o m a r y identification of the firstborn - sons as well as d a u g h t e r s . W h a t is at first sight peculiar is the ways in which this s t a t u s is customarily m a r k e d out. T h e s t a t u s of the firstborn is most dramatically displayed in the ritual o f ' s h o w i n g the g r a n a r y ' which terminates the funeral of a m a n who has left children a n d thus expunges his earthly existence. In this rite a m a n ' s firstborn son dressed in his father's tunic turned inside out and carrying, slung over his left shoulder, a mock bow a n d quiver m a d e for the funeral, followed by his firstborn sister, is solemnly m a d e to look inside his father's g r a n a r y which has hitherto been totally prohibited to him. His sister follows suit, a n d general jubilation ensues. W h a t everyone u n d e r s t a n d s a n d what the reversed tunic a n d the inspection of the g r a n a r y so patently declare is t h a t the son has now taken his father's place, literally stepped into his clothes, t h u s reversing the generation relationship. T h e critical feature is t h a t this rite applies strictly only to the firstborn, not to the oldest surviving son a n d daughter. It is a question not of inheriting the father's property - to which indeed fathers' brothers have first claim - but of succeeding to p a t e r n a l status for which being firstborn not merely oldest surviving is the proper qualification. T h i s follows f r o m the fact that it is the firstborn w h o by the mere fact of birth, creates p a r e n t h o o d irreversibly, once a n d for all. A n d it is the ambivalence this generates which as we shall see, underlies the 'syndrome ' of the firstborn. I borrow this t e r m to indicate t h a t the rite of the g r a n a r y inspection is really the climax of a lifetime of ritually-imposed avoidance relations between firstborn a n d p a r e n t of the same sex. I have described a n d discussed these at length elsewhere 2 1 a n d therefore refer to t h e m only briefly here. T h u s father and firstborn son m a y never eat out of the same dish lest one accidentally scratch the h a n d of the other. T h i s would cause one of t h e m to die, whereas the same accident when two brothers or a father a n d his younger son eat out of the same dish would be harmless. Again, a firstborn m a y not wear his father's clothes or use any of his tools or implements; a n d there are other restrictions. Recollecting that to eat together a m o n g the Tallensi as a m o n g most peoples of the world affirms the amity a n d m u t u a l trust that is the essence of kinship, the implication that, as Tallensi say, 'your firstborn is your enemy' is m a d e plain in these taboos. T h e y say that a m a n ' s tools and

204

Part IV : Anthropology and psychology

w e a p o n s a r e i m b u e d with his b o d y dirt a n d a r e therefore u n i q u e l y representative of his individuality, a n d t h a t his g r a n a r y holds his soul. T h u s t h e t a b o o s of t h e firstborn a p p e a r to b e q u i t e p a t e n t l y designed to prevent t h e a r c h e t y p a l son f r o m d i s p l a c i n g his f a t h e r in the latter's lifetime. A n d parallel restrictions a p p l y to a w o m a n a n d h e r firstborn daughter. W h a t is in issue b e c o m e s clear w h e n t h e son r e a c h e s t h e m a t u r i t y to m a r r y a n d b e c o m e a p a r e n t in his t u r n . F a t h e r a n d firstborn son, m o t h e r a n d firstborn d a u g h t e r (till she m a r r i e s ) , it s h o u l d b e realised, live t o g e t h e r in t h e s a m e h o m e s t e a d , a n d w o r k t o g e t h e r in f a r m i n g a n d in the d o m e s t i c r o u n d . At first t h e t a b o o s serve to keep t h e m out of e a c h o t h e r ' s w a y at symbolically critical occasions like m e a l times. But w h e n the son m a r r i e s a n d achieves p a r e n t h o o d he m u s t m a k e a separate gateway for himself to his quarters in the homestead, for he a n d his f a t h e r m a y not h e n c e f o r t h meet face to face in t h e g a t e w a y they have previously b o t h used. T a l l e n s i cite this t a b o o as t h e key to the w h o l e s y n d r o m e . T h e y say t h a t its i n t e n t i o n is to prevent a fatal clash b e t w e e n t h e Destinies of f a t h e r a n d son. W h i l e t h e son w a s g r o w i n g u p , a n d because he w a s successfully growing u p , his Destiny w a s g r o w i n g s t r o n g e r a n d stronger, t h e f a t h e r ' s m e a n w h i l e b e g i n n i n g to decline. T a l l e n s i f a t h e r s say q u i t e b l u n t l y t h a t t h e i r firstborn almost f r o m b i r t h desire their d e a t h so t h a t t h e y c a n succeed to t h e i r place. It follows logically t h a t t h e n e a r e r a firstborn gets to full a d u l t h o o d a n d p a r e n t h o o d t h e stronger will be his wish a n d his c l a i m to oust his f a t h e r . T h e i m a g e r y of t h e o p p o s e d Destinies, as if they w e r e struggling for a limited f u n d of well-being, a p t l y reflects t h e situation. W h a t is at stake, in fact, is t h e power a n d a u t h o r i t y , w h i c h m a k e u p w h a t I have elsewhere 2 2 called t h e 'mystical p o t e n c y ' t h a t is vested in t h e s t a t u s of f a t h e r h o o d . It is signific a n t t h a t a m a n c a n n o t b e c o m e j u r i d i c a l l y a u t o n o m o u s , i.e. sui iuris which is also a necessary condition for ritual a u t o n o m y - until his f a t h e r dies. Until t h e n , even if he is himself the f a t h e r of a large family a n d economically well-to-do, he is a j u r a l a n d ritual m i n o r in his f a t h e r ' s power. W h a t is p e r h a p s most i m p o r t a n t a b o u t succeeding to a f a t h e r ' s status is t h a t this r e q u i r e s t h e son to establish his d e a d f a t h e r as a n a n c e s t o r spirit. A n d it is the s a m e for t h e m o t h e r mutatis mutandis. W h a t this a m o u n t s to is t h a t t h e face to face, living p a r e n t a l a u t h o r i t y ext i n g u i s h e d by d e a t h is, so to speak, r e i n s t a t e d at a n o t h e r level, t h e ' s u p e r n a t u r a l ' level of a n c e s t o r w o r s h i p . T h u s the b o n d s of filial d e p e n dence in everyday life are p e r p e t u a t e d at this s u p e r n a t u r a l level in t e r m s of ritual d e p e n d e n c e a n d the r e q u i r e m e n t s of ritual service. T h e fuller implications of this c a n be m a d e clearer if we look a g a i n briefly at t h e notion of Destiny. T h e belief t h a t a p e r s o n ' s p a s s a g e t h r o u g h life is governed by his or her Destiny is w i d e s p r e a d in W e s t Africa 2 5 . T a l l e n s i conceive of Destiny as b e i n g a choice m a d e by t h e individual p r e - n a t a l l y . It m a y be a b a d Destiny w h i c h m a n i f e s t s itself in c o n t i n u a l m i s f o r t u n e a n d affliction. T h u s w h e n D i n k a h a ' s i n f a n t

F o r t e s : Anthropology and the psychological disciplines

205

d a u g h t e r d i e d of a w a s t i n g disease h e himself a n d h e r m o t h e r w e r e u t terly p r o s t r a t e w i t h grief. T h e n c a m e t h e d i v i n a t i o n to discover t h e m y s t i c a l a g e n c y r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e c h i l d ' s d e a t h a n d it e m e r g e d t h a t it w a s h e r evil P r e d e s t i n y . Before she w a s b o r n s h e h a d d e c l a r e d t h a t she d i d not w a n t a f a t h e r o r a m o t h e r or b r o t h e r s o r sisters. So h a v i n g b e e n b r o u g h t into t h e w o r l d , she took ill a n d died. T h e m o t h e r grieved for m a n y d a y s . D i n k a h a himself, h o w e v e r , e x p r e s s e d relief at this verdict. In t h e s a m e w a y P r e d e s t i n y is b l a m e d if a w o m a n c o n t i n u a l l y m i s c a r ries, if a m a n c o n t i n u a l l y fails in a t t e m p t s to m a r r y or to e a r n his living, a n d so f o r t h . T h e s i g n i f i c a n t point is t h a t it is o n l y in r e t r o s p e c t t h a t a n evil P r e d e s t i n y is r e v e a l e d , in r e s p o n s e to w h a t s e e m s like a senseless, p r e m a t u r e d e a t h , or r e p e a t e d affliction t h a t h a s not yielded to o t h e r red r e s s i v e m e a s u r e s or t o i n e x p l i c a b l e f a i l u r e t o achieve n o r m a l goals in life. A n d t h e e v i d e n c e of field o b s e r v a t i o n is t h a t b o t h t h e alleged vict i m s a n d t h o s e r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e m get g r e a t c o m f o r t f r o m t h e r i t u a l of i d e n t i f y i n g a n d c o p i n g w i t h evil P r e d e s t i n y . B u t t h e r e is a n o t h e r side to D e s t i n y w h i c h a f f e c t s all m a l e s , a n d t h r o u g h t h e m s u c h d e p e n d e n t f e m a l e s as d a u g h t e r s a n d wives. I n this p a t t e r n a n u n u s u a l a c h i e v e m e n t , a n a c c i d e n t or affliction, or a s t r a n g e c o i n c i d e n c e , is i n t e r p r e t e d t h r o u g h d i v i n a t i o n as a sign t h a t a g r o u p of a n c e s t o r s w i s h e s t o t a k e over t h e D e s t i n y of a y o u n g m a n a n d in r e t u r n for r i t u a l service f r o m h i m will foster his d e v e l o p m e n t a n d a d v a n c e in life. Let m e give a n e x a m p l e . As a y o u t h A n a a h o took t o p l a y i n g t h e n a t i v e single s t r i n g fiddle. H e b e c a m e so a d e p t t h a t h e w a s in c o n s t a n t d e m a n d . But his f a t h e r w h o , in p r o p e r T a l l e n s i style, v a l u e d f a r m i n g a b o v e e v e r y t h i n g , w a s f u r i o u s b e c a u s e t h e boy w a s n e g l e c t i n g his f a r m w o r k . So he s m a s h e d t h e fiddle to force t h e b o y t o r e t u r n to his hoeing. A l m o s t s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , t h e y o u t h w a s t a k e n ill a n d his f a t h e r w e n t off a n x i o u s l y to c o n s u l t a diviner. It e m e r g e d t h a t t h e fiddle w a s o r d a i n e d b y A n a a h o ' s D e s t i n y t o b e his life task. H i s illness a n d t h e t r o u b l e s he h a d got i n t o w i t h his f a t h e r w e r e signs t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r g r o u p of his a n c e s t o r s w a s r e v e a l i n g itself as t h e g u a r d i a n s of his D e s t i n y . T h e i r c o m m a n d w a s t h a t A n a a h o m u s t m a k e a s h r i n e for t h e m o n w h i c h to o f f e r sacrifice t o t h e m , m u s t give u p f a r m i n g entirely, a n d devote h i m self to fiddling. If h e r e f u s e d or w a s forced to r e f u s e h e w o u l d surely die; if h e s u b m i t t e d h e w o u l d p r o s p e r . T h e f a t h e r h a d n o choice b u t to a c q u i e s c e a n d in t h e event A n a a h o h a d a long a n d p r o s p e r o u s c a r e e r . T h i s is t y p i c a l , t h o u g h not all D e s t i n y - o r d a i n e d c a r e e r s e n d u p so p r o pitiously. It will b e u n d e r s t o o d t h a t this is t h e b a r e s t o u t l i n e of a c o m p l e x config u r a t i o n of c u s t o m a r y beliefs a n d i d e a s t h a t is itself b u t a p a r t of a very e l a b o r a t e religious s y s t e m b a s e d o n a n c e s t o r w o r s h i p w h i c h p e r v a d e s every c o r n e r of T a l l e n s i social life. ( B u t see Newell 2 4 for p a r a l l e l s f r o m o t h e r A f r i c a n societies, f r o m C h i n a , T a i w a n a n d J a p a n . ) C e r t a i n feat u r e s distinctive of this religious s y s t e m a r e a p p a r e n t even f r o m m y brief s k e t c h of t h e d e s t i n y c o n c e p t . Firstly, it serves t h e i n d i v i d u a l as a m e a n s of devolving or p r o j e c t i n g t h e u l t i m a t e responsibility for e v e r y t h i n g t h a t

206

P a r t I V : Anthropology

and psychology

happens to him in the course of his life on to agencies which are perceived to be outside his control by the mundane technological and social processes of ordinary life - not unlike beliefs in witchcraft, or theories of the hereditary determination of intelligence or personality or psychosis in some circles in our own society. And we can see more clearly now how neatly a doctrine of their competing destinies can serve to drain away, so to speak, real and potentially destructive mutual enmity from the relationships of father and son. Let us consider this a little more fully. Among the Tallensi, as throughout Africa, no person is regarded as fully mature until he marries and becomes a parent. Not only that, but for Tallensi full personhood is only realised by the achievement of ancestorhood. 2 5 That is why the birth of grandsons is particularly joyously welcomed. Anyhow, it is obvious that parents owe the most decisive change in their lives to their firstborn - who in t u r n of course owes his very existence to them. And yet it is he who heralds the fate that must inevitably overtake parents: for it is a law of nature that they must sooner or later make way for the next generation, the sibling group founded by the firstborn. The dilemma, consciously perceived by the Tallensi, is threatening; and it is not extravagant to imagine, as I have already indicated, that there is an underlying ambivalence in the emotions and attitudes of parents, desiring to hold on to their powers and to life itself as long as possible. One can imagine a temptation on the one side to destroy the offspring whose every year of growth brings the time of their extinction nearer, which is however in conflict with the urge on the other side to love and cherish these children who are their sole guarantee of immortality - quite concretely so since it is only through his children that a person can become a commemorated ancestor. Similarly it is easy to imagine equal ambivalence in the emotions and attitudes of the children awaiting the day when they can step into the parents ' place. And for both sides focussing this attention on the firstborn is both logical and convenient, serving, metaphorically speaking, as a kind of lightning conductor which draws away the antagonism that is built into the relations of successive generations and enables them to live together in mutual trust. The symbolism of the competing Destinies crystallises in a concrete image the reality that is difficult to conceptualise and even to face openly since it depends upon largely unconscious emotional ambivalence. Again, one can see how the inter-generational taboos tie down concretely, and rationalise in the form of ritually obligatory selfdiscipline, the latent conflict between the generations. Here it should be noted that the achievement of ancestorhood is, as we might put it, more a matter of luck or of pure chance than of merit. Tallensi recognise quite explicitly that the achievement of parenthood (like, for instance, survival to old age) is not a reward for good conduct or even for devoted service to the ancestors. It is not always the virtuous, by ordinary mundane standards, whose lives are most successful;

Fortes : Anthropology and the psychological disciplines

207

wicked or u n s c r u p u l o u s m e n sometimes leave m a n y children where upright, good men die childless; disease a n d d e a t h often strike the wife or child of a responsible, provident family head whereas his spendthrift, improvident brother escapes scot free. C o n f r o n t a t i o n with these i n t r a c t a b l e realities of everyday existence provides experiential as well as logically-incontrovertible evidence for the a s s u m p t i o n that there are occult 2 6 powers not susceptible of empirical technological or social control at work in determining the course a n d outcome of individual existence. T h e Tallensi do not have the concept of chance, nor do they accept t h a t luck (zu-song, a good head) is u n c a u s e d . T o deal with t h e existential dilemma presented by the unpredictability and, one might say, injustice of everyday life they fall back, conceptually and emotionally, on to the doctrine of Destiny and of the over-riding non-material, n o n - h u m a n powers of the ancestors. At the level of the action t h a t is necessary if people are to live with these to t h e m a r b i t r a r y constraints, the defences take the form of ritual a n d taboo. It is my a r g u m e n t t h a t this ideology - this system of ideas, beliefs a n d practices - is effective for the actors j u s t because the ancestors are so obviously transfigured p a r e n t figures; a n d it is consistent that their most distinctive characteristic is t h a t they manifest themselves, according to Tallensi beliefs, p r e d o m i n a n t l y in the afflictions they send to their desc e n d a n t s r a t h e r t h a n in the benefits for which they also claim credit. T h i s reflects the fact, in my view, t h a t it is not the whole parent, who cherishes as well as chastises, loves as well as disciplines, his or her offspring, but only the j u r a l l y a n d morally coercive aspect of the p a r e n t s that is elevated to ancestorhood. It is s y m p t o m a t i c of the s u p r e m e j u d i cial quality of the authority a n d power vested in the ancestors that it is a basic religious as well as j u r a l principle that every death must be revealed by divination to be ultimately caused by particular, identified ancestors. A d e a t h not so authorised (for this is what it a m o u n t s to) is not recognised as a n o r m a l h u m a n d e a t h but is c o m p a r a b l e to the death of an animal or is contrary to the n a t u r e of m a n . A n d it is consistent with the ideology t h a t every n o r m a l death is a t t r i b u t e d to ancestral retribution for ritual negligence or some form of wrongdoing, most commonly within the field of kinship relations with its all-embracing n o r m s of prescriptive altruism, of which the victim m a y not even be known to have been a w a r e in his or her lifetime. Conversely, it is believed that life ultimately accrues to the individual t h r o u g h ancestors ' gift a n d watchfulness, in response to service a n d tendance. It cannot be overemphasised that in their ordinary life Tallensi are a realistic and practical people. Living authority is rarely harshly exercised, indeed parents are noticeably affectionate and tolerant in their relationships with small children. In real life a father has no powers of life a n d death over his children but of course parents are inevitably the source of discipline, frustration, a n d what seems to a small child the a r b i t r a r y regulation of their life and control of their

208

P a r t IV : Anthropology

and psychology

wishes a n d urges. T h e question now is how can we get behind these descriptive data a n d explain t h e m in terms of a causal a n d general theory of h u m a n behaviour? T h e probtem is the more challenging since, as I have shown elsewhere, 2 ' the p a r a d i g m of inter-generational opposition'so graphically displayed by the Tallensi is of very c o m m o n , if not universal, validity. In different forms of cultural dress it is found throughout Africa, in Polynesia, New Guinea, India, classical C h i n a and still f u r t h e r disguised in o u r own society. And everywhere some form of enforced separation either physically or by religious prescription or apparently inadvertently through educational institutions, age set organisations a n d so on a p p e a r s to be required in order to contain the p r o b l e m . Not everywhere of course, do we find such elaborate ritual provisions for shelving ultimate responsibility from the actor to institutionally established quasi-external agencies as Destiny. I do not see how we can answer this question without recourse to psychological theory; a n d for me the obvious and convincing theory is t h a t which is provided by psychoanalysis. Let us consider again the focal a n d critical relationship of p a r e n t a n d firstborn of the same sex, my p a r a d i g m being the relationship of father a n d firstborn son. I r e m a r k e d earlier that what is evidently at stake is a resource I have entitled as 'mystical potency'. T h i s is not an ideal concept, I fear, for what I have in mind, but it must suffice. I use it to include the whole gamut of p a r e n t a l power a n d authority as experienced by the offspring a n d also as defined in c u s t o m a r y law a n d ideology. It includes the physical a n d psychological superiority of the p a r e n t s as manifested, for example, in t h e control over the material provision of food a n d shelter and the moral provision of protection. But it refers above all to w h a t , from the filial point of view, is the most mysterious and arbitrary feature of parenthood, their monopoly of procreative right a n d capacity. T h e e t h n o g r a p h i c evidence, both for the Tallensi a n d comparatively, to my m i n d points indisputably to the privileged procreative sexuality of p a r e n t s as the nucleus of the syndrome. That is why the tension between successive generations symbolically crystallised in the doctrine of the antagonistic Destinies of father a n d firstborn son is felt to be most dangerous w h e n the son reaches reproductive status, on the threshold of parenthood. O n e might surmise that a different defensive ideology would have emerged if the Tallensi had the punitive a n d mutilating initiation rituals t h r o u g h which to gain procreative sexual rights that are found elsewhere. A pointer to what I a m here inferring is the rule, often cited, that the one irreparable breach between father a n d son occurs if the son commits the unforgivable sin of incest with a wife of his father. Indeed it is e n o u g h - since it is taken to imply the wish - for the son to enter the sleeping room a n d sit on the sleeping mat of the father's wife other t h a n his own mother - a n d even that would not be permitted for a boy past infancy. And again similar taboos a r e met with elsewhere in Africa a n d

F o r t e s : Anthropology and the psychological disciplines

209

in o t h e r societies. A m o n g t h e f a m o u s N u e r , for e x a m p l e , 2 ' a m a r r i a g e is not fully e s t a b l i s h e d u n t i l t h e b i r t h of t h e first child. I n d e e d a w o m a n lives w i t h h e r o w n p a r e n t s u n t i l t h e firstborn is w e a n e d a n d only t h e n is t h e h u s b a n d a l l o w e d t o t a k e h e r h o m e to his o w n p a t e r n a l h o m e . N u e r also i m p o s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a v o i d a n c e s o n t h e firstborn. T h e y m u s t never use t h e s p o o n of f a t h e r o r m o t h e r a n d a first son m u s t not sleep or sit o n his m o t h e r ' s s l e e p i n g h i d e - to d o so w o u l d m a k e h e r b a r r e n a n d a l s o i n j u r e his f a t h e r a n d himself. I n d e e d N u e r (like a n u m b e r of o t h e r p e o p l e s ) s e n d a firstborn son a w a y to b e b r o u g h t u p b y his m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s e x p l a i n i n g t h a t this keeps h i m f r o m his p a r e n t s until h e is old e n o u g h to o b s e r v e t h e strict a v o i d a n c e rules. Let m e r e c a p i t u l a t e . T h e d i l e m m a of p a r e n t s - a n d I c l a i m t h a t this is a u n i v e r s a l d i l e m m a - is t h a t o n t h e o n e h a n d t h e y n e e d c h i l d r e n to p e r p e t u a t e t h e m s e l v e s a n d give t h e m s o m e sort of i m m o r t a l i t y , t h e only i m m o r t a l i t y w h i c h is w o r t h having, a n d w h i c h , p e r h a p s , goes d o w n t o phylogenetic needs, a n d therefore they must cherish a n d properly bring up these children. But on the other h a n d , they must, from the m o m e n t of t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s b i r t h , signalled b y t h e arrival of t h e firstborn, face t h e inevitability t h a t t h e y will b e o u s t e d a n d r e p l a c e d b y t h e s e c h i l d r e n . C u l t u r a l ideology m a y provide v a r i o u s r a t i o n a l i s a t i o n s s u c h as, for i n s t a n c e , a belief in D e s t i n y to cover u p t h e d i l e m m a . But t h e a m b i v a lence r e m a i n s , a n a m b i v a l e n c e w h i c h is a c o m p r o m i s e b e t w e e n a r e p r e s s e d u r g e t o d e s t r o y t h e t h r e a t e n i n g c h i l d r e n a n d a c o n s c i o u s love for a n d i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h t h e m . A reversed a m b i v a l e n c e inevitably arises in t h e c h i l d r e n , t h e filial g e n e r a t i o n , i m p e l l e d a s t h e y a r e t o fulfil their d e s t i n y of r e p l a c i n g t h e p a r e n t s as q u i c k l y as possible; a n d t h e focus of t h e s t r u g g l e is t h e p o w e r of, a n d t h e right to exercise t h e p r o creative c a p a c i t y t h a t b r o u g h t t h e m into b e i n g . T h e r e is, in s h o r t , n o q u e s t i o n in m y m i n d b u t t h a t t h e m o s t definitive e x p l a n a t i o n for this s y n d r o m e is to b e f o u n d in t e r m s of t h e classical t h e o r y of t h e O e d i p u s complex' a n d its development t h r o u g h the oedipal phase of filioparental r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o its e v e n t u a l r e p l a c e m e n t by t h e i n t e r n a l i s e d a u t h ority to w h i c h F r e u d g a v e t h e n a m e of t h e ' s u p e r - e g o ' . But t h e r e is a significant m o d i f i c a t i o n t o b e t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t . It is as if t h e d r a m a originally d e p i c t e d b y F r e u d as t a k i n g place, g e n e r a t i o n a f t e r g e n e r ation, in t h e m i n d a n d p e r s o n a l i t y of t h e i n d i v i d u a l is, in t h e k i n d of tribal society I h a v e b e e n d e s c r i b i n g , t h r u s t o u t , e x t e r n a l i s e d , i n t o t h e o p e n of c u s t o m a n d social o r g a n i s a t i o n . B u t w h e r e F r e u d s a w t h e c o n flict of successive g e n e r a t i o n s as e m a n a t i n g solely f r o m t h e aggressive a n d envious w i s h e s of t h e filial g e n e r a t i o n , I see it as e n g e n d e r e d b y t h e reciprocal a m b i v a l e n c e p r e c i p i t a t e d b y t h e c r u c i a l d i l e m m a of p a r e n t hood. 2 9 T h e t a b o o s I h a v e d e s c r i b e d c a n b e t h o u g h t of as a c u l t u r a l l y a u t h o r i s e d a n d t h e r e f o r e socially c o n t r o l l a b l e m e c h a n i s m t h a t p e r m i t s r e g u l a t e d a n d p a r t i a l l y disguised c o n f r o n t a t i o n of t h e i n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l a m b i v a l e n c e a n d so d r a i n s a w a y its d e s t r u c t i v e c h a r g e . T a l l e n s i c u s t o m p r o v i d e s t h e a d d i t i o n a l b a c k i n g of w h a t a m o u n t s t o the e x t e r n a l i s e d ' s u p e r - e g o ' , t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s e d o r g a n of m o r a l a n d

210

Part IV : Anthropology and psychology

ritual c o n t r o l c o m p r i s e d in their a n c e s t o r cult. O n t h e o n e h a n d p a r e n t s derive their a u t h o r i t y f r o m t h e i r position as a g e n t s of t h e ancestors a n d on the o t h e r they fulfil their responsibilities u n d e r t h e c o m p u l s i o n of their d u t y to t h e ancestors. In r e t u r n , in c o m p e n s a t i o n , as it were, t h e y have t h e security of t h e p r o s p e c t of a n c e s t o r h o o d for themselves. T h i s enables t h e m to tolerate a n d keep in check their hostile impulses, w h e t h e r these are consciously felt or not, by the a s s u r a n c e it implies of their b e i n g e n d o w e d with p o w e r a n d a u t h o r i t y forever, even a f t e r d e a t h , a n d of having, c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , t h e p e r p e t u a l filial servitude of their c h i l d r e n . A n u m b e r of p r o b l e m s of g r e a t e r g e n e r a l i m p o r t arise here. But w h a t I w a n t m a i n l y to b r i n g out is t h e o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t c u s t o m , by r e a s o n I t h i n k of its consensual, public, collectively a u t h o r i s e d a n d m a i n t a i n e d c h a r a c t e r , serves t h e p u r p o s e of h a r n e s s i n g to l e g i t i m a t e e n d s h u m a n proclivities t h a t c a n t u r n into p a t h o l o g i c a l forms w h e r e they do not fall within t h e discipline of c u s t o m . T o drive h o m e m y a r g u m e n t let m e c o n t r a s t this a p p r o a c h w i t h o n e t h a t c o m m a n d s w i d e s p r e a d e n t h u s i a s m in a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l circles today, b e i n g a d v a n c e d s o m e t i m e s as s h o w i n g u p t h e i n a d e q u a c i e s of classical f u n c t i o n a l i s m . I refer to t h e a p p r o a c h t h a t derives w i t h o n e m o d i f i c a t i o n or a n o t h e r f r o m t h e linguo- (Gallo-) s t r u c t u r a l i s m associated with t h e work of Professor Lévi-Strauss, a n d I w a n t to t a k e as m y e x a m p l e a brilliant s t u d y b y o n e of m y f o r m e r colleagues, Professor J . S . T a m b i a h . H i s book o n T h a i village B u d d h i s m 3 0 h a s rightly b e e n hailed as a m o d e l of a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l m e t h o d . T o m a k e m y p o i n t , I v e n t u r e to q u o t e in extenso a n analysis I have myself p r o p o s e d 3 1 of a ritual seq u e n c e d e s c r i b e d a n d discussed b y Professor T a m b i a h . His book, I have a r g u e d , sticks firmly to t h e manifest level of cognitive s y m b o l i s m , b r o a d l y along t h e lines laid d o w n in the l i n g u o - s t r u c t u r a l i s t t h e o r y of LéviStrauss. C o n s i d e r , for instance, his a c c o u n t of t h e e n t r y of a m a n into m o n k h o o d , usually after a n earlier period of novicehood. At t h e village level m o n k h o o d is generally a t e m p o r a r y c o m m i t m e n t , followed by a r e t u r n to p e r m a n e n t lay life. R e s t a t i n g t h e descriptive d a t a in a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l l a n g u a g e h e c o n c l u d e s : 'If o r d i n a t i o n to m o n k h o o d is in religious t e r m s a rite of initiation, in social t e r m s it is distinctly a rite of p a s s a g e for y o u n g m e n before t h e y m a r r y a n d set u p their o w n h o u s e h o l d s ' (p. 101). ' W h y t h e n ' he c o n t i n u e s ' d o y o u t h s a n d y o u n g m e n lead a m o n a s t i c life as a p h a s e of their lives?' T h e a n s w e r is t h a t this c o n f e r s merit o n their p a r e n t s . T h e o r d i n a t i o n of a m o n k is usually s p o n s o r e d b y his p a r e n t s , a n d bec o m i n g a m o n k is, T a m b i a h notes, a n expression of 'filial piety', (pp. 102-3). E n t e r i n g a m o n a s t e r y signifies obligatory w i t h d r a w a l f r o m lay life. A n d this m e a n s a b o v e all t h e ' r e n u n c i a t i o n ' (p. 104) or ' s u p p r e s s i o n ' (p. 144) 'of m a l e virility or sexuality a n d similar a t t r i b u t e s of sexual life'. T h i s is d r a m a t i s e d in t h e o r d i n a t i o n

F o r t e s : Anthropology and the psychological disciplines

211

c e r e m o n i e s , w h i c h i n c l u d e a h e a d - s h a v i n g ritual i n t e r p r e t e d b y T a m b i a h as ' s y m b o l i c r e n u n c i a t i o n of sexuality', t h u s m a r k i n g t h e p a s s a g e of t h e o r d i n a n d f r o m t h e lay state to t h e ' o p p o s e d s t a t e ' of m o n k h o o d . O t h e r f e a t u r e s of t h e ritual of o r d i n a t i o n a r e i n t e r p r e t e d in t h e s a m e way, a n d ' t h e ritual as a w h o l e ' says T a m b i a h ' s t a t e s a reciprocal r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n , on the o n e h a n d p a r e n t s a n d kin a n d l a y m e n (in g e n e r a l ) , a n d , o n t h e o t h e r , t h e m o n k ; it also e m p h a s i s e s t h e essential f e a t u r e s of a m o n k ' s life t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e d it f r o m a l a y m a n ' s ' ( p . 108). W h a t t h e n is t h e n a t u r e of this symbiotic reciprocity of rel a t i o n s h i p (p. 143) b e t w e e n m o n k s a n d l a y m e n ? T h e m o n k s cook no food for t h e m s e l v e s - t h e i r food is provided by t h e villagers as a special m e r i t - m a k i n g act a n d is b r o u g h t to t h e m b y u n m a r r i e d girls w h o ' c a n d o so w i t h o u t d a n g e r b e c a u s e t h e m o n k h a s s u p p r e s s e d himself sexually a n d is a s e x u a l ' (p. 144). O t h e r services to satisfy his n e e d s (e.g. c l o t h i n g ) a r e similarly r e n d e r e d by t h e lay p u b l i c ; a n d here c o m e s a n i m p o r t a n t point. T h e s e practical lay activities are r e g a r d e d as polluting, e n t e r e d into, T a m b i a h argues, so t h a t ' t h e religious specialist c a n b e freed to p u r s u e p u r i t y f r o m the w o r l d ' s c o n t a m i n a t i o n s ' . T h u s t h e ' o p p o s i t i o n ' of m o n k s a n d l a y m e n is a n o p p o s i t i o n also of p u r i t y a n d pollution, the critical f e a t u r e of w h i c h is t h e o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n n o n - p r o d u c t i v e ritually obligatory celibacy a n d asceticism, o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d t h e p r o d u c t i v e a n d p r o c r e a t i v e lay activities w i t h o u t w h i c h t h e m o n k s themselves could not exist (p. 148-9). It seems to m e t h a t this a c c o u n t of m o n k h o o d in a T h a i village c o m m u n i t y takes us n o f u r t h e r t h a n t h e manifest descriptive level, simply r e s t a t i n g in a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l l a n g u a g e w h a t t h e eye sees a n d w h a t i n f o r m a n t s tell t h e i n q u i r e r ; b u t psychoanalytically considered these d a t a raise m o r e c o m p l e x theoretical issues. W h y , o n e m i g h t ask, s h o u l d adolescent boys b e willing t o r e n o u n c e their aggression a n d sexuality in o r d e r to confer religious merit on their p a r e n t s ? T o a n s w e r this q u e s t i o n let us a s s u m e t h a t t h e o r d i n a t i o n rites r e p r e s e n t a symbolical, ritually legitimated working-out of repressed rivalry a n d m u t u a l hostility of f a t h e r s a n d sons. C o u l d it b e t h e n t h a t t h e r i t u a l T a m b i a h i n t e r p r e t s as the r e n u n c i a t i o n of sexuality is b e t t e r u n d e r s t o o d as expressing filial s u b m i s s i o n to symbolic c a s t r a t i o n as p r e p a r a t i o n for symbolically regressing to t h e seclusion of infantile i n n o c e n c e a n d d e p e n d e n c e o n p a r e n t s in t h e m o n a s t e r y , a n d b y this sacrifice w i n n i n g t h e merit later to re-enter safely the ' p o l l u t i n g ' life of n o r m a l , t h a t is of sexually a n d economically active, a d u l t h o o d ? Is it wildly speculative to i n t e r p r e t t h e 'filial p i e t y ' p a r a d e d in the i n s t i t u t i o n of m o n k h o o d as a c u s t o m a r i l y legitimate device for c o n v e r t i n g r e p r e s s e d filial hostility into socially respecta b l e h u m i l i t y ? A n d it is of interest to learn, in this connection, t h a t t h e coffin b e a r e r s in t h e c r e m a t i o n c e r e m o n i e s for a d e a d m a n were his sons a n d a son in law, a n d t h a t ' t h e y are exposed to t h e d a n g e r

212

P a r t IV : Anthropology and psychology

t h a t t h e d e a d m a n ' s phii [a kind of s p i r i t u a l d o u b l e ) m a y t a k e hold of t h e m or h a r m t h e m ' (p. 182). A g a i n w o u l d not t h e descriptive o p p o sition b e t w e e n p u r i t y a n d p o l l u t i o n m a k e a n a l y t i c a l sense, a n d raise i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n s for direct o b s e r v a t i o n , if it is t h o u g h t of as a p h a s e of i n f a n t i l e sexual i n n o c e n c e a n d oral d e p e n d e n c e o n the m o t h e r defensively e n f o r c e d by a m b i v a l e n t p a r e n t s , m e t a p h o r i c a l l y s p e a k i n g a ' b a c k to t h e w o m b ' p h a s e , in c o n t r a s t to t h e p a r e n t rejecting s t a g e of sexually active, m a r r i e d a d u l t h o o d ? G r a n t e d t h a t this is all s p e c u l a t i o n , ( b u t cf. L e a c h 3 1 o n t h e c o n n e c tion b e t w e e n h e a d h a i r a n d p o t e n c y , a n d o n t h e c a s t r a t i o n s y m b o l i s m of h e a d s h a v i n g ) I w o u l d nevertheless a r g u e t h a t s u c h a n a p p r o a c h o p e n s u p q u e s t i o n s a n d suggests h y p o t h e s e s t h a t d o not e m e r g e in t h e strictly descriptive e t h n o g r a p h i c n a r r a t i v e - especially if it is c o n s t r u c t e d in t e r m s of t h e intellectualist a p p r o a c h to t h e s t u d y of r i t u a l t h a t is n o w f a v o u r e d b y m a n y a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s (cf. t h e criticism by Horton32). T h e s e speculations are based o n hypotheses a b o u t certain inevitable a n d u n i v e r s a l f e a t u r e s in t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of successive g e n e r a t i o n s of p a r e n t s a n d c h i l d r e n w h i c h a r e derived f r o m p s y c h o a n a l y t i c t h e o r y , u l t i m a t e l y , b u t w h i c h w e r e i m p r e s s e d o n m e as a result of m y field e x p e r i e n c e a m o n g t h e T a l l e n s i . In d i s c u s s i n g T a m b i a h ' s w o r k , I p u r p o s e l y chose to look at a social a n d religious s y s t e m t h a t is, descriptively s p e a k i n g , strikingly d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e A f r i c a n s y s t e m s I a m accustomed to, a n d that is, moreover, depicted in accordance with a c u r r e n t t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n w h i c h c o n t r a s t s w i t h m y o w n . Since f o r m u l a t i n g m y s p e c u l a t i o n s , h o w e v e r , I t h o u g h t it w o u l d b e interesting to c h e c k o n t h e i r p l a u s i b i l i t y f r o m a n o u t s i d e point of view. I d i d have a c h a n c e of o u t l i n i n g t h e m to Professor T a m b i a h himself and was reassured to hear from him that he thought my speculations w e r e not u n r e a s o n a b l e , t h o u g h h e d i d not have t h e kind of field d a t a t h a t c o u l d b e u s e d as a direct c h e c k . But o b s e r v a t i o n s t h a t d o h a v e a b e a r i n g o n t h e q u e s t i o n w e r e b r o u g h t to m y a t t e n t i o n b y Professor M e l f o r d S p i r o . I n t h e c o u r s e of his e x h a u s t i v e s t u d y of B u r m e s e B u d d h i s m " h e investigates in c o n s i d e r a b l e detail t h e ' r e c r u i t m e n t s t r u c t u r e ' of m o n k h o o d (ch. 14, p. 320-50). H e s h o w s t h a t , d e s p i t e t h e obvious e c o n o m i c a n d s t a t u s a d v a n t a g e s o f f e r e d b y m o n k h o o d , ' o n l y a s m a l l m i n o r i t y of village b o y s ' c h o o s e t o e n t e r it (p. 329) w h i c h i m p l i e s t h a t t h e r e a r e selective influences a n d o b s t a c l e s of o t h e r kinds. H e finds t h a t desires t o e s c a p e f r o m difficulties, r e s p o n sibilities a n d p e r s o n a l t r a g e d i e s a r e very i m p o r t a n t . But o n e of t h e u n c o n s c i o u s f a c t o r s b o t h of r e c r u i t m e n t a n d of k e e p i n g m e n in t h e m o n a s t e r i e s , o n e w i t h w h i c h t h e social s t r u c t u r e a n d t h e c u s t o m a r y m o r a l a n d r i t u a l p r e s c r i p t i o n s of m o n k h o o d s e e m to b e p a r t i c u l a r l y c o m p a t i b l e , is w h a t h e d e s c r i b e s a s t h e n e e d or w i s h for d e p e n d e n c y a n d c o m p l e t e security (p. 338-43). T h i s is t a n t a m o u n t t o a d e s i r e for, o r at least to a r e a d i n e s s to find s a t i s f a c t i o n in, b e i n g in t h e ' s t r u c t u r a l p o s i t i o n ' of a y o u n g child. ' T h e m o n k , ' h e writes 'is a b l e to r e i n s t a t e

F o r t e s : Anthropology and the psychological disciplines

213

t h e (real or f a n c i e d ) blissful p e r i o d of i n f a n c y , in w h i c h all n e e d s a r e a n t i c i p a t e d a n d satisfied by t h e a l l - n u r t u r a n t m o t h e r . . . ' t h e m o n k ' s p e r m i t t e d r e g r e s s i o n b e i n g s y m b o l i s e d b y his very a p p e a r a n c e ( s h a v e n h e a d etc.) a n d his ritually p r e s c r i b e d p a t t e r n s of c o n d u c t . It t a k e s h a r d self-discipline, S p i r o s h o w s , for t h e m o n k s t o control t h e i r s e x u a l desires, celibacy b e i n g t h e c r u c i a l m o r a l r e q u i r e m e n t of m o n k h o o d a n d t h e difficulty of t o m e e t i n g this r e q u i r e m e n t is t h e m a i n r e a s o n w h y m o n k s revert t o lay life ( p p . 366-8). T h e s e , a n d o t h e r o b s e r v a t i o n s I h a v e not t h e s p a c e t o cite here, to m y m i n d lend g r e a t p l a u s i b i l i t y t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n I h a v e s u g g e s t e d for Tambiah'sdata. W h a t , t h e n , is t h e lesson of t h e T h a i e x a m p l e ? O n t h e surface, at t h e m a n i f e s t , d e s c r i p t i v e level, t h e r e s e e m s to b e n o t h i n g in c o m m o n bet w e e n t h e i n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l a v o i d a n c e s y n d r o m e of t h e T a l l e n s i a n d t h e a d o l e s c e n t w i t h d r a w a l into m o n k h o o d of t h e T h a i villagers. But w h e n w e realise t h a t t h e latter, like t h e f o r m e r , is a c u s t o m a r y , instit u t i o n a l i s e d p r o c e d u r e t o e n s u r e t h e c o n t a i n m e n t a n d to p r o v i d e a socially l e g i t i m a t e e x p r e s s i o n of t h e universal ' o e d i p a l ' s t r u g g l e between parents a n d children, procreators a n d procreated, those who have the power a n d the cultural supremacy a n d those who must by the i n e x o r a b l e law of life e v e n t u a l l y r e p l a c e t h e m , t h e i r c o m m o n core b e c o m e s e v i d e n t . S t a r t i n g f r o m t h e p o s t u l a t e of a c o m m o n p s y c h o logical n u c l e u s a r o u n d w h i c h t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o m p l e x e s p r e s e n t e d in t h e e t h n o g r a p h y a r e built up, we a r e led o n to ask q u e s t i o n s a n d p r o p o s e h y p o t h e s e s a b o u t a p e o p l e ' s c u s t o m s a n d social s y s t e m t h a t a r e not o t h e r w i s e b r o u g h t to a t t e n t i o n . F o r t h e T a l l e n s i , for e x a m p l e , as for a n u m b e r of o t h e r p e o p l e s of W e s t A f r i c a , t h e evidence suggests t h a t t h e r e is a d i r e c t a n d r e c i p r o c a l l y d e t e r m i n a t i v e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e i r c u s t o m a r y p r o v i s i o n for d e a l i n g w i t h t h e o e d i p a l s t r u g g l e in t h e d o m e s t i c d o m a i n a n d t h e i r a n c e s t o r cult, o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d t h e s t r u c t u r e of a u t h o r i t y r e l a t i o n s in t h e lineage s y s t e m , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d . F o r t h e T h a i villagers, a n a l o g o u s l y , t h e w a y t h e y h a n d l e t h e o e d i p a l c o n f r o n t a t i o n b y s h i f t i n g it to t h e p u b l i c r i t u a l a r e n a of t h e t e m p l e c o r r e l a t e s well w i t h t h e i r d i s r e g a r d of descent in a n y d e p t h a n d is consistent w i t h t h e d i f f u s e p a t t e r n of a u t h o r i t y in t h e village polity a n d t h e B u d d h i s t i c d o c t r i n e s of m o r a l i t y , h u m a n existence a n d r e i n c a r n a t i o n , all of w h i c h t a k e n t o g e t h e r w o u l d s e e m to rule out a n y f o r m of a n c e s t o r worship. Let m e t r y t o s u m u p briefly t h e a r g u m e n t I h a v e b e e n p r e s e n t i n g . It is m y thesis t h a t t h e s i t u a t i o n I have identified as t h e o e d i p a l s t r u g g l e or c o n f r o n t a t i o n is a n intrinsic, i n e s c a p a b l e f e a t u r e of t h e filio-parental r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h r o u g h w h i c h the succession of t h e g e n e r a t i o n s is e n g e n d e r e d . Since this is t h e b a s i s of t h e process of social r e p r o d u c t i o n o n w h i c h t h e c o n t i n u e d existence t h r o u g h t i m e of every society u l t i m a t e l y d e p e n d s , it follows t h a t t h e o e d i p a l c o n f r o n t a t i o n s t a n d s , m e t a p h o r i cally s p e a k i n g , at t h e c e n t r e of gravity of every social s y s t e m . But it is a

214

Part IV : Anthropology and psychology

double-sided situation, creative in its reproductive aspect but also potentially disruptive. In consequence, I a m suggesting, customary devices are f o u n d in m a n y , if not all, h u m a n societies (perhaps most explicitly only in those that a r e relatively stable in structure a n d homogeneous in culture) for controlling this potentiality. T h e s e devices give collective, t h a t is social, recognition to the reality of the oedipal confrontation by a f f o r d i n g to it forms of public expression in the symbolic guise of rationalising ideas, beliefs a n d practices commonly validated by m o r a l a n d religious sanctions, which legitimation, even if it is painful to individuals, enables it to be a b s o r b e d into the reproductive process without d a n g e r to society. I have of course been dealing with a strictly limited field of social structure, a n d observations a p p r o p r i a t e to this field are not necessarily applicable to o t h e r contexts of social life. W i t h i n this context we could, following conventional e t h n o g r a p h i c practice, content ourselves with observing t h a t such c u s t o m s as the avoidances a d h e r e d to by the firstb o r n serve to signify their status in the same way as their prescribed g a r m e n t s signify t h e status of a chief or a tendaana, a m a n or a w o m a n . T h i s tells us how c u s t o m works in a particular social context in a given society. It does not explain why, for instance, the customs I have m e n tioned take t h e specific form of obligatory avoidance designated as binding by reason of taboo, or why they have the content they exhibit relating, for instance, to ways of sharing food or to theories about the m a k e - u p of personality. T o answer such questions, I a m claiming, we must investigate t h e psychological s u b s t r u c t u r e of the social relations we are c o n c e r n e d with, in this case, of the relations of p a r e n t s and childr e n ; a n d the key to this lies, in my opinion, in the psychoanalytical theories of filio-parental relations a n d of what Freud once referred to as ' t h e a n a t o m y of t h e m e n t a l personality'. 3 4

NOTES 1 A. Hingston-Quiggin, Haddon, the Head Hunter, Cambridge, 1942. 2 E. Devons and M . Gluckman, Introduction to M. Gluckman (ed.) Closed Systems and Open Minds, London, 1964. 3 Ibid., p. 214. 4 Ibid., p. 241. 5 E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, Oraclesand Magic among the Azande, Oxford, 1937. 6 C. Kluckhohn, Navaho Witchcraft, Boston, 1941. 7 Devons and G l u c k m a n , op. cit., pp. 240-4. 8 Ibid., pp. 246-7. 9 Ibid., p. 216. 10 C. Lévi-Strauss, L'Homme Nu, Paris, 1971, p. 32. 11 Cf. M. Fortes, Kinship and the Social Order: The Legacy of L.H. Morgan, Chicago, 1969. 12 M. Cole et al., The Cultural Context of Learning and Thinking, London, 1971. 13 B.S. Lloyd, Perception and Cognition: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Middlesex, 1972. 14 C o l e r a / . , op. cit., p. 90. 15 Ibid., p. 140.

Fortes : Anthropology and the psychological disciplines

215

16 Lloyd, op. cit., p p . 126-35. 17 I b i d . , p . 137. 18 A. Kiev, TransculluralPsychiatry, M i d d l e s e x , 1972. 19 Ibid., p. 77. 20 R.A. Le Vine, Culture, Behaviour and Personality, L o n d o n , 1973. 21 M . Fortes, ' T h e first b o r n ' , J . Child Psychol. Psychiat., 1974, 15,81-104. 22 Ibid. 23 Cf. M . Fortes, Oedipus and Job in West African Religion, C a m b r i d g e , 1959. 24 W . H . Newell (ed.) Ancestors, T h e H a g u e , 1976. 25 M . Fortes, ' O n t h e c o n c e p t of t h e p e r s o n a m o n g t h e T a l l e n s i ' , in G . D i e t e r l e n (ed.) La Notion de Personne en Afrique Noire, 1973, C o l l o q u e s I n t e r n a t i o n a u x , no. 544, C e n t r e N a t i o n a l d e la R e c h e r c h e Scientifique, Paris. 26 M . Fortes, ' R e l i g i o u s p r e m i s e s a n d logical t e c h n i q u e in d i v i n a t o r y r i t u a l ' , in A Discussion on Ritualisation of Behaviour in Animals and Man, Philosoph. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 1966, series B, no. 772, vol. 251, 409-22. 27 Fortes, o p . cit., 1974. 28 E.E. E v a n s - P r i t c h a r d , Kmshipand Marriage among the Nuer, O x f o r d , 1951. 29 F o r t e s , o p . c i t . , 1974. 30 S.J. T a m b i a h , Buddhism and the Spirit Cults in North-East Thailand, C a m b r i d g e , 1971. 31 E . R . L e a c h , ' M a g i c a l h a i r ' , J . Roy. Anth. Inst., vol. 88, 2, 147-64. 32 R. H o r t o n , ' N e o - T y l o r i a n i s m ; s o u n d sense or sinister p r e j u d i c e ' , Man, 1968, N.S., vol. 3 , 4 , 6 2 5 - 3 4 . 33 M . Spiro, Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and its Burmese Vicissitudes, L o n d o n , 1971. 34 S. F r e u d , New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, t r a n s l a t e d W . J . H . S p r o t t , L o n d o n , 1933.

I. S. KON Ethnography and psychology F r o m w h i c h e v e r v i e w p o i n t w e look at e t h n o g r a p h y ( e t h n o l o g y ) , its f o r e m o s t s o c i a l t a s k , its raison d'être, is t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of m u t u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g b e t w e e n p e o p l e s , a n d t o t h e p r o m o t i o n of a m e a n i n g f u l d i a l o g u e b e t w e e n t h e m a s n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o o p e r a t i o n . A n e t h n o g r a p h e r m a y b e e n g a g e d in t h e s t u d y of c u l t u r a l s y m b o l s , specific f o r m s of c l o t h i n g , h o u s i n g , o r t h e c u s t o m s of a n e t h n o s , b u t in e a c h of t h e s e c a s e s h e will b e i n t e r e s t e d t o k n o w , in t h e first i n s t a n c e —how, w h e n , a n d w h y d i d t h e s e p h e n o m e n a e m e r g e , a n d t h e n - w h a t a r e t h e i r social f u n c t i o n s in t h e s y s t e m of social r e l a t i o n s of t h e s o c i e t y u n d e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d , last b u t n o t least - t h e i r m e a n i n g for i n d i v i d u a l s a s t h e a u t h o r s , b e a r e r s , a n d r e c i p i e n t s of t h e i r i n f l u e n c e . T h e first q u e s t i o n n e c e s s a r i l y calls for t h e c o l l a b o r a t i o n of e t h n o g r a p h y with history, t h e s e c o n d - w i t h sociology, t h e t h i r d - w i t h psychology. T h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of i n t e r n a t i o n a l a n d i n t e r c u l t u r a l c o n t a c t s , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n of s o c i a l a n d c u l t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t a n d i n n o v a t i o n in t h e t i m e of t h e s c i e n t i f i c a n d t e c h n o l o g i c a l r e v o l u t i o n , m a k e t h e ' c o m m u n i c a t i v e ' a s p e c t of e t h n o g r a p h y h i g h l y v a l u a b l e a n d responsible today. B u t a s r e g a r d s t h e c o m m u n i c a t i v e q u a l i t i e s of m a n a n d his a b i l i t y t o u n d e r s t a n d o t h e r s d e v e l o p , b o t h in o n t o g e n e s i s a n d p h y l o g e n e s i s , t h e r e e x i s t s a s t a b l e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e p a r a l l e l w i t h t h e e v o l u t i o n of his o w n self-consciousness. M o d e r n developmental psychology has proved that t h e a t t i t u d e of t h e c h i l d t o w a r d s o t h e r p e o p l e p a s s e s t h r o u g h t h e s a m e p r i n c i p a l s t a g e s of d e v e l o p m e n t a s his o w n self. T h i s d e v e l o p m e n t s t a r t s in t h e u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d w h o l e in w h i c h ' e g o ' a n d ' a l t e r ' a r e m e r g e d , a c h i l d is a s e a s i l y p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y ' i n f e c t e d ' f r o m o u t s i d e , as it will a s c r i b e to o t h e r s its o w n m o t i v e s a n d feelings. W h e n t h e i n c o n g r u i t y of ' s e l f ' a n d ' t h e o t h e r ' is r e a l i s e d , t h e d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t i n g b e t w e e n t h e m a r e b r o u g h t t o l i g h t . At t h i s s t a g e ' t h e o t h e r ' is c o n c e i v e d a s a n e x t e r n a l b e i n g , w h o s e b e h a v i o u r is e x p l a i n e d b y t h e logic of t h e s i t u a t i o n ; h e m a y b e t h e o b j e c t of a m o r e o r less c o n s c i o u s m a n i p u l a t i o n , b u t his i n n e r f e e l i n g s a n d m o t i v e s r e m a i n c l o s e d for t h e c h i l d . A c c o r d i n g t o H o f f m a n ' s 1 s u m m a r y of r e s e a r c h findings, c h i l d r e n at

218

Part IV: Anthropology and psychology

the age of a b o u t one are capable of recognising others as separate physical beings; by the age of about two t o three they r e q u i r e a r u d i m e n t a r y knowledge that others have independent feelings of their own; a n d by the age of about six to nine they begin to realise that people have their o w n identity beyond the i m m e d i a t e situation. U n d e r s t a n d i n g comes only as a result of assuming the role o f ' a n o t h e r ' , a n d in this process the latter is no more an alien or a stranger, but becomes an interlocutor or a n 'alter ego'. Subsequently, in the course of such dialogues, the child's self-image becomes more differentiated, comprehensive a n d stable, a n d this serves as the starting point for all further c o m m u n i c a t i o n . A similar trend c a n be observed in the development of ethnic selfawareness a n d even in the science of e t h n o g r a p h y itself, with t h e only difference that egocentrism is replaced by ethnocentrism. T h e naive ethnocentric a s s u m p t i o n that peoples all over the world are similar, or at least, follow a way similar to ours, has been replaced by a m a z e m e n t in t h e face of the 'strangeness' of alien customs a n d morals, which b e c o m e the object of a n external classification, alongside with a complete inability to u n d e r s t a n d their internal coherence. Later on there comes u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the structural and functional unity in the life of a n ethnos, a c c o m p a n i e d by relativism a n d a stress on the ethnocultural peculiarities. Finally there emerges the endeavour to explain these peculiarities not only by including t h e m in a specific social a n d historical context, but also by c o m p r e h e n d i n g the existential m e a n i n g of every institution, social norm, s t a n d a r d , etc. T h e complexity of this task inevitably brings forth a higher level of theoretical a n d m e t h o d ological reflection, in which the unconscious e t h n o c e n t r i s m of the researcher as well as the imperfection of his methodological tools may be overcome. T h e longing for objective knowledge, which does not take a n y person for a simple echo of one's own self, is combined with disa p p o i n t m e n t with naturalistic models, r e g a r d i n g others as m e r e objects, a n d t h u s being unable to perceive their subjective selves, a n d u n a b l e to go beyond the saying : 'east is east a n d west is west . . . ' However, the relation between objects, p r o b l e m s a n d m e t h o d s in m o d e r n science forms a very complicated p a t t e r n which does not a n d cannot coincide with traditional interdisciplinary boundaries, which have emerged spontaneously a n d in answer to q u i t e different p r o b l e m s . Alongside 'classical' monodisciplinary topics, the elaboration of which r e m a i n s fully in the h a n d s of specific scholars a n d which n o b o d y else would a t t e m p t to u n d e r t a k e (either d u e to their great specificity or to their small attractiveness for others), there emerges a n u m b e r of m a r ginal fields of study a n d problems, interdisciplinary by their very n a t u r e , which cannot be solved in t e r m s of any single discipline. T h i s gives rise to certain difficulties. Every science is b u t a g a m e with its own rules which are not to be altered at will nor to be s u p p l e m e n t e d by others (this being especially true if applied to methodology). But new p r o b l e m s cannot be kept within the limits of old b o u n d a r i e s a n d traditions. And if we are not carried along by t h e very p r o c e d u r e s of a

Kon : Ethnography and psychology

219

scientific game, b u t are keenly interested in the dynamics of a social p h e n o m e n o n , we must use a new a p p r o a c h to the problem or, unless more elaborate theories are developed, we should at least consider in what ways this p r o b l e m is conceptualised by neighbouring sciences. T h e comparison (or, rather, juxtaposition) of a p p r o a c h e s seems to be more fruitful t h a n the concern with preserving interdisciplinary b o u n d aries which have long since lost their watchtowers or their guards. Bearing all this in mind, what should be our conception of the relations between ethnology a n d psychology? T h e i r connections have always been very close. Bromley 2 justly says that e t h n o g r a p h y a n d psychology are jointly interested in two fields of scientific problems. T h e first a n d widest comprises the study of national character, peculiarities of ethnic mentality, the c h a r a c t e r of the culture derived therefrom, the symbolic world, moral a n d ethnic norms, a n d the value orientations of diverse peoples. T h e features a p p r o p r i a t e to ethnic psychology m a y be expressed immediately in ideological forms (such as art, religion, etc.) or indirectly t h r o u g h specific ways of culture transmission, child rearing a n d socialisation, sex role differentiation, etc. In the n a r r o w a n d m o r e specified limits of research we m a y n a m e t h e ethnic self-awareness proper, t h a t is, how a n d in what terms do individuals conceive their ethnic affiliation a n d the m e a n i n g they attach to the idea; the ethnic stereotypes a n d auto-stereotypes, a n d their tendencies a n d m e c h a n i s m s of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n u n d e r the impact of education, interethnic contacts, the internationalisation of everyday life a n d means of p r o d u c t i o n . Each of these p r o b l e m s may be considered on three different levels: first the macrosocial, or sociological (that is, in what ways will certain features a n d relations be implemented in culture, social structure a n d modes of life of a nation); secondly the interpersonal, or sociopsychological (in what forms will they be reflected in i m m e d i a t e inter-personal relations a n d contacts); thirdly the intra-individual, or psychological (their manifestation in the qualities a n d traits of a n individual, in his social attitudes, value orientations, etc.). T h e s e aspects may be r e g a r d e d as mutually c o m p l e m e n t a r y yet their study calls for specific research m e t h o d s a n d 'belongs ' to different branches of science. In compliance with the existing traditions, e t h n o g r a p h y deals chiefly with psychic processes a n d characteristics implemented a n d objectified in a certain culture, whereas the manifestation of these ethnocultural features in the individual is the task of psychology. Each of these sciences cannot exist separately or proceed without the aid of the others. Disregarding the ethnocultural differences, the psychologist risks a p plying some specific characteristics of, say, a n A m e r i c a n schoolboy to h u m a n n a t u r e at large (this has often been the case); but the ethnographer, too, c a n n o t explain these differences without making the most of his experience in psychology. Even while studying c o m m o n problems of ethno-psychology they will use different approaches. T h e e t h n o g r a p h e r is inclined to generalise his findings concerning national

220

P a r t IV : Anthropology and psychology

c h a r a c t e r , etc. o n t h e basis of s y n o p t i c investigations in t h e p h e n o m e n a of c u l t u r e , l a n g u a g e , religion a n d i n s t i t u t i o n s of socialisation. O n the o t h e r h a n d , t h e psychologist will d r a w his c o n c l u s i o n s f r o m statistical d a t a c o m p r i s i n g his e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d y of i n d i v i d u a l s b e l o n g i n g to various e t h n i c g r o u p s . T h a t also m e a n s p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a i n i n g . Still, h o w e v e r i m p o r t a n t t h e i r diversity, t h e t w o disciplines not only c o m p l e t e o n e a n o t h e r , b u t also m u t u a l l y p e n e t r a t e o n e into t h e o t h e r . In o u r d a y s t h e psychologists t a k e it for g r a n t e d t h a t n o specific t h e o r y c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d valid or universal w i t h o u t b e i n g c o n f i r m e d by crossc u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h , a n d in e t h n o g r a p h y m o r e a n d m o r e i m p o r t a n c e is a s c r i b e d to ' p s y c h o l o g i c a l ' topics. I n a review o f ' p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n t h r o p o l o g y ' , in The Handbook of Social ana Cultural Anthropologyi Erica B o u r g u i g n o n m e n t i o n s , a m o n g s t o t h e r s , t h e p r o b l e m s of b e h a v i o u r a l evolution, t h e p s y c h i c u n i t y of m a n k i n d a n d t h e g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r of h u m a n n a t u r e , t h e c o m p a r a t i v e s t u d y of p e r c e p t i o n a n d c o g n i t i o n , personality, child training a n d socialisation, cultural changes, a n d crossc u l t u r a l statistics. T h e Handbook also c o n t a i n s s e p a r a t e reviews of cognitive anthropology (by D u r b i n ) , belief systems (by Black), symbolism in t h e r i t u a l c o n t e x t (by M u n n ) , c u l t u r a l p s y c h i a t r y (by K e n n e d y ) , identity, c u l t u r e , a n d b e h a v i o u r (by R o b b i n s ) . It r e m a i n s all b u t s u r p r i s i n g a n d s y m p t o m a t i c t h a t , a m o n g t h e s e problems, no mention has been m a d e o f ' e t h n o p s y c h o l o g y ' . However widely this t e r m is u s e d , G u i l l e m a i n , e d i t o r of t h e j o u r n a l Ethnopsychologie, calling it ' t o o b a d ' , p r o p o s e s to s u b s t i t u t e for it ' d i f f e r e n t i a l collective ethology'. 4 N o b o d y would d e n y the necessity of studying ethnic peculiarities in b e h a v i o u r a n d m e n t a l i t y . B u t w i t h i n w h i c h t h e o r e t i c a l a n d m e t h o d o l o g i c a l s y s t e m s h o u l d this s t u d y b e l o c a t e d ? N u m e r o u s fields of k n o w l e d g e , t h e titles of w h i c h b e g i n w i t h ' e t h n o - ' ( e t h n o s o c i o logy, e t h n o l i n g u i s t i c s , e t h n o d e m o g r a p h y , e t h n o g e o g r a p h y , etc.), a r e theoretically a n d m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y t h e b r a n c h e s of respective f u n d a m e n t a l sciences (sociology, linguistics, etc.), t h e prefix ' e t h n o - ' b e i n g used only as a d e f i n i t i o n of t h e i r objects. I n fact, for t h e s t u d y of ' p s y c h o l o g y of p e o p l e s ' t h e t r a d i t i o n a l m e t h o d s of p s y c h o l o g y a r e evidently insufficient. H e n c e t h e diversity of t h e o r e t i c a l a n d m e t h o d ological o r i e n t a t i o n s . A m e r i c a n c u l t u r a l a n t h r o p o l o g y , in t h e w o r k s of M e a d , B e n e d i c t , L i n t o n , K a r d i n e r a n d K l u c k h o h n , stresses t h e s t u d y of p s y c h o l o g i c a l t y p e s of p e r s o n a l i t y a n d m e t h o d s of socialisation, w h e r e a s British social a n t h r o p o l o g y , b e g i n n i n g w i t h R a d c l i f f e - B r o w n , d i s p l a y s a s t r o n g t e n d e n c y t o w a r d s t h e a n a l y s i s of social s t r u c t u r e ; t h e F r e n c h school, following t h e e x a m p l e of D u r k h e i m , L é v y - B r u h l a n d M a u s s , p o i n t s out t h e i m p o r t a n c e of t h e genesis of collective r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , w h i c h i n c l u d e s t h e n o t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y (see, for e x a m p l e , works by G r i a u l e a n d L e e n h a r d t ) . T h i s d i v e r g e n c e in o r i e n t a t i o n , t h o u g h p a r t l y o b l i t e r a t e d n o w a d a y s , is still visibly p r e s e n t . 5 All t h e s e p r o b l e m s a r e also widely d i s c u s s e d in Soviet science. A n u m b e r of w o r k s have b e e n p u b l i s h e d d u r i n g t h e c u r r e n t d e c a d e in t h e U S S R , d e a l i n g w i t h g e n e r a l m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e s of r e s e a r c h in

K o n : Ethnography and psychology

221

e t h n o p s y c h o l o g y , 6 n a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r , 7 c o r r e l a t i o n of e t h n i c c o n s c i o u s n e s s a n d s p i r i t u a l c u l t u r e , 8 p r o b l e m s of e t h n i c s e l f - a w a r e n e s s , 9 t h e n a t u r e of e t h n i c s t e r e o t y p e s a n d p r e j u d i c e 1 0 a n d psychological a s p e c t s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s in U S S R . " I m m e d i a t e l y r e l a t e d to t h e s e a r e t h e s t u d i e s in t h e fields of p s y c h o - a n d socio-linguistics. O f c o u r s e , Soviet a n d w e s t e r n s t u d i e s effectively d i f f e r in m a n y w a y s . Soviet a u t h o r s a r e e a g e r to set u p ideological b o u n d a r i e s a g a i n s t biologically o r i e n t e d t h e o r i e s a n d a t t e m p t s t o r e d u c e t h e social s t r u c t u r e of a society a n d even t h e h i s t o r i c a l p r o c e s s itself to s o m e universal p s y c h i c f a c t o r s , as w a s t h e c a s e in ' p s y c h o l o g i c a l sociology ' or in p s y c h o a n a l y s i s in t h e l a t e n i n e t e e n t h a n d e a r l y t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r i e s . T h e m a j o r i t y of Soviet p u b l i c a t i o n s a r e closer to p h i l o s o p h y , sociology a n d c u l t u r o l o g y t h a n t h e y a r e to p s y c h o l o g y p r o p e r . A few essays a p p r o a c h i n g t h e s e s u b j e c t s h a v e b e e n w r i t t e n b y psychologists, b u t t h e y w e r e c o n c e r n e d not so m u c h with t h e s t u d y of ethno-specific aspects of mental processes, as w i t h t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t . 1 2 A m o n g w e s t e r n p u b l i c a t i o n s m o s t a c c l a i m e d is t h e F r e n c h school of historical p s y c h o l o g y h e a d e d b y M e y e r s o n , et al. L a t e l y several e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s o n e t h n i c a t t i t u d e s a n d s t e r e o t y p e s have a p p e a r e d , b a s e d o n m e t h o d s of social psychology." A c c e p t i n g t h e reality of p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n n a t i o n s , Soviet s c h o l a r s see t h e m as r e s u l t i n g f r o m social a n d historical d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d e x p l a i n t h e m a s i n f l u e n c e d b y a long p e r i o d of c o h a b i t a t i o n in c o m m o n n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t , w i t h c o m m o n social activity a n d specific c h a n n e l s of c o m m u n i c a t i o n . T h e u n i q u e f e a t u r e s of t h e p s y c h i c c o n s t i t u t i o n of a n a t i o n ( n a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r ) a n d of n a t i o n a l c u l t u r e d o not e x c l u d e t h e fact t h a t all e l e m e n t s of t h e s e s t r u c t u r e s m a y b e r e p r o d u c i b l e , o r p r e s e n t in m a n y o t h e r n a t i o n s . A n y e t h n o p s y c h o l o g i c a l t r a i t s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d as relative, a n d p r e s u p p o s e s o m e k i n d of c o m p a r i s o n w i t h o t h e r e t h n i c c o m m u n i t i e s . T h e firm s t a b i l i t y of c e r t a i n e t h n o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l q u a l i t i e s does not e x c l u d e t h e i r historical v a r i a b i l i t y u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e of c h a n g e s in life c o n d i t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g c r o s s - e t h n i c c o n t a c t s . W h e t h e r a n d t o w h a t d e g r e e t h e typical f e a t u r e s of a n e t h n o s , i m p l e m e n t e d in its c u l t u r e , a r e also d i s s i p a t e d a m o n g t h e i n d i v i d u a l s f o r m i n g this e t h n i c g r o u p , is c o n s i d e r e d a q u e s t i o n o p e n for d i s c u s s i o n . W e r e this q u e s t i o n a n s w e r e d positively, o n e n e v e r t h e l e s s w o u l d not b u t seek t h e p r e s e n c e of i m p o r t a n t i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n s , to w h i c h , in a class society, t h e social class d i f f e r e n c e s a r e to b e a d d e d , w h i c h m a y o u t w e i g h t h e e t h n i c influences (this b e i n g the major argument against the theory of'basic personality'). Based o n t h e s e s h a r e d positions, Soviet s c h o l a r s do, however, have s o m e d i v e r g e n t ideas. S o m e a u t h o r s , while a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h e differences b e t w e e n n a t i o n a l c u l t u r e s , a r e in o p p o s i t i o n to s u c h n o t i o n s as ' n a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r ' or ' n a t i o n a l t y p e of m e n t a l i t y ' as psychological p h e n o m e n a ; t h e respective section of a p o p u l a r t e x t b o o k on social p s y c h o l o g y is c a u t i o u s l y e n t i t l e d not ' N a t i o n a l p s y c h o l o g y ' , but ' N a t i o n a l f e a t u r e s in p s y c h o l o g y ' . 1 4 T h e ethno-specific traits m a y be

222

Part IV : Anthropology and psychology

differently reflected in various elements of culture. Although the ' n a t i o n a l h a l o ' is i m p l e m e n t e d in m a n y forms of all arts, its intensity a n d definition are far f r o m equally expressed. K a g a n 1 5 says t h a t we, for instance, c a n easily m a k e sense of t h e difference in the musical orders of R u s s i a n a n d Italian songs, in U k r a i n i a n and Uzbek decorative o r n a ment, in plastic forms of A m e r i c a n a n d Chinese architecture, but t h e r e is no such thing as ' R u s s i a n d r a w i n g ' , ' G e r m a n colours', ' S p a n i s h perspective', ' E n g l i s h p r o p o r t i o n ' , ' G e o r g i a n composition', a n d so on. T h e p r o b l e m of ethnospecific features implied in unconscious psychic processes has not as yet been fully investigated. Speaking of collaboration of e t h n o g r a p h y a n d psychology, we have to consider t h e internal differentiations of both disciplines. T h e study of national c h a r a c t e r is closely related to the psychology of personality, whereas t h e ethnic stereotypes are related to social psychology, a n d age stratification to the psychology of development. W e should also r e m e m b e r t h a t the m u t u a l interaction of e t h n o g r a p h y a n d psychology is never exclusively binary, being always u n d e r the influence of certain sociological a n d historical variables. T h a t is, if the e t h n o g r a p h e r is interested in the division of l a b o u r b e t w e e n m e n a n d w o m e n (sex roles), a n d in t h e respective stereotypes of a n ethnos, he will have to take into account the findings of c o n t e m p o r a r y psychology in sex differences, as one of t h e aspects of differential psychology; but in doing so he will also have to m a k e use of t h e sociological conception of sex role a n d of conc o m i t a n t historical d a t a . T h e diversity of possible i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of any p h e n o m e n o n in question is evident: we m a y r e g a r d t h e ritual of initiation (rite de passage) either as a n element of ethno-specific cultural symbolism, or as a special case of life-span periodisation, or as a social m e c h a n i s m linking age stratification with inter-generational culture transmission. All this requires not only t h o r o u g h interdisciplinary knowledge, but also logical lucidity a n d a systematic a p p r o a c h to the p r o b l e m . I would like to illustrate this complexity by one e x a m p l e which, to my mind, is extremely exciting. It is the problem of self, or rather, of selfimage. T h e individual's idea of himself is an i m p o r t a n t element both of culture a n d of personality. T h e self-image m a y be considered from different points of view. T h e r e c a n be no reasonable activity without some kind of self-awareness. But t h e self-image has some special aspects too: the psychological differential - it d e p e n d s on sex, age a n d individual qualities ; the socio-historical element - m o d e r n m a n sees himself differently f r o m a m a n in the M i d d l e Ages ; a n d the ethno-psychological - the difference b e t w e e n a E u r o p e a n a n d a n African, or a n o t h e r self. H o w c a n these aspects be c o o r d i n a t e d ? Initial investigations of the p r o b l e m 1 6 were based on the direct contrast b e t w e e n the integral, a u t o n o m o u s and invisible self of a 'civilised' E u r o p e a n a n d the diffuse, vague self of a 'primitive', with no idea of his own personality, with a n identity which is a mere lien de participation. But starting with the p a p e r of M a u s s , 1 7 this overall contrast of ' p r i m i t i v e '

K o n : Ethnography and psychology

223

a n d 'civilised' selves has given way to c o m p a r i s o n of concrete notions of self in various cultures and ethnoses. T h e historical aspect of this process h a s been developed by the French school of historical psychology (e.g. M e y e r s o n a n d V e r n a n t ) the principles of which were fully implem e n t e d in the p a p e r s of the interdisciplinary colloquium on personality p r o b l e m s . " T h e ethnological line of research, less u n i f o r m in its theoretical orientation (here I have in m i n d the influence of psychoanalysis) was r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e researches of, for example, Griaule, Leenhardt, Dieterien, T h o m a s , Benedict, Fortes, Hollowell a n d H o n i g m a n n . T h e results of this research were reflected in t h e p a p e r s of the S y m p o s i u m La Notion de Personne en Afrique Noire.19 T h e s e diverse scientific trends d o however have a s h a r e d tendency to overcome the d a n g e r s of evolutionism a n d Euro-centrism, by limiting their researches with an a t t e m p t to reconstruct t h e system of notions belonging to a specific culture, such as t h a t of ancient Greece or of a distinct ethnos, be it the B a m b a r a , Dogons, or M e l a n e s i a n s . T h i s a p p r o a c h helps to describe individual traits of a given c u l t u r e and its type of personality, a n d has some a d v a n t a g e s over general philosophic speculations. But d o these individual p a t t e r n s express some general trends a n d stages in t h e development of h u m a n self-awareness a n d personality? In almost every book describing t h e J a p a n e s e personality 2 0 the a u t h o r s point to the fact that E u r o p e a n c u l t u r e r e g a r d s the individual as a n a u t o n o m o u s subject of his activities, a n d underlines the entity, integrity a n d identity in all manifestations of his self; the splintered image of self, t h e lack of unity are regarded as a b n o r m a l , u n w h o l e s o m e a n d even pathological. A contrary opinion exists in traditional J a p a n e s e culture, where the d e p e n d e n c e of the individual on his social group is stressed, a n d the person is seen instead as a complex system of different ' r a n g e s ' of duties a n d responsibilities: duties t o w a r d s one's E m p e r o r which are c o m b i n e d in the range of chu; duties t o w a r d s one's p a r e n t s the r a n g e of ko; duties towards people w h o have d o n e a n y favour to the person - the r a n g e of giri; duties of fidelity, loyalty a n d h u m a n i t y - the range ofjin; responsibility to one's own self in the d o m a i n of feelings and physical pleasures - the range ninjo. E u r o p e a n s will evaluate a person 'as a whole', believing all his actions in different circumstances to be the external manifestation of his identity. In J a p a n the value of any person is relative a n d dependent on the r a n g e within which his actions are considered. T h e J a p a n e s e would not n a m e a person good or bad, in general, but they will say that he knows thejzfl, but is ignorant of the giri. T h e E u r o p e a n concept explains the actions of m e n from 'within', a s s u m i n g t h a t he is doing this or that out of his feelings of gratitude, patriotism, or from m e r c e n a r y motives, a n d so on; from the moral aspect, the motive of the action is often considered m o r e important t h a n the deed itself. In J a p a n one's behaviour is expected to depend on general rules, regulations a n d moral n o r m s : the person should act in this or t h a t way m i n d i n g the chu, ko or giri. It is not so i m p o r t a n t why the

224

Part IV : Anthropology and psychology

person is doing this or that, but r a t h e r w h e t h e r he is doing the right or wrong thing in the light of the socially approved schedule of duties. These diversities are interrelated with the system of social a n d cultural conditions. T h e traditional J a p a n e s e culture was formed u n d e r the strong influence of Confucianism, a n d is not individualistic in its core. T h e individual is considered, not as an absolute value, but as a cluster of specific duties a n d responsibilities derived from his belonging to his family or c o m m u n i t y . In traditional J a p a n , the self-awareness of a J a p a n e s e was fused with some conception of expected role behaviour, often idealized in his mind as a set of internalized s t a n d a r d s or directives. Accordingly, in psychological terms, his 'ego ideal' was conceptualized as some particular form of idealized role behaviour. A J a p a n e s e would have felt uncomfortable in thinking of his 'self' as something separable from his role. 21 T h o u g h this contrast of a E u r o p e a n with a J a p a n e s e seems to be valid a n d does not arouse any doubts, two questions may still be asked: first, are these differences ethno-specific a n d characteristic of the J a p a n e s e only, or is this type of self-image typical for a certain stage of socio-economic a n d cultural development? Secondly, how close is the correspondence of cultural symbols implemented in religion a n d philosophy, with the ideas a n d behaviour of the individual, a n d vice versa ? In other words, do the E u r o p e a n s a n d the J a p a n e s e really feel a n d act in the ways prescribed by their respective traditional models, or, on the contrary, strict a n d powerful t h o u g h these symbols might be in theory, are they p e r h a p s not as effective a n d obvious in every-day practice? T h e contrasting o f ' p o l a r profiles' allows one to highlight t h e differences, but one is in d a n g e r of overestimating them. However different J a p a n a n d E u r o p e m a y be, the J a p a n e s e idea of self is in some aspects similar to the notion of personality existing in medieval Europe. 2 2 In m o d e r n J a p a n u r b a n youth is becoming ever m o r e egocentric, a n d lays more value on the motives of personal self-assertion a n d achievement, which in the past would have been symbolised in terms of familial affiliation or loyalty to one's particular group. T h e results of mass questionnaires show that the n u m b e r of J a p a n e s e preferring the ideal o f ' e a s y - g o i n g life' has increased from 32 per cent in 1953 to 62 per cent in 1973, whereas the n u m b e r of advocates of the 'moralistic m o d e of living' has decreased from 39 to 16 per cent. 2 5 Nevertheless, certain traditional ethno-psychological features have been preserved in cultural s t a n d a r d s as well as in individual m i n d s . Social psychologists 2 4 engaged in the study of ethnic stereotypes have compared the self-descriptions of six-, ten-, fourteen-year-old children belonging to various ethno-linguistic groups (e.g. Americans, F r e n c h , G e r m a n s , English a n d French C a n a d i a n s , Brazilians, T u r k s , a n d Lebanese). T h e y were to answer the questions: ' W h a t are you?; W h a t

K o n : Ethnography and psychology

225

else are you?; C a n you think of a n y t h i n g else you are?' T h e J a p a n e s e children were a great contrast to all other children : d u e to the paucity of their self-descriptions they used far fewer self-characterisations t h a n o t h e r children, although the s a m p l e included children of nations at a lower stage of socio-economic development t h a n the J a p a n e s e . T h e m a s s questionnaires also show t h a t ' t h e p a t t e r n of behaviour in social life, whose supporters never assert independence nor approve of it in others a n d place great i m p o r t a n c e on personal relations, has remained c o n s t a n t t h o u g h t h e r e were m a n y changes in various other opinions. A sense of the 'individual' is veiled in the mist of a sense o f ' g r o u p ' , as it were'. 2 5 T h a t m e a n s that the ethno-psychological differences, whatever their historical sources might be, are very stable a n d are expressed not only in generalised cultural symbols, but also in the c o m m o n p l a c e mind. But here we r u n into a n o t h e r difficulty. Ideological forms, be they religion or philosophy, are systemic wholes a n d this makes their study easier. In the course of ethnological research the degree of clarity a n d systemic consistency is, as it were, even f u r t h e r increased by the efforts of scholars w h o place the a m o r p h o u s (as they see it) d a t a into a strict logically consecutive scheme. But by this process the inconsistency a n d incongruity i m m a n e n t in every culture are almost always diminished, a n d its internal substantive a n d functional nuances a n d contradictions are obliterated. (For criticism of s t a t e m e n t s resulting from the organisation of oral evidence into tables, see Goody. ) 26 Typological procedures a n d notions (as, for instance, the 'African personality') underline the original, individual character of the subject in question a n d help to interpret it as a certain whole. But if its implicit f r a m e of reference is not taken into account (for example, that the notion of ' A f r i c a n personality' h a s m e a n i n g only as the antithesis of ' E u r o p e a n personality'), one is in d a n g e r of overgeneralising a n d exaggerating ethnospecific traits of an individual, or culture. T h e conception of m a n articulated in the belief-systems of a given culture, a n d the individual self-image revealed by empirical psychology, will never fully coincide. T h e comparative a n d historical studies of the notion of personality are u n d o u b t e d l y very i m p o r t a n t a n d valuable. But m o d e r n psychology does not regard the self-image as a m e r e cognitive construction (a concept, or a n idea) b u t also as a social attitude, or better, as an attitude cluster, in which the cognitive elements (the self-idea, etc.) are tightly connected with emotional (self-evaluation, etc.) a n d behavioural elements as well. T h e various elements of this attitude cluster are not formed simultaneously a n d m a y have different meanings at different stages of the life cycle, being dependent on the n a t u r e of one's personal experience and activities. T h a t is why the comparison of self-images of different individuals should be u n d e r t a k e n not from one aspect alone, but along the lines of various p a r a m e t e r s , such as the degree of cognitive complexity, stability, internal coherence, self-consciousness, a n d self-

226

Part IV : Anthropology and psychology

esteem. T h i s conceptual framework, with some modifications, m a y also be applied to ethno-psychology, possibly allowing an increase in the n u m b e r of cross-cultural comparisons. But we have to r e m e m b e r that analytical reduction of the complex to the simple, of the whole to the c o m b i n a t i o n of qualities a n d of the structure to its elements, entails the d a n g e r of blurring a n d u n d e r r a t i n g the qualitative, individual distinctions between cultures. T h e typological a n d statistical m e t h o d s of a p p r o a c h c a n n o t be r e d u c e d one to the other; nor can the culturological a n d the individual-psychological levels of investigation. A n d that is why they are always complementary. Both culture a n d personality can be studied on different levels, a n d the higher their stage of development is, the greater a n d more i m p o r t a n t is the range of individual variations. Psychology helps the ethnologist to u n d e r s t a n d t h a t the 'pluralisme cohérent' 2 7 of the African personality, so important on the level of cultural symbolism, does not exclude the awareness by the African of his psychophysiological identity which is a necessary c o m p o n e n t a n d condition of a n y p u r p o s e ful activity a n d behavioural continuity. O n the other h a n d , psychologists found that illiterate p e a s a n t s f r o m b a c k w a r d regions in Uzbekistan, in the early 1930s, were at a loss w h e n asked to characterise their inner states a n d qualities, trying instead to describe their actions, or o u t w a r d circumstances (e.g. n a m i n g a m o n g their 'foibles', their ' b a d neighbours') 2 8 a n d will not only be led to interpret these matters as a certain developmental stage of cognitive processes, but will also have to take into account the position of the individual in the traditional culture of his respondents. T h e principle of historicism, equally i m p o r t a n t for e t h n o g r a p h y as for psychology, is not synonymous with vulgar evolutionism, but is its opposite, because it conceives the process of historical development to be as divergent as ontogenesis itself. T h e essence of the p r o b l e m is not to be reduced to the degree of development of individuality, or even to the value ascribed to it by a given culture. (The desire 'to free a p e r s o n from his self, typical of the Chinese and Japanese cultural tradition, indicates in fact the existence of this self, a point which should not be overlooked.) It is only the systematic contrasting a n d comparison of the different types of individual development in ethnosocial e n v i r o n m e n t s which will lead to the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the overall regularities in the formation of the h u m a n self and self-awareness. A n d this is a s h a r e d p r o b l e m for psychology a n d ethnology.

NOTES 1 M.L. Hoffman, 'Developmental synthesis of affect and cognition and its implications for altruistic motivation', Developmental Psychology. 1975, vol. 2, no. 5, September, 607-22. 2 Yu.V. Bromley, Ethnos and Ethnography, Moscow, 1973 (in Russian).

K o n : Ethnography and psychology

227

3 J . J . H o n i g m a n n (ed.) Handbook of Social and Cultural Anthropology, C h i c a g o , 1973. 4 B. G u i l l e m a i n , ' W o r l d c u l t u r e a n d t h e present age', Inostranma Literatura, no. 1, 1976 (in R u s s i a n ) . 5 J . L o m b a r d , ' L ' e t h n o p s y c h o l o g i e devant le d o u b l e c o u r a n t d e l ' a n t h r o p o l o g i e ' , Ethnopsychologie, J u i n - S e p t e m b r e , 1974. 6 B r o m l e y , op. cit. I.S. K o n , ' O n t h e p r o b l e m of n a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r ' , History and Psychology, M o s c o w , 1971 (in R u s s i a n ) , a n d in F r e n c h t r a n s l a t i o n , ' L e p r o b l è m e d u c h a r a c t è r e n a t i o n a l ' , Ethnopsychologie, J u i n - S e p t e m b r e , 1974. S.I. Korolev, Problems of Ethnopsychology m the Works of Foreign Authors, M o s c o w , 1970 (in R u s s i a n ) . V.F. Porshnev. Social Psychology and History, M o s c o w , 1966 (in R u s s i a n ) . 7 N . D z h a n d i l ' d i n , The Nature ofNational Psychology, A l m a A t a , 1971 ( i n R u s s i a n ) . 8 K . V . Chistov, ' E t h n i c c o m m u n i t y , e t h n i c recognition a n d s o m e p r o b l e m s of int e l l e c t u a l c u l t u r e ' , Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1972, no. 3 (in R u s s i a n ) . 9 V . l . Kozlov, The Dynamics of the Populousness of Nations, M o s c o w , 1969 (in Russian). 10 I.S. K o n , ' T h e p s y c h o l o g y of p r e j u d i c e : c o n c e r n i n g t h e roots of e t h n i c bias', Novyi Mir, 1976, no. 9 (in R u s s i a n ) . 11 Y u . V . A r u t y u n y a n (ed.) The Social and the National, M o s c o w , 1973 (in R u s s i a n ) . 12 A . R . L u r i a , Concerning the Historical Development of Cognitive Processes, M o s c o w , 1974 (in R u s s i a n ) . 13 A r u t y u n y a n , op. cit. 14 G . P. Predvechnii a n d Y.A. Sherkovin, Social Psychology : A Brief Outline, M o s c o w , 1975 (in R u s s i a n ) . 15 M . S . K a g a n , Lectures on Marxist-Leninist Aesthetics, L e n i n g r a d , 2 n d ed. 1971, p. 644. 16 L. Lévy-Bruhl, L 'Ame Primitive, Paris, 1927. 17 M . M a u s s , ' U n e c a t e g o r i e d e l'esprit h u m a i n : la notion d e p e r s o n n e , celle d e " m o i " ', Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 1938, 263-81, also i n c l u d e d in Sociologie et Anthropologie, Paris, 1960, p p . 331-62. 18 I. M e y e r s o n , ' P r o b l è m e s d e p e r s o n n e ' , Colloque du Centre de Recherches de Psychologie Comparative, Paris, 1973. 19 La Notion de Personne en Afrique Noire, Colloques I n t e r n a t i o n a u x , C e n t r e N a t i o n a l de la R e c h e r c h e Scientifique, Paris, 1973. 20 R . Benedict, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, Boston, 1946. V. Ovchinnikov, The Twig of the Sakura, M o s c o w , 1971 (in R u s s i a n ) . J . Stoetzel, La Psychologie Sociale, Paris, 1963. 21 G . A . D e Vos, Socialization for Achievement: Essays on the Cultural Psychology of the Japanese, C a l i f o r n i a , 1 9 7 3 / 4 . 22 A. G u r e v i c h , ' W o r l d c u l t u r e a n d t h e present age', Inostranma Literatura, 1976, no. 1 (in R u s s i a n ) . 23 S. Nishira, ' C h a n g e d a n d u n c h a n g e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e J a p a n e s e ' , Japan Echo, 1974, vol. 1, no. 2, 21-32. 24 W . E . L a m b e r t a n d O . Klineberg, Children's Views of Foreign Peoples, N e w York, 1967. 25 Y. S a k a m o t o , Ά s t u d y of t h e J a p a n e s e n a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r : p a r t 5', Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, suppl. 8, T o k y o , 1975, p.21. 26 J . G o o d y , 'Civilisation d e l'écriture et classification, ou l'art de j o u e r sur les t a b leaux', Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, Février, 1976, no. 1, 87-101. 27 L.V. T h o m a s , ' L a p l u r a l i s m c o h é r e n t d e la notion d e p e r s o n n e en A f r i q u e noire traditionelle', La Notion de Personne en Afrique Noire, C o l l o q u e s I n t e r n a t i o n a u x , C e n t r e N a t i o n a l de la R e c h e r c h e Scientifique, Paris, 1973, p p . 387-420. 28 Luria, op. cit.

PART V Anthropology and religion

V. BASILOV The study of religions in Soviet ethnography T h e study of religions, which forms an essential part of the history of culture of every nation, is an important field of Soviet ethnography. In the 1940s and 50s ethnographers concentrated mostly on material culture and social institutions of all kinds, but already in the late 1950s an interest in the problems of religions was revived. For several decades now extensive investigations of the religious beliefs of the peoples of the world (especially peoples of the USSR) have been carried out by Soviet ethnographers. Rich factual data concerning the traditional religions of the peoples of one-sixth of the world have been accumulated. As a result of this work we now have a detailed and comprehensive picture of the religious traditions of all the peoples of the Soviet Union; a n d in a number of cases, the specific character of religious beliefs and rites of specified groups within this or that people (ethnos). T h e research of Soviet ethnographers into religious phenomena is based on Marxist methodology. This means, above all, that we approach religion from a materialist position, i.e., we seek the 'earthly roots' of religious beliefs. Furthermore, Marxism defines with precision the place of religion among other phenomena connected with h u m a n activity: religion is a form of social consciousness. Such a conception of the nature of religion underlies the more elaborate definitions of it, and is shared by all Soviet scholars. It explains the character of the interrelations between religion and other phenomena of social life. It also shows that religion belongs to superstructural phenomena determined by the basis, i.e., the system of the relations of production of people within an economic system. 1 In revealing the social nature of religion Marxism emphasises that religion is only a fantastic (twisted, irrational) reflection of the people's material life which takes the form of images of a supernatural world. Religion develops, like any other kind of ideology, as a result of processes going on in society. Changes in religious beliefs and customs are at best reflections of changes in economic, social or family relations. T h e history of religion cannot be separated from the history of society.

232

Part V : Anthropology and religion

T h e above is a general theoretical basis for various specific investig a t i o n s of Soviet scholars in t h e s p h e r e of s t u d y of religions; it d e t e r m i n e s the basic differences b e t w e e n o u r m e t h o d o l o g i c a l a p p r o a c h a n d t h a t of n o n - M a r x i s t t r e n d s in w e s t e r n studies of religions, including researches in e t h n o l o g y . O f course, we k n o w t h a t western studies of religion a r e r e p r e s e n t e d b y various t r e n d s - f r o m t h e apologetical ones to schools w h i c h have developed concepts close to those of M a r x i s m . For instance, s t a t e m e n t s t h a t religious p h e n o m e n a are of a social n a t u r e , t h a t definite s y s t e m s of beliefs a r e socially d e t e r m i n e d , m a y b e f o u n d in t h e w o r k s of w e s t e r n scholars. T h u s S m i t h has said t h a t in t o t e m i s m a m a n t r a n s f e r s t h e feat u r e s of a social s t r u c t u r e to the w h o l e of n a t u r e ; t h e s a m e t h o u g h t h a d b e e n expressed in different w o r d s by J e v o n s , F r a z e r a n d o t h e r s . D u r k h e i m p u t f o r w a r d t h e m o r e general c o n c e p t i o n t h a t a deity w a s a personification, a s y m b o l of society's unity. For Lévy-Bruhl a specific c h a r a c t e r of t h e collective ideas w a s t h e reason for t h e peculiarities of a primitive society's beliefs. But allowing t h a t m a n y of t h e concrete conclusions r e a c h e d b y these scholars c o n s t i t u t e d a positive c o n t r i b u t i o n a n d w e r e c a r e f u l l y s u b s t a n t i a t e d , we nevertheless t h i n k t h a t t h e i r a c c o u n t of t h e social roots of religion a d d s n o t h i n g basically new t o M a r x i s m . M o r e o v e r , t h e p r o b l e m of t h e social n a t u r e of religion is a c c o u n t e d for in M a r x i s m w i t h g r e a t e r a c c u r a c y a n d , in essence, exhaustively. T h u s D u r k h e i m d e f i n e d society as a s u m - t o t a l of psychic i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n s , a n d this idealistic position did not allow h i m to see religion as a p h e n o m e n o n c o n d i t i o n e d b y specific features of social life. F u r t h e r m o r e , d u e to t h e c o m p l i c a t e d d e v e l o p m e n t of a n t h r o p o l o g y in w e s t e r n countries, c o n c e p t i o n s close to M a r x i s m , w o r k e d out by a n u m b e r of p r o m i n e n t scientists, did not serve as the basis for the s t u d y of religion. Suffice it to say t h a t m a n y scholars, trying to locate t h e social roots of religion, a r e still r e a d y to invoke F r e u d ' s ideas. For instance, S p i r o (who, j u d g i n g by t h e n u m b e r of p r i n t i n g s of his theoretical work, 2 to s o m e degree reflects t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y state of m i n d of w e s t e r n a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s ) asserts t h a t F r e u d is s u p e r i o r as a scientist to D u r k h e i m a n d declares t h a t F r e u d ' s t h e o r y e x p l a i n s cross-cultural differences of religious p h e n o m e n a d e t e r m i n e d by concrete cultures. If personal projective systems, w h i c h f o r m t h e basis for religious belief, are developed in early c h i l d h o o d experiences, it c a n b e ded u c e d that differences in religious beliefs will vary s y s t e m a t i c a l l y with differences in family (including socialisation) s y s t e m s w h i c h s t r u c t u r e these experiences. 3 S u c h a use of F r e u d ' s conclusions is utterly impossible in t h e Soviet s t u d y of religion. F r e u d h a s e x t e n d e d his conclusions b a s e d o n his s t u d y of a specific s t r a t u m of a specific society to t h e w h o l e of h u m a n i t y . T h e limitations a n d anti-historicity of his views a r e obvious; t h e n o t o r i o u s

Basilov: The study of religions m Soviet ethnography

233

O e d i p u s c o m p l e x w h i c h F r e u d believed t o b e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of all m a n k i n d , will serve as a p r o o f of o u r thesis. 4 Even F r e u d ' s a d m i r e r s m a k e r e s e r v a t i o n s t o t h e effect t h a t F r e u d ' s m a i n ideas s h o u l d not b e t a k e n literally. A c c o r d i n g t o Spiro, for i n s t a n c e , in F r e u d ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t a c h i l d p r o j e c t s his i m a g e of f a t h e r o n t o t h e t h e a l m i g h t y god, o n e s h o u l d see t h e g e n e r a l t h e o r y , i n d i c a t i n g t h e role of t h e family in t h e f o r m a t i o n of religious views. 5 S u c h a n ' i m p r o v e m e n t ' of c e n t r a l ideas is in effect a revision of F r e u d ' s i d e a s : F r e u d d e d u c e d religion, first of all, f r o m t h e u n c h a n g e a b l e p e c u l i a r i t i e s of t h e p s y c h e . But even w h e n filled w i t h n e w c o n t e n t s , F r e u d i s m a d m i t s t h e social basis of religion only w i t h i n t h e n a r r o w limits of t h e f a m i l y , or at best in a kin g r o u p . But t h e social e s s e n c e of religion c a n n o t b e identified w i t h t h e family. It is well k n o w n t h a t t h e f a m i l y is j u s t o n e e l e m e n t of society, a n d not a d e t e r m i n a t i v e o n e , either. O n t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e f o r m of t h e f a m i l y d e p e n d s o n t h e c h a r a c t e r of social r e l a t i o n s in g e n e r a l , a n d c h a n g e s in f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e h a v e a l w a y s r e s u l t e d f r o m c h a n g e s in s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f o r m a t i o n s . T h e c o n c r e t e a n a l y s i s of C h r i s t i a n i t y m a d e b y M a r x a n d Engels s h o w e d t h a t t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e w h o l e society a n d , in p a r t i c u l a r , t h e existence of a n t a g o n i s t i c classes, w a s reflected in this p a r t i c u l a r religious s y s t e m . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n h a s b e e n c o n f i r m e d in m a n y w o r k s b y Soviet s c h o l a r s . I n every religious s y s t e m o n e c a n find a n u m b e r of i d e a s t h a t reflect t h e real n e e d s of s o m e classes or of t h e w h o l e of society. P e o p l e seek w a y s to satisfy t h e i r r e q u i r e m e n t s , a n d a l o n g s i d e r a t i o n a l activity t h e y resort to the sphere of religion. So, t h e origin of Christianity was determined b y t h e n e e d of t h e society to find a w a y out of t h e existing m i s e r a b l e c o n d i t i o n s of life. T h e r e w a s n o real w a y o u t of t h e s i t u a t i o n , a n d it w a s s u b s t i t u t e d b y a n illusory o n e - t h e belief t h a t t h e G o d - S a v i o u r w o u l d s o o n c o m e a n d p u t a n e n d to t h a t sinful w o r l d . As a result of c h a n g e s in t h e c h a r a c t e r of social n e e d s t h e religious i d e a s b o r n of t h e s e n e e d s c h a n g e or lose t h e i r significance. F o r i n s t a n c e , t h e slogan of ' a holy w a r ' a g a i n s t ' t h e i n f i d e l ' w h i c h reflected t h e r e a d i n e s s of A r a b s for m i l i t a r y e x p a n s i o n , very s o o n lost its i m p o r t a n c e a n d in p r a c t i c e d i d not i n f l u e n c e t h e religious life of t h e M o s l e m w o r l d . C h a r a c t e r i s i n g t h e M a r x i s t a p p r o a c h t o t h e s t u d y of religion, w e m u s t b e a r in m i n d t h a t M a r x i s m also t a k e s i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e influe n c e w h i c h religious ideology, like every s u p e r s t r u c t u r a l p h e n o m e n o n , h a s o n its s o c i o - e c o n o m i c base. But t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e specific f e a t u r e s of a religious s y s t e m a n d a f o r m of social o r g a n i s a t i o n s h o u l d not b e u n d e r s t o o d in a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d a n d oversimplified w a y . 6 T h o u g h t h e e v o l u t i o n of religion is d e t e r m i n e d b y f u n d a m e n t a l c h a n g e s in social life, t h e r e is n o c o m p l e t e h a r m o n y b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t stages of d e v e l o p m e n t of society a n d of religion. Suffice it t o say t h a t C h r i s t i a n i t y has b e e n a b l e t o survive a s a special religious s y s t e m while societies t h a t c r e a t e d it h a v e p a s s e d f r o m slavery t h r o u g h f e u d a l i s m t o c a p i t a l i s m . O f course, C h r i s t i a n i t y h a s s u b s t a n t i a l l y c h a n g e d d u r i n g this p e r i o d , b u t its m a i n d o g m a s , m a n y specific beliefs a n d r i t u a l s h a v e not b e e n lost.

234

P a r t V : Anthropology and religion

M a r x i s m p r o c e e d s f r o m t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t social consciousness is m o r e conservative t h a n social being, a n d t h a t religion is t h e most conservative f o r m of ideology. ' R e l i g i o n o n c e f o r m e d , a l w a y s c o n t a i n s t r a d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l . . .' 7 T h e s e a n d o t h e r w e l l - k n o w n theses of M a r x i s m form t h e theoretical a n d m e t h o d o l o g i c a l b a s i s for t h e s t u d y of religion in the Soviet U n i o n . As these p r i n c i p l e s a r e s h a r e d by all social sciences a n d as e t h n o g r a p h i c d a t a a r e of p a r a m o u n t i m p o r t a n c e for t h e s t u d y of religion it is h a r d to d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n ' p u r e l y ' e t h n o g r a p h i c works a n d t h e works of p h i l o s o p h e r s , h i s t o r i a n s a n d folklorists. It is not t h a t those disciplines s t u d y d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s of t h e p r o b l e m a n d have different tasks, on the c o n t r a r y , h i s t o r i a n s a n d p h i l o s o p h e r s (such as Franzev, Kryvelev a n d o t h e r s ) h a v e m a d e extensive use of e t h n o g r a p h i c m a t e r i a l , a n d e t h n o g r a p h e r s ( S t e r n b e r g , T o k a r e v a n d o t h e r s ) have m a d e a t t e m p t s to classify religions a n d t o a n a l y s e t h e w o r l d e t h n o g r a p h i c d a t a with a view to eliciting g e n e r a l r e g u l a r i t i e s of religious d e v e l o p m e n t (see, for instance, w o r k s b y Z e l e n i n , Z o l o t a r e v a n d others). T h e h i s t o r i a n Klib a n o v u s e d e t h n o g r a p h i c m a t e r i a l collected by h i m a n d his colleagues in his o w n s t u d i e s of C h r i s t i a n s e c t a r i a n i s m . Folklorists w h o c o n s i d e r e d folklore as a s o u r c e for t h e s t u d y of religious beliefs ( P r o p p , M e l e t i n s k y a n d others), resorted to ethnographic d a t a as well. (Incidentally, the conn e c t i o n of t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c s t u d y of religions w i t h folklore studies is t r a d i t i o n a l in R u s s i a , a n d h a s its roots in t h e folklorist Veselovsky's c o n c e p t i o n of s y n c r e t i s m , w h i c h l e a d s o n e to see poetry, t h e d a n c e , m u s i c a n d singing as i n d i s p e n s a b l e i n t e g r a l p a r t s of a religious cerem o n i a l a c t . ) T h e close c o n n e c t i o n of folklore studies a n d e t h n o g r a p h y is a g o o d basis for a r e c e n t l y - d e v e l o p e d t e n d e n c y t o w a r d s convergence in t h e c o m p a r a t i v e - h i s t o r i c a l s t u d y of r i t u a l folklore. T h u s , t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c investigation of religion c a n b e viewed as a p a r t of t h e g e n e r a l s t u d y of religion. D e s p i t e t h e i n t e r w e a v i n g of t h e a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d disciplines, e t h n o g r a p h i c studies still have t h e i r distinctive f e a t u r e , n a m e l y , a t t e n t i o n t o t h e e t h n i c specifics of religious beliefs a n d r i t u a l s . T h u s , t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c s t u d y of religions is d e f i n e d m e r e l y b y t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r a n d t h e tasks of e t h n o g r a p h y ; we c a n h a r d l y talk a b o u t a n y distinctive e t h n o g r a p h i c a p p r o a c h to t h e s t u d y of religion. For t h e e t h n o g r a p h e r , religion is a n integral p a r t of a p e o p l e ' s spiritual c u l t u r e , closely c o n n e c t e d with t h e o t h e r c u l t u r a l c o m p o n e n t s ; t h a t is w h y m o n o g r a p h s , d e s c r i b i n g t h e c u l t u r e of this or t h a t people, u s u a l l y c o n t a i n a section o n religious beliefs a n d rites. S t u d i e s of t h e c u l t u r e of a n y p e o p l e t a k e into c o n s i d e r a t i o n its relations w i t h o t h e r p e o p l e s at d i f f e r e n t historical stages. G e n e t i c , political or n e i g h b o u r l y links have left t h e i r m o r e or less n o t i c e a b l e m a r k s o n a p e o p l e ' s c u l t u r e . H e n c e t h e close c o n n e c t i o n of t h e s t u d y of t r a d i t i o n a l c u l t u r e w i t h investigations of e t h n o g e n e s i s a n d e t h n i c history of peoples, so characteristic of Soviet ethnography. Religious traditions a r e also s t u d i e d w i t h a view to discovering ethnical c o n t a c t s of a

Basilov : The study of religions in Soviet ethnography

235

given people. It is k n o w n t h a t in spite of t h e identity of m a n y religious p h e n o m e n a in the c u l t u r e of different peoples (resulting f r o m the general regularities of development of societies reflected in the religious ideology), similar forms of religions or cults (like, for instance, agricultural rituals) differ in certain ways, d e p e n d i n g on the specific character of a given culture. In the course of cultural contacts, going on for centuries, various cultural elements, including religious traditions originally formed in o t h e r ethnic media, are a b s o r b e d ; as a result the old forms of religious life of a people are c h a n g e d . C e r t a i n characteristics of religious beliefs a n d rites are a reliable indication of former ethnic contacts; therefore the d a t a on religious beliefs a n d rituals are extensively used in e t h n o g r a p h i c studies for r e c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e process of formation of a n ethnos. In m a n y publications in which religious p h e n o m e n a are analysed f r o m the viewpoint of religious syncretism, they are likewise considered from the point of view of their ethnical character.' As e t h n o g r a p h y studies peoples at all stages of development, ethnographic study of religious beliefs has no chronological boundaries. E t h n o g r a p h e r s investigate religion at all stages of its existence - from the inception of the first religious notions to the beliefs of today, when religion as a social p h e n o m e n o n is falling into decline, a n d has an ever decreasing influence u p o n society. T h e interest in early (primitive) beliefs is not, as is known, a distinctive part of Soviet e t h n o g r a p h y ; m a n y western scholars are also engaged in the study of early forms of religion. T h i s is n a t u r a l ; ethnographic material is almost the only source of o u r knowledge of primitive religions. Soviet science does not share the view, w i d e s p r e a d in the West, that science is u n a b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d the m e c h a n i s m of t h e inception of religion a n d its development at early stages. Along with historians and philosophers, Soviet e t h n o g r a p h e r s take p a r t in investigating the problem of the origin of religion. 9 Since the character of religion is determined by the level of development of a society, we are justified in regarding the religions of peoples observable at the stage of t h e primitive community as similar to those of early h u m a n collectivities, t h o u g h of course to identify t h e former with the latter would be a mistake. T h e study of religious beliefs of the peoples r e p r e s e n t i n g various stages of development allows the scholar to establish the historical succession of early forms of religion. T h e study of history of religions has always been a n i m p o r t a n t task of ethnography. Already in the nineteenth century, e t h n o g r a p h i c material served as a basis for the comparative study of religions a n d m a d e it possible to u n d e r s t a n d how religious concepts h a d evolved since prehistoric times. T h i s a p p r o a c h to religious p h e n o m e n a , elaborated by evolutionists, is used a n d enriched by Soviet e t h n o g r a p h y . Even in descriptive works, w h e n religious life is r e g a r d e d as an ethnographic feature of a given people's culture, this a p p r o a c h implies t h a t the infor-

236

Part V : Anthropology and religion

m a t i o n p r e s e n t e d m a y be used to correct the general schemes a n d concepts of the study of religion. All this testifies to a certain connection of evolutionism with the traditions of Soviet e t h n o g r a p h y . C o n t r a r y to certain western trends, Soviet e t h n o g r a p h y h a s never fostered the absolute denial of evolutionism. It is n a t u r a l for us to r e f e r t o f u n d a m e n t a l works of p r o m i n e n t representatives of evolutionism, w h o have done e n o r m o u s work on the a c c u m u l a t i o n , classification a n d analysis of vast factual material a n d who s u b s t a n t i a t e d a n u m b e r of conceptions which have f u r t h e r e d the a d v a n c e m e n t of science, a n d have been confirmed over a n d over again. T h e s h o r t c o m i n g s of evolutionism (a certain schematism, e m p h a s i s on the s u p p o s e d u n i n t e r r u p t e d c h a r a c t e r of development c o m m o n for all peoples, etc.), which are the reasons for the rejection of evolutionism in the West, should not m a k e us overlook its positive sides. Based on the comparative analysis of exceedingly rich factual d a t a , evolutionism has m a d e a great c o n t r i b u t i o n to the social sciences. T h o s e western scholars w h o were not satisfied with evolutionism should have directed their criticism to certain oversimplified conceptions, a n d not to the general idea of discovering regularities in the historical development of m a n kind as such. D a m n i n g evolutionism is a case of throwing out the b a b y with the b a t h w a t e r . In their criticism of evolutionism, Soviet scholars proceed from a n o t h e r point of view. Soviet e t h n o g r a p h y is based on Marxist philosophy, using the methodological principles of materialist dialectics. C o m p a r e d with M a r x i s t theory, which gives an account of the driving forces of t h e social historical process in all their multiformity, the general idea of the cultural evolution of m a n k i n d , which has given a n a m e to a whole t r e n d in t h e social sciences, looks r a t h e r feeble. Soviet e t h n o graphers do criticise evolutionism, but at the same time value highly m a n y of its specific conclusions a n d its material. Soviet works on the study of religion are at one in striving to reveal the d e p e n d e n c e of t h e c h a r a c t e r of religious beliefs of a people on their social existence. T h e a c k n o w l e d g m e n t of a decisive role for this dependence, following f r o m Marxist methodology, provides a basis for the classification systems of historical forms of religion proposed by Soviet scholars. T h u s , the p r o m i n e n t Soviet e t h n o g r a p h e r Tokarev believes that ' t h e social side of religion is . . . t h e most essential p a r t of it, which should be placed at the basis of any morphological classification of religious phenomena.' 1 0 In Tokarev's classification the criterion for differentiating between various historical forms of religion is the correspondence of religious p h e n o m e n a to certain forms of organisation of society a n d the material needs of its diverse social groups. It should be noted t h a t T o k a r e v ' s classification is not the only one in Soviet e t h n o g r a p h y , a l t h o u g h its influence u p o n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of factual m a t e r i a l is visible in a n u m b e r of concrete investigations. Recently a new classification, based on other principles a n d concepts, has been proposed by Kryvelev." While Tokarev took as the criterion of

Basilov: The study of religions in Soviet ethnography

237

classification the social role of religious p h e n o m e n a , Kryvelev's classification is based u p o n the object a n d c h a r a c t e r of beliefs. Despite this difference, however, the thesis of the d e p e n d e n c e of the form of religion u p o n the level of social development has not been disputed. T h e analysis of t h e social roots of religious ideology a n d cults is a m a j o r t h e m e in works devoted to the study of concrete forms of religion and, in particular, those at early stages of its development. T h u s , a m o n g early forms of religion, t o t e m i s m h a d a t t r a c t e d the special attention of Soviet e t h n o g r a p h e r s . M e t h o d s of s t u d y a n d criteria were worked out according to which a whole complex of survivals was connected with t o t e m i s m ; the p r o b l e m of reflection of t h e social structure in totemistic beliefs was also t h o u g h t f u l l y studied. S u c h investigation of the conditions u n d e r which t o t e m i s m originated m a d e it possible to consider it the ideology of the clan in the process of formation. 1 2 T h e s e ideas were first f o r m u l a t e d by o u t s t a n d i n g western scholars. Soviet scientists have verified their conclusions on specific materials and have shown the historical development of this form of religion in a more detailed way. Semenov's point of view s t a n d s a p a r t ; he thinks that t o t e m i s m emerged as a social p h e n o m e n o n , a n d b e c a m e a religion only in the course of time. T h e question of t h e interconnection b e t w e e n religion a n d social structure was also studied f r o m the point of view of mythological subjects a n d personages a n d beliefs in ghosts w h i c h were i n t e r p r e t e d as the survivals of t h e m a t r i c l a n system. 1 * Some peculiarities of religious beliefs determined by the patrician system were also noted. 1 4 T h e connection b e t w e e n mythology a n d a dual social s t r u c t u r e was traced in a n u m b e r of works devoted to a n analysis of dualistic mythology (i.e. myths with the general plot of the rivalry of two powers). 1 5 T h e interrelation b e t w e e n mythology a n d initiation ritual was investigated in connection with the analysis of East Slavic fairy tales. 1 6 A n u m b e r of p o p u l a r mythological subjects have been explained t h r o u g h an analysis of a r c h a i c social institutions. " E t h n o g r a p h i c research into religious beliefs also p r e s u p p o s e s the analysis of the contents of religious notions, with a view to revealing the specific c h a r a c t e r of individual p h e n o m e n a a n d the n a t u r e of their interrelation with other elements or forms of religion. Tokarev, for instance, has m a d e a n a t t e m p t to analyse mythology as a special sphere of religion." M u c h attention has been given to magic, which in Soviet science is not opposed to religion, b u t is u n d e r s t o o d as p a r t a n d parcel of a religious cult. 1 9 A m o n g religious-magical beliefs a n d rituals, Tokarev singled out some distinctive variants of magic ( m a l i g n a n t , erotic, curative), treating t h e m as special forms of religion. Kryvelev extended the concept of magic to cover all religious ritual practice, at the same time a d m i t t i n g t h a t it is possible to apply this t e r m to the religious activity not inspired by the beliefs in s u p e r n a t u r a l beings, but based on the a s s u m p t i o n of the a u t o m a t i c operation of s u p e r n a t u r a l 'regularities'. Soviet scholars have contributed much to the study of shamanism.

238

Part V : Anthropology and religion

T h e y have g a t h e r e d u n i q u e factual d a t a a n d d r a w n a n u m b e r of fruitful theoretical conclusions on t h e n a t u r e of this religious p h e n o m enon.20 W h e n a n a l y s i n g t h e c o n t e n t s of religious p h e n o m e n a we t a k e into c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e i r historical development, since t h e i r c o n t e n t s a r e not u n c h a n g e a b l e - in the course of t i m e new ideas arise a n d s o m e old ones d i s a p p e a r . H i s t o r i c i s m in t h e study of religion is a p r e r e q u i s i t e of M a r x ist-Leninist m e t h o d o l o g y . Soviet e t h n o g r a p h e r s p a y special a t t e n t i o n to d a t a w h i c h h e l p t h e m to discover t h e origin a n d t h e history of a cult, a ritual or a belief described o n t h e basis of e t h n o g r a p h i c m a t e r i a l a n d w h i c h , therefore, is chronologically limited. O n e m a y a r g u e a b o u t the concrete conclusions o n t h e genesis of this or t h a t cult (festival, c e r e m o n i a l , etc. ), b u t t h e a p p r o a c h itself in o u r opinion is necessary a n d fruitful. W e c a n n o t agree w i t h t h e criticism of o u r western colleague Gellner, 2 1 w h o says t h a t Soviet e t h n o g r a p h e r s investigate t h e c o m e t ' s tail r a t h e r t h a n t h e comet itself. T h i s c o m p a r i s o n is p i c t u r e s q u e , b u t e r r o n e o u s , for a comet d o e s n ' t grow f r o m its tail, while every religious p h e n o m e n o n h a s b e e n f o r m e d o n t h e soil of a l r e a d y existing traditions, a n d h a s a b s o r b e d a n d t r a n s f o r m e d t h e m a c c o r d i n g to new needs. It is difficult to give a good analysis of a p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n w i t h o u t i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e p r e c e d i n g o n e . T h a t is w h y physicians s t u d y their p a t i e n t s ' a n a m n e s e s . T h e analysis of factual meterial o f t e n m a k e s it possible t o t r a c e t h e historical c o n t i n u i t y of different f o r m s of religion. T h u s , t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n s h a m a n i s m a n d t o t e m i s m h a s b e e n s h o w n in several w o r k s o n s h a m a n i s m . T h e study of s h a m a n i s m has led scholars to i n t e r e s t i n g conclusions a b o u t t h e evolution of this f o r m of religion (or this f o r m of a religious cult). T h u s , S t e r n b e r g p u t f o r w a r d t h e idea of sexual selection b e i n g a n a r c h a i c f o r m of t h e c o n s e c r a t i o n as a s h a m a n . 2 2 Relatively recently this idea was c o r r o b o r a t e d on c e n t r a l Asian m a t e r i a l . T h e discovery of s h a m a n i s m a m o n g the T a d j i k s is a fact of i n d i s p u t a b l e theoretical significance, b e c a u s e it provides a new a r g u m e n t for o u r g e n e r a l conclusion that s h a m a n i s m w a s not a local but a w i d e s p r e a d phenomenon." W e also have interesting p u b l i c a t i o n s devoted to t h e p r o b l e m s of h u n t e r s ' cults, of the development of animistic concepts a n d t h e t r a ditions of r e p r e s e n t i n g spirits (the t r a n s i t i o n f r o m the z o o m o r p h o u s to t h e a n t h r o p o m o r p h o u s images, etc.). 2 4 E t h n o g r a p h e r s a n d folklorists s t u d i e d East Slavic c a l e n d a r r i t u a l s ; t h e i r c o n n e c t i o n s with t h e a n n u a l a g r i c u l t u r a l cycle as well as w i t h a n c e s t o r w o r s h i p w a s b r o u g h t to light. 2 5 Ancient p r o d u c t i o n cults have b e e n e x a m i n e d o n East Slavonic a n d C e n t r a l Asian m a t e r i a l . 2 6 T h e p r e h i s t o r i c roots of certain beliefs a n d subjects of ' m a t u r e ' , late religions have b e e n t r a c e d . T h u s , Bogoraz s h o w e d that t h e m y t h of t h e d y i n g a n d reviving a n i m a l p r e c e d e s historically the m y t h s of t h e d y i n g a n d reviving a g r i c u l t u r a l diety. 2 7 T h e i m a g e of t h e Virgin in t h e O r t h o d o x C h u r c h h a s b e e n e x a m i n e d against t h e b a c k g r o u n d of a vast

Basilov : The study of religions in Soviet ethnography

239

a m o u n t of m a t e r i a l o n p r e - C h r i s t i a n female deities. 2 8 Of all the disciplines studying religions, ethnography has the greatest interest in t h e p h e n o m e n a of syncretism, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e everyday f u n c t i o n i n g of religion. T h i s p e c u l i a r i t y of e t h n o g r a p h i c investigations is d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e very n a t u r e of e t h n o g r a p h i c d a t a , secured in close c o n t a c t b y a field r e s e a r c h e r with people. It is possible, in t h e course of e t h n o g r a p h i c research, t o see t h e religious life of a people in all aspects in t h e s p h e r e of beliefs, in t h e s p h e r e of rites, in t h e s p h e r e of everyday b e h a v i o u r . E t h n o g r a p h y is singled out f r o m sciences s t u d y i n g religion b y its o w n specific source of m a t e r i a l . F u r t h e r m o r e , a n e t h n o g r a p h e r e x a m i n e s r e l i g i o n j u s t in t h e very f o r m in w h i c h it a c t u a l l y exists a m o n g people. It m e a n s t h a t w e a r e b o u n d to investigate different forms of religion closely interwoven with e a c h o t h e r . M e t h o d o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n to t h e s t u d y of religion as a syncretic p h e n o m e n o n is i n s e p a r a b l e f r o m t h e r e s e a r c h i n t o early f o r m s of religion, w h i c h a r e available for investig a t i o n mostly on t h e basis of their f r a g m e n t s t h a t have survived u p to t h e p r e s e n t . Regligious s y n c r e t i s m is often e x a m i n e d o n t h e basis of m a t e r i a l d r a w n f r o m ' m a t u r e ' religions, in w h i c h t h e r e survive m a n y t r a d i t i o n s of former religious practices, going back to o b s c u r e antiquity. T h e p r o b l e m of everday existence of religion, w h i c h in m a n y f o r m s differs f r o m t h e d o g m a t i c a n d c a n o n i s e d ideal, has received t h o r o u g h t r e a t m e n t in Soviet e t h n o g r a p h y . In t h e 1920s a n d 30s a n u m b e r of works devoted to ' e v e r y d a y o r t h o d o x y ' c a m e o u t ; in recent years t h e interest in this p r o b l e m h a s revived. 2 9 In t h e last d e c a d e a n u m b e r of works h a v e a p p e a r e d in which t h e syncretic c h a r a c t e r of everyday I s l a m w a s s h o w n t h r o u g h c o n c r e t e m a t e r i a l dealing with t h e survivals of p r e - M u s l i m cults which, h a v i n g b e e n a b s o r b e d by Islam, c r e a t e d distinctive everyday religious p h e n o m e n a a m o n g different M u s l i m peoples. 5 0 T h e conclusion h a s b e e n s u b s t a n t i a t e d in Soviet e t h n o g r a p h i c l i t e r a t u r e t h a t S u f i s m in its p o p u l a r f o r m s h a d a b s o r b e d c e r t a i n p r e - M u s l i m traditions, especially s h a m a n i s m . In their striving to d e d u c e general regularities of d e v e l o p m e n t of religion f r o m concrete facts, Soviet scholars take into c o n s i d e r a t i o n such a n i m p o r t a n t factor as t h e v a r i a t i o n of p h e n o m e n a of t h e s a m e type, i.e. their local forms. M a r x i s m asserts t h e general laws of historical processes c o m m o n for all peoples, b u t a d m i t s at t h e s a m e t i m e t h e rich diversity of t h e local f o r m s of development of society a n d culture, acq u i r i n g u n i q u e features u n d e r specific historical conditions. M o r e o v e r , cases of t h e d e g r a d a t i o n of societies a n d t h e s u b s e q u e n t decline of cult u r e are not ignored. T h e c o m p a r a t i v e - t y p o l o g i c a l m e t h o d is widely used in Soviet e t h n o g r a p h y . T h u s the comparative-typological s t u d y of t h e West E u r o p e a n c a l e n d a r rituals has b e g u n . In o u r work on regional historicoe t h n o g r a p h i c atlases this m e t h o d is also a p p l i e d in t h e s y s t é m a t i s a t i o n of m a t e r i a l c o n c e r n i n g religious beliefs a n d rituals. T h e e t h n o g r a p h i c s t u d y of t r a d i t i o n a l religions is closely c o n n e c t e d

240

Part V : Anthropology and religion

with the analysis of contemporary processes in everyday culture, for archaic beliefs, investigated with ethnographic methods, survive and function in interdependence with other beliefs, cultural elements and social institutions. Only ethnographic researches into the beliefs of today have given us an opportunity to notice that in the course of the general decline of a religion, a whole complex of most archaic ideas keeps its position in the traditional world view more firmly than do many concepts of later forms of religion. Snesarev was the first to discover this in material concerning Uzbeks' beliefs. 81 In their study of contemporary religious beliefs, Soviet ethnographers do not limit their tasks to the problems of archaic phenomena, but also survey the whole contemporary religious situation. Philosophers, sociologists, and historians also investigate the contemporary forms of religion, but at present they are mostly interested in assembling the mass material through questionnaires. 5 2 Ethnographic works are based above all on the data acquired by the traditional methods of field investigations: this allows a deeper characterisation of contemporary religious beliefs," and shows their gradual disappearance in socialist society. While emphasising the unanimity of the methodological basis of ethnographic study of religion in the U S S R , we should note, however, that a number of major issues are also widely discussed. Suffice it to say that our scholars disagree on the definition of religion.* 4 Marxist general methodological principles are not an obstacle to putting forward new problems and to research in new spheres; and the use of methods and conceptions elaborated by western scholars is not excepted.

NOTES 1 See K . M a r x a n d F. Engels, Selected Works, M o s c o w , 1955, vol: 1, p. 3 6 3 . Ap2 M . E . Spiro, ' R e l i g i o n : problems of definition and e x p l a n a t i o n ' , Anthropological proaches to the Study of Religion, L o n d o n , 1973. 3 Spiro, op. cit. pp. 102-3. 4 F o r critical c o m m e n t s on the O e d i p u s c o m p l e x see V . Propp, Historical Roots of the Fairy Tale, L e n i n g r a d , 1 9 4 6 ; O e d i p u s in the light of folklore', Transactions of Leningrad University, 1944, no. 72, Philological Series, issue 9 (both in R u s s i a n ) . 5 Spiro, op. cit., p. 103. 6 See S. T o k a r e v , Early Forms ojReligion and their Development, M o s c o w . 1964, pp. 1112 (in R u s s i a n ) . 7 K. M a r x a n d F. Engels, Selected Works, M o s c o w , 1 9 7 0 , vol. 3. 8 See, for instance, S. A b r a m z o n , The Kirghiz and their F.thnogenetic and HistoncoCultural Relations, L e n i n g r a d , 1971, pp. 2 6 7 - 3 3 9 . V. D y a k o n o v a , The Tuvimans' Funeral Ritual as an Ethno-Historical Source, L e n i n g r a d , 1975. N. Alexeyev, Traditional Religious Beliefs of the Yakuts in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, Novosibirsk, 1975 (all in R u s s i a n ) . 9 See Y u . Semenov, How Mankind Came into Existence, M o s c o w . 1966 (in R u s s i a n ) . 10 T o k a r e v , op. cit. 11 See I. Kryvelev, The History of Religions, M o s c o w . 1975, vol. 1, ρ 10 (in R u s s i a n ) . 12 See A. Zolotarev, Survivals of Tutemism among Siberian Peoples, L e n i n g r a d , 1934. I). Zelenin, 'Ideological transference of m a n ' s socio-tribal organisation on wild a n i m a l s ' ,

Basilov : The study of religions in Soviet ethnography

241

Izvestia .4.VSSSR: Social Sciences Section, 1935, no. 4. S. Tolstov, ' T h e p r o b l e m s of p r e - c l a n society', Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1931, nos. 3-4. L. S t e r n b e r g , Primitive Religion m the Light of Ethnography, L e n i n g r a d , 1936. D. Z e l e n i n , Totem Trees m the Tales and Rites of European Peoples, M o s c o w - L e n i n g r a d , 1937. S e m e n o v , op. cit. (all in R u s s i a n ) . 13 N. D y r e n k o v a , ' T h e fire cult a m o n g t h e A l t a i a n s a n d t h e T e l e u t s ' , Collection of Articles of MAE, L e n i n g r a d , 1937, vol. 6. V. B o g o r a z - T a n , ' M a i n types of folklore of N o r t h e r n E u r a s i a a n d N o r t h A m e r i c a ' , Sovietskyi Folklor, M o s c o w - L e n i n g r a d , 1935, nos. 4-5. V. C h e r n e t s o v , ' F r a t r i a l o r g a n i s a t i o n of t h e O b - U g r i a n society', Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1939, no. 2. V. C h e r n e t s o v , ' V o g u l tales', Collection of Folk Tales of the People Mansi ( Voguls), L e n i n g r a d , 1935. V. B o g o r a z , The Chukchi, L e n i n g r a d , 1939, vol. 2. N . D y r e n k o v a , 'Survivals of t h e m a t r i c l a n a m o n g t h e A l t a i a n T u r k i c peoples', To the Memory of V.G. Bogoraz, M o s c o w , 1937. G . C h u r s i n , Ethnographic Data on Abkhazia, Sukh u m i , 1957 (all in R u s s i a n ) . 14 L. Potapov, ' T h e cult of m o u n t a i n s in t h e Altai', Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1946, no. 2. S. T o k a r e v , 'Survivals of t h e tribal cult a m o n g t h e A l t a i a n s ' , Transactions of the Institute of Ethnography of the USSR AS, M o s c o w - L e n i n g r a d , 1947, vol. 1. A. Zolotarev, The Olchas' Tribal System and Religion, K h a b a r o v s k , 1939. A. A n a s i m o v , Histonco-Genetic Study of the Religion ofthe Evenks and Problems ofthe Origin of Primitive Beliefs, M o s c o w - L e n i n g r a d , 1958 (all in R u s s i a n ) . 15 See, for instance, S. Tolstov, Ancient Khoresm, M o s c o w , 1948. A. Zolotarev, Tribal Society and Primitive Mythology, M o s c o w , 1964 ( b o t h in R u s s i a n ) . 16 P r o p p , 1946, op. cit. 17 E. M e l e t i n s k y , The Hero of the Fairy Tale: The Origin of an Image, M o s c o w , 1958. E. M e l e t i n s k y , The Origin of the Heroic Epos: Early Forms and Archaic Monuments, M o s c o w , 1963 ( b o t h in R u s s i a n ) . 18 S. T o k a r e v , ' W h a t is m y t h o l o g y ? ' , Problems of the History of Religion and Atheism, M o s c o w , 1962, vol. 10. See also O . F r e i d e n b e r g , Poetics of Plot and Genre, L e n i n g r a d , 1936. A. Losev, Antique Mythology, M o s c o w , 1957 (all in R u s s i a n ) . 19 E. K a g a r o v , ' O n t h e p r o b l e m of classification of folk rites', Transactions of the USSR .45·, M o s c o w , 1928, no. 11. E. K a g a r o v , ' T h e c o m p o s i t i o n a n d origin of m a r r i a g e rites', Collection of Articles of MAE, L e n i n g r a d , 1929, vol. 8. S. T o k a r e v , ' T h e n a t u r e a n d origin of m a g i c ' , Transactions of the Institute of Ethnography of the USSR M o s c o w , 1959, vol. 51. S e m e n o v , op. cit. (all in R u s s i a n ) . 20 A. A n o k h i n , ' D a t a o n S h a m a n i s m a m o n g t h e A l t a i a n s ' , Collection of Articles of MAE, Petrograd, 1924, vol. 4, issue 2. L. Potapov, ' T h e ritual of the S h a m a n ' s t a m b o u r i n e revitalisation a m o n g t h e T u r k i c t r i b e s of t h e Altai', Transactions of the Institute of Ethnography of the USSR /IS, M o s c o w - L e n i n g r a d , 1947, vol. 1. A. Popov, ' D a t a on t h e Y a k u t s ' S h a m a n i s m : t h e g o d d e s s Ayiysyt cult a m o n g t h e Y a k u t s ' , The Cultures and Written languages of the East, B a k u , 1928, vol. 3. A. Popov, ' T h e c o n s e c r a t i o n as a S h a m a n a m o n g t h e Y a k u t s of Vilyusk', Transactions of the Institute of Ethnography of the USSR /IS, 1947, vol. 11. N. D y r e n k o v a , ' D a t a o n S h a m a n i s m a m o n g t h e T e l e u t s ' , Collection of Articles of MAE, M o s c o w - L e n i n g r a d , 1949, vol. 10. N . D y r e n k o v a , ' T h e c o n s e c r e a t i o n as a S h a m a n as it is u n d e r s t o o d by t h e T u r k i s h t r i b e s ' . Collection of Articles of MAE, Leni n g r a d , 1930, vol. 9. E. Prokofyeva, ' T h e c o s t u m e of t h e S e l k u p i a n ( O s t y a k S a m o y e d i a n ) S h a m a n ' , Collection of Articles of MAE, M o s c o w - L e n i n g r a d , 1949, vol. 11 (all in R u s s i a n ) . 21 See E. Gellner, ' T h e Soviet a n d t h e savage', Current Anthropology, D e c e m b e r 1975, 595. 22 See S t e r n b e r g , op. cit. 23 See O . S u k h a r e v a , ' T h e survivals of d e m o n o l o g y a n d S h a m a n i s m a m o n g the lowland T a d j i k s ' , Pre-Islamic Beliefs and Rites in Central Asia, M o s c o w , 1975 (in R u s s i a n ) . 24 D. Gulia, Hunt Deities and Hunter's Language among the Abkhazians, S u k h u m i , 1926. D. Zelenin, ' T a b o o words a m o n g the peoples of eastern Europe a n d northern Asia', Collection of Articles of M AE, M o s c o w - L e n i n g r a d , 1929, vol. 8. D. Zelenin, The Ongons' Cult in Siberia, M o s c o w - L e n i n g r a d , 1936. G . Vasilevich, ' T h e E v e n k s ' ancient h u n t i n g a n d reindeer b r e e d i n g rites', Collection of Articles of MAE, M o s c o w - L e n i n g r a d . 1957. vol. 17.

242

P a r t V : Anthropology

and

religion

A. Anasimov, ' T h e cult of t h e b e a r a m o n g t h e Evenks a n d t h e p r o b l e m of t h e evolution of totemistic beliefs', Problems of the History of Religion and Atheism, Moscow, 1950, a n d other works by t h e s a m e a u t h o r (all in R u s s i a n ) . 25 V. Chicherov, The (Vinter Period of the Russian Folk Agricultural Calendar in the 16th-19th Centuries, M o s c o w , 1957. V. P r o p p , Russian Agricultural Feasts, L e n i n g r a d , 1963 (both in R u s s i a n ) . 26 N. M a t o r i n , The Christian Orthodox Cult and Production, M o s c o w - L e n i n g r a d , 1931. O . Sukhareva, ' O n t h e p r o b l e m of Islamic saint w o r s h i p p i n g in C e n t r a l Asia', Transactions of the Institute of History and Archaeology: Data on the Archaeology and Ethnography of Uzbekistan, T a s h k e n t , 1950, vol. 2. O . Sukhareva, ' O n t h e genesis of c r a f t s m e n cults a m o n g t h e T a d j i k s a n d U z b e k s ' , In Memory of M.S. Andreyev, Transactions of the Academy of Sciences of the Tadjik SSR, S t a l i n a b a d , 1960, vol. 120 (all in R u s s i a n ) . 27 V. Bogoraz, ' T h e m y t h of t h e d y i n g a n d reviving a n i m a l ' , Artistic Folklore, 1926, vol. 1 (in R u s s i a n ) . 28 N . M a t o r i n , The Female Deity in the Christian Orthodox Cult: Essay on Comparative ÌMythology, M o s c o w , 1931 (in R u s s i a n ) . 29 N . M a t o r i n a n d A. Nevsky, Programme for the Study of Everyday Orthodoxy: East European Religious Syncretism, L e n i n g r a d , 1930. N. Nikolsky, The History of the Russian Church, M o s c o w - L e n i n g r a d , 1931. S. T o k a r e v , Religious Beliefs of the East Slavic Peoples in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries, M o s c o w - L e n i n g r a d , 1957. G. Nosova, Survivals of Paganism in Orthodox Christianity, M o s c o w 1975 (all in R u s s i a n ) . 30 L. Lavrov, ' T h e p r e - I s l a m i c beliefs of t h e A d y g h e a n d K a r b a r d i a n s ' , Transactions of the Institute of Ethnography of the USSR /IS, 1959, vol. 51. O . Sukhareva, Islam in Uzbekistan, T a s h k e n t . G. Snesarev, The Relicts of Pre-Islamic Beliefs and Rites among the Uzbeks of Khoresm, M o s c o w , 1969. V. Basilov, Saint Worshipping in Islam, Moscow, 1970. T . Bayalieva, Pre-Islamic Beliefs and Rites in Central Asia, Moscow, 1975. T . Bayalieva, Pre-Islamic Beliefs and their Survivals among the Kirghiz, F r u n s e , 1972 (all in R u s s i a n ) . 31 G . Snesarev, ' S o m e r e a s o n s w h y religious survivals a r e still preserved in everyday life a m o n g t h e U z b e k s o f K o r e s m ' , Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1957, no. 2 (in R u s s i a n ) . 32 All t h e necessary i n f o r m a t i o n c a n be found in t h e series Problems of Scientific Atheism, p u b l i s h e d by t h e I n s t i t u t e of Scientific Atheism at t h e A c a d e m y of Social Sciences, f o u n d e d in 1964 (in R u s s i a n ) . 33 F o r m o r e details see Concrete Studies of Ccitemporary Religious Beliefs, Moscow, 1967 (in R u s s i a n ) . 34 For m o r e details see I. Kryvelev, ' T h e contents of t h e concept of religion', Proceedings of the 7th ICAES, M o s c o w , 1970, p. 713 (in R u s s i a n ) .

C. HUMPHREY Theories of North Asian

shamanism

T h e ancient religious activity of the M o n g o l s a n d their neighbours, k n o w n to us E u r o p e a n s as s h a m a n i s m , h a s no p a r t i c u l a r n a m e a m o n g s t its own followers. T h e Mongols, even before they were reconverted to L a m a i s m in the seventeenth century, simply used the t e r m xara sasin (black faith), as it were in verbal opposition to sira "sasin (yellow faith), a p o p u l a r term for the reformist sect of T i b e t a n B u d d h i s m which s p r e a d into Mongolia. 1 After the seventeenth century, w h e n s h a m a n i s m was outlàwed in m a n y of t h e M o n g o l p r i n c e d o m s , the lamas a n d their faithful, although they h a d n a m e s for the great world religions a n d even for Bon-po a n d T a o i s m , called s h a m a n i s m merely xagucin ba burugu üzel (the old a n d w r o n g way of seeing things). 2 At the same time, these very lamas used thinly disguised ' s h a m a n i s t ' rituals in their o w n religious activities. Even a m o n g purely s h a m a n i s t groups such as the north-western Buryat or the R e i n d e e r T u n g u s it is easy to discover L a m a i s t deities a n d cosmological ideas which s p r e a d all t h r o u g h E a s t e r n a n d Central Asia d o w n to India. All this raises the question of w h e t h e r ' s h a m a n i s m ' , which h a d not even got a n a m e , should be seen as differentiated from L a m a i s m at all in the M o n g o l i a n context. C a n we say, in fact, that s h a m a n i s m is a religion in its own right? Scholars have p u t forward m a n y different views on this m a t t e r , a n d it is clear that one of the main reasons for this is the u n d o u b t e d complexity of religious history in Central Asia. T h e prevalence of n o m a d i c pastoralism in the area, the long-distance t r a d e routes, a n d early steppe empires all facilitated c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n peoples, a n d the presence in central Asia at one time or a n o t h e r of all the m a i n world religions ( B u d d h i s m , M o h a m m e d a n i s m , Christianity) is only one manifestation of this. I have no wish to suggest t h a t t h e r e is a single clear answer to t h e question of the general n a t u r e of s h a m a n i s m in the Mongol area, a n d therefore I shall first explain the various directions in which existing theories have pointed, before a t t e m p t i n g to put f o r w a r d some specific conclusions. Eliade, w h o has written one of the largest e t h n o g r a p h i c compilations

244

Part V : Anthropology and religion

on N o r t h Asian s h a m a n i s m , concludes that it is essentially a technique for ecstasy by which m e n can c o m m u n i c a t e with the spirits. Although he describes s h a m a n i s m as ' a r c h a i c ' , by which he m e a n s that it predated, in his opinion, the first great expansion of B u d d h i s m through Asia, he does not see it as a n a u t o n o m o u s system, nor as a related group of such systems.® In his view, the s h a m a n does not create a cosmology b u t simply uses o n e - a n d , as far as one can tell, almost any one. T o Eliade the s h a m a n is essentially a person w h o is able to put himself into a controlled ecstasy for religious purposes. T h e original ' a r c h a i c ' s h a m a n i s m was c e n t r e d on a belief in a celestial s u p r e m e being a n d in the possibility of concrete c o m m u n i c a t i o n (in the person of the s h a m a n ) between sky a n d e a r t h . T h e present existence of s h a m a n s in a great n u m b e r of societies which do not have such a belief is ascribed by Eliade to the survival of s h a m a n i s t techniques where the original cosmology has d i s a p p e a r e d . C e r t a i n basic symbols c a m e to be associated with s h a m a n i s m t h r o u g h the passage of history - the world tree, the world m o u n t a i n , the ladder, the bridge, etc., each of these being different manifestations of the single primitive belief in a 'centre of the world', a c o m m u n i c a t i o n p a t h used by the s h a m a n in his ascent to the sky. T h e present emphasis in m a n y Siberian shamanist cultures on spirits a n d spirit-possession are later accretions, p e r h a p s resulting from the s p r e a d of B u d d h i s m in C e n t r a l a n d N o r t h Asia. Eliade presupposes that ' s h a m a n i s m ' as a p h e n o m e n o n of ecstatic t e c h n i q u e has existed t h r o u g h o u t the ages in N o r t h Asia; a n d yet he c a n give no psychological or physiological description of this technique such as to establish that he is talking about the same thing t h r o u g h history. As we have noted above, the content of the s h a m a n ' s p e r f o r m a n c e a n d o f ' s h a m a n i s t ' beliefs varies f r o m epoch to epoch a n d f r o m culture to culture. Eliade 's method, the isolation of elements of belief which are t h e n c o m p a r e d as they occur in different cultures, a n d the search for 'assimilations', 'borrowings', 'survivals' and 'influences', while fascinating in its p e r m u t a t i o n s of information, has two disadvantages. First, it does not make it possible to study s h a m a n i s m as it occurs within any one system of t h o u g h t ; it is not a p p a r e n t w h e t h e r there are other religious manifestations in which the s h a m a n does not play a part, a n d the specific c o n t r i b u t i o n of s h a m a n i s m within this totality is not illuminated. Secondly, a l t h o u g h Eliade has a concern with the passage of time, he does not really a t t e m p t to give a historical analysis of the development of s h a m a n i s m . T h e r e is no analysis of the social or ideological basis of s h a m a n i s m , a n d indeed Eliade 's whole enterprise suggests that such a basis would be more or less irrelevant, since in his view s h a m a n i s m is a single p h e n o m e n o n which has survived t h r o u g h m a n y and great social changes. O n both of these points, Shirokogoroff's work is an advance on Eliade 's (although it was written considerably earlier). Shirokogoroff

H u m p h r e y : Theories of North Asian shamanism

245

gives an immensely detailed a n d comprehensive account of the religious system of t h e T u n g u s t h r o u g h history and places s h a m a n i s m clearly in relation to o t h e r beliefs a n d rituals ; an a t t e m p t is also m a d e to locate s h a m a n i s m as a psychological p h e n o m e n o n within the general ' p s y c h o - m e n t a l c o m p l e x ' of the T u n g u s . 4 Unlike Eliade, Shirokogoroff sees s h a m a n i s m as a fairly late p h e n o m e n o n which was ' s t i m u l a t e d ' by the spread of Buddhism. Sham a n i s m was p r e - d a t e d by sacrificial cults of offering to the High G o d or Sky God, and this cult was served by priests with different functions f r o m s h a m a n s . T h e twentieth century s h a m a n i s m of the T u n g u s is not concerned with h o n o u r i n g the celestial god, nor with the ancient cult of the dead, but on the o t h e r h a n d it ' h a s its very profound roots in the social system a n d psychology of animistic philosophy characteristic of the T u n g u s a n d o t h e r shamanists. But it is also true that s h a m a n i s m in its present form is one of the consequences of the intrusion of B u d d h i s m a m o n g the North-Asiatic ethnical groups.' 5 Shirokogoroff notes that the word for s h a m a n in T u n g u s (saman) a p p e a r s to be of foreign origin, a n d f u r t h e r m o r e the p h e n o m e n o n of s h a m a n i s m itself has southern elements. It is in the s h a m a n i s t i c cult of spirits rather t h a n the ecstatic ascent to heaven, t h a t we see Lamaist influence on s h a m a n i s m , and the s h a m a n ' s spirit-vessels, costume a n d d r u m c a n all be seen as having a southern origin. Ecstatic experience, he held, was basic to the h u m a n condition; what c h a n g e d through history was the interpretation a n d valuation of it. A m o n g the T u n g u s the ecstatic ascent to the s u p r e m e being in heaven gradually disappeared u n d e r the influence of the idea of spirits which c a m e down to possess the s h a m a n . T h u s , while religious specialists h a d existed all along, the s h a m a n ' s role, according to Shirokogoroff, is specific to the belief in spirits a n d the experience of possession. H e a t t e m p t e d to show with historical material on migrations, etc., how a n d when s h a m a n i s m arose a m o n g the T u n g u s . According to h i m it was quite possible for s h a m a n i s m to exist alongside continuing celestial cults a n d also alongside L a m a i s m . T h e r e might even be some i n t e r m i x t u r e : s h a m a n s might be requested to take part in the celestial cults, a n d lamas might advise people to become s h a m a n s , or even take up s h a m a n i s i n g for themselves. Shirokogoroff's description of the psychological a n d social aspects of s h a m a n i s m as it functions within the culture of the T u n g u s is u n p a r a l leled in Siberian e t h n o g r a p h y , but most scholars find that there is not enough evidence to s u p p o r t his theory t h a t s h a m a n i s m was 'stimulated by B u d d h i s m ' . A p a r t f r o m a n y t h i n g else, this theory would find difficulty in accounting for the similarities between T u n g u s s h a m a n i s m a n d the s h a m a n i s m of the peoples of far N o r t h e r n a n d Western Siberia where B u d d h i s m can hardly have p e n e t r a t e d as such. F u r t h e r m o r e , Shirokogoroff, like Eliade, gives logical, r a t h e r t h a n historical or sociological, reasons for the d i s a p p e a r a n c e of celestial cults a n d the growing influence of'active, lower elements', a n d in this way divorces his theory from social, economic or political realities.

246

P a r t V : Anthropology and religion

A p a r t f r o m t h e early theories s u c h as those of S t e r n b e r g 6 a n d C z a plicka, 7 it is only recently in social a n t h r o p o l o g y t h a t a n a t t e m p t has b e e n m a d e to give a general sociological e x p l a n a t i o n of s h a m a n i s m , a n d this a p p e a r s in Lewis's book Ecstatic ReligionIn most c o m p l e x societies, Lewis argues, the form that shamanism, possession, or trancestates take, is d e t e r m i n e d by p r e s s u r e i n t e r n a l to that society. H e suggests t h a t people subject to these pressures, very often the politically d i s a d v a n t a g e d or people whose social role is not highly valued, will b e the people w h o c r e a t e ecstatic cults, a n d in this case t h e cults will b e ' p e r i p h e r a l ' a n d will express the a n t i - a u t h o r i t a r i a n views of the m e m bers. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , in a society such as t h e T u n g u s , t h e most serious pressures a r e external to society, for e x a m p l e , severe climatic conditions, lack of food, or prevalence of e p i d e m i c diseases. In this case, shamanism becomes the 'central morality cult' and embodies the main ideas a n d values, i n c l u d i n g political ones, of t h e society. S h a m a n i s m becomes a m e a n s by w h i c h t h e m o r a l i t y of society is activated in relation to individuals a n d g r o u p s . T h i s is a useful series of generalisations a b o u t h u m a n society as a whole, b u t in relation to this p a r t i c u l a r c u l t u r e a r e a it is not very enlightening. In N o r t h Asia almost every e x a m p l e of a s h a m a n i s t i c cult seems to e m b o d y features of b o t h ' c e n t r a l m o r a l i t y c u l t s ' a n d 'perip h e r a l cults'. A m o n g t h e small-scale T u n g u s , for e x a m p l e , s h a m a n i s t spirits c o n c e r n a far w i d e r r a n g e of ideas a n d values t h a n a ' c e n t r a l m o r ality', if such c a n be distinguished, a n d t h e s a m e is t r u e of t h e W e s t e r n Buryat, as will be s h o w n later. In b o t h of these societies w o m e n a n d o t h e r d i s a d v a n t a g e d people c a n b e c o m e s h a m a n s , a n d to t a k e the o t h e r case, t h a t of t h e c o m p l e x society, t h e M a n c h u s w i t h their e m p i r e m a i n tained a court s h a m a n , surely c o n c e r n e d with ' c e n t r a l m o r a l i t y ' , until their downfall in 1911. It is Soviet scholars w h o have d o n e t h e most work a n d p r o d u c e d t h e most interesting ideas a b o u t N o r t h A s i a n s h a m a n i s m . G u m i l e v 9 criticises B a n z a r o v for seeing s h a m a n i s m as a n original religion e m e r g i n g n a t u r a l l y f r o m the w o r s h i p of t h e sky, plants, a n i m a l s a n d m a n himself. T h e n u m b e r a n d qualitative d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of t h e deities f o u n d in s h a m a n i s m leads G u m i l e v to s u p p o s e t h a t it is not a n e x a m p l e of polytheism, b u t syncretism. W h y is it, h e asks, t h a t t h e s h a m a n s ignore t h e sky gods? A n d h o w is it t h a t , d e s p i t e his previous d e c l a r a t i o n of t h e a u t o c h t h o n o u s c h a r a c t e r of s h a m a n i s m , B a n z a r o v ascribes the cult of fire to Persian Z o r o a s t r i a n i s m ? G u m i l e v himself p r o p o s e s t h e following s c h e m e . T h e early M o n g o l s did not have s h a m a n i s m b u t believed in a single celestial god, a n d this is attested by all of t h e i m p o r t a n t early writers, R u b r u c k , P l a n o C a r p i n i , M a r c o Polo a n d R a s h i d - a d - d i n . T h e blue sky of physical n a t u r e w a s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by t h e M o n g o l s f r o m t h e e t e r n a l sky, t h e latter b e i n g a p o w e r f u l god w h o d e m a n d e d a c t i o n o n the p a r t of his followers. At t h e s a m e time, a n e a r t h deity called Etiigen w a s w o r s h i p p e d by m e a n s of setting u p cairns (oboga) on m o u n t a i n tops, a n d t h u s early M o n g o l re-

H u m p h r e y : Theories ofNorth Asian shamanism

247

ligion was characterised by dualism. T h e great sky deity K h o r m u s t a did not originate in Zoroastrianism, as Banzarov maintained, but in M a n i c h a e i s m , f r o m t h e Uighurs. Such creative a n d providential gods are not c o m p a t i b l e with s h a m a n i s m . S h a m a n i s m existed in the context of a cosmology consisting of three 'worlds', the upper, middle, a n d lower, peopled by h u m a n beings in the middle world and their souls (i.e. spirits) in the u p p e r a n d lower worlds. T h e s h a m a n s were able to effect c o m m u n i c a t i o n between these worlds, but this was a practice, not a d o g m a . W h a t h a d this in c o m m o n with the ancient Mongol religion? T h e ancient M o n g o l religion died out because the Eastern T a t a r s took u p M o h a m m e d a n i s m a n d the Mongols took up Buddhism. W h e n these fell into decline there was a flow of shamanist practice which took varied syncretic forms. Gumilev sees the T u n g u s as the archetypal shamanists, a n d he holds t h a t the West Siberian Ugrian religions are not really s h a m a n i s m , b u t closer in fact to the early Mongol beliefs in a n all-powerful sky god. Gumilev has a n extremely wide knowledge of the sources for the ancient Mongol period a n d earlier, a n d his article undoubtedly clears some of the confusions s t e m m i n g f r o m an uncritical acceptance of Banzarov. It is interesting also that he gives an even later date t h a n Shirokogoroff for the origin of s h a m a n i s m . However, it is worthwhile noting t h a t while it is possible to deny the presence of s h a m a n s in the early Mongol period by claiming that the religious specialists mentioned in the sources were other kinds of priests or magicians, it is not possible to ignore the repeated mention of things very like ongons, the representations of spirits; this implies that, according to Gumilev, s h a m a n i s m a n d ongons could exist independently, a n d this as we shall see is doubtful. Gumilev is an orientalist rather t h a n an e t h n o g r a p h e r , a n d the Soviet scholars w h o have been interested in the development of s h a m a n i s m in society have taken a different a p p r o a c h , although most of their conclusions do not differ substantially from his. Potapov, who has worked extensively on the peoples of the Altai, also maintains that s h a m a n i s m was not an original, a u t o c h t h o n o u s religion. 10 According to him, it was preceded at least in the Altai region by a cult of the m o u n t a i n s (which recalls Gumilev's explanation of the worship of EtUgen). However, Potapov adds that the cult of mountains was not simply an abstract idea but it was closely linked with the economy and society of a particular historical time: each sacred m o u n t a i n was situated in the centre of clan territory, w h e t h e r this was used for hunting or herding, a n d was the site for the worship of the clan ancestor from w h o m each living m e m b e r traced his descent. T h e existence of a sacred m o u n t a i n in a particular territory was evidence that this land was in economic use by a particular group. T h e cult of m o u n t a i n s was generally carried out by elders of the lineage, but in complicated rituals by the s h a m a n since he was the ritual specialist representing the lineage. Potapov claims this cult was essentially pre-shamanist since no

248

P a r t V : Anthropology and religion

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s w e r e m a d e of m o u n t a i n spirits, while m o d e l s w e r e m a d e of all o t h e r spirits. H e r e P o t a p o v is saying, unlike G u m i l e v , t h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s (ongons) exist t o g e t h e r w i t h s h a m a n i s m , a n d t h a t o n e c a n n o t exist w i t h o u t t h e o t h e r . A c c o r d i n g to P o t a p o v s h a m a n i s m a r o s e only w i t h t h e d i s s o l u t i o n of c l a n - b a s e d society in N o r t h Asia. Previously t h e f u n c t i o n s of t h e s h a m a n h a d b e e n c a r r i e d out b y every m e m b e r of t h e c l a n a n d it w a s only w h e n t h e strict t r i b a l s y s t e m b e g a n to d i s t i n t e g r a t e t h a t t h e s e f u n c tions w e r e t r a n s f e r r e d t o a single p e r s o n . T h i s view is s u p p o r t e d b y V a i n s t e i n w h o a t t e m p t s to s h o w in a n i n t e r e s t i n g article e n t i t l e d ' T h e T u v a n s h a m a n ' s d r u m a n d t h e c e r e m o n y of its e n l i v e n i n g ' 1 1 t h a t t h e evolution of s h a m a n i s m is m a n i f e s t in t h e ritual of t h e c o n s e c r a t i o n of t h e s h a m a n ' s d r u m : in t h e first section of t h e rite t h e s h a m a n - o w n e r t o - b e w a s not a l l o w e d to b e p r e s e n t , b u t all of t h e c l a n s m e n a c t e d as t h o u g h in a t r a n c e a n d s t r u c k t h e d r u m , h a n d i n g it f r o m m a n to m a n until they p a s s e d it to t h e w e a k e s t s h a m a n p r e s e n t ; it e n d e d u p in t h e h a n d s of t h e m o s t p o w e r f u l s h a m a n a m o n g t h e relatives. T h e s e c o n d p h a s e of t h e rite w a s c o n d u c t e d b y t h e s h a m a n - o w n e r , a l o n e in a t e n t , a n d subsequently no-one apart from him could handle the d r u m . V a i n s t e i n m a i n t a i n s t h a t this view of t h e evolution of s h a m a n i s m is s u p p o r t e d b y t h e fact t h a t t h e r e a r e S i b e r i a n p e o p l e s w h e r e t h e d i s i n t e g r a t i o n of t h e c l a n s y s t e m h a s h a p p e n e d m o r e slowly a n d w h e r e t h e r e w e r e n o p r o f e s s i o n a l s h a m a n s u n t i l r e c e n t l y , t h e f u n c t i o n s of t h e s h a m a n being performed by m a n y people.12 S h a m a n i s m , he maintains, a l w a y s existed in a s e c o n d a r y role, b u t w i t h o u t specialised m i n i s t e r s it w e n t u n n o t i c e d b y e a r l y observers. O n l y w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of class society w e r e t h e old c l a n cults p u s h e d i n t o oblivion, a n d single individuals c a m e t o t a k e o n a n d e l a b o r a t e t h e s h a m a n ' s role. It is n o t i c e a b l e t h a t t h e m o s t c o m p l e x s h a m a n ' s c o s t u m e o c c u r s in S o u t h e r n S i b e r i a , w h e r e the i n f l u e n c e of c l a s s - d o m i n a t e d e m p i r e s w a s s t r o n g , while moving north-west a n d north-east, it becomes more a n d m o r e simplified a n d finally v a n i s h e s . T h e s e a r e p l a u s i b l e a r g u m e n t s , b u t u n f o r t u n a t e l y t h e r e is, as yet, little c o n c r e t e historical m a t e r i a l t o b a c k t h e m u p . It is not c l e a r w h a t , in sociological t e r m s , V a i n s t e i n m e a n s b y ' t h e d i s i n t e g r a t i o n of t h e c l a n ' , since c l a n s in s o m e f o r m or o t h e r h a v e b e e n p r e s e n t in t h e A l t a i T u v a - B u r y a t a r e a virtually u n t i l t o d a y . If h e is i m p l y i n g t h a t c l a n s w e r e previously m o r e c o m m u n a l i s e d a n d e g a l i t a r i a n in this region, t h e n this r e m a i n s to b e d e m o n s t r a t e d , a l t h o u g h t h e r e is n o r e a s o n w h y this s h o u l d not b e so. V a i n s t e i n ' s e a r l y h i s t o r i c a l m a t e r i a l s c o n c r e t e l y r e f e r r i n g t o T u v a a n d t h e Altai only s h o w t h a t s h a m a n i s m w a s not m e n t i o n e d . I n t h e a b s e n c e of m o r e d a t a , h e tries to s h o w t h e e x i s t e n c e of a series of d i f f e r e n t existing t y p e s of s h a m a n i s m in S i b e r i a t h a t s o m e of t h e s e a r e ' e a r l i e r ' in k i n d t h a n o t h e r s ; t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e s of this k i n d of a r g u m e n t a r e well k n o w n . All recent Soviet r e s e a r c h e m p h a s i s e s t h e close i n t e r t w i n i n g of s h a m a n i s t , B u d d h i s t , a n d p r e - s h a m a n i s t e l e m e n t s in t h e c u r r e n t religious

H u m p h r e y : Theories ofNorth Asian shamanism

249

life of N o r t h A s i a n peoples. Z h u k o v s k a y a m a k e s t h e p o i n t t h a t B u d d h i s m itself h a d u n d e r g o n e a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n since its early d a y s ; t h e m o d e s t cells of ascetic l a m a s u n d e r t h e g u i d a n c e of a g u r u , w h i c h at least in l e g e n d f o r m e d t h e b e g i n n i n g stages of B u d d h i s m , developed in T i b e t i n t o a c o m p l e x h i e r a r c h y of r a n k s a n d offices, h e a d e d by t h e P a n c h e n - L a m a and the Dalai-Lama.IS A complex and hierarchical c o s m o l o g y w a s e l a b o r a t e d w h i c h i n c l u d e d large n u m b e r s of deities, s o m e of t h e m h u m a n b e i n g s w h o h a d a t t a i n e d holy s t a t u s . At t h e s a m e t i m e , t h e i d e a e m e r g e d t h a t deities c o u l d s p i r i t u a l l y e m b o d y t h e m s e l v e s in h u m a n vessels, a n d T i b e t a n m o n a s t e r i e s w e r e f r e q u e n t l y h e a d e d b y s u c h ' g o d s in disguise'. All of this m e a n t t h a t h i e r a r c h i c a l T i b e t a n society, w h i c h h a d t a k e n t h e f o r m of a k i n g d o m since at least t h e s e v e n t h c e n t u r y , a s s i m i l a t e d a n d d e v e l o p e d a c o s m o l o g y w h i c h itself closely represented the hierarchical principle. Z h u k o v s k a y a does not m e n t i o n t h e fact t h a t t h e M o n g o l i a n region m a y first h a v e b e e n e x p o s e d t o B u d d h i s m at a very e a r l y p e r i o d , b e f o r e t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e w e a l t h y m o n a s t e r i e s a n d t h e g r e a t t e a c h i n g sects, w h e n w a n d e r i n g m i s s i o n a r i e s took t h e belief a l o n g t h e t r a d e r o u t e s to t h e n o r t h of T i b e t . 1 4 She d o e s not even t o u c h u p o n t h e t a k i n g u p of B u d d h i s m by t h e M o n g o l s d u r i n g t h e Y ü a n D y n a s t y b u t c o n f i n e s h e r s t u d y to t h e later p e r i o d of t h e r e - p e n e t r a t i o n of L a m a i s m into M o n g o l i a in t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y . T h e s t a n d a r d p i c t u r e of this p r o c e s s is of a distinct, T i b e t a n f o r m of L a m a i s m r a p i d l y g a i n i n g g r o u n d in M o n g o l i a , e n c o u r a g e d by t h e a r i s t o c r a c y a n d later b y t h e M a n c h u s ; this w a s o p p o s e d b y native M o n g o l s h a m a n i s m , t h e religion of t h e o r d i n a r y people, w h i c h a l t h o u g h it s o o n gave w a y to L a m a i s m w a s in t h e e n d to i n f l u e n c e t h e latter strongly. But t h e s h a m a n i s t e l e m e n t s in L a m a i s m c a n n o t b e a t t r i b u t e d e n tirely to t h e i n f l u e n c e of t h e M o n g o l ' b l a c k f a i t h ' , since T i b e t a n L a m a i s m a l r e a d y b e e n in c o n t a c t for m a n y c e n t u r i e s w i t h B o n - p o . T h i s T i b e t a n religious s y s t e m s e e m s to h a v e b e e n closely s i m i l a r to s h a m a n ism. T h e r e w a s i n t e n s e rivalry w i t h L a m a i s m b u t b y t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y b o t h s y s t e m s h a d a c q u i r e d s o m e of t h e typical a t t r i b u t e s of t h e o t h e r : B o n - p o h a d a c q u i r e d m o n k s , m o n a s t e r i e s , a n d holy books, o n t h e m o d e l of t h e G a n j u r a n d T a n j u r , while L a m a i s m h a d specialists in m a g i c , e x o r c i s m , possession, t r a n c e a n d sorcery. S o t h e B u d d h i s m w h i c h r e a c h e d M o n g o l i a in t h e s e v e n t e e n t h cent u r y a n d B u r y a t i a a c e n t u r y later w a s a l r e a d y t o s o m e e x t e n t a s y n c r e t i c religion. F u r t h e r m o r e , all s c h o l a r s a g r e e t h a t t h e s h a m a n i s m w h i c h it f o u n d in M o n g o l i a c a n n o t have b e e n a ' p u r e ' f o r m , since, q u i t e a p a r t f r o m all t h e a r g u m e n t s b r o u g h t f o r w a r d by G u m i l e v , etc. it h a d b e e n p r e c e d e d o n l y shortly b e f o r e b y t h e p e r i o d of B u d d h i s m of t h e M o n g o l Empire. Z h u k o v s k a y a observes q u i t e r i g h t l y t h a t t h e key t o all of t h e s e c h a n g e s of religion in M o n g o l i a is t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of d i f f e r e n t f o r m s of society over t h e p e r i o d in q u e s t i o n . H e r view is t h a t s h a m a n i s m a r o s e

250

Part V : Anthropology and religion

with t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n f r o m a society b a s e d on kinship (rodovoy stroy) to feudalism. T h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n of religious f u n c t i o n s into the h a n d s of one individual, t h e s h a m a n , was the b e g i n n i n g of this process. But once feudalism h a d in fact established itself a n d a class society had developed, s h a m a n i s m was no longer a p p r o p r i a t e . T h e class o f ' e x p l o i t e r s ' needed a religion which justified the present state of affairs on earth, and which e n c o u r a g e d the less f o r t u n a t e to b e a r their fate patiently in the expectation of a better life hereafter. T h i s function was fulfilled by Buddhism. 1 5 T h i s a r g u m e n t is not explained in detail by Zhukovskaya and for it to be fully a c c e p t a b l e we should need to know w h a t exactly were the changes in the society based on clans which t u r n e d it into a feudal society a n d w h y these should result in the e m e r g e n c e of individual sham a n s ; we should w a n t to k n o w w h a t ' f e u d a l i s m ' m e a n s in the context of n o m a d i c p a s t o r a l i s m - it might, for instance, be m o r e enlightening to explore the use of t h e M a r x i s t types 'military democracy' 1 6 a n d the 'asiatic m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n ' " for certain periods in central Asian history. T h i s is not the place to explore these questions in full, and I shall simply take it t h a t Z h u k o v s k a y a ' s theory, which tallies in its outlines with t h a t of o t h e r Soviet scholars, gives us a n a d e q u a t e explanation in general, if not in p a r t i c u l a r . By the n i n e t e e n t h century, w h e n we begin to have reliable information, s h a m a n i s m a n d B u d d h i s m in B u r y a t i a h a d not only m a n y c o m m o n ideas, b u t also n u m e r o u s c o m m o n practices. It is not possible to think of t h e m as forming two c o m p l e m e n t a r y p a r t s of a single religious system. In this, N o r t h Asia a p p e a r s to be different from SouthEast Asia, w h e r e in T h a i l a n d , B u r m a a n d Ceylon, B u d d h i s m a n d 'spirit-cults' have b e e n described as existing side-by-side, with different a n d c o m p l e m e n t a r y religious a n d social functions. 1 8 In the SouthEast Asia case, B u d d h i s m represents a n ascetic a n d holy way of life, usually possible only for short periods of t h e life-span, directed at obtaining religious merit a n d a better r e - b i r t h ; m a t t e r s of health, material prosperity, fertility a n d luck in this life are the concern of a variety of other specialists m o r e or less outside B u d d h i s m . But in North Asia, in L a m a i s t areas, u p to forty per cent of t h e entire male population spent a whole lifetime in the m o n a s t e r y or in orders; a rigorous life spent c o n t e m p l a t i n g philosophical t r u t h s a n d the after-life was not even a t t e m p t e d by the m a j o r i t y of lamas, concubines were regarded as a necessary evil, a n d high B u d d h i s t r a n k s were even passed on to n a t u ral heirs. L a m a i s m could fulfil all the needs of this life as well as those of the next, a n d in this sense t h e r e was n o t h i n g that a Buryat s h a m a n could do t h a t a l a m a could not also do: t h e r e were l a m a diviners, l a m a m e d i u m s , l a m a medicine m e n , a n d l a m a exorcists. Some of the ecstat i c / m a g i c a l practices of the l a m a s were far b e y o n d the resources of shamans : for example, there was the tsam, a huge dance representing the exorcism of the e l a b o r a t e a n d terrifying m a s k e d figures of demons. T h e r e is no need to a s s u m e t h a t t h e elements of s h a m a n i s m a n d

H u m p h r e y : Theories of North Asian shamanism

251

B u d d h i s m w h i c h s e e m e d s i m i l a r by t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y h a d a c o m m o n origin, or even t h a t t h e y were necessarily b o r r o w e d f r o m o n e a n o t h e r . Despite n u m e r o u s similarities t h e t w o i m p l i e d radically different a p p r o a c h e s to m o r a l i t y . H o w e v e r , w e c a n p e r h a p s a s s u m e t h a t b e h i n d w h a t likenesses t h e r e were lay s i m i l a r social f o r m s . By t h e late n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y it was clear t h a t in M o n g o l i a , unlike S o u t h - E a s t Asia, s h a m a n i s m a n d B u d d h i s m d i d not exist t o g e t h e r h a r m o n i o u s l y in t h e s a m e c o m m u n i t y . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e r e w e r e a r e a s w h i c h w e r e definitely ' B u d d h i s t ' a n d o t h e r s w h i c h w e r e clearly ' s h a m a n i s t ' . In C e n t r a l a n d East M o n g o l i a few s h a m a n s r e m a i n e d by t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y , 1 9 while, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , the W e s t e r n B u r y a t s never took u p B u d d h i s m , d e s p i t e t h e r e p e a t e d efforts of l a m a missionaries a n d t h e p e r f o r m a n c e of m i r a c l e s . T h e ' C h r o n i c l e of t h e Alar B u r y a t s ' tells us w h a t h a p p e n e d in o n e s u c h case. 2 0 A t e m p l e w a s built in A l a r in 1840 w i t h t h i r t e e n l a m a s a n d a h e a d - l a m a (shiretei), all of w h o m w e r e K h o r i B u r y a t s . T h e local p o p u l a t i o n w a s entirely s h a m a n i s t a n d w a s f r a n k l y u n i n t e r e s t e d in t h e t e m p l e , a l t h o u g h s o m e people did point out t h a t t h e shiretei w a s n e g l e c t i n g his vows b y k e e p i n g c o n c u b i n e s . It w a s d e c i d e d to r e p l a c e t h e shiretei w i t h a local m a n , C h o i van Samsonov. Not only d i d S a m s o n o v keep a ' w i f e ' a n d r e a r a family, he knew n o t h i n g a b o u t B u d d h i s m a n d soon built special y u r t s a n d o u t h o u s e s for his l a r g e collection of s h a m a n i s t ongons. H e w a s s u c c e e d e d in his old age b y his son, G a n z h u r C h o i v a n o v , t h e first of t h e shireteis to have a degree f r o m a B u d d h i s t m o n a s t e r y . C h o i v a n o v w a g e d a n energetic w a r a g a i n s t t h e s h a m a n i s t s , b u t he h a d n o success; t h e w h o l e idea of m a k i n g religious m e r i t b y sacrificing p r o p e r t y to t h e l a m a s p a s s e d right over the h e a d s of t h e local B u r y a t s w h o s a w only u n n e c e s s a r y e x p e n s e for no p u r p o s e . I n o r d e r to avoid his a n n o y i n g e x h o r t a t i o n s m a n y of t h e m even a s k e d t o b e b a p t i s e d into t h e O r t h o d o x C h u r c h . By t h e beginning of t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y , t h e A l a r T e m p l e w a s still small a n d poor, with twelve l a m a s , a n d it w a s soon closed d o w n . T o these B u r y a t s , B u d d h i s m a n d O r t h o d o x y w e r e seen as equivalents, a n d the decision to j o i n o n e o r o t h e r h a d m o r e to d o w i t h politics t h a n religion. U n d e r R u s s i a n rule t h e r e w e r e definite a d v a n t a g e s in b e i n g O r t h o d o x . 2 1 But t h e conversion w a s only s u p e r f i c i a l ; m a n y O r t h o d o x B u r y a t s a l m o s t never went to c h u r c h , b u t h a d f r e q u e n t c o n t a c t with s h a m a n s . Side by side w i t h a n icon h u n g r o w s of s h a m a n i s t ongons in their yurts. St N i c h o l a s himself b e c a m e t h e ongon of t h e harvest, bringing luck a n d p r o s p e r i t y in the c r o p - a g r i c u l t u r e w h i c h B u r y a t s associated p r i m a r i l y w i t h t h e R u s s i a n p e a s a n t e c o n o m y . 2 2 T h e two i m p o r t a n t religion systems for t h e B u r y a t w e r e s h a m a n i s m a n d B u d d h i s m , a n d t h e vital q u e s t i o n is - w h y did t h e W e s t e r n B u r y a t r e m a i n s h a m a n i s t , while t h e E a s t e r n B u r y a t took u p B u d d h i s m ? T h e answer, I think, c a n only be given in t e r m s of d i f f e r e n c e s in society. T h e W e s t e r n B u r y a t s h a d a relatively s t a g n a n t e c o n o m y as a result of pressure o n l a n d : t h e g r o w t h of t h e B u r y a t p o p u l a t i o n , t h e s u r r o u n d i n g forest t e r r a i n w h i c h m a d e a n e x p a n s i o n of h e r d i n g im-

252

Part V : Anthropology and religion

possible, a n d finally the coming of Russian settlers, m e a n t that crop agriculture was greatly increased in the fertile valleys with a consequent lessening in nomadism. 2 3 T h e fact that the Western Buryats became attached to particular bits of land whose usufruct was regulated by patrilineal and other kinship links may have encouraged an ancestor-based view of society. An individual's rights to field a n d pastures were validated by the link he could trace with the commonality of 'original' Buryat users, in other words a link via n a m e d and relatively recent ancestors, w o m e n as well as men. T h e different kinds of links employed established a differentiation of rank a m o n g land-users. T h i s kind of system was easily represented by s h a m a n i s m with its m u l t i t u d e of ranked deities, 24 its great emphasis on ancestors as the a r b i t r a r y regulators of luck a n d success, and its professional practitioners tied to clans. T h e Eastern Buryats, on the other h a n d , formed an e x p a n d i n g society based on nomadic herding. Great tracts of p a s t u r e l a n d were available to the South a n d East of the Trans-Baikal steppes, a n d a n expansion in the productivity of herders could result immediately in territorial expansion into North Mongolia, the Aga Steppes, a n d so on. C r o p agriculture was barely practised at all a n d the use of land was not rigidly prescribed, as a m o n g the W e s t e r n Buryat, by links with previously established ancestors. Eastern Buryats nomadised virtually irrespective of whether neighbours were kin, 2 5 but nevertheless they had a m u c h more unified a n d monolithic idea of their society. 2 6 T h e eleven Khori lineages of the Eastern Buryat were descended from a c o m m o n ancestor who belonged to the mythic configuration of people related to Ghengis K h a n . O t h e r ' E a s t e r n Buryats' were people of Mongol origin, people w h o h a d belonged to some army, g u a r d , or tribe in the Mongol orbit, but w h o often h a d forgotten their precise genealogical links with the past. In these circumstances, in which links with recent ancestors were relatively u n i m p o r t a n t , it is possible t h a t L a m a i s m with its universal, non-kin based, professional practitioners a n d its monolithic hierarchy did correspond more closely t h a n s h a m a n ism to the needs a n d contradictions of Eastern Buryat society. Besides which, it is doubtful whether the Western Buryat economy could have supported a large n u m b e r of non-productive m e n living in monasteries, even if such a move towards L a m a i s m h a d developed there. As for Zhukovskaya's a r g u m e n t that the Buddhist doctrine of the karma, by which individuals can only expect to better their lives in a n o t h e r rebirth, a t t r a c t e d the Mongol a n d Buryat aristocrats since it justified their privileged position, it is difficult to support this without reservation. Certainly, it was the Mongol feudal lords who e n c o u r a g e d the return of B u d d h i s m in the seventeenth century, and Mongol society was hierarchically divided into classes of state serfs, personal serfs, monastery serfs, free-men, aristocrats and officials. However, the position was not entirely the same a m o n g the Eastern Buryats, w h o still retained a clan-based political system, a n d therefore this whole ques-

H u m p h r e y : Theories ojNorth Asian shamanism

253

tion requires further consideration. In conclusion, the moral a n d intellectual differences b e t w e e n shamanism and Buddhism did not result in them becoming complementary religious practices w h i c h could be e m p l o y e d within o n e population. Instead, they b e c a m e separate and even antagonistic in such a w a y that s h a m a n i s m p r e d o m i n a t e d in one area, while B u d d h i s m prevailed in another. T h i s was possible because L a m a i s m contained all the possibilities for ecstatic trance, possession, and curing which were used by the shamans. It is s u g g e s t e d that the development of L a m a i s m can be correlated w i t h a hierarchical territorially expansive society, while the retention of s h a m a n i s m is related to a descent-based society in w h i c h there is the need to validate land-claims by reference to ancestors. T h e position w a s not static a n d at the beginning of the twentieth century there were regions where L a m a i s m was gaining ground at the e x p e n s e of s h a m a n i s m (e.g. T u n k a , Darkhat) and consequently the t w o did at that point exist within the s a m e population.

NOTES 1 D. Banzarov, ' T h e b l a c k faith, or s h a m a n i s m a m o n g t h e M o n g o l s ' , Collected Works, M o s c o w , 1955, pp. 51-2 (in R u s s i a n ) . 2 W . Heissig, Ά M o n g o l i a n s o u r c e t o t h e L a m a i s t s u p p r e s s i o n of s h a m a n i s m in t h e 17th c e n t u r y : pt 2', Anthropos, 1953,48, 518. 3 M . Eliade, Shamanism, Achaic Techniques of Ecstacy, L o n d o n , 1964, pp. 498-507. 4 S . M . Shirokogoroff, The Psychomental Complex of the Tungus, L o n d o n , 1935. 5 Ibid., p. 130, n o t e 52. 6 L . Y a . S h t e r n b e r g , Religion in the Light of Ethnography, A N S S S R , L e n i n g r a d , 1936 (in R u s s i a n ) . 7 M . A . C z a p l i c k a , Aboriginal Siberia: A Study in Social Anthropology, O x f o r d , 1914, pp. 116-291. 8 I . M . Lewis, Ecstatic Religion: An Anthropological Study of Spirit Possession and Shamanism, L o n d o n , 1971, p p . 18-36. 9 L . N . G u m i l e v , The Ancient Mongol Religion, Dokl. O t d e l . i. Komissyi G e o r g r . ob-va S S S R , 5, L e n i n g r a d , 1968, p p . 31-8 (in R u s s i a n ) . 10 L.P. Potapov, ' T h e m o u n t a i n cult in t h e Altai', Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1946, no. 2, p p . 31-8 (in R u s s i a n ) . 11 S.I. Vainstein, ' T h e T u v a n (Soyot) s h a m a n ' s d r u m a n d t h e c e r e m o n y of its " e n l i v e n i n g " ', in V. Dioszegi (ed. ) Popular Beliefs and Folklore Tradition in Siberia, T h e H a g u e , 1968, p p . 331-8. 12 S.I. V a i n s t e i n , ' S h a m a n i s m of T o u v i n i a n s ' , 7th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences,Moscow, 1964, p. 13. 13 N . L . Z h u k o v s k a y a , ' T h e influence of M o n g o l - B u r y a t s h a m a n i s m a n d pres h a m a n i s t beliefs o n L a m a i s m ' , in G . G . S t r a t a n o v i c h (ed.) Problemy Etnografii ι Etnicheskoy I storti Narodov Vostochnoy ι Tugo-Vostochnoy Λ»!!, A N S S S R , M o s c o w , 1968, p. 219 (in R u s s i a n ) . 14 M . Bussagli, Painting of Central Asia, t r a n s l a t e d L. Small, G e n e v a , 1963, p p . 20-9, for e x a m p l e , describes t h e s p r e a d of B u d d h i s m e a s t w a r d s a l o n g t h e silk r o u t e by t r a c i n g early wall p a i n t i n g s d a t i n g to t h e s e c o n d half of t h e t h i r d c e n t u r y A.D. 15 Z h u k o v s k a y a , op. cit., p p . 235-6. 16 G . E . M a r k o v , ' S o m e p r o b l e m s of social o r g a n i s a t i o n of the n o m a d s of Asia', Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1970, no. 6, pp. 74-89 (in R u s s i a n ) .

254

P a r t V : Anthropology and religion

17 K. M a r x , Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations, ed. E. H o b s b a w m , L o n d o n , 1964, pp. 33-4,67-9. 18 E . R . L e a c h , P u l l e y a r a n d t h e L o r d B u d d h a , a n aspect of religious s y n c r e t i s m in C e y l o n ' , Psychoanalysis and the Psycho-analytical Review, vol. 49, no. 2. S.J. T a m b i a h , Buddhism and the Spirit Cults in \orth-East Thailand, C a m b r i d g e , 1970. 19 V. Dioszegi, ' P r o b l e m s of M o n g o l i a n s h a m a n i s m : report of a n e x p e d i t i o n m a d e in 1960 in M o n g o l i a ' , Acta Etnographica ( B u d a p e s t ) , vol. 10, fase. 1-2, 1961, p. 196. 20 G . N . R u m y a n t s e v , Chronicle of the Alar Buryat, 1949, Zapiski N I I K E B - M , 9 (in Russian). 21 I . M . M a n z i g e e v , The Yangut Buryat Clan, U l a n - U d e , 1960, p. 202. 22 Ibid., p. 110. 23 N . P . M a n g u t o v , ' S o c i a l - e c o n o m i c relations in w e s t e r n B u r y a t i a ' , Etnograficheskyi Sbormk, U l a n - U d e , 1965, 4, p. 111. 24 L. K r a d e r , ' B u r y a t religion a n d society', Southwestern Journal of Anthropology. 1954, 10, p p . 322-48. 25 I.A. A s a l k h a n o v , ' O n B u r y a t c l a n s in t h e 19th c e n t u r y ' , Etnograficheskyi Sbormk, U l a n - U d e , 1960, 1, p p . 81-2. 26 B. R i n c h e n , ' A b o u t a K h o r i B u r y a t genealogy', Acta Orientaha ( H u n g a r y ) , 196S, vol. 18, p. 206, m a k e s a n i n t e r e s t i n g d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n the w r i t t e n genealogies of t h e M o n g o l s as o p p o s e d to t h e B u r y a t s . T h e M o n g o l s called their genealogies udum sudur ' c h r o n i c l e of d e s c e n t ' , a n d t h e s e w e r e p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d to show w h o w e r e t h e d e s c e n d a n t s of a given a n c e s t o r . T h e B u r y a t s on t h e o t h e r h a n d called their genealogies uy-un-bicig ' w r i t i n g of t h e o r i g i n ' , a n d t h e a i m here w a s to find out f r o m w h o m a living p e r s o n w a s d e s c e n d e d , w h o w e r e t h e a n c e s t o r s . R i n c h e n c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e uy-un-bicig w e r e closer to t h e s h a m a n i s t cult of a n c e s t o r s ; they w e r e used by K h o r i as well as W e s t ern Buryat.

PART VI Concepts and methods

S. ARUTYONOV Ethnography and linguistics In this paper I will try to analyse the relationship between ethnography and linguistics. Ethnography studies, describes, and finds general solutions for the ethnically specific a n d differentiating components of culture (cf. in detail the paper by Bromley in this book). Linguistics is a science which fulfills the same functions for the language or languages as the object of its study. Language is here interpreted in a narrow sense, as definite languages which develop spontaneously in the course of speech activity in h u m a n social communities. As far as language in a broader sense is concerned, covering, for example, the languages of mathematical symbolism, we consider them as the object of the general theory of sign systems, of which linguistics is a part. T h e problem of the delimitation of ethnography (or cultural anthropology) and linguistics - the problem of the definition of the areas of their common interests, tendencies, and perspectives of their cooperation and interaction - is, of course, topical on the international scale. Nevertheless, in this report I shall proceed mainly from the m a n n e r in which this problem is actually handled in the methodology and practice current amongst Soviet scholars, from the point of view of both theoretical considerations and the empirical experience of scientific work. In principle one can hardly dispute the fact that culture in a broader sense also includes language. 1 At the same time the special place of language among the mechanisms of culture as the basic and universal means of communication is also clear. Therefore its study has become the subject of the highly specialised discipline of linguistics which occupies a separate place among the sciences of culture, and differs considerably from the rest of them in method. But it is obvious that linguistics has some areas of contact and that it overlaps with other aspects of the study of culture as interpreted in a more restricted sense. T h e latter can be labelled as the extralinguistic culture, which also includes its ethnographic aspect. This is already clear from the fact that language, more often than any other cultural factor, serves as the basic factor in ethnogenesis and ethno-differentiation. It is also one of the basic standpoints of formation a n d preservation of ethnic identity. 'Due to a

258

Part VI : Concepts and methods

relative rigidity of every language system, to understand the ethnic identity of the b e a r e r s of a l a n g u a g e it is sufficient to know only some of its elements, a n d therefore as a rule t h e r e is no need to analyse the system as a whole.' 2 Some exceptions to the rule, a n d the need to analyse the whole system, however, are often observed in contact zones. Such for instance are the zones of i n t e r m e d i a r y dialects calling for a study of correlations, coincidence or non-coincidence of dialect barriers with the b o u n d a r i e s of subethnic groups, a n d especially the zones of formation of mixed socalled creole languages a n d m a s s bilingualism. T h e latter p r o b l e m is especially topical t o d a y a n d a vast literature is devoted to it. 3 It is n o t e w o r t h y t h a t bilingualism is only one of m a n y c o m p o n e n t s of a large a n d c o m p l e x p r o b l e m of study in linguistic situations. T h i s p r o b l e m consists in the study of correlation in the functions a n d tendencies of the development of w r i t t e n languages a n d spoken dialects in homogeneous ethnosocial organisms, as well as different languages in multinational, poly-ethnic countries. T h e p r o b l e m is on the b o r d e r of e t h n o g r a p h y a n d linguistics, a n d is actively explored by both sides. 4 Possessing a n ethnic aspect at all levels, it can in its t u r n be viewed as part of a b r o a d c o m p l e x of problems, covered by the notion of social linguistics or linguistic sociology. T h e interdisciplinary c h a r a c t e r of this complex is clear f r o m t h e very duality of these terms. 5 But far from all p r o b l e m s of social linguistics possess a n ethnic aspect. In p a r t i c u l a r it is absent in such p r o b l e m s as l a n g u a g e functioning in a society using c o m p u t e r s , or the peculiarities of speech in the smallest groups, on the personal a n d family level. But wherever this ethnic aspect is present, there is t h e possibility a n d even t h e need to include the materials, m e t h o d s a n d a p p r o a c h of e t h n o g r a p h y in the study of problems u n d e r consideration. W h i l e the phonetic a n d g r a m m a t i c a l p h e n o m e n a r e m a i n completely in the d o m a i n of p u r e linguistics, and e t h n o g r a p h i c materials are mainly utilised only to outline the social b a c k g r o u n d of their functioning, t h e m a t t e r is quite different with lexicography a n d semasiology. A m o n g the three c o m p o n e n t s of the semantic triangle it is only the d e n o m i n a t e which lies in the sphere of a purely linguistic approach, b u t as soon as its relations with the d e n o t a t e a n d significate are concerned, as well as of these two with each other, some degree of ethnic specificity is inevitably present. T w o indispensable prerequisites for any linguistic study are a text (a corpus of texts) a n d a vocabulary. T h e s e prerequisites are g r a n t e d in languages with a relatively long written record. T h e situation is different with non-literate languages and ancient texts awaiting d e c i p h e r m e n t . In the first case a fixation of texts a n d vocabulary is necessary, in the latter case the vocabulary must be reconstructed. Both tasks are in practice possible only with the invocation of extralinguistic cultural realities. In these cases a n introduction of a new language into the scope of linguistics c a n be d o n e only by a formulation of linguistic tasks within the f r a m e w o r k of an ethnological a p p r o a c h a n d m e t h o d . O n l y after this m a y a study pass into the d o m a i n of p u r e linguistics.

A r u t y o n o v : Ethnography and linguistics

259

T h i s s i t u a t i o n is reflected in t h e history of p r a c t i c a l s t u d i e s in such l a n g u a g e s in the U S S R a n d in t h e l i t e r a t u r e d e v o t e d to this s u b j e c t . 6 It h a s b e e n said t h a t lexicography as a w h o l e is a p a r t of linguistics, a n d t h e o n e most closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e s t u d y of e x t r a l i n g u i s t i c cult u r a l realities. S o m e a r e a s of l e x i c o g r a p h y in every l a n g u a g e in t u r n , w h e n c o n c e r n e d with their d e n o t a t e s a n d d e s i g n a t e s (significates), c o m p r e h e n d holistic c u l t u r a l systems, a n d c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e s h a r e d h e r i t a g e of t h e spiritual c u l t u r e of t h e p e o p l e u s i n g this l a n g u a g e . T h e s t u d y of such c u l t u r a l systems, as well as of t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g d e n o m i n a t i o n a l lexical corpuses, in principle implies a c o m p l e x linguoe t h n o g r a p h i c a p p r o a c h , w h i c h is c a r r i e d out at t h e o v e r l a p p i n g a r e a s of b o t h sciences. A m o n g such systems we c a n single o u t first of all various o n o m a s t i c systems, like t o p o n y m y , a n t h r o p o n y m y , z o o n y m y a n d so on. A c o n s i d e r a b l e g r o w t h of interest in such s t u d i e s c a n b e o b s e r v e d d u r i n g t h e recent d e c a d e in t h e U S S R . 7 ' S i n g l i n g o u t special o n o m a s t i c p r o b l e m s f r o m t h e g e n e r a l s p h e r e of linguistic p r o b l e m s c a n b e e x p l a i n e d b y t h e p o s i t i o n of p r o p e r n a m e s in l a n g u a g e . P r o p e r n a m e s are a p a r t of l a n g u a g e , w h i c h illustrates a most p a r a d o x i c a l situation, a n d t h e i r a n a l y s i s will h e l p to o r i g i n a t e n e w e r a n d d e e p e r general linguistic c o n c e p t s . ' 8 So far as ethnologists a r e c o n c e r n e d , these p r o b l e m s a r e of interest w h e n r e l a t e d to a n u m b e r of very specific c o m p o n e n t s of c u l t u r e , w h i c h in s o m e cases b e a r a n e t h n o - d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g c h a r a c t e r , a n d in o t h e r s s h e d n e w light o n t h e e t h n o h i s t o r y of t h e people. T h i s m a y b e e x e m p l i f i e d b y several cases, w h i c h d o not, however, e m b r a c e all p r o b l e m s a r i s i n g in this field. E t h n o n y m y , of course, is directly r e l a t e d to t h e p r o b l e m s of e t h n o g r a p h y , b e c a u s e it reflects e t h n i c identity as self-consciousness a n d as t h e identification of o t h e r e t h n i c g r o u p s , s t e r e o t y p e s a n d a u t o s t e reotypes, a n d t h e e t h n i c s t r u c t u r e s a n d s u b s t r u c t u r e s of a society. T h e a n t h r o p o n y m i c a l m o d e l is a n i m p o r t a n t e t h n o - d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g index, a n d its p r e s e r v a t i o n or c h a n g e m a y serve as a very reliable i n d i c a t o r of tendencies t o w a r d s preservation or c h a n g e in t h e s p h e r e of e t h n i c identity. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , such i n d i c a t o r s as specificities of c o s m o nymical terms often enable us to outline broader areas, which coincide with a n c i e n t h i s t o r i c o - e t h n o g r a p h i c a r e a s , while t o p o n y m i e d a t a provide a possibility of outlining t h e regions of a n c i e n t s u b s t r a t u m ethnic g r o u p s , a n d h e n c e to d e e p e n o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e e t h n o g e n esis of m o d e r n p o p u l a t i o n s . A specific g r o u p of lexical f o r m s , w h i c h is significant as a cultural c o m p o n e n t , a r e k i n s h i p t e r m s . T h e y f o r m a system, w h i c h is actualised not so m u c h in its linguistic, as in its sociocultural a n d e t h n o g r a p h i c aspect. T h e r e f o r e k i n s h i p t e r m s a r e a n object of s t u d y not only for linguists, b u t also b y e t h n o l o g i s t s . T h e connections of e t h n o g r a p h y a n d linguistics in this field a r e n u m e r o u s . T h e y are not restricted b y the fact t h a t t h e object of s t u d y is at t h e s a m e t i m e b o t h a linguistic a n d a n e t h n o c u l t u r a l reality. T h e y a r e also m a n i f e s t e d in t h e fact t h a t at p r e s e n t k i n s h i p s y s t e m s a r e investigated

260

Part VI : Concepts and methods

by a scries of new techniques, especially by the m e t h o d of c o m p o n e n t analysis. ' T h e principles underlying this method, a n d the m a i n concepts by which it operates [here are m e a n t the notions of denotates, designates, c o m p o n e n t s or differential variables] have been borrowed f r o m the new orientation in linguistics, which studies semantics in the light of sign theory. * Besides, to avoid the subjectivity a n d bias originating from a t t e m p t s to translate the kinship terms of the language u n d e r study by kinship t e r m s of the s t u d e n t ' s own native language, special ' l a n g u a g e s ' or code systems have been constructed for a n a d e q u a t e representation of these t e r m s a n d their relations. A n u m b e r of such codes exists, but some of t h e m , which are the most valid scientifically a n d are utilised in Soviet scientific practice, have been created on the basis of t h e concepts and m e t h o d s of m a t h e m a t i c a l semiotics, closely connected with linguistics. 1 0 I have written above about the delimitation between the spheres of application of linguistic a n d ethnographic methods, a n d a b o u t the spheres where both these two m e t h o d s overlap a n d cooperate. But t h r o u g h the e x a m p l e of kinship terms I have touched u p o n a n o t h e r aspect of the relationship between e t h n o g r a p h y a n d linguistics. I a m speaking here about the m u t u a l relations of two disciplines, which arise w h e n within one of t h e m certain methods, techniques, concepts a n d notions are elaborated, which are specifically destined or naturally suited for use in the other discipline, or w h e n m e t h o d s which developed a n d were approved in one of these sciences, can be transp l a n t e d into the other. A creation of a n artificial ' l a n g u a g e ' (descriptive code) m a y exemplify the first situation, the t r a n s p l a n t a t i o n of the m e t h o d of componential analysis is a n example of t h e second case. T h e difference between the lingual a n d extralingual p a r t s of a culture implies certain consequences, e.g. that in a language we face elements which are essentially m u c h more rigidly organised, systematic, discrete, a n d hence are more easily available for a dissection into ' e m i c ' u n i t s , " like phonemes, lexemes, m o r p h e m e s . T h i s original, initial discreteness is lacking in the extra-linguistic part of culture. Correspondingly, a t r a n s p l a n t a t i o n of e t h n o g r a p h i c m e t h o d s into linguistics is h a r d l y possible, with the exception, of course, of the techniques of interviewing an informer while studying spoken non-literate languages or dialect peculiarities. But this is already not at the level of scientific m e t h o d s proper, but rather at the level of ' k n o w - h o w ' or fieldwork techniques. O n the contrary, the transplantation into ethnographic practices of a series of methods, previously elaborated a n d approved in linguistics, has a history of a long standing, as well as certain prospects for t h e future. W h a t is already quite conclusive is that each of the two leading m e t h o d s of any ethnographic study, i.e. the comparative historical m e t h o d a n d the structural a p p r o a c h , have initially been developed in the study of language. F u r t h e r m o r e , we may e m p h a s i s e t h a t one of the

Arutyonov : Ethnography and linguistics

261

m a i n directions in the work of the Soviet e t h n o g r a p h e r s has always been t h e study of ethnogenesis a n d ethnic history. T h e r e is no d o u b t that such an inquiry can only be successful provided that a complex interdisciplinary a p p r o a c h is applied. T h e study of ethnogenetical p r o b l e m s calls for cooperation by experts in the spheres of language, e t h n o g r a p h y , social history, physical anthropology, archaeology a n d so on. But we m a y still distinguish between three m a i n aspects of the ethnogenetic process. T h e y are: first, the formation of the language of the people under study, which c a n be traced back by the m e t h o d s of historical comparative linguistics; secondly, the formation of their physical type, which c a n be traced by the m e t h o d s of physical a n t h r o pology (including paleoanthropology); and, thirdly and most important, the formation of a c o m m o n spiritual a n d material culture of the people, which is reflected in their shared self-consciousness and identity. T h e latter is t r a c e d by the m e t h o d s of e t h n o g r a p h y , a n d also of archaeology a n d social (written) history, w h e n a p p r o p r i a t e sources are available. A m o n g these three aspects two, namely the language a n d the ethnoculture, belong to culture in a broader sense of the word, as a specifically h u m a n p h e n o m e n o n , which c a n be contrasted with the biological p h e n o m e n o n of m a n , reflected in the aspects studied by physical anthropology. T h i s principal difference m a y help us to u n d e r s t a n d t h a t physical anthropological concepts a n d notions, like morphological distances, or metisation, are not usually t r a n s p l a n t e d into e t h n o g r a p h y . T h e expression 'metisated culture', which is sometimes met in anthropological literature, would seem unscientific. O n the other h a n d , such notions, e l a b o r a t e d by historical linguistics, as s u b s t r a t u m , a d s t r a t u m , s u p e r s t r a t u m , not only have entered the practice of ethnography, but have even become fundamental concepts in the ethnographic analysis of ethnogenetic problems. T h e m a i n principle of classification accepted in e t h n o g r a p h y is the ethnolinguistic principle, which is based on the linguistic classification of the families of languages. A m o n g some other principles of classification we must note first of all the classifications according to economico-cultural types and historico-ethnographic regions. T h e former has no regular linguistic correlations, but in the latter such c a n be observed. T h e sphere of extralinguistic culture, d u e to its diffused a n d general penetrability, c a n a c c u m u l a t e c o m m o n traits with contacting cultures at a more r a p i d rate t h a n language does, but in cases w h e n the boundaries of historico-cultural regions r e m a i n stable for a long period of time, a tendency can inevitably be observed in such f r a m e works of a movement t o w a r d s a formation of linguistic unions as well. In as m u c h as both language a n d ethnic culture belong to the class of p h e n o m e n a which c a n be differentiated in space, there is a vast field f o r ' interaction between e t h n o g e o g r a p h y a n d linguogeography. Linguistic a n d e t h n o g r a p h i c m a p s and atlases can be fully evaluated only by mutual comparison. Both the coincidence a n d noncoincidence of isop r a g m a e a n d isoglossae and of their clusters can never be incidental,

262

P a r t VI : Concepts and methods

b u t a l w a y s reflect s o m e historical a n d s t r u c t u r a l regularities as their p a r t i c u l a r a n d c o n c r e t e m a n i f e s t a t i o n . T h e s t u d y of these regularities c r e a t e s a n u m b e r of p r o b l e m s w h i c h a r e c o m m o n not only to linguogeog r a p h y a n d e t h n o g e o g r a p h y , b u t also to t h e whole c o m p l e x of chorological sciences. C o n s t a n t work is b e i n g d o n e in this direction in the USSR.12 Linguistics as a s t u d y of s p o k e n l a n g u a g e s , as s t a t e d above, c a n be c o n s i d e r e d a p a r t , b u t t h e m o s t e l a b o r a t e p a r t , of the general semiotics o r t h e t h e o r y of sign systems. T o a c e r t a i n e x t e n t a sign aspect is p r e s e n t in all c o m p o n e n t s of e x t r a l i n g u i s t i c c u l t u r e , a n d m a n y of their m a n i festations c a n b e also viewed w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k of concepts of a sign s y s t e m . T h e r e f o r e t h e regularities, n o t i o n s a n d principles w h i c h a r e s h a r e d b y sign s y s t e m s in g e n e r a l , b u t h a v e b e e n s t u d i e d in greatest detail a n d m o s t c o m p l e t e l y w i t h respect to s p o k e n l a n g u a g e s , c a n to a c e r t a i n m e a s u r e b e e x t e n d e d t o t h e s t u d y of o t h e r c u l t u r a l aspects, if t h e latter c a n b e seen w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k of t h e c o n c e p t s of sign systems. T h i s a p p r o a c h h a s f o u n d , p r o b a b l y , its m o s t e x t r e m e realisation in t h e well k n o w n h y p o t h e s i s b y S a p i r - W h o r f , or t h e t h e o r y of linguistic relativity. A c c o r d i n g to this t h e o r y , t h e w a y of life a n d the whole p a t t e r n of culture of every people is highly dependent on the specificity of their lang u a g e . In Soviet linguistic l i t e r a t u r e this h y p o t h e s i s h a s b e e n criticised for its a b s o l u t i s a t i o n of t h e role of l a n g u a g e as t h e c o n n e c t i n g link bet w e e n reality a n d t h o u g h t . 1 5 A n d even m o r e so, f r o m the point of view of e t h n o g r a p h y , it s e e m s u n r e a s o n a b l e to s p e a k of a such leading, dictatorial role of t h e lingual p a r t of a c u l t u r e w i t h respect to its n o n l i n g u a l p a r t s . At a n e m p i r i c a l level o n e c a n q u o t e a n u m b e r of e x a m p l e s in w h i c h a relatively r a p i d c h a n g e in l a n g u a g e did not result in the c o m p a r a b l y d e e p t r a n s f o r m a t i o n in t h e a r e a of t h e extralinguistic c u l t u r e . T h e r e f o r e it s e e m s to b e m o r e r e a s o n a b l e to s u p p o s e t h a t various sign systems, i n c l u d i n g l a n g u a g e , s t a n d in relations of m u t u a l influence a n d d e p e n d e n c y , w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k of every single ethnically specific c u l t u r e , b u t n e e d not a l w a y s b e related hierarchically. T h e r e are a t t e m p t s to t r a n s f e r s o m e q u a n t i t a t i v e m e t h o d s , elabora t e d in linguistics, s u c h as lexicostatistics, t o t h e study of m a t e r i a l a n d s p i r i t u a l c u l t u r e . 1 4 T h e y a r e c e r t a i n l y of s o m e interest, b u t have not so far b e e n very successful, m a i n l y b e c a u s e e t h n o g r a p h y still does not possess a scale of t a x o n o m i c a l levels for t h e b a s i c c u l t u r a l units, w h i c h could b e c o m p a r e d , for i n s t a n c e , w i t h p h o n e m e s or lexemes, t h o u g h s o m e efforts in this d i r e c t i o n h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n m a d e . T h e r e is a m u c h b r o a d e r p r o s p e c t for a c r e a t i o n of m o d e l s of c u l t u r a l contacts, u s i n g t h e a n a l o g y w i t h t h e well developed m o d e l s of l a n g u a g e contacts. 1 5 I n d e e d , it is q u i t e logical t o d r a w s o m e analogies b e t w e e n the m a s t e r i n g of a new culture a n d the mastering of a new language, between bilingualism a n d b i c u l t u r a l i s m , b e t w e e n t h e p r e s e n c e of s u b s t r a t u m traits in b o t h cases a n d s o o n . O n t h e w h o l e o n e m a y c o n c l u d e t h a t the o b j e c t s of i n q u i r y of linguis-

A r u t y o n o v : Ethnography

and linguistics

263

tics and ethnography are clearly delineated, and as a rule provide no place for confusion and misunderstanding. O n the other hand, these two disciplines are related to each other in two ways: they are components of a broader science of culture, and they possess some notions which are general for the study of sign systems. Therefore their cooperation in the study of complex and border problems and their mutual conceptual and methodical enrichment may be very fruitful.

NOTES* 1 E.S. M a r k a r i a n , The Origins ofHuman Activity and Culture, Y e r e v a n , 1973, p p . 60, 87. K . R . M e g r e l i d z e , The Basic Problems ofSociology of Thought, Tbilisi, 1965, p. 120. 2 Y u . V . B r o m l e y , Ethnos and Ethnography, M o s c o w , 1973, p. 222. 3 S.I. Bruk a n d M . N . G u b o g l o , ' B i - l i n g u a l i s m a n d t h e r a p p r o c h e m e n t of n a t i o n s in the U S S R ' , Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1975, no. 4 ; ' F a c t o r s in t h e d i f f u s i o n of b i - l i n g u a l i s m a m o n g s t t h e n a t i o n s o f t h e U S S R ' , Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1 9 7 5 , n o . 5. 4 Problems in the Investigation oj the Linguistic Situation and oj the Language Issue in the Countries oj Western and Northern Ajnca, M o s c o w , 1970. N . M . G i r e n k o , ' T h e e t h n o - l i n g u i s t i c s i t u a t i o n in Z a n z i b a r ' , Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1972, no. 6. The Socio-Linguistic Problems of Developing Countries, M o s c o w , 1975. V . N . V o l o g d i n a , ' T h e linguistic s i t u a t i o n in G h a n a ' , Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1975, no. 3. 5 Problems of Social Linguistics, L e n i n g r a d , 1969. 6 Bromley, o p . cit., p p . 221-2. 7 E . M . M u r z a e v , The Outlines of Toponymy, M o s c o w , 1974. V.A. N i k o n o v , Introduction to Toponymy, M o s c o w , 1965. V.A. Nikonov, Name and Society, M o s c o w , 1974. S.I. Z i n i n , Onomastics of the Republics of Central Asia and Kazakhstan, T a s h k e n t , 1974. A.V. S u p e r a n s kaya, A General Theory of Proper Names, M o s c o w , 1973. 8 Ibid., p. 5. 9 The Fifth All-Union Symposium on Cybernetics, Tbilisi, 1966. M . V . Kriukov, The Kinship Systems of the Chinese, M o s c o w , 1972, p. 24. 10 Yu.I. Levin, ' C o n c e r n i n g t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e s y s t e m of k i n s h i p t e r m i n o l o g y ' , Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1970, no. 4. 11 K. L. Pike, ' Etic a n d emic s t a n d p o i n t s for t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of b e h a v i o u r ' , Communication and Culture, e d . A . G . S m i t h , N e w York, 1966, p p . 152-63. 12 The Problems of Cartography in the Study of Language and Ethnography, L e n i n g r a d , 1974. 13 V.A. Z w e g i n t s e v , ' T h e t h e o r e t i c a l linguistic p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s of t h e S a p i r - W h o r f h y p o t h e s i s ' , Novoe ν Linguishke, vol. 1, 1960. 14 I. K w a s n e i w s k i , ' S t r u c t u r a l a n d statistical m e t h o d s ' , Sovietskaia Etnografia, 1964, no. 3. 15 V.Y. R o z e n t z w e i g , ' T h e linguistic a p p r o a c h t o t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of c u l t u r a l contacts', 7th World Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, vol. 5, M o s c o w , 1970, p. 629. * All references except no. 11 a r e in R u s s i a n .

V.l. KOZLOV Ethnography and demography T h e ties linking ethnography, the research area that deals with the origin, evolution and interrelations of the world's peoples, with the general and particular elements of their culture and everyday life, and demography, which investigates the regularities in the reproduction of the population, the changes in its age and sex composition, etc. are at present adequately recognised in Soviet literature. The very names of these two research fields testify to those ties by their etymological affinity ('ethnos' translated from Greek bears a meaning almost identical with 'demos'). Until recently, however, these ties had only been recognised by a comparatively small number of scientists. O n e of the reasons for this was the fact that in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, at the time these two research fields were maturing, ethnographers usually concentrated upon culturally and socially backward peoples, and especially upon so-called tribes; demographers, on the other hand, whose studies require statistical data, busied themselves with the population of developed countries. At a later period ethnographers (and first of all Soviet ethnographers) widened their interest to include all the peoples of the world, while demographers extended their studies to the populations of developing countries; the breach between them had, however, already become consecrated by tradition and is only gradually being eliminated. Consequently it was long before many methodological problems having to do with the interrelations between these two fields received due consideration; some of them are still incompletely worked out. In examining the ties between ethnography and demography it is pertinent to begin with the objects of their studies. T h e principal objects of ethnographical studies are peoples (ethnoses or ethnic communities) i.e. specific groups formed by people within a particular area; such groups are distinguished by their common language, culture, selfawareness, and certain other traits. The main object of demographical study is a population, i.e. the sum total of human beings as social and biological creatures inhabiting a certain area. In this sense the concept

266

P a r t VI : Concepts and methods

of p o p u l a t i o n is a k i n t o t h e s a m e w o r d as it is used in physical a n t h r o pology a n d biology; however, t h e l a t t e r p r e s u p p o s e s a high d e g r e e of isolation of e a c h g r o u p . T h e c o n c e p t of p o p u l a t i o n in its social sense does not i m p l y s u c h isolation; its investigators m a y freely c h a n g e t h e f r a m e w o r k of t h e i r s t u d y , t r e a t i n g t h e s a m e people, for e x a m p l e , as b e l o n g i n g to t h e p o p u l a t i o n of M o s c o w , of M o s c o w O b l a s t ' , of t h e E u r o p e a n p a r t of the Soviet U n i o n , of E u r o p e as a whole, etc. If t h e b o u n d a r i e s of s u c h a n a r e a c o i n c i d e w i t h e t h n i c b o u n d a r i e s (e.g. in s t u d y i n g u n i - n a t i o n a l s t a t e s ) t h e o b j e c t s of s t u d y of t h e t w o r e s e a r c h fields also coincide. In m u l t i - n a t i o n a l states, in a r e a s i n h a b i t e d by a n e t h n i c a l l y m i x e d p o p u l a t i o n t h e r e is, of c o u r s e , n o s u c h c o i n c i d e n c e . H o w e v e r , t h e s t a b ility of e t h n i c c o m m u n i t i e s in c o m p a r i s o n , for e x a m p l e , w i t h r a p i d l y c h a n g i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d c e r t a i n o t h e r k i n d s of social g r o u p i n g s , i n d u c e d d e m o g r a p h e r s to use t h e c r i t e r i o n of e t h n i c ( n a t i o n a l ) affiliation as a g r o u p - f o r m i n g i n d e x for m e a s u r i n g s u c h variables as n a t u r a l increase ( b i r t h , d e a t h , a n d m a r r i a g e rates, etc.) for d e m o g r a p h i c a n a l y sis. In s u c h cases t h e o b j e c t s of s t u d y of e t h n o g r a p h y a n d d e m o g r a p h y also coincide; only t h e issues i n v e s t i g a t e d a n d t h e t a r g e t s of t h e res e a r c h differ for t h e t w o fields. T r u e , t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e i r t a r g e t s a r e not a l w a y s so g r e a t ; in s o m e cases t h e y m a y b e o r g a n i c a l l y c o m b i n e d , a n d this m a k e s possible a n d n e c e s s a r y t h e d r a w i n g t o g e t h e r of t h e t w o fields a n d t h e i r fertile c o o p e r a t i o n . I n t o u c h i n g briefly u p o n t h o s e of t h e objectively r e q u i r e d c o n d i t i o n s for t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of e t h n o g r a p h y a n d d e m o g r a p h y w h i c h h e l p s t r e n g t h e n t h e i r m u t u a l ties, we will first of all n o t e t h e i r c o m m o n i n t e r est in d e t e r m i n i n g t h e n u m e r i c a l s t r e n g t h of p e o p l e s ( e t h n o s e s ) a n d t h e e t h n i c c o m p o s i t i o n of c o u n t r i e s a n d regions. E t h n o g r a p h e r s need s u c h d a t a b e c a u s e a n a l l - r o u n d investigation of e t h n i c p h e n o m e n a a n d e t h n i c processes is i m p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of t h e i r q u a n titative c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; d e m o g r a p h e r s n e e d t h e m for c a l c u l a t i n g t h e b a s i c indices of p o p u l a t i o n r e p r o d u c t i o n in t h e i r e t h n i c a s p e c t a n d for c a r r y i n g o u t e t h n o d e m o g r a p h i c s t u d i e s of scientific a n d p r a c t i c a l importance. T h e feasibility of c o o p e r a t i o n b e t w e e n e t h n o g r a p h y a n d d e m o g r a p h y in issues of e t h n i c statistics a p p e a r s self-evident. P e o p l e s ( e t h n o s e s ) , especially in highly developed class societies, a r e e x c e e d ingly c o m p l e x social entities; e a c h of t h e m possesses a m u l t i t u d e of specific f e a t u r e s w h i c h , b y t h e w a y , gravely h a m p e r t h e t a s k of e l a b o r a t i n g a g e n e r a l scientifically valid d e f i n i t i o n of t h e c o n c e p t of ' a p e o p l e ' a n d of e s t a b l i s h i n g its b a s i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A s t a t i s t i c i a n insufficiently c o n v e r s a n t w i t h e t h n i c issues m a y easily m a k e t h e m i s t a k e of i d e n t ifying t h e e t h n i c c o m m u n i t y w i t h t h e racial, religious, or, for e x a m p l e , a s t a t e c o m m u n i t y ; h e m a y m i s t a k e a g r o u p of k i n d r e d e t h n o s e s for a single p e o p l e or, conversely, a p a r t of a n e t h n o s (one of its e t h n o g r a p h i c g r o u p s ) for t h e whole. H e n c e it is e t h n o g r a p h y t h a t f u r n i s h e s d e m o g r a p h i c statistics w i t h t h e scientific a p p a r a t u s n e e d e d for r e g i s t e r i n g

Kozlov : Ethnography and demography

267

ethnic affiliation in population censuses, and with a reliable framework for a t t a c h i n g this or that d e m o g r a p h i c index to particular ethnoses. Soviet e t h n o g r a p h e r s actively participate in p r e p a r i n g a n d carrying out population censuses in the U S S R , mainly in elaborating the census p r o g r a m s , formulating questions on ethnos a n d language, compiling lists of peoples a n d languages for the final tabulating of the census d a t a , etc. 1 E t h n o g r a p h e r s also play an important role in determining the ethnic composition of the population of foreign countries : they work out m e t h o d s for analysing a n d correcting materials of the state censuses, for utilising different kinds of indices, including indirect ones, such as religion, citizenship, etc. O n e of the important problems here is that of the interrelation between the index of national (ethnic) affiliation based u p o n the people's self-consciousness, a n d regarded in scientifically organised statistics (such as those of the U S S R ) as the basic index of ethnicity, a n d indices of language, (mother tongue, language principally spoken, etc.) which are frequently encountered in censuses. A m o n g works on this subject we will note Numbers and Distribution of the World's Peoples, Moscow, 1962, in which the methodology of determining national composition of all the countries of the world is discussed a n d its detailed description given; this includes d a t a on the numerical strength a n d geographical distribution of 900 peoples of the world. C o o p e r a t i o n between e t h n o g r a p h y a n d d e m o g r a p h y in the study of the trends of c h a n g e of ethnic a n d d e m o g r a p h i c p h e n o m e n a presents greater complexities, but it is none the less organic. T h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of e t h n o g r a p h y in this respect have been reinforced by those of history, a n d to a certain extent by those of sociology a n d other social sciences, owing to the i m p o r t a n t role played by peoples in historical processes both past a n d present, as well as by the great social a n d political imp o r t a n c e of t h e problem of nationality in the life of m a n y societies a n d in international relations. A n d one of the m a j o r elements in the study of national-ethnic p h e n o m e n a is the detailed analysis of the n u m b e r s of the interacting peoples, the quantitative evaluation of the ethnic (and also linguistic, racial, religious) composition of countries, as well as of their changes in the course of historical evolution due to socialeconomic a n d other qualitative changes. W e do not here touch u p o n the cooperation between history a n d d e m o g r a p h y , a n d problems of historical d e m o g r a p h y arising from the need to evaluate the role of d e m o g r a p h i c factors in history, and a m o n g t h e m quantitative p o p u l a tion indices: the numerical strength of past societies. W e will only note that quantitative changes in society are not always t r a n s f o r m e d into qualitative ones or vice versa. H e n c e in actual social-economic situations the influence of population figures (and indices based u p o n these, such as density) on a group's evolution have always been of an exceedingly complex a n d sometimes contradictory character. Q u a n t i t a t i v e evaluation of peoples is of particular importance to e t h n o g r a p h y , in which they are the main object of study. Its significance lies not only in indicating the size of an ethnic c o m m u n i t y or the

268

Part VI : Concepts and methods

diffusion of a p a r t i c u l a r l a n g u a g e or specific culture elements, etc. T h e numerical strength of peoples is intimately linked with their ethnic history; it influences this history a n d itself undergoes changes in the course of historical progresé. T h e f o r m a t i o n a n d evolution of large peoples differs considerably f r o m t h a t of small ethnic communities. Every s h a r p c h a n g e in a people's n u m b e r s , w h e t h e r an increase or a decrease, testifies to s o m e c h a n g e in their condition, mirrors some important stage in their social-economic a n d cultural development, or such m a j o r historical events as famine, war, etc. T h e quantitative criterion plays an i m p o r t a n t role in the typology of ethnic communities; it m a y be of help, for instance, in singling out so-called national minorities a n d in distinguishing a type of e t h n o s such as the national (natsiya) from earlier, comparatively small tribal a n d other types of ethnic entities. Interaction b e t w e e n peoples, a n d the resulting ethnic processes, are also largely determined by the numerical proportion of the contacting groups; thus, it is the minorities t h a t are usually assimilated, a n d especially those g r o u p s t h a t are dispersed in a n alien environment. C h a n g e s in the n u m e r i c a l strength of peoples result from two m a i n groups of factors. T h e first g r o u p comprises the characteristic features of their n a t u r a l r e p r o d u c t i o n (primarily, the correlation of birth and d e a t h rates specific for each e t h n o s ) ; the second - ethnic processes, i.e. processes of the division or a m a l g a m a t i o n of peoples or of their comp o n e n t p a r t s . 5 Obviously, cooperation between e t h n o g r a p h y a n d d e m o g r a p h y takes place chiefly in the study of those d e m o g r a p h i c factors which influence the t r e n d s in the numerical strength of individual peoples. T h e m a i n p u r p o s e of d e m o g r a p h y is, as noted above, the study of regularities a n d characteristics of population reproduction. As demographic research e x p a n d e d , however, owing to the aggravation of population problems in many countries in recent decades, it became clear t h a t m a n y d e m o g r a p h i c p r o b l e m s are still insufficiently studied. A m o n g t h e m are p r o b l e m s in elucidating the ethnic aspects of reproductions - t h e natality a n d mortality p a r a m e t e r s characteristic of the world's various peoples. Available statistical d a t a show that the birth a n d d e a t h rate coefficients a n d the natural increase (or decrease) expressed by the difference b e t w e e n t h e m show great fluctuations both historically, at different stages of social-economic and cultural developm e n t , a n d b e t w e e n different population groups (living in different countries or in one a n d the same c o u n t r y ) in each period, within the f r a m e w o r k of a single social-economic structure. For instance, it is well-known t h a t the n a t u r a l increase index a m o n g the Yugoslavian Bosnians ( ' M o s l e m s ' as they are called in the population census) is thrice t h a t of t h e Slovenes; in the Soviet U n i o n it is almost five times higher a m o n g the C e n t r a l Asian peoples t h a n a m o n g the Latvians a n d Estonians, etc. Investigations of such differences have m a d e it clear that the birth rate, which is at present the decisive factor of reproduction, is influenced by a complex set of factors; some of t h e m are fairly closely

Kozlov : Ethnography and demography

269

linked with the ethnic nationality of the p o p u l a t i o n or have a certain correlation with it. Ethnic aspects have also been observed in certain variations of morbidity and mortality. T h a t is why d e m o g r a p h e r s have begun to use groupings by ethnic affiliation m o r e often t h a n before, to investigate ethnic factors at greater d e p t h , to uncover the m e c h a n i c s of their influence over reproduction, a n d the level of this influence, a n d to make use of ethnographic d a t a in such investigations. Dwelling in somewhat greater detail u p o n joint e t h n o g r a p h i c a l a n d demographical studies of t h e t r e n d s in the numerical strength of peoples, we will begin this brief survey with the analysis of natality. It must be noted that birth rates are d e t e r m i n e d by social-economical, cultural a n d psychological factors. A certain i m p o r t a n c e also a t t a c h e s to physiological factors that influence child-bearing capacity, such as the age of puberty, length of the fertile period, sexual t e m p e r a m e n t , hereditary fertility (or constitutional bias t o w a r d s multiple b i r t h s ) or, conversely, obstacles i m p e d i n g conception or n o r m a l p r e g n a n c y (such as the difference in the rhesus factor between the p a r e n t s ) , etc. S o m e of these factors are correlated with physical anthropological features a n d sometimes indirectly with ethnicity. However, the o p e r a t i o n of physiological factors is not sharply differentiated between racial a n d ethnic groups; it is certainly insufficient to explain the existing differences in birth rates between the peoples of the world. Even a m o n g single racial groups the differences in the n u m b e r of children b o r n to people belonging to the same race but to different ethnic a n d social-cultural g r o u p s t u r n out to be wider t h a n those between people of different a n t h r o pological types but of similar social-cultural position a n d way of life. Ethnic nationality, as defined by the criterion of ethnic selfconsciousness, which some a u t h o r s include a m o n g the principal factors of natality variations, 4 does not in itself, at least in m o d e r n times, directly influence the birth r a t e level, a l t h o u g h a n indirect influence is fairly often encountered (e.g. w h e n a people is organised into a state and that state carries out a p a r t i c u l a r p o p u l a t i o n policy). Ethnic selfconsciousness, the feeling of devotion to one's o w n people, may, especially when there is international friction, be expressed by anxiety for natural reproduction, for the numerical g r o w t h of this people t h r o u g h the active participation of m a r r i e d couples in child bearing. 5 Such motives for d e m o g r a p h i c behaviour do not, however, usually arise spontaneously but are inculcated by national p r o p a g a n d a . (A typical instance was the p r o p a g a n d a in Hitlerite G e r m a n y which urged ' t r u e Aryans ' to raise their birth rate. ) This does not m e a n that a n ethnic aspect of natality does not exist, but only that ethnicity as such provides no a n s w e r to the question of why groups belonging to a p a r t i c u l a r nationality have a certain birth rate and not another. T h e ethnic aspect of natality results from a multitude of factors connected with the c h a r a c t e r of economic activities prevailing among particular peoples, their social and family organisation, culture, everyday life traditions, a n d orientations affecting d e m o -

270

Part VI : Concepts and methods

g r a p h i c b e h a v i o u r . At t h e s a m e time, it s h o u l d be b o r n e in m i n d t h a t e t h n i c differentials m a y be a s e c o n d a r y factor in their influence u p o n b i r t h rates in c o m p a r i s o n with o t h e r s s u c h as e d u c a t i o n ; hence t h e w i d e scope of variations of t h e b i r t h r a t e indices within one a n d t h e s a m e people a n d , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e occasional great similarity b e t w e e n different peoples. In the U S S R , for e x a m p l e , spatial differences in r e p r o d u c t i o n types do not coincide with e t h n i c b o u n d a r i e s (all the peoples of C e n t r a l Asia have a p p r o x i m a t e l y the s a m e high b i r t h rates). A survey of those c u l t u r a l a n d psychological natality factors most closely linked w i t h ethnic identity 6 is best b e g u n with t h e t r a d i t i o n a l a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s m a r r i a g e . T h e high b i r t h rates observed at p r e s e n t a m o n g m a n y peoples, p a r t i c u l a r l y in developing countries, a r e in great m e a s u r e d u e to t h e t r a d i t i o n s of early m a r r i a g e s prevailing in these countries. In c o n f o r m i t y with these t r a d i t i o n s , efforts are m a d e to get a girl m a r r i e d almost as soon as she r e a c h e s p u b e r t y . Early m a r r i a g e m a y adversely influence w o m e n ' s h e a l t h ; at t h e s a m e t i m e they m a y cons i d e r a b l y increase r e p r o d u c t i o n owing to t h e longer d u r a t i o n of m a r i t a l sexual relations. T r a d i t i o n s of early m a r r i a g e a r e usually c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e fullest possible inclusion of all n u b i l e w o m e n in m a r i t a l sexual relations; female celibacy in such societies is r a r e ; w h e n it does o c c u r it is usually c o n n e c t e d with religious p r o h i b i t i o n s (such as the c o n d e m n a tion of t h e r e - m a r r i a g e of widows by H i n d u i s m ) . T h e basic unit of r e p r o d u c t i o n is t h e f a m i l y ; t h e r e is a certain correlation b e t w e e n t h e forms in w h i c h families a r e o r g a n i s e d a n d b i r t h r a t e levels. M a n y peoples i n d u b i t a b l y owe t h e i r h i g h nuptiality a n d r e p r o d u c t i o n rates, at least partially, to t h e p r e v a l e n c e of joint or e x t e n d e d families whose m e m b e r s aid o n e a n o t h e r w i t h work in child r e a r i n g . T h e fall in t h e b i r t h r a t e in m a n y e c o n o m i c a l l y developed c o u n t r i e s is c e r t a i n l y c o n n e c t e d with t h e loss of t h e e x t e n d e d family t r a d i t i o n , w i t h t h e ' a u t o n o m y ' of m a r r i e d couples a r i s i n g f r o m u r b a n i s a t i o n , t h e g r o w t h of e d u c a t i o n , a n d so on. In s p e a k i n g of t h e d e m o g r a p h i c i m p a c t of family o r g a n i s a t i o n f o r m s t h e d u a l role of p o l y g a m y should be n o t e d : o n t h e one h a n d it s o m e w h a t decreases reproductivity owing to t h e lower incidence of sexual i n t e r c o u r s e a n d l a r g e r period of p o s t - b i r t h a b s t i n e n c e ; on t h e other, it m a y (especially w h e r e t h e r e have b e e n losses in t h e n u m b e r of males) h e i g h t e n t h e m a r r i a g e rates a n d t h u s s o m e w h a t raise the overall b i r t h rate. A very i m p o r t a n t natality factor is t h e t r a d i t i o n of b e a r i n g m a n y c h i l d r e n . S u c h t r a d i t i o n s doubtlessly first a r o s e in primitive society a s a n a t u r a l reaction against t h e prevailing exceedingly high m o r t a l i t y . T h e y were largely r e t a i n e d a n d c o n s o l i d a t e d in t h e early class s t r u c t u r e s of a g r a r i a n societies. At present c h i l d r e n are c o n s i d e r e d a m o n g m a n y peoples as t h e highest good; childless families are pitied a n d socially c o n d e m n e d . O n e i m p o r t a n t s t i m u l u s of a high n u m b e r of births, especially a m o n g peoples of developing countries, is t h e h i g h infant m o r t a l i t y a n d the c o n s e q u e n t d a n g e r t h a t if the c h i l d r e n are few,

Kozlov : Ethnography and demography

271

none of t h e m will survive to the a d u l t stage a n d there will be nobody to take care of their old parents. A m o n g peoples with strong patriarchal traditions particular significance is a t t a c h e d to the birth of sons w h o will preserve the clan, or family. T h e tradition of m a n y children is fortified a m o n g m a n y peoples by religious norms. Not infrequently religion also influences the birth rate level t h r o u g h orientations d e t e r m i n i n g the age of marriage, m a r r i a g e generally, forms of the family, a n d sexual relations. Confining the discussion to four m a j o r religions - Buddhism, Christianity, H i n d u i s m a n d Islam - we may note that the two latter exert a strong direct positive influence over reproduction by encouraging early marriage a n d the bearing of m a n y children (especially sons). As for Buddhism a n d Christianity, their influence in this respect is less clearly defined : on the one h a n d , the m a j o r b r a n c h e s of these religions c o n d e m n the use of contraceptives a n d abortions, thus f u r t h e r i n g higher birth rates; on the other, they encourage 'mortification of the flesh', celibacy, monasticism, etc. T h e social position of women is also a considerable natality factor. T h e social a n d domestic inequality of women, stemming from the survival of patriarchal traditions or from religious teachings (for most religions assign a h u m b l e place to w o m e n ) certainly hinders birth control, a n d conduces to a high n u m b e r of births, which raises the status of a w o m a n in the family a n d in society. As this situation changes with social-economic a n d cultural progress, w o m e n acquire a stronger concern for birth control t h a n men, since bearing a smaller n u m b e r of children p e r m i t s t h e m to escape f r o m the n a r r o w circle of domestic interests a n d to become m e n ' s e q u a l s in the sphere of production a n d social life. U n d e r these new conditions w o m e n m a y expand birth control in order to overcome the residue of their inequality. T u r n i n g to factors of mortality, we must note that the results achieved in recent decades in overcoming its various causes (primarily disease) a n d t h e fall in the death rates in m a n y former colonies almost to their level in developed countries, have, as it were, relegated its investigation to a secondary p l a n e in c o m p a r i s o n with birth rate studies. 9 (It is significant t h a t in a survey of this subject - B. Benjamin, Social and Economic Factors Aßecting Mortality, T h e H a g u e , 1965 - essentially no cultural mortality factor is e x a m i n e d other t h a n smoking.) Nevertheless, this aspect of reproduction also deserves the greatest attention. Analysis of mortality has p a r t i c u l a r significance for historicaldemographic studies, since for t h o u s a n d s of years, practically u p to the twentieth century, it was mortality that determined the principal differences in reproduction, t h e features of the population trends peculiar to various peoples. Unlike natality, mortality is strongly influenced by biological factors, including ecological and anthropological ones. In the course of thousands of years, people forming ethnoses lived in certain natural environments a n d a d a p t e d themselves biologically; this found its reflection in

272

Fart VI : Concepts and methods

t h e origin a n d p e r p e t u a t i o n of racial v a r i a t i o n s . H e n c e , t h e r e are the d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e m o r b i d i t y a n d m o r t a l i t y of r a c i a l ( a n d p a r t i a l l y the c o i n c i d i n g e t h n i c ) g r o u p s of m i g r a n t s to r e g i o n s w i t h c o n d i t i o n s to w h i c h t h e y w e r e u n a c c u s t o m e d . T h u s t h e g r e a t e r i n c i d e n c e of respirat o r y diseases a m o n g t h e N e g r o p o p u l a t i o n s in t e m p e r a t e c o u n t r i e s ( s u c h as t h e U S A ) is d u e in p a r t to c e r t a i n p h y s i c a l a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l t r a i t s ( p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e i r w i d e nostrils w h i c h led to b e t t e r t h e r m o r e g u l a t i o n in t h e t r o p i c s b u t w e r e of little use u n d e r t e m p e r a t u r e s below freezing point). E a c h ethnic territory, being geographically localised, differs in its n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t f r o m t h o s e i n h a b i t e d b y o t h e r peoples. T h u s a n a d v e r s e i n f l u e n c e of e n v i r o n m e n t a l factors ( c l i m a t e , r a d i a t i o n , etc.) m a y h a v e a localised e t h n i c a s p e c t . T h e role of c e r t a i n genetically transmitted diseases should be touched upon: owing to the universal prevalence of e t h n i c a l l y h o m o g e n e o u s m a r r i a g e s t h e s e m a y a c q u i r e a n e t h n i c a s p e c t ; t h e i r i n j u r i o u s i n f l u e n c e m a y b e r e i n f o r c e d by t r a d i t i o n s of c r o s s - c o u s i n m a r r i a g e s b e t w e e n b l o o d relations. A n e t h n i c a s p e c t of m o r t a l i t y w a s very a p p a r e n t in w a r s . T h e s e s o m e t i m e s c h a n g e d t h e w h o l e c o u r s e of n a t u r a l r e p r o d u c t i o n a n d the t r e n d s in t h e n u m e r i c a l s t r e n g t h of peoples. S u c h a n e t h n i c a s p e c t was clearly a p p a r e n t in p r i m i t i v e c o m m u n i t i e s a n d in e a r l y class societies, w h e r e m i l i t a r y conflicts b e t w e e n individual t r i b e s a n d p e o p l e s w e r e p r e d o m i n a n t . 7 A n a t i o n a l l y selective c h a r a c t e r w a s also n u r t u r e d by m a n y m o d e r n w a r s , e.g. w a r s b e t w e e n n a t i o n a l s t a t e s , w a r s of n a t i o n a l l i b e r a t i o n , a n d a n u m b e r of colonial w a r s . In t h e t w o w o r l d w a r s t h e i r effect u p o n t h e c h a n g e in t h e n u m e r o u s s t r e n g t h of p e o p l e s varied g r e a t l y : e.g. t h e losses of t h e D u t c h in t h e S e c o n d W o r l d W a r w e r e m u c h s m a l l e r t h a n t h o s e of t h e B y e l o r u s s i a n s , a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e i r e q u a l in n u m b e r s . T h e losses s u s t a i n e d by c e r t a i n p e o p l e s as a result of g e n o c i d e r e s e m b l e m i l i t a r y losses in their violence: sufficiently c h a r a c teristic a r e t h e s l a u g h t e r of t h e A r m e n i a n s in T u r k e y in 1915 a n d t h e e x t e r m i n a t i o n ofJ e w s a n d Slavs by t h e N a z i s in o c c u p i e d E u r o p e . T h e specificity of m o r b i d i t y a n d t h e level of m o r t a l i t y a r e strongly influenced b y t h e w a y of life, in t h e b r o a d sense of t h e w o r d , i.e. i n c l u d i n g t h e t y p e s of e c o n o m i c activity w h i c h d e t e r m i n e m a n ' s r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e social a n d n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t . T h e J a v a n e s e rice-grower, for i n s t a n c e , differs s h a r p l y in this r e g a r d f r o m t h e T u r k m a n s h e e p raiser, t h e I c e l a n d i c fisherman a n d t h e W e l s h m i n e r . A m o n g e t h n i c a l l y differe n t i a t e d factors of m o r b i d i t y a n d m o r t a l i t y a r e p o p u l a r t r a d i t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e w o r k r e g i m e , t h e d a i l y r o u t i n e , t h e diet, etc., as well as c e r t a i n rituals. In m a n y cases t h e y l e a d to e t h n i c v a r i a t i o n s in m o r t a l i t y b y sex a n d age. T h u s t h e p r e d o m i n a n c e of m a l e s in a n u m b e r of Asiatic c o u n t r i e s ( I n d i a , P a k i s t a n , etc.) is d u e p r i m a r i l y to t h e t r a d i t i o n a l disd a i n for w o m e n : n e w - b o r n girls get less care, w o r s e c l o t h e s a n d food, s e l d o m receive m e d i c a l aid in c a s e of sickness, etc. All this, as well as h a r d work, early m a r r i a g e , f r e q u e n t p r e g n a n c i e s a n d c h i l d - b e a r i n g u n d e r u n s a n i t a r y c o n d i t i o n s h a s led t o h i g h e r f e m a l e m o r t a l i t y . M o r b i d i t y a n d m o r t a l i t y a m o n g w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n a r e greatly af-

Kozlov : Ethnography and demography

273

fected by customs connected with pregnancy (such as various food restrictions for p r e g n a n t women) a n d child-birth (e.g. traditional m e t h o d s of aid at delivery) a n d with infant care. In this respect customs of infant feeding are of importance, such as the d u r a t i o n of lactation, which varies a m o n g different peoples from a few m o n t h s to three years a n d more. For instance, in investigating the differences in infant m o r t a lity between the peoples of pre-revolutionary Russia, the extremely high infant mortality a m o n g the Russians was shown to be correlated with their widespread custom of giving the baby, almost from the first days of its life, besides m o t h e r ' s milk, chewed bread, buckwheat gruel, etc. A m o n g the T a t a r s a n d the Bashkirs, whose life conditions were no better, but who traditionally fed babies only at the breast, infant m o r t a lity was m u c h lower. In higher age g r o u p s mortality also shows a certain correlation with peculiarities of diet. T r a d i t i o n a l food regulations, methods of cooking a n d consumption m a y play an important role in originating a n u m b e r of gastric a n d other diseases including cancer. It is sufficient to mention the cancer-inducing effect of very hot dishes, of various smoked foods, etc. Moreover food traditions are so e n d u r i n g that people are apt to reject new a n d better p r o d u c t s even w h e n suffering from food shortage (in India, for instance, m a n y H i n d u s still reject meat, as well as fish from ' s a c r e d ' rivers); often food is cooked by m e t h o d s u n d e r which its nutritious value seriously deteriorates. M o r b i d i t y a n d mortality are seriously affected by the use of various foodstuffs used as stimulants, primarily alcoholic beverages. T h e t r a d itional type of such beverages and the a m o u n t consumed varies greatly between different peoples. For instance some peoples include grape wines or beer in their daily diet, a m o n g others they are only cons u m e d u p o n ceremonial occasions, etc. Very variegated a n d no less widely diffused are other stimulants, especially smoking of different types, from the comparatively weak tobacco up to such strong drugs as o p i u m a n d hashish. T h e h a r m done by stimulants to the nervous system is aggravated by their injurious effect u p o n other organs a n d , besides this, by the cancer-inducing properties of many drugs, especially in cases of abuse. It is well-known, for instance, that tobaccosmoking leads to cancer of the lungs, of the oral cavity or the n a s o p h a r y n x ; studies of such diseases in India have shown that they are especially prone to attack adherents of traditional smoking m e t h o d s (the hookah, smoking with the b u r n i n g end inside the mouth, etc.). Bethel-chewing is prevalent a m o n g m a n y peoples from the earliest times. Bethel, which is usually mixed with lime, as well as oral irritants, as it is in Central Asia (a mixture of tobacco, ashes, lime and cotton oil) may also lead to cancer of the m o u t h cavity or the gullet. In concluding this brief survey of morbidity a n d mortality factors differentiated by culture a n d ethnos, I would underline certain links some of them have with religious teachings; this is particularly a p p a r e n t in cases where contiguous peoples belong to different religions. Some

274

Part VI : Concepts and methods

examples, such as the influence of religion over the depressed domestic and social status of women were adduced above. In addition we will mention the existence in various religions of rituals and rules (baptism and the sacrament among Christians; ablution among Moslems and their pilgrimages to holy places, etc.) which have not infrequently caused widespread epidemics. T h e comparatively few healthy religious rules, such as (in Islam) the inclusion of ablutions in the number of actions welcome to Allah, take a secondary place in comparison with the mass of harmful rituals and teachings, e.g. exhausting fasts, and food restrictions. Such a negative role of religions, and their, on the whole, adverse influence over health, is due to their attitude towards life on earth as a temporary episode, to disease as the just punishment for people's sins, to suffering and privation as a sure path to eternal bliss in the hereafter. Consequently the struggle against religion may become an important part of the struggle for human health and happiness. T h e organic links between ethnography and demography are expressed in the emergence on the boundary between these two sciences, of the new scientific discipline, ethnodemography. T h e intermediate position of this discipline may be seen in the two-fold character of its studies: on the ethnographical side they include trends in the numerical strength of peoples (i.e. of the principal object of ethnographical research), as well as of ethnographic, racial and religious groups; on the demographical side, the ethnic aspects of population reproduction processes and the influence of various ethnic factors over this process. T h e further development of ethnic demography may favourably influence the progress of both ethnography and demography. It may also greatly promote the complex study of important nationality and population problems.

NOTES 1 See S . I . B r o o k and V . l . Kozlov, ' Q u e s t i o n s on e t h n i c nationality and l a n g u a g e in the forthcoming population census', VestnikStatistiki, 1968, no. 3 (in R u s s i a n ) . 2 See V . l . Kozlov, ' D e m o g r a p h y and the system of historical sciences', in The Place of Demography in the System of Sciences, M o s c o w , 1 9 7 5 (in R u s s i a n ) . 3 V . l . Kozlov, Trends in Numerical Strength of Peoples: Methodology of Research and Principal Factors, M o s c o w , 1 9 6 9 (in R u s s i a n ) . 4 B . C . Urlanis, Birth Rates and Life Expectancy in the USSR, M o s c o w , 1963, p. 4 9 (in Russian). 5 P.N. R i t c h e y , ' T h e effect of minority group status on fertility: a r e - e x a m i n a t i o n of c o n c e p t s ' , Population Studies, 1975, vol. 27, no. 2. 6 F. Lorimer, Culture and Human Fertility, Paris, 1954. M o n i Nag, Factors Affecting Human Fertility in Non-Industrial Societies: a Cross-Cultural Study, New H a v e n , 1962. 7 W . T . Divale, Warfare in Primitive Societies, S a n t a B a r b a r a , 1973.

J. POUILLON Structure and

structuralism

My aim in this short contribution is not to offer a systematic and exhaustive account of structuralism, nor to justify it theoretically, but simply to make its rationale understood. Since this can be achieved in many ways, from different points of view, I have to make a choice and to limit myself. 'Structure' is a word that can be used trivially and without special import, or conversely it can have an aroma - whether pleasing or aggravating - of esoterism. It is part of ordinary language and is included in every dictionary - which, incidentally, is not the case with 'structuralism'. It refers to the way in which the parts of a whole are organised, and applies to quite diverse orders of reality: spatial, as when one talks of the structure of a building; or temporal or linear, as when, for example, one speaks of the structure of a speech. These two examples show that the realities in question can be mental as well as social or material. Using the very terms of this definition, one can describe structuralism as a way of discovering the internal pattern of the reality under consideration. However this does not tell us much: everyone agrees that no reality whatever can be completely amorphous, and that coming to know it is consequently a matter of finding out how its elements are combined; in that sense everyone is a structuralist. But is that sense the right one? If everyone is a structuralist, no one is a structuralist, and why is there so much fuss, unless indeed structuralism needs a different and more precise definition? This tends to show that one can talk of structure without being a structuralist and that the word 'structure' as it is currently used does not imply the 'structuralist' method in the more specific sense which I shall attempt to define. Hence the idea that the method can only be understood in contrast to the current use of the word. In practice, the current use amounts to making this word synonymous with organisation or pattern. Any structural reality - whether material or social, and of course here we shall stick to the latter - is a complex of elements that have established stable relationships amongst themselves; the network of these relationships is like the framework of

276

Part VI : Concepts and methods

the complex, it is its structure. In this perspective, structure is an empirical, visible aspect of reality which makes it possible to identify a n d classify an object, a n d this is no d o u b t useful. But, as such, structure is not explanatory; it is, on the contrary, explained by the very elements of which it is the combination, a n d which ensure its reality. T h e s e elements have their own meaning; it is their features that determine the different complexes to which they can belong, a n d these complexes c a n be c o m p a r e d a n d classified according to which elements are or are not present in them. T h e current use of the word ' s t r u c t u r e ' is therefore based on two implicit postulates: that elements have a n intrinsic m e a n ing, independent of the structures to which they belong, and that these structures are considered as belonging or not belonging to the s a m e family, according to their similarities, that is according to the n a t u r e of their constituents. It is precisely these two postulates that are rejected by structuralism which can be defined on the basis of this rejection. C o n t r a d i c t i n g the first postulate, structuralism makes it a principle that the m e a n i n g of a n element is always a function of its place in the complex i.e. the relationships that link and oppose it to the other elements. T h e very notion of a n element is itself relative to the whole, f r o m which the element is extracted as a result of a partitioning t h a t alone gives m e a n i n g both to the whole a n d to the parts. A type of behaviour c a n be a n element in a system of attitudes, a term in a kinship terminology, a sequence in a myth. In all such cases it exists only in relationship to other elements. For kinship terms, this principle is obvious; its practical import comes out more forcefully when it is applied to the analyses of myth. M y t h s have often been characterised in t e r m s of themes. O f t e n these t h e m e s were merely striking a n d recurrent episodes, which were assumed to have the same m e a n i n g in whatever narrative they occurred. T h e y t h u s served as a basis for the classification of the narrative. O n the other h a n d , for structural analysis - a n d this is what m a k e s it into an analysis - ' t h e significance of what seems given as [for instance] cannibalistic conduct is always contingent u p o n a context which alone can determine its real m e a n i n g , ' a n d not u p o n a ' t h e m a t i c a p p r o a c h , whose d o m a i n would extend to the series of m y t h s and narratives where, in a more or less episodic fashion, the t h e m e of c a n n i b a l i s m is present' (Marcel Detienne, Dyomsos mis à mort, Paris, 1977). It is t r u e that in the Mythologiques, sets of myths are found which seem to s h a r e one simple motif : for example the origin myths of the cooking fire in The Raw and the Cooked. But it is enough to read these m y t h s to ascertain t h a t their unity is in no way based on the recurrence of the same episode, t h e same sequence: in terms of a narrative analysis, they can be completely different. T h e Bororo reference myth belongs to that set; a n d yet, should one choose to characterise it on the basis of what it tells, o n e would rather call it an origin m y t h of wind a n d storms. O n what basis, then, can one class these myths together? It is by rejecting the second postulate that the answer to the q u e s t i o n

P o u i l l o n : Structure and structuralism

277

is f o u n d . T h e r e j e c t i o n of t h e first p o s t u l a t e led to c o n c e n t r a t i o n not o n t h e t e r m s but o n t h e r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e m , it is n e c e s s a r y to g o further a n d c o n c e n t r a t e o n t h e w a y in w h i c h t h e s e r e l a t i o n s are t h e m s e l v e s corr e l a t e d . It w o u l d i n d e e d b e u s e l e s s to c o n s i d e r a r e l a t i o n in i s o l a t i o n : it w o u l d a m o u n t to t r e a t i n g it as a n e l e m e n t at a n o t h e r level, a n d o n c e m o r e t h e set of t e r m s a n d r e l a t i o n s w o u l d a p p e a r to b e the o u t c o m e of a s u m m a t i o n . R e l a t i o n s m u s t a l s o b e given a p o s i t i o n a l v a l u e a r i s i n g from the system they constitute. In w h a t w a y is this system explanatory? P r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e it is d e f i n e d as a set of c o r r e l a t i o n s , a n d structural a n a l y s i s a i m s at b r i n g i n g o u t their r u l e ( s ) . T h e s e rules not o n l y a c c o u n t for the s p e c i f i c c o n f i g u r a t i o n f r o m w h i c h t h e y have b e e n d e d u c e d , but also, a n d a b o v e all, for diverse w a y s in w h i c h this c o n figuration c o u l d h a v e b e e n a c t u a l i s e d . F o r this r e a s o n , to c o m p a r e t w o sets is not s o m u c h a q u e s t i o n of finding o u t w h e t h e r t h e y are alike or to w h a t e x t e n t t h e y differ; it is m o r e a q u e s t i o n of finding out w h e t h e r t h e y involve t h e s a m e rules, w h e t h e r t h e o n e c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d a s a transform a t i o n of t h e o t h e r . T h u s t h e s a m e s t r u c t u r e c a n b e m a t e r i a l i s e d in q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f o r m s , a n d the r e c u r r e n c e of s i m i l a r e l e m e n t s b y n o m e a n s warrants structural identity. Let us take, to s u m m a r i s e w h a t h a s b e e n said, the c a s e of w h a t LéviS t r a u s s calls the ' a t o m of k i n s h i p ' (Structural Anthropology, 1958). It is b a s e d o n four t e r m s : b r o t h e r , sister, father, s o n - w h e r e the b r o t h e r a n d sister are a l s o the m o t h e r ' s b r o t h e r a n d the m o t h e r of t h e son, r e s p e c t i v e l y ; it links t o g e t h e r ties of c o n s a n g u i n i t y , of affinity, a n d of d e s c e n t . T h e t e r m s are d e f i n e d in r e l a t i o n s h i p to e a c h other, a n d s i m i l a r l y t h e t h r e e t y p e s of ties c a n n o t b e c o n c e i v e d of in isolation, s i n c e e a c h o n e is a c o n d i t i o n of the o t h e r s . If t h e a v u n c u l a r tie raises a p r o b l e m , it is not, therefore, b e c a u s e it c o u l d fail to b e p r e s e n t ; t h e n o n e w o u l d n e e d to e x p l a i n w h y in s o m e c a s e s it w o u l d b e a n a d d i t i o n to the o t h e r t w o . T h e a v u n c u l a r tie c a n n o t b e m i s s i n g s i n c e it is in the first p l a c e a rel a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n b r o t h e r s - i n - l a w a n d as s u c h a c o n d i t i o n of the a l l i a n c e o n w h i c h k i n s h i p is b a s e d ; t h u s the o n l y p r o b l e m is that of the various values that the relationship b e t w e e n the uncle and n e p h e w m a y a s s u m e . F r o m a s t r u c t u r a l i s t point of v i e w t h e s e v a l u e s d o not d e f i n e the r e l a t i o n s h i p in i s o l a t i o n f r o m the o t h e r s ; t h e y vary a l o n g w i t h t h o s e t a k e n o n b y t h e o t h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , a c c o r d i n g t o a law of c o r r e l a t i o n w h i c h d e f i n e s t h e s t r u c t u r e as s u c h : t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n u n c l e a n d n e p h e w is to the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n b r o t h e r a n d sister as the rel a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n f a t h e r a n d s o n is to that b e t w e e n h u s b a n d a n d wife. T h e s t r u c t u r e is t h a t veFy c o r r e l a t i o n ; it is not c o n s t i t u t e d by o n e or a n o t h e r of its p o s s i b l e p a t t e r n s , for i n s t a n c e the p a t t e r n in w h i c h the a v u n c u l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p is positive, t h e s i b l i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p negative, w h i l e t h e f a t h e r - s o n r e l a t i o n s h i p is n e g a t i v e a n d the h u s b a n d - w i f e rel a t i o n s h i p positive. O t h e r w i s e there w o u l d be a s m a n y structures as t h e r e are p a t t e r n s , as is i m p l i e d b y the o r d i n a r y use of the w o r d . O n the c o n t r a r y , s t r u c t u r e is w h a t is invariable b e h i n d this variability. Yet o n e m u s t d e f i n i t e l y not m i s t a k e this last o p p o s i t i o n f o r a n e w f o r m of the dis-

278

Part VI : Concepts and methods

tinction between reality and a p p e a r a n c e . Singling out the s a m e struct u r e in different complexes does not cancel their reality or differences since it is precisely the latter that makes the discovery possible; there is no privileged materialisation of a structure c o m p a r e d to which the others would t u r n out to be secondary. For instance there is no ' g o o d ' version of a myth, if only because structural analysis developed precisely in an a t t e m p t to solve the problem raised by the plurality of versions - whether of a myth, a n institution, or a type of social organisation. Let me a d d that the variability of a system is of course not u n b o u n d e d , a n d that there is not one but several structures in any d o m a i n . In other words, analysis aims as m u c h at determining the int e r n a l structure of a complex as at specifying the b o u n d a r i e s of the family to which this complex belongs, according to its structure. T h u s the key notion is that of transformation. ' T h e r e is a very close relation between the notion of transformation a n d that of s t r u c t u r e . . . a n a r r a n g e m e n t is structured only if it meets two conditions: it is a system governed by an internal cohesion; a n d this cohesion, which c a n n o t be perceived w h e n a system is observed in isolation, is b r o u g h t out by the study of the transformations, with the help of which similar features are found in a p p a r e n t l y different systems. ' (Lévi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology, 1973, ch. 1.) I consider that the use of the word ' a p p a r e n t l y ' is unnecessary: systems do differ. W h a t he means, it seems to me, is that appearances, i.e. the manifestation of differences between systems, make one suppose that they are unrelated. I would a d d t h a t even when systems resemble each other, this resemblance does not constitute their c o m m o n structure. For instance, where social organisation is concerned, structure is not a typical organisation that could be m o r e or less faithfully 'printed', to use a p h o t o g r a p h i c analogy, in so m a n y copies; nor is it a schema that could be a b s t r a c t e d from several similar organisations. Its definition depends on the way the following p r o b l e m is solved: how, a m o n g several organisations assumed to belong to t h e s a m e family, could one conceive of a connection which would be m o r e t h a n a blurred reproduction, and one which could bring these organisations together as a group, irrespective of their manifest similarities or differences? Each organisation is a given p a t t e r n of terms a n d relations between terms, a n d is the outcome of their interdependence. But interd e p e n d e n c e does not m e a n regular, p e r m a n e n t association; it also presupposes interdependence of the terms or relations: they can be associated in one place, a n d kept a p a r t or linked otherwise elsewhere. A t e r m has no meaning other t h a n a positional one, which is not to say t h a t it can occupy only one position. T o u n d e r s t a n d this variability, one m u s t be able to show that the various configurations considered have a m o n g themselves relationships of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s such that each is a variant of the others; jointly they form a group, the structure of which is the rule of these transformations. T h i s is why we cannot uncover the s t r u c t u r e of a reality taken in isolation: structuralism consists in considering, in principle, any reality as a case for which, as in g r a m m a r ,

Pouillon : Structure and structuralism

279

one must discover the declension rule. T h i s was the problem I was faced with in C h a d . (It might have been more convincing to take as a n example Lévi-Strauss' analyses of m a r r i a g e exchange or of A m e r i c a n Indian mythologies r a t h e r t h a n a personal investigation which was left unfinished - 1 have been u n a b l e to return since 1967. In doing so, however, I hope to show the general value of t h e method. ) In the area in which I was working, there are some fifteen localised groups ( n u m b e r i n g in all about 100,000 people), speaking different languages a n d probably of very diverse origins. T h e s e groups are nevertheless known u n d e r the general n a m e ' H a d j e r a ï ' which simply refers to their land (the area is m o u n t a i n o u s a n d the word m e a n s ' m o u n t a i n - p e o p l e ' ) a n d does not imply any sociopolitical unity: e a c h group has a n a m e of its own a n d encompasses a few traditionally a u t o n o m o u s villages; c o m m o n clanship across villages (and inside the same g r o u p ) has no other consequence t h a n marriage prohibitions, a n d no trans-village organisation can be detected. T h e villages' internal organisation varies from one group to another, so that whether it makes sense to claim to study ' t h e HadjeraT' is open to question. However, that they constitute a culturally definable group is first shown by the r e m a r k a b l e identity of beliefs present in all these groups; a n d also a n d above all by the fact that the variability of social systems exhibited, u p o n analysis, a single structure, the states of which can be inferred f r o m each other, once several principles present everywhere have been disclosed: at the level of beliefs, unity t h r o u g h recurrence; at t h e level of social organisation, unity of a c o m b i n a t o r y system. T h e hypothesis of such a system can be p u t forward as soon as one notices t h a t variations concerned the devolution of chieftainships as well as t h e distribution a n d hierarchy of titles a n d functions that were actually the same everywhere, the title being accurately translatable from one language to another. W h a t varies is the relationship between the titles, their partial fusion or their complete dissociation, a n d above all the attribution of political power, linked here to one title, there to another. In short, it was as if the HadjeraT shared the same conceptual lexicon b u t were using it to build different sentences, the c o m m o n g r a m m a r of which it would be our task to discover. Some villages are clearly built according to a manifest opposition as well as a complementarity - between clan(s) 'of the e a r t h ' a n d clan(s) of the chiefship, the former being in charge of the rituals required for the prosperity of a village, whose chief a n d officers are chosen f r o m a m o n g the latter. (I a m here expressing, in a simplified manner, what is in fact a more complex opposition; it actually involves different stresses in a power that is two-faced: a religious dignitary is also a clan or lineage leader, while the village chief is also in charge of the rites for his clan of origin.) T h i s opposition is put forward as being between natives a n d immigrants, with religious competence c h a r a c teristic of the former, a n d power belonging to the latter. Village organisation would thus be the outcome of an historical process - there is

280

Part VI : Concepts and methods

no doubt that villages are composed of various elements, a n d that clans w h i c h i n h a b i t t h e m a r e of diverse origins - a n d , w h a t is more, it could p r e s u p p o s e a f o r m e r o r g a n i s a t i o n , that of t h e village prior to i m m i g r a t i o n , w h e r e religious a n d political p o w e r s w o u l d have been b u t one. At first sight it seems t h a t this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c o u l d not be valid, either for those villages w h e r e all t h e clans claim to b e a u t o c h t h o n o u s , or for t h o s e where, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , all clans a c k n o w l e d g e having c o m e f r o m outside. But o n e quickly b e c o m e s a w a r e t h a t in t h e first case s o m e natives are, so to speak, m o r e so t h a n others, a n d in the second case t h e o r d e r of arrival m a k e s it possible to o p p o s e first-comers to late-comers, as natives to i m m i g r a n t s . S h o u l d o n e c o n c l u d e t h a t in all cases it is the process of settlement t h a t has c a u s e d a division of society - a n d a f u n d a m e n t a l division - since it would d e t e r m i n e t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of offices in a w a y t h a t w o u l d itself vary a c c o r d i n g to t h e d e g r e e of heterogeneity of t h e people? S h o u l d o n e a s s u m e a n initial h o m o g e n e i t y only b r o k e n u p b y history? T h e analysis of rituals a n d f o u n d a t i o n m y t h s suggests, o n t h e c o n t r a r y , t h a t even before the arrival of i m m i g r a n t s in a n allegedly h o m o g e n e o u s village, religious c o m p e t e n c e a n d political p o w e r were a l r e a d y distinct, a n d t h a t the f o r m e r was b a s e d o n a g r e a t e r familiarity w i t h t h e p o w e r s of t h e e a r t h a n d of t h e m o u n t a i n , w h i c h d e t e r m i n e t h e f a t e of h u m a n i t y ; in o t h e r words, it w a s b a s e d o n a n assertion of a n a c c e n t u a t e d a u t o c h t h o n y . T h i s distinction is t h e r e f o r e p r i m a r y , it is the s t r u c t u r a l a prion of the system, a n d p r o v i d e s t h e m o d e l of t h e distinction which subsequently opposes the original inhabitants to the newcomers. T h e first distinction makes the second conceivable, a n d provides t h e m e a n s of i n t e g r a t i n g i m m i g r a n t s , w h o s e arrival has n o o t h e r effect t h a n a d i s p l a c e m e n t a n d d o w n - g r a d i n g of p o w e r w i t h o u t c h a n g e of s t r u c t u r e . T h u s t h e second distinction d o e s not c h a n g e t h e o p p o s i t i o n - c o m p l e m e n t a r i t y which is always p r e s e n t , b u t w h i c h is, o n e a c h occasion, t h e result of the specific history of e a c h g r o u p , differently e x p r e s s e d ; it informs the variable, b u t a l w a y s c o r r e l a t e d , relations bet w e e n t h e various positions of a u t h o r i t y . T h u s t h e H a d j e r a ï case illustrates the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n history a n d s t r u c t u r e . (I could only p r e s e n t it briefly here. For a m o r e c o m p l e x p r e s e n t a t i o n , see m y book, Fétiches sans fétichisme, Paris, 1975.) S t r u c t u r e digests events, a n d imposes its o w n d i r e c t i o n o n t h e m for as long as it c a n - a n d this m a y last a long t i m e ( w h e n it does it is precisely w h a t o n e calls a ' h i s t o r y ' ) · O t h e r w i s e , u n d e r t h e i m p a c t of events, s t r u c t u r e explodes a n d everything is r e a r r a n g e d , ' c h a n g i n g t h e course of h i s t o r y ' , or giving a specific history a n e w direction. T h i s is p r o b a b l y w h a t h a p p e n e d to t h e H a d j e r a ï with the t r o u b l e s t h a t C h a d h a s u n d e r g o n e d u r i n g t h e last ten years. A n d yet, s o m e m a y object, if s t r u c t u r e ' c a n n o t b e perceived w h e n a system is observed in isolation', how c a n one m a k e t h e s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y sis of a given society? T h i s objection is b a s e d o n a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g : social s t r u c t u r e is easily talked a b o u t as if t h e r e were only o n e for e a c h society, w h e n in fact a n y society 'covers a set of s t r u c t u r e s corre-

P o u i l l o n : Structure and structuralism

281

s p o n d i n g to v a r i o u s t y p e s of o r d e r ' ( L é v i - S t r a u s s , Structural Anthropology, 1958, c h . 15): k i n s h i p , social o r g a n i s a t i o n . . . e a c h of w h i c h is to b e s t u d i e d a c c o r d i n g to t h e m e t h o d d e s c r i b e d . O b v i o u s l y it is b e c a u s e t h e y i n t e r a c t , b e c a u s e t h e y fit t o g e t h e r t h a t a society exists. But this fitting t o g e t h e r is n e i t h e r a u t o m a t i c n o r p r e d e t e r m i n e d . It w o u l d b e so o n l y if o n e p o s t u l a t e d a perfect h o m o l o g y b e t w e e n s t r u c t u r e s . T h i s is w h a t f u n c t i o n a l i s m d o e s : f u n c t i o n a l i s m d o e s not consist in t a l k i n g of f u n c tion - o n e c a n t h i n k of f u n c t i o n w i t h o u t b e i n g a f u n c t i o n a l i s t , j u s t as u s i n g t h e w o r d s t r u c t u r e is not e n o u g h t o d e f i n e s t r u c t u r a l i s m ; b u t it c o n s i s t s in g r a n t i n g a privilege t o o n e of t h e several s t r u c t u r a l levels so as t o b r i n g b a c k t o it all t h e o t h e r levels, a c c o r d i n g to t h e a s s u m e d h o m o l o g y . T h e r e is u n d o u b t e d l y a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n s t r u c t u r a l levels: m o r p h i s m s b u t n o t h o m o m o r p h i s m s . T h e s e levels ' c a n very well b e - a n d o f t e n a r e - in c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o e a c h o t h e r , b u t t h e m o d a l i t i e s a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h t h e y c o n t r a d i c t t h e m s e l v e s all b e l o n g t o o n e g r o u p ' ( L é v i - S t r a u s s , o p . cit., ch. 16), w h i c h , i n c i d e n t a l l y , s h o w s t h a t s t r u c t u r a l i s m is not tied to t h e static view of a n h a r m o n i o u s social o r d e r . If it is p o s s i b l e t o f o r m u l a t e t h e ' t o t a l m o d e l of a given society', it will not n e c e s s a r i l y b e a m o d e l in e q u i l i b r i u m . T o t a l k of a t o t a l m o d e l in n o w a y m e a n s t h a t a n e x h a u s t i v e k n o w ledge of t h e societies s t u d i e d b y a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s c a n b e achieved. T h e m o d e l c o n s i d e r e d is t h a t of t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s t h a t w o u l d m a k e it p o s s i b l e to m o v e f r o m o n e level to a n o t h e r a n d t h e r e b y t o u n c o v e r t h e specific c h a r a c t e r of a society, w h o s e v a r i o u s s t r u c t u r e s c a n n e v e r t h e less b e f o u n d in m a n y o t h e r societies. I n d e e d ' o u r u l t i m a t e a i m is not so m u c h to k n o w w h a t e a c h society we s t u d y is in itself as to discover t h e w a y s in w h i c h societies differ f r o m e a c h o t h e r . ' (Lévi-Strauss, op. cit.) It is precisely for t h a t p u r p o s e , in o r d e r to t h r o w light o n ' t h o s e differe n t i a l g a p s [which] a r e t h e p r o p e r s u b j e c t - m a t t e r of e t h n o l o g y ' (ibid.), t h a t s t r u c t u r a l i s m w a s developed. In short, t h e s t r u c t u r a l i s t a i m is to w o r k o u t a s y s t e m of d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t d o e s not lead e i t h e r t o t h e i r s i m p l e j u x t a p o s i t i o n or to theiF artificial e f f a c e m e n t . T o c o n c l u d e , let us go b a c k t o t h e o r d i n a r y use of t h e w o r d ' s t r u c t u r e ' . N e v e r m i n d , in t h e e n d , if this u s e c o n t i n u e s to survive, not o n l y o u t s i d e s t r u c t u r a l i s m b u t also a m o n g t h o s e w h o c l a i m t o a d h e r e to it, L é v i - S t r a u s s i n c l u d e d . It is i n d e e d h a n d y a n d in a g r e e m e n t w i t h etym o l o g y to call s t r u c t u r e a n y c o n s i s t e n t a r r a n g e m e n t , a n y b u i l t - u p s y s t e m t h a t c a n be identified w i t h i n a c o m p l e x set. W h a t s t r u c t u r a l i s m offers is less t h e singling o u t of a n e w reality t h a n a n e w p o i n t of view o n a k i n d of reality t h a t w a s never i g n o r e d . O n e d o e s not h a v e to b e a s t r u c t u r a l i s t to a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t a k i n s h i p t e r m i n o l o g y , social i n s t i t u t i o n s , or a set of religious beliefs h a v e t h e c h a r a c t e r of a s y s t e m . A n d yet, r a t h e r t h a n limiting oneself to d e s c r i b i n g s u c h s y s t e m s in o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h a t a x o n o m y b a s e d on t h e i r e x t e r n a l similarities, t h e s t r u c t u r a l i s t c o n t r i b u t i o n h a s b e e n to ask w h a t m a k e s a s y s t e m a s y s t e m , w h a t r u l e g o v e r n s its i n t e r n a l relations, w h a t d e f i n e s its possible t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s a n d m a y e n a b l e it t o b e b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r w i t h o t h e r

282

Part VI : Concepts and methods

systems, even t h o u g h p e r h a p s no taxonomy would put t h e m u n d e r the same heading. In other words, structuralists look for the structuring factor behind the structured set; a n d even behind that which fails to reach a precise a n d stable structure, but develops (to quote LéviStrauss) i n a ' n e b u l o u s ' fashion, as for example the world of myth. T h i s is why, just as m a n y talk of structure without being structuralists, one could almost - despite having little taste for p a r a d o x - be a structuralist a n d never use the word 'structure'.

INDEX

agriculture, 100-2, 139-40, 251 Ainu, 98 A l e x a n d e r , 72 ancient East, 36, 39, 4 2 ^ - , 67 ancient society, 47, 49, 50, 53, 56 A n d a m a n Islanders, 137 archaeology, 8 7 - 8 , 9 1 - 2 Asia, C e n t r a l , 138-47 Asiatic society, 4 5 - 7 , 49, 53, 55-6, 66, 72, 75, 77 Assur, 7 A t h e n s , 15, 45 Attica, 45 A u s t r a l i a n Aborigines, 6, 54—5, 89-90, 9 6 - 7 , 99, 107-11 A z a n d e , 196 Balkans, 75 B a r a s a n a , 98 Batek Negritos, 99 Bisa, 98 Bon-po, 242, 248 Brazil, 185 Bromley, Yu. V., 80, 1 6 2 ^ , 166-7, 219, 257 B u d d h i s m , 210-12, 242-4, 246, 248-52, 271 Bulgaria, 183 B u r y a t , 242, 245, 249-51 B y z a n t i u m , 63 C a n a d a , 55 capitalism, 5, 10, 33-5, 37-8, 40, 47-51, 5 3 - 4 , 56, 66, 73, 77-80, 159, 166, 181-2, 186 C a r i b b e a n , 71 centre of historical development, 43-4, 46, 48-50, 52, 66, 69, 77-8, 80 C h a d , 279-80 C h i n a , 55, 138, 140, 146-7, 208, 226

Chingis K h a n , 141-3, 251 Christianity, 233, 271 class society, 25, 39, 4 1 - 3 , 4 5 - 6 , 51, 55, 6 7 - 8 , 72, 135-6, 138, 166 classification of etnografia, 167-9 colonial oppression, 4, 51 c o m m u n i c a t i o n , m e a n s of, 120-1, 124, 131, 257 c o m m u n i s m , 36, 48, 74, 85 cult of personality, 8 1 - 2 d e m o g r a p h y , 265-74 D e n m a r k , 183 diffusionism, 6 5 - 6 , 68-71, 76, 81 D o r i a n Greeks, 45, 72, 82 D u r k h e i m , E., 3, 19, 121, 182, 196-7, 202, 220 economic systems, 9 7 - 9 , 137 Egypt, 42, 72, 121, 146 Engels, F., 5, 9, 20-1, 23-4, 31, 36, 49, 50, 55, 66-8, 81, 8 5 - 6 , 198, Eskimo, 98, 137 Estonians, 176, 178 ethnicity, 79-80, 165 ethnicos, 155, 167 ethnogenesis, 26, 160, 234, 257, 259, e t h n o g r a p h i c analogues, m e t h o d 90-2 ethnohistory, 26, 8 6 - 7 ethnos, 152-69, 235, 265 ethno-sociology, 168, 171-9 evolution of h u m a n society, 30, 35, 4 1 - 2 , 4 5 - 7 , 49-50, 53-4, 65, 71-3, 120, 226, 236

187,

47, 233

261 of,

37, 89,

feudalism, 31, 35, 37-8, 40, 44, 4 7 - 5 0 , 53, 55-6, 63, 68, 75-80, 82, 143-4, 249 formalism, 4 France, 3, 37, 48

284

Soviet and Western

Anthropology

Lévi-Strauss, C., 3-5, 10-12, 130, 197, Freud, S., 209, 214, 232-3 200, 210, 277-9, 281-2 functionalism, 4-5, 9, 11, 21, 65, 69, 71, linguistics, 119-31, 257-63 210, 281 Malapantaram, 99 Georgians, 176, 178 global history, 30-1, 35, 38, 40-2, 47-9, Manchus, 139-41, 145, 245, 248 Marxism, 3-5, 9, 11, 13, 16-17, 19-21, 54 23-5, 35-7, 42, 49, 50-1, 55-6, 59, Gouro, 4 61-2, 64-6, 68-70, 73, 75, 78, 80-1, Greece, 7, 9, 14, 44-6, 63, 66 85-6, 161-2, 188, 231-4, 236, 238-40, 249 Haida, 98 Mbuti, 99, 103, 105, 112 Hadza, 99-101, 103-5, 107, 111 Mediterranean, 46, 53, 66, 72, 74, 123 Hegel, G.W.F., 12-13, 31, 48, 64, 66, 78 Mesopotamia, 7, 42, 72, 123, 126 Hinduism, 270-1 methods of research, 172-6, 183, 187, historical comparative method, 88-92 195-6, 200, 226, 231-2, 234, 236, historical epoch, 22-4, 26, 35, 41, 49, 70 238-9, 243, 259-62, 266-7 historicism, 11, 19, 21-5, 161, 226, 238 Mexico, 55 history, materialistic concept of, 4—5, mode of production, 6, 8-9, 11, 22-3, 35, 20-1, 23, 29, 34, 36 55-6, 76, 138 Hsien Pi, 139, 141 Moldavia, 174, 176-9 hunting-gathering societies, 6, 15, 89-90, Mongolia, 79, 139-40, 144, 242, 248, 95-115 250-1 Hus, Jan, 60 Mongols, 138-45, 147, 242, 245-6, 248, Hwang Ho, 42, 72 251 Mountain Dorobo, 99 Inca, 15-16 India, 3, 51, 55, 138, 147, 208, 272-3 Indus, 42, 72 Nambikwara, 98 industrialisation, 77-8, 80 national character, 218-26, 269 infrastructure, 3-9, 11-15 nations, non-continuity of, 39-40 investigation, objects of, 151-2, 156 Navaho, 196 Ionia, 46 Ndembu, 196-7 Islam, 239, 242, 271, 274 Near East, 42-3, 46, 55-6, 66-7, 72 Israel, 63 nomads, 138-41, 144-7, 251 Italy, 45-6, 75 nominalism, 60 Nuer, 209 Japan, 75, 223-6 Nyamwezi, 98 Kazakhs, 140 kinship, 4, 6, 8, 14, 104-5, 107, 203-7, 259-60 Kirgiz, 140 Kpelle, 199 !Kung Bushmen, 99, 102-3, 10S-6, 111 Kwakiutl, 98

Oedipus complex, 209, 213, 233

Paleolithic era, 87-8, 90, 92 Paliyan, 99, 112 Papuans, 91 pastoralism, 139-40 peasant studies, 181-90 periphery, historic, 43, 46-7, 66, 68-9, 74, 76-7, 79-80 labour, division of, 102-3, 136-7, Persia, 138, 146-7 139-40, 145-6 Peru, 55 Lamaism, 242, 244, 248-9, 251-2 language, 119-21, 123-4, 126-31, 199, Plains Indians, 99, 113 Poland, 183 257-62 political organisation, 79, 137 Lapps, 98 population: density, 100-1, 267-8; morLele, 98 tality, 271-4; reproduction, 268-71 Lenin, V.l., 13, 19, 21-2, 24-5, 30, 32-4, primitive society, 23, 36, 41-2, 45, 50, 52, 81-2, 183, 238

Index

285

52, 55, 66, 71, 77-8, 85-7, 89-90, 93, 136, 158 production, relations of, 6-9, 11, 14, 16, 20, 23, 32-7, 41, 79, 136 psychoanalysis, 201, 208, 211-12, 214, 221, 223 psychology, 159, 173, 178, 195-6, 198, 202, 217-26 Pygmies, 137

32-42, 44-6, 48-9, 52-7, 59, 61-3, 66, 68, 70, 85, 90, 155, 158, 162 sociology, 172-5, 182 Spain, 55 stagnation of societies, 55-6, 69, 71 state, 43, 135-8, 141-7 structuralism, 3-5, 9-11, 210, 275-82 superstructure, 4-9, 13-14, 21, 23-4 survivals, method of, 92

realism, 60-1 religions, 2 3 1 ^ 0 , 242-52, 273-4 religious phenomena, 15-16, 238 Roman Empire 79 Rumania 183 Russians 176-9

Tadjiks, 238 Tallensi, 202-9, 212-213 Tasmania, 90 Tatars, 139-41, 174, 176-9, 246 technology, 19, 21, 48 Tierra del Fuegians, 137 torch-relay view of history, 64, 66, 68, 71-2, 75, 77, 79-80, 82 Totemism, 232, 237-8 Tungus, Reindeer, 242, 244-6 Turks, 138-40, 147 Tuvinians, 79, 147

Semenov, Yu. N., 20, 59-82, 92, 237 Shamanism, 237-9, 242-52 Siberia, 139, 244, 247 Sirionó, 98 slave-owning societies, 31, 36, 38, 40, 45-7, 63, 66-7, 71-7, 79, 81-2 social: formation, 21-2, 36-7, 40, 44, 46; organisation, 96-9, 107, 109-11, 138, 142; organism, 29-53, 56-7, 67, 74, 79; progress, definition of, 20 socialism, 37-8, 47-8, 52-3, 55-6, 74, 78, 82 society, 29-30, 32, 34-5, 38, 40-1, 53, 62, 64, 78, 90, 135-7, 162 socio-economic systems, 20-3, 26, 29,

unilinealism, 54, 59-63, 65, 68, 70-1, 73, 75-6, 80 unity of human history, 60-2, 76, 80, 88-9 USA, 55, 71 Uzbeks, 140, 176-8, 240 warfare, 81, 272 world systems, 48-53, 55-7, 73-^