Theoretical anthropology

Theoretical Anthropology

Osama Elnur

The first beginnings of anthropological theorizing

Evolutionary trend: first beginnings

(1) The first beginnings of anthropological theorizing

During the 15th and 16th centuries, European travelers brought with them upon their return from their travels new information about peoples that the Europeans had no previous knowledge of. During the following centuries, the movement of commercial and colonial scouting expanded, with which the European world left the libraries of its universities to wander in areas unexplored for it, to reach the realization of the truth about its fellow human beings, who differed in their depravity in food, drink, and behavior. The first astonishment was: They are the “primitives” discovered by the new anthropology. After the scientist wore the primitive dress, spoke his language, and lived with him for periods... the second astonishment came. This “primitive” is not as backward as the information stored in the European mind has depicted him for some time... He has a way of life that differs from the life of the European, and he has his own logic. After new rounds, a third astonishment came... The “primitive” logic differs from the European logic, but it is a coherent logic. It has its own coherent world with its values, logic, rituals, and ways of faith.

Thus, writings began to appear, some of which constitute good material for studying some cultural elements. One of the most important of these writings is the huge, four-volume study compiled by the French missionary Father Joseph Lafitue in the first half of the eighteenth century as a result of a five-year experience he spent among members of the American Indians, the Iroquois, in the northeastern United States of America. Lavito's study concluded that the social organizations of the Iroquois are equivalent to the primitive organizations of human structures. Lavito discovered a similarity between the matriarchal system among the Iroquois and that prehistoric system described by Herodotus (480-425 BC) among the inhabitants of Lycia in Asia Minor. Because Lavito tried to explain the existence of this similarity by the possibility of the spread of this system from Asia Minor to America, Lavito may be counted among the first to advocate the principle of diffusion of culture.

The writings of Lavito and travelers and missionaries who preceded him, such as Bartolomeo de las Casas (1502), a slave trader who converted to monasticism and missionary work in Central America, the Austrian diplomat Sigmund Herberstein who wrote about the Russians and the Fenno-Ugrian (1577), Schäfer who wrote about the shamanic systems of northern Scandinavia (1675), and Dapper, who traveled extensively in Africa and his books about Africans and their customs (1686), and Beans Kalb, who wrote a book about the Hottentot (San) people in South Africa (1700) and others, sparked a reaction among European philosophers and thinkers in the 17th and 18th centuries who tried to formulate general laws that could explain in natural ways the development of human societies through stages of progress. The works of these philosophers and thinkers formed the basis on which cultural evolutionism emerged, a theoretical trend in anthropology in the 19th century, especially by Louis Hetrey Morgan and Edward Brent Taylor.

In Italy, Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) presented his theory of the historical cycle, in which he indicated that society must develop according to certain internal laws. According to this, Vico saw that every nation goes through three stages in its development: the divine stage, the heroic stage, and the human stage, which are stages that represent the cycle of human life - childhood, youth, and maturity. The state, which only arises in the heroic stage, represents the domination of the aristocracy. The state is replaced in the human stage by a democratic society in which freedom and “natural justice” triumph. This, which is the culmination of human progress, is followed by a collapse such that society returns to its initial, divine state, and then resumes its upward movement again, beginning a new cycle.

Then appear the reflections of Charles de Montesquieu (1689-1755), which make him one of the founders of the theory of geographical determinism by claiming that the moral character of peoples, the character of their laws, and the forms of their governments are determined by the climate, soil, and area of the territory. Throughout Montesquieu's work, the idea is spread that laws constitute a system: “Many things govern people: climate, religion, laws, the fundamental principles of government, examples of past things, natures, and manners.” The list may at first appear to be a mere enumeration, but Montesquieu introduces a criterion that allows one to distinguish the way in which these different pressures affect different types of laws. The less differentiation there is in a society, the more binding the “morphological” basis (climate, environment, demographic structure) is. The more "civilized" people are, the more the legality of the social system is based on laws, nature, and morals. Montesquieu distinguishes all three expressions, but first distinguishes the last two from the first. China, where order is expressed through “etiquette” and “worships and rituals,” differs from Sparta, where priority was always given to “natures,” that is, to rules of behavior toward others. After distinguishing between them, he returns and brings together the natures and morals that he puts together in opposition to the laws that are “norms approved by the legislator.” Free peoples are governed by law, while countries where nature and morals dominate are vulnerable to tyranny and tyranny. But regulation through laws is itself complex and controversial. It is true that political freedom, as the example of England suggests, can produce free natures and morals in the sphere of commerce and private life. But it could also happen, as in Sparta and Rome, that the laws are nothing but an artificiality of the legislator who seeks to restore “ancient customs,” that is, to restore natures and morals, an authority that had been lost. Since the laws of each country constitute a system, we can compare these countries. Montesquieu compares England to Rome, and China to Sparta, but he is careful to determine under what relationship he is comparing. Two societies can be similar under one relationship, while they are different under another relationship.

Anne Robert Jacques Tergot (1727-1781) advocated the idea that the progress of society is closely linked to the development of economic life. Tergo recognized the importance of economic growth and the progress of science and technology for the benefit of social development. He believed that “net product,” that is, surplus value, is created in the field of production, not in the field of circulation. He presented some ideas about the class division of society and the essence of wages.

As for Jean Antoine Condorcet (1743-1794), he called for putting aside superstitions and developing scientific knowledge. Condorcet imagines history as a product of the human mind, declaring that the bourgeois system is the pinnacle of reason and “nature.” Condorcet divided history into ten periods on the basis of conventional characteristics, and undertook the task of justifying that capitalism guarantees infinite progress. Condorcet opposed the system of social provinces, fought for political equality, and called for the eradication of dictatorial rule and the free development of the individual. But at the same time he believed that inequality with regard to property was beneficial.

Claude Henri Saint-Simon (1760-1825) established the principle of natural philosophy, that is, the study of nature in the face of idealistic traditions, especially German idealism. He decisively embraced determinism and extended its scope to the development of human society, paying special attention to supporting the idea that history is governed by laws. He believed that history must contribute to human progress to the same extent as the natural sciences. Every social system is a step forward in history. But the driving forces of social development are the advancement of scientific knowledge, morals, and religion. Therefore, history passes through three stages: theological (which is the period of religious control) and includes the slave and feudal systems, metaphysical (which is the period of the fall of the slave and feudal systems), and positivistic (which is the future social system based on science). His social concept helped him to show that every social system emerges naturally from the historical development that preceded it. The future society will be based on a large-scale, scientifically organized industry, but with the preservation of private property and classes, and the leading role in it will go to science and industry and will be played by scientists and industrialists. The right to work should be given to every person according to his ability.

In 1859, the work of Charles Darwin (1809-1882) appeared, “The Origin of Species,” which heralded the outbreak of a storm that has not subsided to this day. Thanks to Darwin's work, the mystery of species has been explained: species are not fixed, but rather mutable, evolving from other species through the mechanism of natural selection. In his aforementioned book, Darwin explained the concept of evolution in five points that can be summarized as follows:

First, all species are able to produce offspring faster than increases in food production.

Second, all living organisms exhibit variation. No two individuals of a species are exactly alike.

Third, since the number of individuals present is greater than what is supposed to survive, a bitter struggle arises in which those individuals who constitute a positive type in quantity, strength, running ability or any other positive characteristics necessary for survival will prevail.

Fourth, these positive variations are transmitted genetically to the next generation.

Fifth, these successful species produce, over periods of geological time, variations that lead to the emergence of new species.

Scientists previously saw species as an unchanging unit, since if species changed, they would not be species. Species, then, were at the basis of discussions about plants and animals, and individuals were not important within species. Hence, it is difficult for many scientists to see how change can occur. Darwin believed that the diversity of individuals is what might explain how change occurs. The most efficient variants were selected by nature for survival while the less efficient were excluded. Hence, population science thinkers began to emphasize the uniqueness of everything in the organic world. What is most important to them is the individual, not the species. They emphasize that each individual of a species that reproduces itself sexually is an individual species different from all others. There is no typical individual in their imagination. The uniqueness of the individual was emphasized (i.e. the diversity that occurs in all populations - meaning that a population is a group of interacting individuals, not a species) and this is what led Darwin to the concept of natural selection as a mechanism that enables evolution to be effective. Natural selection acts in individuals, whether positive or negative, but it is the population that evolves. Based on this understanding, the unit of natural selection became the individual, while the population became the unit of evolution.

Thus, the theory of evolution in living nature, as formulated by Darwin, can be reduced to the fact that the main factors in the evolution of living organisms are transformation, heredity, and natural selection. The fittest among living organisms are the only ones who survive and reproduce in the struggle for survival under the influence of the external environment. Natural selection continually improves the structure and functions of organisms, driving their ability to adapt to external surroundings... This is how science after Darwin has never been the same again.

(2) Evolutionary trend: the first beginnings

On the basis of this intellectual and scientific progress achieved in the 18th century and the first half of the 19th century, the emergence of modern anthropology as a concept, subject, and method began. In the period 1860-1880, cultural evolutionism emerged as a major theoretical trend in anthropology. Bachofen's "Mother's Right" and Henry Maine's "The Old Law," both published in 1861, were the first works of the evolutionary school of anthropology. They were followed in 1865 by Taylor's Investigations into the Early History of Mankind. In 1869, Morgan's book, “Systems of Kinship and Intermarriage in the Human Family,” appeared. Taylor's book "Primitive Society" appeared in 1871, and then Morgan's book "Ancient Society" appeared in 1877.

Anthropology, in its modern sense and its evolutionary theoretical orientation, has made remarkable progress since the second half of the 19th century, specifically with the beginnings of the imperialist movement that enabled many Western European countries to impose their sovereignty over many uncomplicated societies that were geographically and culturally isolated. These are societies that anthropologists in previous stages gave various names: “primitive,” “natural,” and “savage” societies. The movement of Western European imperial expansion provided European anthropologists with the opportunity to identify, study, and analyze many uncomplicated, geographically isolated societies and analyze their cultural and social structures. They were prompted to do so by several reasons, including: (1) An attempt to link the data that was revealed as a result of the progress of archaeological excavations in European and global prehistoric sites to the cultures of isolated “primitive” groups by identifying their structures, customs, traditions, religious rituals, arts, etc. (2) Testing the hypotheses that these contemporary “primitive” cultures represent the first stages of the cultural development of human structures in general, that is, harnessing anthropological studies to identify the characteristics of primitive lifestyles as they are a contemporary living example of previous “natural” lifestyles in brutal and barbaric historical stages. “Attention, from a social standpoint, is on the group of primitive peasants whose lives differ from the ways of life of Europeans and Western civilization... studying these primitive groups is not only exciting and important.” For those working in different countries, but it illuminates the path to the study of European customs and beliefs.” (3) As a result of the reports provided by travelers and missionaries about those groups among whom they lived and learned about their cultures, anthropological studies sought to fill the gap in the series of knowledge and information about non-Western societies whose lifestyle differs from the European lifestyle. (4) Politically, these studies help the colonial authorities in tightening their grip on the oppressed, colonized societies administratively... “We have studied the peoples of the lowlands in a way that no other victor has done, and in a way that no tribe under control has studied or understood. We know their history, customs, needs, weaknesses, and even prejudices, and this special knowledge has allowed us to provide a basis for political guidance that can be translated into administrative caution and the necessary reform at the time, and this is what satisfies public opinion.” (5) Exploiting anthropology for the purposes of “scientific colonialism”... describing the conditions of primitive existence in the stage prior to the entry of colonialism, so that it describes the pattern of this existence before it was eliminated, or deals with describing the conditions of this existence as colonialism created it, that is, the field of anthropology turns into the study of social change or “acculturation”.

One of the most important features of the second half of the 19th century is the dominance of the Darwinian theory of evolution. Through Darwinism, physical anthropology has grown enormously. In France, Paul Broca separated the Paris Anthropological Society in 1859 from the Ethnological Society, which had been established since 1939. In Britain, James Hunt established the British Anthropological Society. In France, Boucher de Berth's studies on the prehistoric monuments that were uncovered in the Somme Valley appeared, which had a major impact on the progress of the cultural evolutionary trend in the study of human cultures. In Germany, modern anthropological studies began at the hands of Theodor Weitz, who emphasized in the first part of his book “The Anthropology of Natural Peoples” published in 1858 (a year before the publication of Darwin’s work) that the differences between peoples are due to the effects of the environment in general and climate in particular, to the quality of food and lifestyle, and to cultural development and mutations. Weitz asserts that all peoples started from scratch: the natural man without civilization. He emphasizes that the differences in degrees of development are not due to mental gifts or abilities, as these are equal for all people. The differences resulted from the different opportunities created by natural conditions, especially climate, geographical location, and historical relations.

Weitz presents the principle of diffusion in the face of the independent emergence of many similar cultural elements. He pointed to the phenomenon of covada, which repeatedly appears in geographically distant societies: Africa, the Spanish Basque Country, ancient Anatolia, Indonesia, and South America. Weitz did not attempt to explain covada or other cultural phenomena. Weitz generally leans toward the principle of diffusionism, especially when dealing with major cultural similarities such as those observed between North America and Siberia, and India and Polynesia. He confirms that the similarity in the system of dividing the Sunnah among Asians and Mexicans is due to spread, rejecting the possibility of independence of origin in each of the two regions separately. It determines the path of the spread movement from Asia to America via the Behring Strait, while not ruling out the possibility of spread from Asia to Mexico directly via the islands of the Pacific Ocean.

In 1861, the book of the Austrian anthropologist Johann Jakob Bachofen (1815-1887) appeared entitled “The Right of the Mother.” In this book, Bachofen laid out a chronological sequence of systems of marriage, family, inheritance, and social structure. Bachofen's views are summarized in the fact that there were several stages, the oldest of which was the stage of "sexual promiscuity," followed by the stage of women's revolution against these conditions and their establishment of what is called the stage of the matriarchal system in which the ties of mothers to children were established. Bachofen called this stage "Amazonism." Bachofen links this system to a set of social functions: the matrilineal family, maternal lineage, maternal inheritance, and religious systems controlled by earth gods, in which women play a major role in the priestly system, in addition to the prevalence of fertility customs and rituals. Finally, the moon (in its feminine form) dominates the sun. Then comes the third stage, where women's political and religious functions fall and are replaced by the patriarchal system. In this stage, the true family appears and the sky gods dominate the earth gods and the sun over the moon. But remnants of the matriarchal system still appear in some cultural elements, such as the system of inheritance from the sister’s son to the maternal uncle (which was prevalent in Kush until the beginning of its Islamic era), the Kuvada system, the Umayyad system of place-based marriage, etc.

There is no doubt that these three stages are just a purely theoretical construct, especially the first stage. Bachofen relied on Herodotus's writings about the matriarchal system in Lycia. Although Lavito had preceded Bachofen in studying the matriarchal system, as we mentioned earlier, the former’s study was of a purely historical nature of the development of the system among the Iroquois, while Bachofen’s study stemmed from the function of the matriarchal system and its role in the social structure.

The Nuer political system in South Sudan