Anthropological Theory, Cultural Pluralism, and the Study of Complex Societies [and Comments and Reply]

In this essay I have taken issue with the view that a special kind of anthropology is needed if anthropologists are to make a contribution to the study of complex societies. This point of view appears to represent a response to conditions which have prevailed more or less since the end of the World War II: instability in the newly emerging nations and the availability of funds for the application of social science to the solution of human problems. If this attitude persists, it would appear that anthropology will become either a new kind of social technology or a comparative sociology. It is argued by some social scientists that anthropology can no longer exist as an independent intellectual discipline. This argument is predicated upon the following propositions: (1) anthropology's traditional subject matter (i.e., preliterate societies and cultures) is disappearing; (2) anthropology has not developed a sophisticated empirical methodology; and (3) anthropology is lacking in systematic theory. The first of these propositions is erroneous: it is based on a misconception of anthropological science, and it ignores the fact that anthropology has never been exclusively preoccupied with preliterate societies and cultures. The second proposition, pertaining to research methodology, involves considerations of epistemological disagreement between anthropology and related sciences and of the uses of modern research technology. In view of anthropology's propensity for configurational analysis and its tendency to reject operationalism, issues of epistemological disagreement between anthropology and related sciences are not likely to be resolved. As far as modern research technology is concerned, there is no reason why anthropologists cannot be easily trained in its uses. The third proposition, that anthropology is lacking in systemic theory, cannot be so easily dismissed. In evaluating the criticism that anthropology has no theory, I have suggested that it is necessary to differentiate between two types of theory: explanatory theory and paradigmatic theory. Explanatory theories are comprised of deductive systems of propositions which purport to explain, either in terms of stated or predicted relationships, the properties of phenomena that are conceptually delineated for scientific analysis. Paradigmatic theories are comprised of general orientations which serve to define the substantive focus and intellectual approach of particular disciplines. While anthropologists do in fact use all of the various types of explanatory theory that have been employed by the other sciences of man, they seriously lack a paradigmatic focus. Conceptualized as the science of culture, anthropology has labored primarily with the Tylorian paradigm of culture or some modification of it. This paradigm imposed an epistemological framework upon the discipline which precluded the development of systematic cultural theory. Thus, in the absence of a coherent tradiction of scientific research, anthropology's substantive focus continues to be an issue of considerable debate, and individual anthropologists have been left largely to their own resources in defining the legitimate problems of anthropological research. As a result, anthropologists have researched an almost incomprehensible range of human phenomena. This characteristic of the discipline is often presented as its forte by those who conceptualize anthropology as "the study of man"; but I consider it its principal weakness. In pursuit of problems having to do with almost everything that is conceivably human, anthropologists have become increasingly dependent upon related disceplines for the construction of theory. This often has led individual anthropologists to assimilate the paradigmatic focus of those disceplines from which they have had to borrow concepts and assumptions. As in the case of Nadel, such a process of assimilation is clearly evident among social anthropologists who have borrowed concepts and assumptions from classical sociology in order to analyze problems that have to do with the structure of social relationships. In short, to the extent that anthropologists do not share a paradigmatic focus, anthropology is in the process of converging with other disciplines. These circumstances have combined to make the anthropology of complex societies a problematic issue with implications for the continued existnece of the discipline. Anthropology's paradigmatic focus must be the study of culture if anthropology is not to converge with other disciplines; but the science of culture, still in the stage of naturalistic description, has not yet produced a body of theory with which problems of significance can be delineated with respect to the cultures of complex societies. The simple solution to his dilemma is to accept the problems defined by funding agencies and by other disciplines and to put anthropologists to work on these problems with the observational skills they have acquired from their studies of preindustrial societies. To my way of thinking, a more desirable solution is to undertake the arduous task of extracting cultural anthropology from the morass of naturalistic description and observation. Anthropology has always concerned itself with the analysis of cultural systems. Such systems are clearly relevant to the process of human evolution, to the organization of societies, and to the development of individual personalities. Without scientific knowledge of these systems neither anthropologists nor the other scientists of man can fully comprehend, or appreciate, the human condition. In short, anthropology's paradigmatic focus should be the scientific study of cultural systems. Thus, I have attempted to show how the construction of models for the analysis of cultural systems might contribute to the formulation of questions that are relevant to the development of cultural theory. To illustrate how this process of theory development might proceed, I have used as an example the model of cultural pluralism. Pointing out its advantages over the unitary or reticulated model for the study of complex societies. It needs to be emphasized, however, that this particular model is by no means the only one with which anthropologists can develop theories of culture.