",

"
INTRODUcnON
Talal Al8d.
British functional anthropology began to emerge as a dislinclive
discipline shorlly after lhe First World War through lhe efforts of
Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown; but it was not unlil after lhe
Second World War that it 8;1ined an assured academic status in the
universities, Compared Wilh the two decade' before lhe Second
World War an enormous quantity of anthropological writing was
published in the two decades after it. Within this brief period its
claim 10 academic respeclability was virtually unchallenged. By
1961 a prominent sociologist could write that "social anlhropology
is, among other things, a small but I think flourishing profession.
The subject, like social work and unlike sociology, has preslige",'
A few years later a political scienlist contrasled social anlhropology
favourably with sociology, declaring 01at unlike the laller, bUl
like the olher bona fide social sciences, social anlhropology "had
built up a body of knowledge which cannnt readily be described a,
anything "else",11
Functional anthropology had barely secured its enviable academic
reputation when some serious misgivings began (0 make themselves
felt from within the established profession. In 1961, Leach claimed
that "functionalist doctrine [has] ceased to carry conviction",' Five
later Worsley wrote his trenchant critiqiJe under the signifl..
"
'Donald 0, Macrae, Idrology {lIId Soc/tlY. London, 1961. p. 36,
'W. G. Runciman... .. in EIICIJUllltT. Oeoembcr. 1965. Vol. XXV.
No.6, p. 41.
'Eo R. Leach. A","wl'0logy. London, 1961, p. 1.
I

.,
_ A
TALAL ASAD
thay see as a sign of h II
more positiVe! t a Intellectual vitallt of
ara stlll vlablaJ; they affirm that classic And
Yet Wa would a 1St assumptions
such bland ba welladvlsed not to be .
leaders to After all, it is a by
continuity. Thera at least tha myth if not th/ of .cstabhshment
something has "bel no doubt that at the o.f smooth
as Ardene a ready happened .. ' eo og.cal level
tion of th: this event Is anthrop'ology"
Naw. ropology rather than as een as a dislntegra
Thera wi' a crystallization of the
'ts as a t ma when soc' I
define
IS to obtain and axtend sl.:;rtl
y
arter the s;;:pe
commonly understood \va w ge. In social anthr I ar,
society to attempt to extend our kn Pf ogy as it is
hterale societies' . Il'v communities, 'simpler owt
dge
of man
only interested :'. anthropologist asks n .. cs. or 'pre-
p!imitivc society writ arc
SImply that our own sr:, t our own civilization turn to
not tha sarna as .e y IS not the onion ... , e answer is
society" \I Statem those found, or apt toY bee'fand Its phenomena
. ents of th' k' ound i .. .
cated concern for the d fi . md do not indicate ' n pflmtltve
of b:t
his gh
ave
social an
seemed reason n ro uclton to Social A t ruc ard published
clear :-vhat subjoct ,:" 195 I, it
hvmg among them studics primitive s ut: ,The. social
search is usuall from r months or years. whereas ocle!,es directly,
a?thropo.logist and largely
g'es. their ceono . ,es as wholes-he s . . e soclOl
ramily and kinshi'::'cs, th.eir. legal and oecolo-
I' organizations the,'r I" Institutions thel'r
re Iglons th .
reccnl anlhropolo' I' ' elr tcchnologies.
The SctpllcaJ A JRterest in Ma . .
Social Briti'h Academy lect
th: I;"roduetion b M ogy am/ Marxist V/"ws
"See (0 vo umes in the ASA M ax Gluckman and
Social Science series. Fred Eggan 10
liS. P N"ad4 ndon. 1968 arch Council's R
. a cit Tilt Foutlda'io,,; of S i I III Social .
oc a AIII"rnpology Lo d non, 1953, p. 2.
'Ro,lney Needh.m, '''The Fulure of Sodal AnlhropololY: Disintesralio
n
or Metamorphosis?" in Anniversary Conrribll
tiollS
'" An,hropology:
Essays. t.eiden,'1970, p. 36 and p. 37.
'Edwin Arden
er
, ''I1\e. NeW AnthropoloSY .nd its CritiCS" in Mon N. S.
Vol. 6, No. 3, Seplember 19?I, p. 449.
'I1\c most inlerestinS of these include B.n.i
i
, "Cri,i. in British Anthro-
pology", N<>v Uti R,vi'W, No. 64, 1970, Copano, "pour une hi,toi,. et
une ,odoloS
i
des 6tude. Africain...., Cahfers des lIudes Alrical
n
" No. 43.
1971. and Leclerc, AII,hrop<>lagl, " Colonialism" Paris. 1972-
'Se. for .xampl. I. M. Lew
i
., In"oductio
n
to HI'/ory alld Social AlIllrr
o
,
poloBY. London, 1968, p. xv. .
'It i' Ihi' lin' of reasoning Ihat Firlh adopl' to espl.in and ,ndarse the
\0
cant title "The End of Anthropology?" By 1970 Needham was
arguing Ihal social anthropOlogy "has no unitary and continuous
past sO far as ideas are "Nor is Ihere any luch Ihlng
as a rigorouS and coherenl body of theory proper 10 social anlhro,
pology".' A year later Ardener observed Ihat, "something h...
already happencd to Brilish anthropology (and to international
anthropology in related ways such Ihatfor practical purposes text
books which looked useful, no longer are: monographswhlch used
to appear exhaustive now seem selective: interpretations which once
looked full of insighl now seem mechanical and lifeless",'
The plausibility of the anthropolOgical enterprise which seemed
so self-evident 10 all its practilioners a mere decade ago. is now no
longer quite sO self_evident. A small minorily, apart from the names
just menlioncd, has begun to articulate its doubts in radical terms.'
What has happened to British social anthropology?
At the organisational level nothing very disturbing has happened.
On lhe contrary, the Associalion of socia' Anthropologists
flourishes as never before: il holds annual academic conferences
whose proceedings are regularly published in handsome hardcover
and paperback editions. Monographs, articles' and text;boo
ks
by
writers calling themselves anthropOlogists appear in increasing
number. A prestigioUS series of annual lectures on social anthro-
pology has recenlly been launched under Ihe auspiCes oflhe British
Academy. The subject is noW laught in more university and college
dcpartm
enls
than ever: the profession is even negotlaling 10 intro
duee it as a sixth.form oplion in schools. seen in lerms of its public
aclivity. Ihere is no crisis in social anthropology.'
On Ihe whole. professlona' leaders of British anthropology are
not impressed by alarmist talk ahout crisis.' They would maintain,
if pressed. Ihat as the older ideas of socia" anlhropology beCame
.exhausled. it was natural that one should turn to fresh sources of
supply.' So they prefer to talk of increasing specialisation, which
lNTI'-ODUCT\ON
13
these COuntries in tho planned devolopment.of national nelworb of
communlcatlons, electrlflcatlon and broadcastlllg; the promotlon
of educatlon 8/ld of rural improvement projects; ihe shift of
POlitical POWer from 'tribal' leaders to the nationalistic bourgeoisIe.
Mainly. as a of nationalist expectations, scholars
began to recover an indigenous history." Some nationalist writers
denounCed the colonial connections of anthropology, Thus Increas.
Ingly the larger polltlcaleconomlc system thrust Itsclf obtrusively
into tho anthropologist's Iramework, as did the' relevanco' 01 tho
past, both colonial and Pre-colonial. At anolher level. mounting
criticism 01 tho IlUIctlonallst tradition In American mainstream
SOCiology contributed Indirectly towards the undermining of lunc_
tlonallsl doctrine In BritlYlt social anlhropology." Since It.had n.ever
adequately "'&rIfled Ifte dlstlnction between. a tOlallslng molhod (in
whIch the lonnatlon of parts is explained wllh roference to 'a
developing structure 01 delerminations) and cthnographle holism
(in whIch the dlrrerent 'instltutions' pf a soclcty arc all doscribOd
and linked one to another);" an<j since it had in general confused
structural determination With simullancity, concrele developmcnls
In Ihe World oUlside pushed funclional anthropology until il collap.
sed Into micro-Sociology. So it is thai loday most anlhropologislS
have chosen to re'orient themsclves in relalion to a Illulti-Iude of
fragmentary problems-politi-cal, economic, "omestic. cultic, etc._
at a 'small'scale' level, and' have fOund In Ihi. Slale of fragmcn'!a_
lion their sense of intellcolua" dirCCti-on provIded for Ihcm by Ihcir
'cognate discipline'. These changes in the objcct of sludy
'and In the ideological supports of social anlhropology might by
themselves have Jed to a dlslnlegrati-on of lhe discipline, but Ihe
same POst-war pedod witneSSed a significant devclopmcnt In lhe
organisational basc of s'?Cial anlhropology wl,ich saved it, In 1946
TALALAsAD
.,......"""-'"---
"Pa,,'Y by chall.n,in, the funclional anthropo'Oli,,', do,ma thai only
writt.n '.cord, eouldprovide reliable ba'i' for recon"roctin, hi,'oly.
Cf. J. Van'ina', Orol Trodlli"", 0 Sludy I" /finorlenl Mrrhodulogy. lOll'
don, 196$, ori,inallYPubli'h.d in French in 1961. The Benera' tendency
of functiona' an'hropolo,y Was '0 ."imil.,. indig.
nou
, his'oly 10 Ihe
<&'.,oly of mY'h-l.e. 10 vi.1Y i' in'crm, of inurom<JI<a'i'y ralhcr Ihan of
trUth in tho classical non-pra4malisl sense. .
"le'dln, 'ociolo'i", in Amen
ea
,_.. Parson" Mer'on, Homan'-h'd al.
WIly, Iak.n an aelive and ,ympalh"ic io'e,es, in Bri'i'h 'ocia' an'hropo.
loay, and 'heir wriUn" in lorn were a source of in,pira'ion and sUpPOrt '0
funnelon.1 amhropo,o,isls. The "lack on Am.riean "ruciural.funcilOnali,m
bYauch wri'." as R. Oahrendort 'nd C. WriBh' Mills w., 'herefore boond
10 ./fect tho doc'';n.' ..If-confid.n of BriU'h ,ocial .n'hropo,o,y.
"Th.t thi, di"inetion f'CIll.Iin' unclear '0 m'ny anthropolo,iu, even 'oday
i, 'PPlrent from Iho ov.r-confid.nl remark, of levi.S'rauss in hi, POlemic
12
INTRODUCTION .. \I The doctrine.'
arts of general social syalema lI,m thus gave
their arts. etc.. as p I by the name of funcllolUI
and approaches that and coherent Ilyle. is absent. The
social even this coherence of .. both 'simple'
Today by. can: is someone who studies SOC I ;Iatistlcal tech.
noosorls to partlcipanl nnds himself
and [ archives and other liteIra. or psycho.
niquos, hlSlofica economists or po It a . Ihan he doe.s
intelleclually or anima! In terms 01
analysts or slruc . Is To describe th's slate 0 'ncation. The
to olher is surely to indulge In In exist.
scholarly f IIlics. 'CCOnomlcs, etc...ha hase of social
'cognate r:'he clasSical was It only
ence from question that 'must be as by anthro.
anthropol.ogy. I that they have been logisls could
example, that in 1940. philo.
pologisls? : IS lound that the we have sludied
wrile: "We areed us to undersland Ihe and in 1966: "We
sophers fhem nl lillie value.( lor marriage be.
and we conSJ e 'I's ripe for a dialogue. I rned with com.
'd h I the time . . I'nes conee
conSl er t a I and Ihe olher d,sc,p , . ? H was il thai Ihe
What made Ihe .Ii.me etc.) w!'ich
paratlve P? I economics. pollt,cs, lun bour 'cois soclely.
scparalc scllundcrslandmg 10 anlh,.o.
reflected the .rag. al contradictions. were rea
with ils own hlStonc h . Ihe lacl Ihat since
pology? Id suggest is 10 be soug I m curred in the
The answer lundamenla! which .have
the '(/0ocial anlhropology IIlhab'ls. nd Ihe organisallllna'
world whlc I l'he ideological a.. g Ihese changes we
affected ilsell. And m apprehend Ihe
base of soc,a
lves
thai anl'hropology dOC
h
s nO
rld
also dotermincs hnw
remmd ourS? . . located, but Ihat t e wo
Id in which II IS. lIy
wor ill apprehend It. b cnlonial, ..peela
wnt 01 polilical independence ,: '60s acceleraled the
The alia mOl? 'n the lale '50s and the ear 'c change invnlving
African countries, I 1 war of socio.econoffil .
d apparent since t Ie I .
Iren , d 1951 P II.
1 LOll OIf. .: 1 S sUms . cf anJ Social AII,1Iropo A/ricall Po/j"ca y , ':E E. Evans-Pnl 1 'Evans.Pritchard, c: ., .
"101. Forles and E,j E. (d,) Pollllcni AII/h,opology,
London, 1940, tV \V Turner, A, Tuden, C
"M, J. Swarlz, .9 .
Chicago, 196M, p..
[3. _
---------J......... _
against Sarlre: "It is possible that the -requirement of ttolalisation' is a
.great novelty to some historians, sociologists and psychologists. It has been
taken for granted by anthroPologists ever 6inc:o they learnt it from Mali
. nowski", Tile Savage MI/ld, London, 1966, p, 250, What anihropologists
learnt from MalinoYoo1ki was ethnographic holism. not the method of
.' , ' .
11M, Ghlc:1c.man and Fred Eggll.n, "Introduction" .10 The Rtltvcu,ce 0/ Modtls
'fur Social Anthropology, London, 19,65; p. xii. Dy J968 the Association
had about 240 members (Social Science Research Council. Rutarch ;/1
Social Anthropology. London. 1968, p.79.)
IfM, Fortes. (cd.) Social Stl'lIctUrl, OXfo.rd 1949, p', xiii.
! ,
I
I
I
I
I
became a nouri'hin . 15
Ihroughnut this profession t .
were Jls or lhut
nOli-European s ' . Y uropca.ns for a E rt descrIption and
lhere is a strangeocJ,ctles d,ominated 'by Euro uropean aUdience_of
pol,ogists to con On Ihe part of m peal) P0Y:'er, And yet
their diseipline h
Sldcr
.. serIOusly I'he 'powe OY! proleSSlOnal anlhro_ '
:enyled hy Ihe shape. Thc which I
o o/ume Three f from Yic'o
r
T IS wcll reprc_
J971), in which Ihe in Africa s llllroduction
pology and eolonioJ' p 01 the relationsh' 60, (Cambridge
two Shorl IS lnvialised and dismi rpd anl/lro:
It used to be a . SSe In thc space 01
by officials 01 the ancle '
Ille. came to Ihey were in Ihal anlhro_
became their' e structural pers . CI JCoS of African
impeded Ihe a!,d by their informanl',
govern efficien I IsrrJct and provi' works
and European t r- ,Some were even accu nClal administrators to
'<.Inarchists. It serVants of being settlers
administrators d now asseverated by Af . S, sOClall."ils' and
bclore indcpende 10 Ihe districI leaders and
agents of were 'apoJogiSl
s
of
merely to Provide Who studied <lnd sllbllc
c.Jall1aging to "al' ammant while nl,'n ,nedn cuslOO1s
'. Ive IOte 't b Or,ly with' f
IOVc.stlgalion Thu' res s ut nOrmally In orllJal;un
Sir yesterday's 'SOCialist' ha to White
arc Improba'bly Durns (1957) and F' . eOlllc Inuay',
It is true 01 J. Tantz FalioH (196J)
. ,course Ih- '
gIsts. like ever on ' at In their personal .
,Views, Some ke else, ,have a wide SpeClr capalcllY
left'. nut as conservatives" um 0 poJJlIl:aJ
as {ilr 10 lhe
Jnformation as I as doctors, to coli are OVer
Whatever may observers' kinds of
as the currcnt I I elr views .r WI I enable them,
coherent pictur::Ct :;: as objcelivcly
to spend some years 0 e system permiL.s, a
01 processe, th I llhelr lIves in stud' Yhavc clecled
Iheir findings in it. It is their and of Ihe kind,
'1lon ollhe means Ihem, logelher dUly 10 publish
JIIlernational pub,. YIWh,e!, they Were Obla' dan exael deserip_
'c 0 lhelr anlhropol . ,ne , 10 Ihe
ogleal Colleague, anu
TAlAL ASAQ
INTJ.OOUCTION 14
the Association of Social Anthropologilts of tho British Common
(ASA) was founded with under 20 membofl: by 1962 tho
membership had risen to over ISO, "even though election to memo
bersMp required' normally both the holding of a teaehlng or a
research post in the Commonwealth and tho attalnntenl of ekher
a postgraduato degr'" (usually a doctorate) Of substantial publica.
tions"." Oncc this base was in efTectivo operation, IIOCJa1 anthro
pology as institutionalised praetice could dispell.lO with tbe dOClrlruil
specificity it had previously insisted on. Professional dllllnetiveness
could now 'be maintained through an established nclwork of vested
interests-:-for which the ASA was a co-ordlnatlng ageney-rather
rhan 'by any particular doctrines or methods. AnthropolOS)' was
now truly a tprofession'. .
Ironieally, the same forces that were contributing to the Ideo
logical dissolution of classical functional anthropology had also
contributed to a. strengthening of its organisational base. Thus
Fortes notes that during t'he Seeond World War in Britain, "ceon
omic, politiea'l and especially mH;tary necessities aroused a new and
lively public interest in the African and Asiatic dependencies of
Britain and her allics. The plans for postwar economie and social
development in these areas generated under pressure of wartime
experiences included big schemes of research in the natural and
social sciences. The boom in. anthropological studies thus fore
shadowed began after RadclifTe-Brown had retired from tbe Ox-
ford chair [in J 946]"... It was in the year of RadclilfeBrown'sretire
ment that the ASA was rounded 'by .scholars who were already
of the long-esta'blished 'but far less exclusive Royal An
thropological Institute. An exclusive 'professional' organisation was
clearly fad:ieuer placed to exploit tbe new funding possibilities for
research in the changing.power-paUern of t'he postwar world.
It is not a maltcr of dispute that social anthropology emerged as
a distinctive discipline at the beginning of the colonial era. that it
;"See Cor example E. B. Evans-Pritchard, op, cit, M. Harris, The Rise ul
Anthrupulul/lcal 7'heury, London, 1969, R. Firth, op. cit.
:tC. Lcvl-Strauss was 'one of the first anthropologists to notc this important
(act. although he has barely gone beyond noting it. See 7'he Scope 01 All'
,h,upuluI/Y, LoJ)don. 1961, pp. 512.
Part 1: Gener"} St I'
n 11( leg
INTRODUCTION 16
beyond that to the 'world of learning', Eventually. news of their
work and analyses. through their own popular' w{Hings or
through citations. rCsumts (not infrequently bowdleriscd) and
digests by noqamhropologists. seeps through to the general
reading public, Time thus winnows their reports and rids them
of much that is biased and 'loaded', There is no point in special
pleading or tendentious argument; there arc professional
_'J,. standards against which all reports arc measured. and. in the
end. the common sense of the common man, (pp.l.2)
But io speak about 'professional standards' and the authority of
'common sense' is surely no less naive Ihan arc wild remarks about
anthropology being merely Ihe handmaiden of colonialism. Tltere
arc today no clearcut standards in anthropology. Ihere is only
a nourishing professional organisalion: and the common sense
of Western COl1l111011 man, himself all alienuted Bnd cxploilctl
being. is 'hardly reliable as a critical test of anthropological know
ledge, And yot the easy assurance of Turner's remarks is itself an
indication of the kind of commonsense V(0rld that the typical an
thropologist still shares. and knows 'he shares, with those whom he
primarily addresses.
We have been reminded time and again by anthropologists
of Ihe ideas and ideals of the Enlightenment in which the intellec
tual inspira"tiun of anthropology is supposed to But anthro-
pology is also rooted in an unequal power encounter betwccn the
West and Third World which gocs back (0 the omergence of .bour
gcois Europe, an encounter in which colonialism is merely one
hislorical moment." It is this encounter that gives the West access
to cullural and historical information about the societies it has
progressively dominaled. and thus not only generates a certain kind
of universal understanding, but also reenforces the in
capacity between the European and the non European worlds (and
derivatively. between the Europeanized elite\> and the 'traditional'
masses in tho Third World). We aro today becoming 'increasingly
aware of the fact ihat informalion and understanding produced by
bourgeois disciplines like anthropology are aC4uiiod and used most
readily by those with 'Ihe greatest capacity for exploitation. This
follows partly from Ihe structure of research. but moro especially
INTRODUCTION 11
from tho way In which thcso disciplines objeotify their knowledge.
It is because the powerful who support research expect the kind of
understanding which will ultimately confirm them in their world
that anthropology has not very easily turned to the produotion of
radically subversive fomlS of underslanding. It is because anthro
pologica'l understanding is overwhelmingly objectified in European
,) languages that it is most easily accommodated to the mode of life,
and hence to the rationality, of the world power whioh the Wcst
represents.
We must begin from the fact that the basic reality whioh made
prewar social anthropology a feasible and effective enlerprise was
the power relationship belween dominating (European) and domino
ated (nonEuropean) cultures, We then need to ask ourselves how
this relalionship has affecled the practical preconditions of social
anthropology; the uses to which its knowledge was PUI; the thco
., retical treatment of particular topics; the mode of perceiving and
objeclifying alien societies; and the anthropologist's claim of politi.
cal neutrality.
The colonial power struolure made the object of anthropological
study accessible and safe-because of it sustained physical proxi.
mity between the observing European and the living non European
became a praOlical possibility. It made possible the kind of human
intimacy on which anlhr:opologieal fieldwork is based, but ensured
that should, be one-sided and provisional. It is worlh
f
.noting that anthropologist has been won./
over personally to Ihe subordinaled culture he has sludied; allhough
countless non.Europeans, having come to the West to study its cui
ture, have been captured by its values and assumptions, and also
contributed to an understanding of it.
The reason for this asymmetry is the dialectic of world power.
Anthropologists can claim to have contributed to the cullural
heritage of the societies they study by a sympathetic recording of
indigenous forms of life that would otherwise be lost to posterity.
But they have also contributed, sometimes indirectly, towards main-
taining the structure of power represented by the colonial system.
That such contributions were not in the final reckoning crucial for
the vast empire which received knowledge and provided patronage
does not mean that it was not critical for the small discipline which
offered knowledge and received that patronage. For the structure
of power cerlainly affecled the theorclical choice and treatment of
what social anthropology objeclified-more so in some matters
than in others. (We should in any case avoid the tendency found
among some critics anU'"defenders of of speak-
ing as though doclrines and analyses labelled 'funclionalism'
wcre parts of a highly inlegraled logical structure_) Its analyses-
of holislic polilies mosl of all, of cosmological systems least of all
-were afTecled by a readiness to adapt to colonial ideology At any
rale the general drift of anlhropological underslanding did con
slilule a basic challenge to the unequal world represented by the
colonial system. Nor was the colonial system as such-within which
Ihe social objccts sludied were localed-analysed -by the social
anthropologis!. To argue that the anthropologist's expertise did not
qualify him for considering fruitfully such a syslem is to confess
thaI this expertise was malformed, For any objccl which is subor
dinaled and manipulated is partly the product of a power relation
ship, and 10 ignore this facI is to miscomprehend the nature of that
objec!.
I
Clearly Ihe anthropologisl's claim to political neulralily cannot
be scparatod from all that has been said soJar. Thus the scientistic
_
definilion of anlhropology as a disinleresled -(objeclive, valuefree)
sludy of 'olher cullurcs' hclped to mark off Ihe anthropologist's
! enterprise from thM of colonial Europeans (the trader. the mission..
ary. 1"I1C administrator and other men of practical affairs); but did it
not also render him una'ble to envisage and argue for a radically
dillerenl polilieal fUlure for the subordinale people he s1udied and
thus serve to merge that enterprise in eDect with that of dominant
status-quo Europeans? If ,the anthropologist sometimes endorsed or
condemned particular social changes affccting "his people", did he,
in this ad hoc commitment, do any more or any less than many
colonial Europeans who accepted colonialism as a system? If he
was sometimes accusingly called "a Red', 'n socialist' or "an anar-
chist' by administrators and settlers, did this not merely reveal one
fa cot of -the 'hysterically intolerant character of colonialism as a
system, with which he chose nevertheless to live professionally at
peace?
I believe it is a mistake to view social anthropology in the colo-
nial era as primarily an aid to colonial administration, or as the
simple reOeetion of colonial ideology. I say this not because I sub-
scribe to the anthropological establishment's comforta'ble view of
itself, but 'because bourgeois consciousness, of which social anthro-
pology is merely one fragment. has always contained within itself
profound contradictions and ambiguities-and therefore the poten-
tialities for transcending itself. For these contradictions to be ade-
quatcly apprehended it is cssential to turn to the historical power

-.
INTRODUCTION
relalionshlp between Ih /9
f
Ihe Ways In which I e Wcsl and Ihe Third World
condilions. Ihe Wo has -been dialeclically linked and 10 examine
all disciplines and Ihe Pp'::lca/
Th ropesn humanity, e uropcan underslandinB of UOI
e papcrs fOllowa I non
p%gica/ Ihinkl na yse and document w .
nla/I,m ,but Iheng and praOlice have been afT ays /J1 Which anlhro.
and al different r this lopic from by Brillsh colo.
a Seminar held s':,t
ll
bltl Roger Owen's erenl points of view
tor has had Ihe 0' n,Seplember 1972, Allh":: firstal
eussions Id nHyto revise his papcr I g conlribu
been made 10 I e at the Seminar no ' n ! e I,ghl of dis.
sure thaI unlly On Ihem', or al-Iempt has
problem Th represenl a eomp h' mailer to en
that is i":.t':.';f toverage of the
anthropoloBisls and," Which as 0 an argumenl
over a quarter o::c (It a handfUl of
regarded was foundJ Ihe A;OLed that in
The group which a WOrl'hy of a coni A has never
providin f mel WIshes 10 Ihank h ..renee.)
Wish 10 facf/ilies for the of Hull for
and Social Anlh unnlson, Head of lhe De' osl especially, we
Conslant Hull, WllhoUI of Sociology
.Iaken place, It Was hen I e Seminar wouid : ael,ve help and
/J1 various Universili e who Anlhro not have
most of the organ' for POSSIble gy Departments
lsa IOna/ duties in pr ,rs, and undertook
eparallOn for I'he meeti'
ng.
Mareh 1973
INTROOUCTION 18