Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Man.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EDWIN ARDENER
University
Oxford
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EDWIN
450
ARDENER
in thetheoryof Malinowskianfieldwork,
in
Therewas a centralcontradiction
so faras it was thoughtto be essentially
'observational'in nature.There was
offrequency
betweenl
statements
basedon observation,
alwaysa certainconfusion
before
and statements
about frequency.Thus,
measurement
statistical
became
commonin thesubject,Barnes(I949) drewourattention
to theobscureempirical
in anthropological
like 'divorceis freqtuent'
contentof statements
monographs.
of a certainnumberof actual
sort
of
of
'observations'
There was a
merging
of frequencyby supposedlywell-informed
subjects.
divorces,with assessments
it
as
a
It was combination,
were,of an unrandomsampleof marriageswithan
of
unrandomopinionpoll about the stateof marriage.Sociologisticcriticisms
on
taken
method
were
well
this
anthropological
point.
of thelaterstagesoffunctionalism
is notthatit failedto be an
But my criticism
but
it stubbornly
that
saw itselfas
accurateobservational,
probabilistic
science,
in
when
it
had
and
observational
its
failure
be so. The
to
empirical
anystrength
lay
soon
members
of
obvious.
Certain
the
Central
African/Manchester
symptoms
were
did set out to improvethe observational
methodsof
school of anthropologists
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE
NEW
ANTHROPOLOGY
AND
ITS
CRITICS
45I
seek out the natureof its object of study'(I922: i6, my trans.).Of the Neoin
Pedersenwas able to affordtheluxuryof regretting,
grammarians
themselves,
of calmerdays,thattheyhad feltit necessary
theretrospect
to operatewithsuch
'clamourand strife'(I962: 292).
empiricism
had been
Let us suppose,forsake of argument,thatfunctionalist
consistently
aiming at the honourabletask of close and accurateobservation,
We can nowadaysappreciatethe many
throughcarefulstatistical
investigation.
fromclose
genuineobjectionsto anyattemptto apprehendthenatureofstructure
For example:havingchosensome elementary
miieasurement.
observational
probof themovementsovertimeof a groupof chairsand a
lem suchas thestructure
certaintable,we findthatthemicrometer
readingsat floorlevelturnup variations
A ratherbanal statement
which offerpuzzles of interpretation.
that 'this is a
but rendersthe microdiningroom' not only bringsorderinto the variations,
Such a statement
It is
measurements
has the statusof a programme.
superfluous.
sufficient
to accountfor the movementof individualchairs;it condensesthe
withinthe mostflexiblelinmits
essentialrelationships
of measurement.
Indeed,as
in thisseriespointedout(LeachI96I), no relationships
thefirst
lecturer
ofquantity
ofmicro-measurement
arenecessary.
In contrast,
therefinements
lead theobserver
to delicateprecautions
to accountforthe
belowthelevelofsignificant
phenomena,
of floor,slipperiness
unevenness
of linoleum,or
wobble of individualchair-legs,
in woodgrain,and so on. As if thosewere not problemsenough,the
variations
measureris alwaysat themercyof an arbitrary
changein theprogramme,'this
is a diningroom', whichmaybe modifiedwithouthisknowledge,in some such
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
452
EDWIN
ARDENER
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE
NEW
ANTHROPOLOGY
AND
ITS
CRITICS
453
transpose
to anotherkey,or startat thetwentieth
bar of a new colmiposition.
Let
us go on to imaginethatthetapedoesnotclearlyshow us the code forthetranspositioninstruction,
and imaginefurther
thatthe transpositions
are many and
various,and thatwe do not even possessthattape: merelythe output.Are all
In thecaseofthemusicaloutputthe
thesestrings
offigures
partof one calculation?
questionofwhether
themusicwasall' thesame'wouldbe evenlessreal.In termsof
anyoneanalysis
theoutputwouldcontainapparently
unmotivated
redundancies,
the
programme
wouldnotbeproperly
calibrated
toanysingleconsistent
modelofevents.
stretches
Should all the systemsto whichthe different
of the outputreferbe
separately
stated?Or shouldsomebe regardedas falsestarts?
Shouldonlythefinal
stretch
of outputbe referred
to a specificsystem?
Do thetranspositions
themselves
expressa meta-system?
And so on. Shannonianinformation
theoryonce appearedto offera modelfora view of theoutputas essentially
probabilistic.
Given
enough'message',a copiousenoughoutput,thecode mightbe determined.
The
forEnglishdid actuallyderivefromwar-time
Shannoniantransition
probabilities
Jakobsonand Halle (I956), however,made an essential
distinction
code-breaking.
The cryptanalyst
lacksthecodebook.He is the
betweencryptanalysis
and decoding.
outsideobserver.The decoder(heremy possessorof the programme)does not
functionlike a cryptanalyst.
The code-bookas restoredor reconstructed
from
probabilistic
examination
of theoutputcan nevercontainrulesforkindsofchains
whichhave notyetbeen generated.
To see why, let us returnto our elementary
discussionof predictivity.
An
'this is a diningroom' can be
empiricist
mayplausiblyassertthatthestatement
It may be seenas summarising
looked at as probabilistic.
statements
probabilistic
aboutthenatureof theuse of diningrooms,fromwhichitspredictivity
derives:
a statistical
a 'folkstatistic'.
isin effect
as ifthestatement
Itis here,in my
assessment,
backedup by
view,thatthebasicchangein approachderivedfromLevi-Strauss,
becomesclear.Ifourobserverwereto deduce
thoughtin neighbouring
disciplines,
of a sufficiently
certainprobabilitiesfrom his measurements
large corpus of
he could,it is true,expressthemin a formulasuchas 'this
furniture
movements,
is now a termof artfortheseprobain whichthe statement
is a dining-room',
in theprogrammeof the
bilities.It bearsa 'familyresemblance'to thestatement
statement
is 'testable'in termsof how
and in additionthestatistical
informant,
thoseprobabilities
continueto be realised.Thereare,however,importaccurately
betweenthetwo statements.
antdifferences
'Theyderivefromthecriticalimportitself.The nativestatement,
as a programmefor
ance of themode of derivation
All the argumentsof
non-verbalevents,has not been apprehendedstatistically.
of languageapplywith equal
Chomsky(e.g. I969: 63) about the apprehension
oftheprogrammatic
ofsociety.The 'nativeactor'
structure
forceto theacquisition
withhighlyrestricted
hasbeenpresented
data,'a highlydegenerate
sample,in the
or incorrect'.Yet his 'comnsensethatmuchof it mustbe excludedas irrelevant
observer.
petence'willalwaysexceedthatoftheanthropological
Thus,ifwe 'test'
and it is 'wrong' statistically:
a programme
statement
thisis becauseit
statistically
We sometimesconfuseourselvesand our
statement.
is simplynot a probabilistic
becausein all societiestheprogrammeis subjectto a greateror lesser
informants,
in statistical
nowhereso oftenas in thepositidegreeto discussion
meta-language:
vistWest.
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
454
EDWIN
ARDENER
The elementary
exampleI have used so far,expressedthrougha verbalstatement,will not, however,take us safelyfar,withoutleadingus into purelylinLet us,therefore,
guisticside-issues.
quicklygo overthequestionof 'prescriptive'
fromthispointofview,foritreallyis important.
I do notneed
versus'preference'
to say to thisaudiencethatthesetechnicaltermsas appliedto marriagealliance
raisedcontroversy
(Needham I962). Whateverbe the rightsor wrongsof the
of distinction
applicationof thisdistinction
to specificmarriagesystems,
thekintd
cannotbe deniedanalyticalvalidity.It will emergemoreclearlyif we leave the
contentious
ethnography,
and takethecategory'marriageable
woman' inEnglish
society.The only dimensionI can thinkof along which the 'prescribed'/'preferred'distinction
clearlyemergesis thatof age, in thisway. The methodof
probabilistic
measurement
may well show us thatmostEnglishwomencontract
theirfirst
marriages
betweenages I8 and 28 withthepeaksomewherenearage 2I.
Native informants
like myselfmay also make statements
to the anthropologist
that the preferred
age of firstmarriagefor women also lies betweencertain
limits-possiblythesamelimits,or different
ones.
In mostfunctionalist
fieldworkthesetwo approachesare essentially
all thatis
necessary.
Thereis a 'real', lmleasured,
or notionally
measurable
situation,
and a set
of statements
aboutit by natives.The latterare 'normiis',
'values' or thelike.One
teststhesefortheirpredictivity
by theformer,theonlytrueobservational
yardstick.Manyofthecommentators
on Levi-Strauss
haveinterpreted
thesetwo kinds
of statements
as his 'statistical'and 'mechanical'models(Ardener
inaccurately
by theobserverwitha
I97ib: 233-5). Let us acceptthatthenativeis confronted
The observermay ask: 'What about theseotherwomen in unions
discrepancy.
whichtheycontracted
at theage of 40?', or thelike.The replymaybe, 'Oh yes,
thoseare stillmarriages'.In dealingthusempirically
with a preferred
criterion
of marriagethereis no conflictin modeof observationbetweennativeand observer.The observermightsaythat,in fact,mostoftheagesofwivesin marriages
contractedthisyearfelloutsidethoselimits.The nativemay reply,'Well that's
unusual',or 'What canyouexpectnowadays?';buthe willnotdenythattheseare
Thepreferred
marriages.
category(heredefinedby age) is likethat.Now, if,on the
theobserversays,'Why, you wereabsolutelyright,everywomanfirst
contrary,
marriedthisyeardid fallwithintheseage limits',it is easyto makethemistake,as
many have done, thatwe are in the presenceof a 'prescribed'
category:as if
a ioo percent.prediction
wereessentially
prescription
by a lay statistician.
The objectionsare:
i. Not all ioo per cent.predictions
thusin the case of the
are prescriptions:
is notreallymoreconvincing
preferred
age of marriagea ioo percent.realisation
thanan 8o percent.or a 5o percent.realisation,
sinceotheragesofmarriage
arenot
excluded.
2. In so faras prescriptions
incidentally
appearto claimto make ioo per cent.
or are castin sucha form,theirpredictivity
is not probabilistic:
predictions,
they
generatethenatureoftheevent.
Here liesthepoint.ConsiderourEnglishcriterion
again.You are still'testing'
thepreferred
age. You now ask: 'what of marriagesat age i5?'. The replythis
timeis thattherearenone.'What', you ask,'of thatyoungwoman whom I have
ascertained
to be iS andwho is married?'.The replyis this:'Eitheryou arewrong
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE
NEW
ANTHROPOLOGY
AND
ITS
CRITICS
455
at floorlevel.
Beautifully
put,fromthepointof view of a micro-measurer
ofpresfeatures
ofthedebate.Thepeculiar
outcome
Harris
confuses
thegenuine
ofwhatI havecalledtheprogramme.
criptive
categories
areoftheveryessence
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EDWIN
456
ARDENER
in orderto holdthe
I haveproceededso farwiththenotionof theprogramme,
In orderto
ofthoseofyou who thoughtyou werededicatedempiricists.
attention
thinkmoreaboutit we shallhave to dropthemechanistic
analogy,but we have
not quite exhaustedit. Levi-Strauss's
myth-logicdoes resemblethatof a selfamendingprogrammesuch as I sketchedearlier.A piece of mythlooks like
unions
nonsense.A mythstatement
transforms,
inverts,
adds,subtracts,
performs
upon sets,all in a mishmashof operations,
imposedupon imagesof bitsof exorderof:
is of thenonsensical
perience.A mythstatement
apples+ pears= bananas
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE
NEW
ANTHROPOLOGY
AND
ITS
CRITICS
457
2.
So threeexemplifications
ofa 'logical' definition
ofidentity
appearin theoutput
as an 'illogical'confusion
ofidentities.
The 'message'is,in theone case: 'theunion
oftwo subsetsofa setis partof theset'. In theother,it is: 'subsetsof different
sets
arenotpartofthesameset'. The humancapacityto 'receive'thenonsenseoutput
is striking.This is achievedthrougha 'symptomatic'reading,as Freud (and
Althusser)
wouldputit.The detailedwrite-out,
intothreelogicalstatements,
is the
equivalentof Levi-Strauss's
methodof analysisin Mythologiques,
althoughhe has
sethimself
an enormoustask.You arefree,ofcourse,to saythatthe'myth'ofthe
applesand pearssymbolises
a disquisition
formulaeare a
on identity.
Levi-Strauss's
kindof science-fiction,
perhaps-a set of possiblemethodswitha set of guessed
answers.They show us, however,thatrationality
can be restoredin partto the
'nonsensical'output,by a set of rewriteinstructions.
It is at thisveryabstruse
pointthathis thoughtintuitively
meetsChomsky's:it would be misleadingto
pursuetheirseparateonwardcourses.
The condensedstatements
of mythcan be in principleteasedout as totally
natureof
'rational',totally'logical', providedwe perceivetheself-transforming
theprogramme.
The 'rewrites'
thatarenecessary
to restore
aregenerated
rationality
withinthe programmeitselfNevertheless
in thatpart of the outputwhich is
in behaviourtheyare theprogrammatic
symbolised
homologuesof 'adaptations'
to theinfrastructure.
At thelevel of myth,however,theyare leastdirectlycalibratedto thenaturalorder,and thementalstructures
can be mostclearlyshown.
As Levi-Strauss
says(I970: io): 'when themindis leftto communewithitselfand
no longerhas to come to termswithobjects,it is in a sensereducedto imitating
itselfas object'.At thelevelof theadaptations,
kindbased
structures
of a different
on observation
maybe imposedor elicitedby theanalyst,
as we shallsee.Butwhat
is all thisaboutthe'restoration'of rationality?
of
Human 'rational'apperception
symbolicsystems
maywell be evolutionarily
olderand moredevelopedthanthe
abilityto unpackthemendlessly
intolinearlyexpressed
notations
(ArdenerI97ia:
xliii-xlvi).Let me remindyou of Ortegay Gasset's(I92I, mytrans.)description
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EDWIN
458
ARDENER
as 'an instrument
oftherichly
forthe
programmatic
powerofmetaphor
necessary
left... intheinsideofoneofhiscreatures,
actofcreation,
whichGodforgetfully
in thebellyof his
as an absent-minded
sewsup one ofhisinstruments
surgeon
patient'.
first.
ofpossible
involves
their
Theunpeeling
sequences
hypothesising
Hence,the
and thelike.
'structures':
thesuspicions
of arbitrariness
problemof validating
In comparison,
thoseannoying
cross-cousin
categories
begintolooklikebleeding
between
chunksof thenaturalorder.You will see thatmy initialdistinction
'output'and 'programme'
is, at thenextmeta-level,
exactlythesamekindof
ofa simultaneous
between
analytical
'linear'dissection
concept
as isthedistinction
the linearlogicalstatement
and the condensed,
transformationally
rewritten,
statement.
The programme
mythological
and the outputare simultaneously
present.
We mayargue,therefore,
are
thatthesamekindsofrewrite
arguments
inmplicit
intheoutput
ofsocialevents.
Thefinalrewrite
whenactionoccurs
willbe
intothesymbolism
ofbehaviour
itself.
Now thisis nothing
to do directly
with
correlations,
probabilities,
or polling,but I findno 'paralysisof reality'in it
(HarrisI969: 497).
In any case, certainprogrammatic
are 'calques' upon divisionsin
distinctions
the most behaviouristreality:sex differences,
bodily laterality,geographical
directions.
Nevertheless,
establishone level of categorisation
and humanbeings
builda metaphorical
levelupon it,thenupon thislevel,yetanother.The number
ofpossiblestructures
nestedone insidetheotheris thusbewilderingly
great.It is no
that
wonder
concentration
insteadupon theplaneor fieldof socialevents,as they
are generated,
was forlong so attractive.
Functionalists
have in factbeenusedto
orderingthisplane throughrudimentary
structures
of anothertype,call them
'syntagmatic'if you like,in oppositionto the 'paradigmatic'structures
of the
programme(see below, Appendix). Functionalists
did not always grasptheir
arbitrarynature,for syntagmaticstructuresfrequentlyapproximateto our
positivist
analoguesforrealityitself.The situational
logicofPopper,thefunctional
interrelationships
of Radcliffe-Brown:
they'feel' real.
It is notsurprising
thatthosewearingsyntagmatic
lensesdo notseeparadigmatic
structures.
Two casesfromEvans-Pritchard
will suffice.
As Douglas has pointed
out (197ob:xiv), Witchcrqft,
oraclesandmagicwas about knowing.The structures
were paradigmatic.Yet the contribution
as
was seen by most anthropologists
as about 'social control'and thelike. Again, The Nuerproposeda
syntagmatic:
modelof theoppositionof segments
in a systemof segments.
Thiswas a paradigmaticstatement:a trulySaussureanvision,but 'opposition'in a paradigmatic
statementwas apprehendedas 'conflict'in a syntagmatic
statement.Again:
'exchange' (Mauss): paradigmatic;'transaction'(Barth): syntagmatic.
So too:
'alliance': 'descent';'prescription':
'preference';andmy'programme':' output'.
The interlocking
planesof interpretation
show us something
of whatis meantby
the problemof calibrationof programmeto event.A humanbeing in society
experiencesan eventas an expressionof both modes.He and it are unitedin a
uniquevaleur
(Saussure
I922:
I53-4).
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE
NEW
ANTHROPOLOGY
AND
ITS
CRITICS
459
thanthestructures
of theso-called'functionalism'.
Furthermore,
notall formulationsderivedby 'structuralists'
are paradigmatic,
althoughwhatappearsnovelis
theimmanentparadigmatic
awareness.Conversely,not all formulations
derived
by 'functionalists'
are syntagmatic,
but what appear old and familiarare the
syntagmatic
assumptions.
The methodofstructures
is indeedalreadybeingapplied,as yetin an earlyway,
to the syntagmatic
plane. I have alreadysuggested(I97Ia: lxxv) thatBarth's
transactions,
Barnes's,Bott's,Mitchell'snetworks,
andsuchdevelopments,
canthus
be designatedas stepstowardsthe higheststageof functionalism:
'That is: a
functionalism
becomeaware(oraboutto becomeaware)thatthefieldofbehaviour
or action,even when arbitrarily
isolatedfromthe ideologicalprogrammethat
determines
itsmeaning,mustitselfbe structured
by theobserverbeforeit can be
"observed"'. Syntagmatic
models 'work' untila paradigmaticchange occurs.
Theygenerateonlyeventsofthekindwhichhavealreadyhappened.Nevertheless,
a complementary
and fullyconscioussyntagmatic
structuralism
is much to be
in thismore
desired,and we mayhope fora functionalist
revivalor transmutation
rigorousform,as part of any trulynew anthropology.So far,however,the
'syntagmatists'
are wrestlingwith a hundredad hocterminologies,
due to their
inexperience
of thenatureof theparadigmatic
dimension.
Not theleastconfusing
is theirtendencyto label their'syntagms'withtheterm'paradigm'itself.
effect
The pathsto the elicitingof the rationality
have
of paradigmaticstructures
meanwhileled throughthepainstaking
ofall
examination
ofsymbolicexpressions
kinds:myth,ritual,folklore,legend,riddles,gestures,
jokes, lateralsymbolism,
totemicclassification,
and thelike.The Americananthropologists
ofthe'cognitive
structure'
school,despitea difference
ofemphasis,
mustbe regardedas partofthis.
Othershave examinedtheoral literature,
theproblemsof theonomasticprocess
has also been
and so on. The recentattentionto the philosophicalimnplications
valuable.The natureof the 'mentalistic'portionof societyis now moderately
well known,because of all thiswork. We are out of the range,however,of
probabilistic
testing.At different
stagesthemostbrilliant
Europeanexponentsof
thenew linesof approachhave,becauseof this,foundthemselves
faltering.
They
have all beenhighlysensitive
to thechargeof empiricalinadequacy.Levi-Strauss
and
thus recoiledfromthe implicationsof his own analysisof prescription,
Leachhas
resorted
to otherdenialsofhisown work,whichsometaketoo literally.
reaffirmed
hisfunctionalist
allegiance(how likethatGalileohe summonedforthin
Rethinking
anthropology!).
Douglas hasbeenaccusedby him(I97I) ofa retreatinto
Roman Catholicapologetics.Needhamhascome to despairof a futureforsocial
anthropology
exceptthroughdisintegration
or 'iridescent
metamorphosis'
(I970).
All assailLevi-Strauss.
in Sartre'shellthenew anthropologists
Like thecharacters
careabouteachother'sfaults.Nevertheless,
derive
thesehonourablecontradictions
fromthelocationof theircharacteristic
worksin thecoupure
itself,
epistemologique
althoughonlyLevi-Strauss
exemplifies
all phasesof it.
has conIt is no surprisethatin remoteuniversity
departments
anthropology
tinued,becauseof the absentconsensus,to be taughtmore or less unmodified
sinceI955 to new generations
ofstudents.
Or a coursein 'cognitiveanthropology'
or thelike is patchedon. The feelingsof some anthropologists
are echoedin the
jeer of Harrisabout 'Mysticism,cynicism,
and some may agree
and miniskirts',
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EDWIN
460
ARDENER
to view is theveritabledebauchery
of
withhimthat' . . . whatis mostdistressing
methodwhichhassucceededRadcliffe-Brown's
puritanical
reign.Thisweakening
of theempiricalfibres(can it be thesameinfluence
whichhas mliade
London the
exporterof all mannerof musicaland sartorialnovelty?)standsout in morbid
contrastto theutilisationof the linguisticmodel by Americanculturalanthropologistsin thestudyof emic categories'(HarrisI969: 544-5). (Ratherunfairon
Londonin thiscase!)
of presentation
Whateverdeficiencies
mayhave occurredin theheady'sixties,
we have alreadyseen thatthe apparentcollapseof methodwas a behaviourist
illusion.Isolatedand frequently
scornedalthoughtheyhavebeenin functionalist
forshowingus theway. It is true
circles,we mustthanktheneo-anthropologists
thatanthropologists
will need to be even morewidelyeducatedand even more
scholarly
thanat presentiftheyareto makethetransition
to thekindsof applicationsthatnow awaitus. Therewillbe no shortcuts.
*
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE
NEW
ANTHROPOLOGY
AND
ITS
CRITICS
46I
butholmloioussort-nothomoousian
(ofthesamesubstance)
anentity
ofa similar
termsconveythe
Thesefourth
century
theological
ian (ofa similar
substance).
structuralism.
discussion
thathasgrownup aroundFrench
flavour
ofthcological
is 'like' Marxism
andpsychoanalysis,
itis certainly
notlike
Now ifstructuralism
nottherefore
morelike
dropthefearofthat.Areall three
flat-earthism.
We miiay
notorThe simpleansweris thatthelatter
dogmatic
systems?
thepre-positivist
They
itself
cansubject
tofalsification.
whichpositivism
iouslyinclude
propositions
It is, however,
werein facttheearlier(of coursetheoriginal)flat-earthisms.
witchcraft
typimodewhereby
instructive
to recallagaintheverysophisticated
No amountof positivist
the
measurement
wouldinvalidate
itself.
callyverifies
believeracceptsas giventhatdisasters
havea statistical
The witchcraft
system.
hasto explaintheindividual
of therate,and
incidence
He merely
probability.
that'20 peoplewilldieontheroadtoday'.He has
init.He accepts
sudden
changes
persons
die.
Everydayparticular
to explainthedeathonlyofparticular
persons.
is mapped,
carewithwhichtheincidence
themoregrist
Thegreater
thescientific
diedin a motoraccident.
In his
to hismill.So: Adelabu,a Nigerianpolitician,
enemies
milesaway,hispolitical
weremassacred
forwilling
home-town,
eighty
killedKennedy.
hisdeath.In sucha scheme
Johnson
truly
to explaintheincidence
inwitchcraft
liesin an attempt
beliefs
of
Thecausality
is Maxwell'sDemon,witha theory.
It is an essentially
Thebeliever
randomness.
thatprobabilistic
aresimply
notsecurely
itrecognises
'social'theory;
approaches
inthesyntagmatic
a modeofintervention
It hasa practice:
plane.The
predictive.
wellincludea specification
of'benefiting'
analysis
might
subordinate
syntagmatic
criteria
as of 'marginality'
or thelike.The number
of
individuals
by diagnostic
In itseconomic
thatthosewho
as we know,is enormous.
aspectitstates
variants,
events
shouldpaya socialtax(Ardener
systems
benefit
fromrandom
1970). Other
similar
thanwitchcraft.
topositivism
taskslessdestructively
They
attempt
parallel
structures.
fromthechainof eventsto unconscious
Theyare
all movecausality
ofMarxandFreudachieved
a
Thus,thesystems
' guesses'abouttheprogramme.
Itissignificant
topositions
topositivism.
that
return
supplementary
revolutionary
andhadto trimoffexcursions
intofields
flat-earthist
bothpassedthrough
phases,
ofMarr,andthebiotheories
hadmadeitsown: thelinguistic
whichpositivism
as weremanyofthemisapprehensions
werenotorious;
ofLysenko
logicalbeliefs
ofFreud.
methodforthe
Positivism
begins,then,to be clearlyvisibleas a powerful
a
in
on
a
of causality systems non-human
scale, calque,as it were,
examination
has
themetaphorisation
Yet
it
too
suffered
andthedice.
theearth,
uponthestars,
In
has
more
thesystem
andmorebeguntobe
ofallhumanstructures.thiscentury,
as
of genuine
scientific
is:
as a metaphysical
independent
one,that
apprehended
to
be
a
statistical
rate
now
comes
translated
of
Thusthehumanincidence
method.
'losers'or
notofwitches,
butofself.Peoplearestatistical
intotheresponsibility
and
more
from
More
that
flow
this.
all
with theimplications
they
'winners',
based on elaboratenon-measurements.
becomevictimsof socialengineering
is not
to humanaffairs,
as a newbeliefsystem
Butthislaypositivism,
pertaining
or
is
no
than
Marxism
method.
It
more
true
scientific
Freudianism;
validated
by
of thisghostimage
it is evenlesstrue.It shouldbe clearbynow thatrejection
or otherwise,
of rationality,
of'positivism'
shouldnotbe a rejection
positivist
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
462
EDWIN
ARDENER
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THTE NEW
ANTHROPOLOGY
AND
ITS
CRITICS
is applicabletoall developedideologicalsystems
Althusser's
parallel
terminology
in theirgeneration
from'flat-earthisms'
to andincluding
positivism.
Theyall differ
or a
of reality-transforming
practices.'So ideology',he says,'is notan aberration
lifeof
of history:it is a structure
essentialto thehistorical
excrescence
contingent
societies'(232). Again, 'It is profoundly
unconscious'(I969: 233). Again, 'Men
"live" theirideologiesas theCartesians"saw" ... themoon two hundredpaces
away . . .' (I969: 233). Again: he speaks of the 'overdeterminationof the real by
theimaginary
andtheimaginary
bythereal' (I969: 234). Finally'. . . themenwho
woulduseanideologypurelyas a meansofaction,as a tool,findthattheyhavebeen
caughtby it,implicatedby it,just whentheyare usingit and believethemselves
as
to be absolutemastersof it' (I969: 234). Harriswould thusgainlittlecomfort,
Marxistsnow disappearup ropesas well.
Althusser(I969: io6) moves the old Hegelian contradictions
into the same
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
464
EDWIN
ARDENER
elaboratetransformations,
by the conceptof overdeteruniverseas Levi-Strauss's
(itselfborrowedfromthesystemof Freud):
miniation
is alwaysoverdetermined?
'What can thismeanbutthatthesimplecontradiction
The exceptionthusdiscoversin itselftherule,theruleof therule,and the"exof the new
simpleexamnples
ceptions" must be regardedas methodologically
rule'.
Douglas (I966) and Turner(i969)?
A strangebedfellowforour friends
but at presentthe
The new Marxismcan hardlyignorethenew anthropology,
scienceof 'socialformations'
can
onlychewat eachother.Althusser's
two systems
of a
as an overdetermination
theideologicalstatusof structuralism
demonstrate
thenew Marxismis
in thelate capitalist
period.For structuralism,
contradiction
itselfan advancedsystemof thetypeof itsown privilegedsubjectmatter.Harris,
thatthe new Marxismis
an old-liner,mightbe broughtin to warn,in effect,
phantomsand cannotcome offbest.I mustconfessto
meddlingwithelementary
withthe limitedends of the
brillianceis satisfied
some surprisethatAlthusser's
unlesshe is hopingslowlyto wean hisaudienceaway from
Marxistproblematic,
implicationsof the
its old mythology,towardsthe much more revolutionary
of metaphysical
(the'ghostimage') as a socialpractice.As
positivism
dethroning
he says: '. . . we know thata "pure" scienceonlyexistson conditionthatit
continually
freesitselffromthe ideologywhichoccupiesit, hauntsit or lies in
hasits
coreof structuralism
waitforit' (Althusser,
I969: 70). The anthropological
forthesupposedunreasonof
therationality
practice'generating
own 'theoretical
(Banaji1970) specifically
thepresentage. A Marxistcriticof Britishanthropology
exemptsLevi-Strauss'swork fromsimple criticismas an ideology. He overbutafterall
of modernBritishanthropologists,
delineates
someconfusions
sternly
byitsapparent
alwaysprogresses
MarxandEngelsthemselves
declaredthathistory
mistakes!
*
I do notfeel
In dirccting
anthropologists,
thislecturcmainlytowardspositivist
In thenew conceptualspace
to adoptthelabel 'structuralist'.
thenecdspecifically
and'functionalism'.
we haveonlydifferent
not 'structuralism'
kindsofstructures,
I have triedto makeclearthatan empiricalapproachand a procedurefortesting
herewithHarris)that,in
neednotbe of a positivist
(in agreement
type.I re-assert
anyway.
have only been pseudo-positivist
fact,Europeansocial anthropologists
lack of
despite
its
of
a
science
For thatreasontheyhave forso long had thegerm
proofs
whose
statistical
sociologists,
(dareI sayit?)with
statistical
proofs,in contrast
docucareful
have over the yearsalmostdestroyedtheirscience.Nevertheless,
proceed
should
in
our
armoury,
usingeverytechnique
mentaryor fieldresearch,
withgreaterconscientiousness,
not less. The returnof our subjectto fellowship
and
in thewiderintellectual
world,aftertheratherheartydominionover palmli
of metipinebequeathedto us by Malinowski,neednot blindus to thetradition
and to whichI am glad to pay
culousresearchwhichhisgreatpupilsestablished,
my tributein thisMemorialLecture.
I have spokenof the'new anthropology',
ratherthanof a 'new socialanthroFew
importance.
althoughnot of substantive
pology': thisI confessis deliberate,
fail nowadaysto wear a social aspect.The cultural
branchesof anthropology
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE
NEW
ANTHROPOLOGY
AND
ITS
CRITICS
465
anthropology
oftheU.S. alsoprovidesparallelmodesof lookingat ourproblem:
thelinguists
and analysts
of categoriesof cognitionand thelike.The behaviourist
obsessioncharacteristic
of theAmericanschoolsitsill upon them,whilewe may
agreeforourpart,thattheBritishand Continental
schoolscan benefitfromsome
of theirmethods.But, in particular,
our old anthropological
linkswithstudents
of thebiologicaland environmental
infrastructure
beginto look veryimportant
again,sinceouranalysesstartwitheventsin theirzones.Furthermore,
to
thereturn
'anthropology'as a termmaywell symbolisetheend of thatperiodof one-sided
specialrelationship
withconventional
socialsciencewhichhas obscuredthe true
developmentof our subject.From conversation
with many scholarsin neighbouringfieldsitseemsthattheymaywellbe movingin similardirections.
Anthropologywillthen,we maythink,surviveintothenextgeneration,
bothempirically
and analytically,
and somebrightstudents,
witha littlehelp fromitsfriends
providedthatwe recognisethatthelongyearsofsinmply
patchingup theold consensus
arehappilyover.
APPENDIX
The distinctionl
between 'paradigmatic' and 'syntagmatic',I take ultimatelyfromSaussure
and his school, and Jakobson,althoughI realisethatthereare alreadyrathermany uses of these
terms,some over-elaborate.'Paradigm' is also a term(derivingfroma more traditionalusage)
whiclhis importantin themoderndiscussionsofthehistoryof science.I do not necessarilysee my
uses as inconsistentwith these,but the distinctionI am makinglies both in the oppositionwith
'syntagm', and in expression of this opposition at a particularmeta-level. The essential
linguisticdistinctionis succinctlypresentedby Milner (I97I: 254-5), where he shows the two
axes lying at right-angles(and definlingthe 'paragrammaticspace'). The acoustic chain of
Saussure is generatedlinearlyalonlgthe syntagmaticaxis. The paradigmaticaxis definesthe
chain.I Again: Levi-Straussrearrangeshis
classesof grammaticalrelationlship
in the synltagmnatic
mythsby imposinga paradigmaticaxis vertically,in oppositionto the 'linear' generationof the
which is thus 'syntagmatic'.Finally,my own usage moves a step furtherfrom
mythcontenlt,
the notionlof linear generation.Socially apprehendedevenltsare generatedin a multi-dimensional space. If we sce them as merelygeneratedin ordinaryspace, thisconceptual fieldI call
the 'syntagmaticplane'. Events in thisplane can be apprehendedby an observerthroughthe
elicitingof syntagmaticstructureseitherin space or over time, or both. The same eventsare,
structureis also an evenlt
however, generatedparadigmatically.Every evelntin a synltagmatic
in a paradigmaticstructure.The formeris a structurein the ' output'; thelatteris a structurein
the 'programme': termswhich are too mechanisticformore than analogical use.
To recapitulatebrieflythe calibrationof the two planes.In a specificsociety,theparadigmatic
'witch' is generatedas an apperception(say) of random incidence of disaster.The link to the
syntagmatic
planeisprovidedby a 'theoreticalpractice'whichspecifiesthe'witch'. The commion
featuresof such specifications
in a given societyare syntagmaticstructures.
Again: paradigmatic
'oppositions' among the Nuer, specify,througha theoreticalpractice,events which, in the
syntagmaticplane, may be labelled 'conflicts'.The pairs of termsI quote here and in the text
above are certainlly
universalanalyticaloppositiolns.They are meanit
not intenldedto represenit
to inidicatethatanthropologicalconceptshave tendedto be separatelylabelled accordingto the
in the thoughtof the analyst.
primacyof the syntagmaticor paradigmaticstructures
As I have already indicated,theregularitiesof syntagmaticstructures
are usuallyconfusinigly
As I see it, the Manchesterworkers,
called 'paradigms' insteadof 'syntagms' by functionalists.
for example, are constantlyanalysingsyntagms,without understandingthat the specification
of their'networks', 'ethnicities',and the like, lies in paradigmaticstructures(in the precise
sense)which are inaccessibleto theirmode of analysis.It will be necessaryto presenta detailed
example fromactualfieldworkin orderto take thematterfurther;thismustawait a subsequent
paper. Meanwhile,it may be noted thatthetermsused by Needham (I963: xlii-xliii),to express
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ARDENER
EDWIN
466
in
the'theoretical
capital'of socialanthropology
fromtheFrenchschool,areall paradigmiiatic
nature,
whichaccountsfortheirintuitive
richness.
The multiplicity
of ad hoctermsin functionalist
socialscience,all ultimately
unsatisfactory,
andmostlyoutmodedas soonas invented,
shortrepetitive
lifeofso
derivesfromtherelatively
manyobservedpatterns
ofevents.The reasonwhyI haveaccordedtheterm'transaction'
the
statusof a syntagmatic
concept,is notbecauseof itsparticularly
greatpower,butbecauseit
neara minimalpattern
in thatplane.Nevertheless,
labelssomething
theprimacyof theparaof meaningor 'value' to suchtransdigmaticstructures
providesthesourceofanyascription
actions.
Theprimacyoftheparadigmatic
structures
is stillmaintained
whenan unprogrammed
event
intrudes
fromaninfrastructural
source-sayaneventinthenatural
order,likeanunprecedented
Thesyntagms
shattered
insucha case.No predictivity
earthquake.
maybe totally
fromprevious
syntagmatic
patterns
maysurviveduringthedisastrous
circumstances.
Yet it is evidentthatin
thecrisisitself'when theskiesrainblood', certainparadigmatic
stillgeneratethe
structures
humanapperceptions
oftheevents.Eventually
newsyntagms.
Thusany
itis theythatgenerate
inhistory
liesintheparadigmatic
continuity
ofsocieties
acrosscrises
structures
rather
thaninthe
syntagms.
Theyare thusequivalentto whatin an earlierpaperI havecalled(at thelevelof
andparadigmatic
belief)the'templates'(I970: i55, i59). Sincebothsyntagmatic
structures
are
the'paradigmatic
simultaneously
delineated
through
events,
primacy'probablyderivesfroma
in thementalistic
basicandsystematic,
structure
of human
'event-oriented',
adaptivecapacity
as wellas primary.
society.It wouldthusbe bothtrulyprimitive
I do notliketoleavethematter
therewithout
aboutthe'location'
takingup certain
questions
ofstructures:
i. The relationship
paradigmatic:
syntagmatic
is an expressionof relationship
between
dimensions.
in two dimensions
are paradigmatic
in one dimension;
Structures
to structures
in threedimensions
in two dimensions;
structures
structures
areparadigmatic
to structures
in
infivedimensions
areparadigmatic
structures
fourdimensions
tostructures
inthreedimensions;
in fourdimensions:
are paradigmatic
to structures
and so on. In normallinguistic
usagethe
chainisseenaslinear(inonedimension)
hastobe represented
andtheparadigmatic
syntagmatic
a modelin twodimensions.
Yet anyreality
to whichitcorresponds
mustbe conceived
through
in fourdimensional
theone dimensional
ofas operating
linear-chain
space-time:
representing
in threespacedimensions
an outputgenerated
overone dimension
oftime.Ifthissyntagmatic
thentheparadigmatic
continuum
is fourdimensional,
dimension
is a fifth
dimension.
There
is
2.
nothingwrongwithfivedimensions;
The time(t) ofa givendimension
in a space(s)
(d) mustbe expressed
through
co-ordinatcs
of a dimnension
one higher.So:
In d1,t1is expressed
in S2
coordinates
through
29 d2, t2 ,,
29 d3, t3 ,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,, S4
d4, t4 ,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
S3
s5
The relationship
t betweenspacesofsucceeding
is thusofthesamelogicalorderas
dimensions
thatbetweensyntagmatic
andparadigmatic.
While I am concernedherewithlogicaldimensions,
we can hardlyignorethefactthat
Einsteinhasalreadymappedthemon to thenaturalorder.Thust3 is ournaiveexperience
of
'Time three'thenis 'syntagmatic
Einstein's
four-dimensional
continuum.
time',thetimeof
humanhistoriography,
andrelative
whosevulnerable
natureI haveshown(I97ib) intheterms
The natureof 'Time four' is apprehended
of structure.
by us throughits contradictions:
inEinstein's
rendered
theconceptofthespeedoflight,through
whichinterthought
through
valsin spaceas wellas timein S4 areshrunken
The natureoffourdimensional
to simultaneity.
a meta-level
concouldonlybe expressed
one higher:a fifth
space-time
byEinsteinthrough
ceptualdimension.
Thereis nothinig
thenabout any of this.'Paradigmatic
structures'
are conmysterious
The relationship
forournarrowpurposesas
ceptually
t4maythenbe expressed
s5 structures.
will lie in S5. The 'predictivity'
of thepro'paradigmatic
time',forwhichtheco-ordinates
inthenarrowsenseis a
notint3(syntagmatic
grammeisint4therefore,
time),but'predictivity'
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE
NEW
ANTHROPOLOGY
AND
ITS
CRITICS
467
worldas thatin
We mustpresumethatsocialeventsoccurin thesameconceptual
t3 concept.
models
whichthephysicist
lives,butone wouldneverbelievethisfromthelow-dimensional
let
socialscience-asifsocialsciencerealityweretrulypre-Newtonian,
usedby conventional
alone pre-Einsteinian.
with
areoutlinedherein orderto expressmykeendissatisfaction
Thesefurther
refinemenlts
syntagmatic:
paradigmatic
dimension
to theopposition
Lefebvre's
additionof a 'third'symbolic
of 'dimension'as well as thoseof the
theformalproperties
(I966: 227, 247), thusobscuring
opposition.
syntagmatic:
paradigmatic
NOTE
I
actuallyusedtheterm'serieassociative'fortheparadigmatic
relations
Saussurehimself
(1922:
170-84).
REFERENCES
Althusser,
L. I969. ForMarx.London:AllenLane.
London: OxfordUniv. Press.
Ardener,
E. I962. Divorceandfertility.
of belief.In Witchcraft
and thecontinuity
andaccusations
confessions
1970.Witchcraft
(ed.) M. Douglas(Ass.socialAnthrop.Monogr.9). London:Tavistock.
and
andlanguage.In Socialanthropology
essay:socialanthropology
197ia.Introductory
language
(ed.) E. Ardener(Ass.socialAnthrop.Monogr.io). London:Tavistock.
linguistics.
In Socialanthroofhistorical
andthehistoricity
197Ib.Socialanthropology
andlanguage
(ed.)E. Ardener
(Ass.socialAnthrop.
Monogr.io). London:Tavistock.
pology
in crisis.NewLeftReview64, 71-85.
Banaji,J. I970. Anthropology
in simplesocieties.
J. R. anthrop.
Inst.79,
Barnes,J. A. 1949. Measuresof divorcefrequency
37-62.
In Language
andphilosophy
(ed.) S. Hook. New
N. i969. Languageandphilosophy.
Chomsky,
York: Univ.Press.
anddanger.
London:Routledge& KeganPaul.
Douglas,M. i966. Purity
symbols.
London:Cresset.
197oa. Natural
andaccusations
(Ass. social Anthrop. Monogr. 9).
confessions
(ed.) ig7ob. Witchcraft
London:Tavistock.
andmagic
oracles
theAzande.Oxford:Clarendon
among
E. E. 1937. Witchcrqft,
Evans-Pritchard,
Press.
1940.
TheNuer.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
London:Routledge& KeganPaul.
theory.
Harris,H. i969. Theriseofanthropological
New York:FreePress.
causes.
authority
Homans,G. & D. M. Schneider
I955. Marriage,
andfinal
The Hague: Mouton.
oflanguage.
R. & M. Halle i956. Fundamentals
Jakobson,
London:AthlonePress.
anthropology.
Leach,E. i96i. Rethinking
symbols.
New YorkReviewofBooks.
I97I. Review of M. Douglas: Natural
Paris:Gallimard.
etla societe'.
Lefebvre,
H. i966. Le langage
de la parente
(2ndedn) Paris:PressesUniversiC. i967. Les structures
e'lementaires
Levi-Strauss,
tairesde France.
London: Cape.
I970. Therawandthecooked.
D. i965. Prescriptive
marriagesystems.
SWest.J.Anthrop.
2I, 207-30.
Maybury-Lewis,
shield:outlineof a semantic
taxonomy.In SocialanthroMilner,G. B. I97I. The quartered
Monogr.io). London:Tavistock.
andlanguage
(ed.)E. Ardener
(Ass.socialAnthrop.
pology
andsentiment.
Chicago:Univ. Press.
Needham, R. i962. Structure
classification.
Lolidon:Routledge
to Durkheim& Mauss:Primitive
I963. Introduction
& KeganPaul.
or metamorphosis?
In Annidisintegration
of socialanthropology:
I970. The future
twelve
Leiden:Brill.
contributions
toanthropology:
essays.
versary
Madrid.
tiempo.
Ortega y Gasset,J. 192i. El temadenuestra
London: Indiana
Bloomington,
in thenineteenth
century.
science
Pedersen,H. i962. Linguistic
Univ. Press.
Paris:Payot.
ge'ne'rale.
Saussure,
F. de i922. Coursdelinguistique
tech.J.
27, 379-423.
Shamnon,C. E. I948. A mathematicaltheoryof communication.BellSystem
66, 99-I3I.
Sturtevant,W. I964. Studies in ethnoscience.Am.Anthrop.
London:Routledge& KeganPaul.
process.
Turner,V. W. I969. Theritual
Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
Cambridge,
Wiener,N. I948, Cybernetics.
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:45:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions