Was Evans-Pritchard a structural-functionalist?
Evans-Pritchard is widely known as a structural-functionalist (Kuper, 1988). What sense does this question make taken by its face-value? Let us understand it as a mathematical exercise. The question asks whether the works of Evans-Pritchard can be described as a subset of the anthropological tradition referred to as structural-functionalism. As I will argue, his works can not – at least in their entirety – both temporally and partially be seen as a subset of structural-functionalism. Especially in his later works, Evans-Pritchard stresses individual agency, the importance of history as well as personality in a way that is not congruent with structural functionalism in its traditional way. But before I am able to assess the congruency of Evans-Pritchard’s work with structural-functionalist imperatives in detail, the latter needs to be expressed in a clear set of statutes. The work of Radcliffe-Brown (Radcliffe-Brown, 1940) and Fortes (Fortes, 1953) can serve as a guideline for this.
Table of Contents
1. Was Evans-Pritchard a structural-functionalist?
2. Bibliography
Objectives and Topics
This work critically investigates whether the anthropological writings of E.E. Evans-Pritchard can be definitively classified as structural-functionalist, examining the interplay between early structuralist adherence and his later development toward individualism, historical analysis, and anti-determinism.
- The theoretical foundations of structural-functionalism as defined by Radcliffe-Brown and Fortes.
- Evans-Pritchard's initial alignment with structural-functionalist methods through his field studies of the Nuer.
- The shift in Evans-Pritchard's perspective regarding individual agency and meaning in religion.
- The tension between mechanistic social theories and the autonomy of the individual.
- A critical evaluation of "schools" of thought within the scientific study of society.
Excerpt from the Book
Was Evans-Pritchard a structural-functionalist?
Evans-Pritchard is widely known as a structural-functionalist (Kuper, 1988). What sense does this question make taken by its face-value? Let us understand it as a mathematical exercise. The question asks whether the works of Evans-Pritchard can be described as a subset of the anthropological tradition referred to as structural-functionalism. As I will argue, his works can not – at least in their entirety – both temporally and partially be seen as a subset of structural functionalism. Especially in his later works, Evans-Pritchard stresses individual agency, the importance of history as well as personality in a way that is not congruent with structural functionalism in its traditional way. But before I am able to assess the congruency of Evans-Pritchard’s work with structural-functionalist imperatives in detail, the latter needs to be expressed in a clear set of statutes. The work of Radcliffe-Brown (Radcliffe-Brown, 1940) and Fortes (Fortes, 1953) can serve as a guideline for this.
Radcliffe-Brown describes in the ‘Preface’ to African Political Systems (Fortes & Evans-Pritchard, 2006) the general aim and method of his contemporary social anthropology. As a precondition for analysis, the gathering of empirical observations in contrast to mere metaphysical reasoning constitutes the starting point. The collected data, however, must in a process of systematic comparison be reduced to ‘classifications’ or ‘types’. The same tripod of ‘intensive study of single societies’, ‘systematic comparison’ and ‘classification of structural systems’ can repeatedly be found in his lectures (e.g. Radcliffe-Brown, 1940) as well as in Fortes’ writings (see 'Introduction', Fortes & Evans-Pritchard, 2006). This methodological nexus might therefore be seen as the first ‘statute’ of structural-functionalism.
Summary of Chapters
Was Evans-Pritchard a structural-functionalist?: This chapter analyzes the extent to which Evans-Pritchard’s anthropological research aligns with the structural-functionalist paradigm, identifying both his early methodological consistencies and his later departures into historical and individualistic analysis.
Bibliography: Provides a comprehensive list of all scholarly sources and anthropological works cited throughout the essay.
Keywords
Evans-Pritchard, structural-functionalism, social structure, Radcliffe-Brown, Fortes, Nuer, individual agency, structuralism, anthropology, historical analysis, anti-determinism, fieldwork, social phenomena, political system, meaning.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this work?
The paper investigates the validity of labeling E.E. Evans-Pritchard as a structural-functionalist, arguing that his career shows a development away from the constraints of this tradition.
What are the primary thematic areas explored?
The themes include the definition of social structure, the role of empirical comparison, the importance of individual agency, and the influence of historical context on social analysis.
What is the core research question?
The research asks whether Evans-Pritchard’s body of work, in its entirety, can be categorized as a subset of the structural-functionalist tradition.
Which scientific methods are discussed?
The text focuses on the structural-functionalist method of "intensive study of single societies" and "systematic comparison," while contrasting these with later approaches involving the interpretation of meaning and history.
What is covered in the main body?
The text examines Radcliffe-Brown’s definitions of social structure, evaluates Evans-Pritchard's Nuer fieldwork, and analyzes his later theoretical shifts observed in works like Nuer Religion.
Which keywords best describe the paper?
Key terms include structural-functionalism, social structure, individual agency, Nuer, and anthropological theory.
How does Evans-Pritchard’s view on "feud" demonstrate structural-functionalist influence?
He views the feud as a functional instrument for maintaining social stability and equilibrium, where resolution is determined by the structural position of the actors involved.
Why does the author suggest that Evans-Pritchard eventually moved away from structural-functionalism?
The author highlights that Evans-Pritchard’s later focus on meaning, individual agency, and history is incompatible with the deterministic, mechanistic nature of traditional structural-functionalism.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Johannes Lenhard (Autor:in), 2012, Was Evans-Pritchard a Structural-Functionalist?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/205569
