Abstract:
By understanding the failures of structural functionalism, one can understand to emergence and the replacement by action theory as the predominant form of anthropological ethnographic study. Frederick Bailey and his contribution to action theory is looked and contrasted with that of Fredrik Barth.
In order to understand a small-scale society in it’s most full context, it is important to take change into account. To assume that a small-scale society is static is nature is foolish as the very act of observing the society may change the way the institutions within that society act. A pre-contact small-scale society may have a completely different set of values to the same society post-contact. It is for this reason that Anthropologists must understand both the structural-functionalist approach as well as action approach. This is because the structural functionalist approach is as important to the action approach as the action approach is important to truly understanding the dynamics within a small-scale society.
Structural-functionalism is a theory, which sets out to understand a small-scale society in terms of the interrelatedness of its social-institutions. That is, it places emphasis on the importance of social institutions with a small-scale society rather than the importance of the individuals that make up the social-institutions (Lewellen 1983, pp. 85-87). As a result of this, structural-functionalism has limited value on its own when trying to understand change within a small-scale society. This is because social-institutions tend to reflect the dynamics of what should be taking place in a small-scale society rather than what is actually taking place within a small-scale society.
Action Theory on the other hand places emphasis on the individual actors that make up the small-scale society and its social-institutions. Action Theory takes the view that it is the actions of individuals that determine the nature of the social-institutions within a small-scale society and not the social-institutions that determine the nature of individuals (Vincent 1990, pp. 341-345). It is important to note that while pre-contact social-institutions may still exist in a post-contact period, the post-contact reality may be vastly different from what the social-institutions say should be occurring. This is why one must observe an attempt to understand a small-scale society from an action approach perspective if one is to truly understand this society in its fullness.
Action Theory emerged as a critique to structural-functionalism because of structural functionalism’s inability to help anthropologists understand change in the political sphere of anthropological study (Vincent 1990, pp. 341-345). The emergence of Action Theory and its eventual replacement of structural functionalism as the predominant ethnographic method of study coincided with the decolonization of Africa from British rule. This is because according to Lewellen, structural functionalism was accused of being a servant to British colonialism, as its apparent inability to understand change was a purposeful design (Lewellen 1983, p. 87). This would give the colonizers an excuse not to include the indigenous people in matters of the state as one could then say that matters of the state are above the scope of the indigenous people and use academic evidence to justify this argument if it ever came up for review.
Arguably one of the greatest contributors to Action Theory is Frederick Bailey. Bailey is a British anthropologist that focused mostly on the rules that regulate formal and informal politics in everyday life in India and the Mediterranean. Bailey’s focus was on how the rules that govern politics of small-scale societies get manipulated by actors. It is important to note the difference between Frederick Bailey and Fredrik Barth’s approach to action theory. Barth, a contemporary of Bailey argues that the rules that govern the politics of small-scale societies are manipulated by “freely, value seeking actors” while Bailey argues that the reasons why individuals manipulate the rules is because of fundamentally moral reasons (AnthroBase 2010, p. 1).
The real contrast between Bailey and Barth is similar to the substantialist-formalist argument. Barth argues that the motive for individuals in a small-scale society to manipulate the rules of political institutions is utility maximization like western large-scale societies. This is a formalist view. Bailey argues that the motive for individuals in a small-scale society to manipulate the rules of political institutions really depends on the moral inclinations of that society which is to say that it may not necessarily be because of utility maximization. This is a more substantialist view. There is more value to anthropologists from Baileys argument because it encompasses Barths argument and is larger in scope.
In Tribe, Caste and Nation (1960), Bailey identifies that rules, which may not structurally be in conflict with one another, may in practice conflict with one another. He gives the example of the indigenous Kond tribe of India. A Kond man is expected to be generous to both his own sons and his sister’s sons equally. This is not practical in reality as wealth differs among people, which mean that a Kond man should spend more on his own son if he was maximizing his utility as Barth suggest. This is, however, not the case. Even a poor Kond man will be equally generous to both his sons and his sister’s sons (Bailey 1960, pp. 238-240). This just shows that moral obligation is as strong if not stronger than individual utility maximization as Barth suggests.
In conclusion, action theory has changed the way in which anthropologists understand change with a small-scale society and replaced structural functionalism as the predominate method of analysis within anthropology. Bailey added to action theory by claiming that not only can individual motive stem from utility maximization, its can also stem from values that are completely different from those in western large-scale societies.
· Lewellen, T. 1983., Political Anthropology: an Introduction. Massachusetts: Bergin and Garvey.
· Vincent, J. 1990., Anthropology and Politics: Visions, Traditions and Trends. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
· AnthroBase 2010., Bailey, Frederick George (b. 1924). [Online]. Available at: http://www.anthrobase.com/Dic/eng/pers/bailey_frederick_g.htm. [Accessed 21 August 2010].
· Bailey, F. 1960., Tribe, Caste and Nation: A Study in Political Activity and Political Change in Highland Orissa. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment