Search

The article comments on the paper of professor Max Gluckman titled "Ethnographic Data in British Social Anthropology" on what is happening in the U.S. with reference to the problem of social anthropology published in this issue of the journal "Sociological Review." In certain respects the situation in the U.S. with regard to the development of social anthropology is a sort of mirror image of that in Great Britain. Whereas modern British social anthropology started with anthropologists A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and Bronislaw Malinowski in the early 1920s,with a major emphasis on structural and functional theory, the American development under anthropologist Franz Boaz was in terms of culture and with a strong historical interest. Only since the First World War has there been any considerable shift in the U.S. in the directions of social anthropology. In the U.S. a somewhat different revolution in the collection of ethnographic data was brought about much earlier by Franz Boas, who also worked through the native language and whose documentation of Kwakiutl is at least as detailed as Malinowski's on the Trobriands, though differently distributed.

The article discusses changes in use of ethnographic field data in social anthropological analyses in Great Britain. The author regards anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski as the father of modern British anthropology even if it was anthropologist A.R. Radcliffe-Brown that supplied the more fruitful theoretical approach in the subject. Theory is but one side of a science, the other equally important side is the type of data, which are subjected to theoretical analysis. Here Malinowski produced a revolutionary change in the subject, though scholars in other countries were working on the same lines as he. Malinowski's long residence in the Trobriands and the fact that he worked through the Trobriands language enabled him to make observations on social life which were quite different in quality from the observations made by the casual travelers who had passed through colonial countries. The change in the nature of his data had a profound effect on his own thinking, and hence on the subject. This can be illustrated briefly by comparing two of his books with a work that is still a classic of ethnography.

Whilst engaged in research into Pentecostalism in the North of England, and later in London, one became convinced of the need for detailed ethnographic studies of particular Pentecostal sects and their organized events. Although normative values were held in common by many of the congregation, as evidenced by their familiarity with the hymns and choruses, verbal appreciation of the jokes and enjoyment of the sermons, there were elements of uncertainty as to how to behave. This uncertainty was matched with a total acceptance that one looked to the platform for instructions. This was especially noticeable in relation to clapping during choruses. The congregation would never clap enthusiastically unless the platform did so first, and even then there seemed to be no consensus on how hard and loud clapping should be. The community sense-of being with people of similar expectations and shared normative values--was taken for granted by the believers and it was not necessary to know of the biographical background of a person to be sure of his ideological commitment because Pentecostals have various 'recognition signals' whereby they know each other and thus can structure their interaction assured of their common ground.