British anthropology for more than 20 years. Because the new political anthropology is, to a great degree, a reaction to this theoretical orienta- tion, it is worthwhile to take a critical look at it.
STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONALISM
If one were to reduce the structural-functionalist position to only four words or phrases, they might be synchronic, teleological, Africa, and
closed system. The term “synchronic” is defined by Webster as “con- cerned with the complex of events existing in a limited time period and ignoring historical antecedent.” This would be the definition favored by the critics of structural-functionalism, who constantly complained that societies were ripped out of their historical contexts and treated as though they were static over long periods. In reality, however, the early political anthropologists did not so much portray their societies as excessively
POLITICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 82
stable or unchanging (although this might be implied from their method of analysis), but rather as outside of time, in the same way that a still photograph captures an instant without denying temporal processes. In addition, just as a still photograph may suggest a great deal of movement as well as a past and a future, the structural-functionalists allowed for all sorts of tensions and conflicts within their frame of reference.
In a sense, then, these researchers can be compared with intelligence personnel who analyze aerial photographs—they tried to look at society from above, as a whole, and to map the interconnections between the various subsystems of the society, including kinship, marriage, religion, politics, and so forth. The society itself was considered not only outside of time, but also isolated in space. Although a tribe or chiefdom might be contained within a nation state, it was viewed as a thing unto itself, relatively independent of its wider social environment; that is, as a closed system with its own culture, its own values, and its own mechanisms of adjustment.
The question immediately arises: adjustment to what purpose? The structural-functionalists had a ready answer: adjustment to the equilib- rium of the whole. Far from being static, institutions within the society were constantly changing shape as smaller groups formed and reformed, alliances were made, and feuds and wars were fought—but all of these were interpreted as contributions to the integrity of the whole. Thus, any particular institution was analyzed with regard to the way in which it functioned to aid the survival of the larger system. In this sense, structural-functionalist causality was the reverse of Aristotelian causality; effects were not pushed from behind, so to speak, but pulled from in front. One would not explain a religious ritual in terms of its historical development but rather in terms of its purpose or function, which was ultimately the maintenance of societal equilibrium. In short, institutions and activities were analyzed teleologically; that is, in terms of a goal toward which they were directed. It was recognized, of course, that the people themselves would offer completely different reasons for their be- havior; but these manifest functions, although certainly important and often recorded in great detail, were not analytically significant. The an- thropologist was much more interested in the latent functions, of which individuals were unaware, and these could only be determined by looking at the whole system, just as the liver can only be understood in relation to the survival of the body.
One reason that this paradigm could be sustained for so long was that virtually all fieldwork was done in the part of Africa that was under British colonial rule, where cultures remained separated by language bar-
riers, distinctive cultural patterns, and the paternalistic prejudices of the ruling class of British administrators. Also, there was a tendency to seek out for fieldwork the more typical villages—those that were most tra- ditional—and to use them to represent the entire language group. This naturally had the effect of minimizing culture contact.
All of these elements are either implicit or explicit in E. E. Evans- Pritchard’s classic The Nuer (1940a). The basic goal of the book, in- cluding a chapter on the political system, was to show how a society of 200,000 people could maintain equilibrium despite almost constant feud- ing and an utter lack of any kind of centralized government. Radcliffe- Brown’s explanation, based on the concept of complementary opposition (discussed in chapter 3), demonstrates how the equilibrium of the whole can be maintained, not just in spite of conflicting parts, but actually as a result of them.
It is no accident that the demise of structural-functionalism coincided almost exactly with the demise of British colonialism after World War II. The synchronic approach required a fairly clear still photograph, and the image tended to blur when the action got too chaotic or when too many different groups crowded into the frame. The repudiation of structural-functionalism began blandly enough, but quickly turned to rev- olution, with all of the vehemence radical change seems to require. Most of the criticisms now seem rather obvious: societies are not in equilib- rium, teleological arguments are not scientific, no society is isolated from its social surroundings, societies are not homogenous, and colonial Africa is not the world. Structural-functionalism and British anthropology as a whole were accused of having been servants of colonialism. Perhaps the most telling criticism was simply that the theory had become routinized and was threatening to degenerate into a simplistic game in which one could point out, with a semblance of great profundity, that a religious ritual brought many people together and thus maintained social equilibrium.
All these objections are justified—process does indeed stand trium- phant over equilibrium. However, it is possible to look back from the vantage of victory and discern in the defeated enemy certain admirable qualities that were not visible during the smoke of battle. In retrospect, a book like The Nuer seems an enduringly brilliant and perceptive piece of analysis. The idealized portraits painted by the structural-functionalists of entire societies are very close to pictures of what is now being called political culture—that set of values and interactions common to a tra- ditional society. In this respect, structural-functionalism seems close to the symbolist school of political anthropology, which views culture, in-
POLITICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 84
cluding politics, as involving powerful sets of unconscious symbols. These symbols form a setting in which political action takes place; what has been added is the emphasis on the ways in which symbols are used and manipulated by individual actors. Even in the midst of the repudi- ation of structural-functionalism, one of the pioneers of the new process school, F. G. Bailey (1960: 240), felt it necessary to caution his col- leagues, “I cannot emphasize too strongly that without the fixed points which are provided by a static structural analysis, we have no means of describing the change that is taking place.”
The idea of latent functions was taken over, virtually intact, by eco- logical anthropologists, who view societies as unconsciously adjusting to maintain ecological balance. Teleology, once considered one of the most taboo words in science, was incorporated into both biology and physics and moved, via general systems theory, into the social sciences, in which goal direction was viewed as a prime force for both individuals and groups. Also from general systems theory comes the concept of bound- aries, the defining qualities of a social system that block or filter inputs from outside the system. Within these boundaries, constant adjustments are taking place to maintain the system, but the boundaries themselves may be stable for long periods of time. Thus for a relatively closed
system the picture one gets from applying the concepts of general sys- tems theory are not very different from that of the structural-function- alists. Although the superiority of a process approach cannot be denied— if only because its scope is so much wider and its analytical tools are so much more diverse—there is indeed in society something that is contin- uous, something that forms the backdrop for change. This is what the structural-functionalists were able to describe with such perception.