- Seminary opposition
- Structural relativity
- Tribe (segment primary 2009 etc.)
- Lineage (maximal etc.)
- Aristocratic clan/lineage
Overview of Scope of Anthropology
- Distinct subfield of anthropology
Political foundations of anthropology
Is there a non-political anthropology?
Remember its emergence in relation to colonialism and its effects
Human difference and the constitution of anthropologys object of inquiry
The politics of knowledge: what and why do we want to know about
- Is there non-political anthro? It is a sincere question because we can say all
anthro is political and considered non-political. The context which anthro
emerges as discipline. Anthro grew out of and worked alongside of making
the country. The context and time period and the types of questions by being
overlaid, political context of the world. The world of people who were
governed and governing.
- What is the most important to that is if people started on human difference,
anthro is interested in what the diversity is all about. The human difference
in the world is shaped by colonialism. It had to be made in particular way.
Division of the world into modern and primitive, 1 and 3 world, etc. are
relational terms, and one cant exist without the other. The countries that are
poor today are considered rich on the other side of the world.
- Anthro discovers that it should study the difference. It was very specific
direction. The ways in which the size was being whipped of resources were
becoming sites of knowledge. They were bringing the knowledge back.
The Foundations of Political Anthropology
Band/ Tribe/Chiefdom/ State
Centralized/ Uncentralized Systems
Two key points:
Linkages between political and non-political
The particular link between political centralization and social
hierarchy/ division (inequality) Evolutionary thinking?
So the question: how stateless societies maintain order.
- The very foundation is based on the context and constitution of object of
- Flow of knowledge was made into places that were produced knowledge.
They were sending anthro to another countries to study them. And
something was brought back knowledge. This extraction of knowledge is
cultural social pattern of people that were about to be governed. If you want
to govern something you better find out what they were thinking.
- It was build upon a president. It was the legacy that anthro couldnt get away
from. Even anthropologists are critical of colonial projects. Its essence that is
all good and proper in their own place, was actually part of strong political
critique, and was made of power.
- If you can understand that you might just stop massacring them. The early
presentation of integration was built upon political critique. The knowledge
going back to Europe was produced by another what did they do? It was
impossible task and educated ripped.
- What interests would you see off reports from other countries?
o Will know evolution of a society
o Suggests something about our early development
o Fundamental form of things we grow into
o We have a lot of books of religious life
o They were about Papua new guinea.
- Why do we have law state politics religion etc. this idea provided not cuz
these societies were less evolved. The reception of anthro at this time was
good and equal in their own way yes but not so much. That is political way
of reading that these societies are not ok
- The other thing is that it can confirm superiority that is made up of life. This
is the question he will be asking in respect to the readings today. Did political
institution not govern this society? Overhanging question what was the
fascination? Thing to have in your mind what does it like to be British in
1940s? What is fascinating about it?
- Early political anthro was concerned with the beast of its time. Knowing and
thinking about the world. One of the ways = types of acts, basket leaving,
kinship, political systems that may be found in society in the world. The most
important and enduring of this is that there are 4 types of poli systems in the
o Band, tribe, chiefdom, state
o First 2 are uncentralized and last 2 are centralized
o Point: in all these cases, however they are defined, which appear as
non-political things carries political function. There is linkage btwn
political system btwn state and tribe and other things that happen in
that society. Important what counts as political is linked to 2 things that
are strictly political. It is most associated with hunter and
gatherer in band. Bilateral kinship.
Bad part of it is that it is the rigid definition of a society. Then
what if 1 thing is off? Is it not band anymore? Is it still?
- The link btwn social hierarchy of any kind and political centralization
societies that are marked are very different and uncentralized
- In the society that is not centralized, there is no other type of social division
- There is no other ranking going on. This is an important point. Prof controls
knowledge of some kind, some people govern etc. how do these people get
food? He has to get it from someone else and produce to survive. Prof doesnt
do real work. He has to extract work from farmers. Extraction of domain of
economy means that someone has to do work n some dont. mechanism of
surplus enforcing them. So that is a really important point. What is the
ideology that allows for all us not spend half of our day growing food? This
link btwn social hierarchy and centr