Some Major Problems in the Social Anthropology Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume29, Numberi, FebruaryI988 ? I988 byThe Wenner-GrenFoundation for Anthropological Research. All rightsreserved OOII-3204/88/29oi-0002$2.75 Two major questions presentthemselves in the social anthropologyof hunter-gatherers.These questions do not overtlyshape the studies of researchersin the area Some Major Problems and probablyneed not even be explicitlyposed.2 Rather, they could be seen as problemsconstitutive of the an- in the Social thropologyof hunter-gatherers,problems that necessar- ily come to be posed in respectof it if onlyfrom outside the discipline. I have the feelingthat the intellectual Anthropologyof value and generalinterest of research on hunter-gatherer societies lie in our capacityor potentialfor scientifically Hunter- Gatherers' answeringthese questions. The firstquestion arises fromthe fact that hunter- gatherersappear to be the most ancient of so-called primitivesocieties-the impressionthat they preserve by Alain Testart the most archaic way of life known to humanity,that characteristicof the whole of the Palaeolithic. I am not saying that hunter-gatherersocieties are the most an- cient,merely that they appear to be so-that theyevoke Whatis therelationship between the present-day hunter-gatherer the societies of the Palaeolithic. Everyquestion neces- studiedby anthropologists and thesocieties of the Palaeolithic? sarilyarises initiallyat the level ofappearances, and it is Andhow is thearticulation between the economy of these soci- the business of science to criticise these appearances. etiesand theirother aspects to be conceived?In attemptingto The firstquestion may thereforebe formulatedthus: answerthese questions, this article takes into account a further problem,that of the uniqueness of Australian Aboriginal social Given the appearanceof similarityin termsof life-style, organization. technology,etc., between existing3 hunter-gatherer soci- eties and those of the past, how should one conceive of ALAIN TESTART is Directeurde Recherche,deuxieme classe, of the relationbetween them? theCentre National de la RechercheScientifique (mailing ad- This question is an evolutionaryone, and I know that dress:Maison des Sciencesde l'Homme,54 boulevardRaspail, many of my colleagues will not concern themselves 75270 ParisCedex 6, France).Born in 1945, he was educatedat theEcole NationalSuperieure des Mines de Paris(dipl6me with it, foranti-evolutionist feeling has been intensefor d'ingenieur,i968) and at theUniversite de ParisVII (doctoratde most of this century,particularly in France, and to a troisiemecycle en ethnologie,1975). His researchinterests are th largeextent remains so. Thereforeit is necessaryhere to social organizationof the Australian Aborigines, the social an- say a word about evolutionismand in its favour.In its thropologyof hunter-gatherers, and symbolism.His publications minimal form,evolutionism appears to me to consist, includeDes classificationsdualistes en Australie:Essai sur l'evolutionde l'organisationsociale (Parisand Lille: Editionsde 1 once it has been recognizedthat social formschange in Maisondes Sciencesde l'Hommeand Lille III, 1978), Les chas- the long term,in an investigationof the generalcharac- seurs-cueilleurs,ou l'originedes in6galit6s(Paris: Societe terof that change and of the laws, if any,that govern it. d'Ethnographie[Universite de ParisX, Nanterre],i982), Essai sur Such an inquirycannot but be legitimate,and it is aston- chezles chas- les fondementsde la divisionsexuelle du travail ishingthat scholars,and not the least eminent,such as seurs-cueilleurs(Paris: EHESS, Cahiersde l'Homme,i986), and L communismeprimitif, I, Economieet id6ologie(Paris: Maison Radcliffe-Brownin certain of his writings(I968[I95.2: des Sciencesde l'Homme,i985). The presentpaper was submitte II5), have supposedlybeen able to foundthe scientific in finalform I9 VI 87. standingof social anthropologyon the a priorirejection of all evolutionaryconcems. I lack the space here to develop this argument(but see Testart I985c, i987b); I will say onlythat one should not confusethe undeniably outdatedevolutionist schools ofthe igth centurywith a careful modem inquiry based on the considerable findingsof prehistoricarchaeology and embarkingon what I would call a "reasoned evolutionism." Among the errorsof earlierevolutionism could be cited the par- ticulartheses ofthe differentigth-century schools, most of them untenable; the methods adopted by the evolu- 2. Posed at the Chicagosymposium of I966 and airedin Man the Hunter(Lee and DeVore i968), theyseem to havebeen less promi- nentin thecourse of the four intemational conferences on hunter- gatherersheld in Paris,Quebec, Bad Homburg,and Londonbe- tween1978 and I986. 3. "Existing"in the sense of the "ethnographicpresent" or what prehistorianscall the"sub-present," that is, thosesocieties capable ofbeing treated anthropologically or ethnohistoricallyand broadly i. Translatedby RoyWillis. observedfrom the 17th or i8th centuryup untilour times. I This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:22:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 2 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 29, Number I, February1988 tionists,particularly the abuse of the notion of "sur- The second question arises from our speaking of vival," which was appliedwilly-nilly to differentinstitu- hunter-gatherersocieties, that is to say, of an ensemble tions without asking why and in what context a past of societies groupedin the same categorybecause of the institutioncould survive and be integratedas a living similarappearances of theirsubsistence techniques and element into a new structure;and the generalphiloso- theireconomies. This assumes firstof all thatpeoples as phygoverning evolutionary inquiries, including the out- differentand widely separatedone fromanother as the dated idea of moral progressand the concept of social Australian Aborigines and the Inuit (Eskimo) can be evolution on a biological model. Here was an ensemble profitablycompared: what is in questionis thus initially both odd and obsolete. the possibilityof a social anthropologynotwithstanding For a betterunderstanding of the differencebetween cultural differences(in the sense of culturalanthropol- these old evolutionistpositions and those currentlypos- ogy). Further,these societies are grouped in terms of sible, we may returnto the question: What is the rela- techno-economiclevel, and this presupposesthat their tion between existingand formerhunter-gatherer soci- technologicaland economic characteristicsare relevant eties? Writing at the tum of the century, Sollas for the description and understandingof them. The (I9II:382 et passim) replies without more ado to this underlyingquestion is how one is to conceptualize a question with the statementthat the Tasmanians are a possible articulationbetween the economic aspect of a people of the Eolithic,the Australians"Mousterians of societyand its otheraspects. the Antipodes,"the BushmenAurignacians, and the Es- During the past few decades there have been many kimo Magdalenians. He identifiesthe one with the discussions on how hunter-gatherersshould be defined. other,purely and simply.It is evident,however, that the Here I take it as obvious that hunter-gatherersare by Eskimo are not Magdaleniansany morethan other exist- definitionpeople who hunt and gather and do other ing hunter-gatherersare prehistoricpeoples. There can thingslike huntingand gathering.However, what does be no question ofrepeating such naive statementstoday. it mean to hunt and gather?It could mean to exploit The anti-evolutionistscould well reply that the two resourcesthe reproductionof which one does not con- series of peoples comparedby Sollas are separatedby at trolas one does in agricultureand/or stockkeeping. If the least io,ooo years.But anti-evolutionism4contents itself relevantcriterion is absence of domesticationin respect with assertingthis difference,as much in space as in of subsistence,it would seem necessaryto include all time-a viewpointthat preventscomparison of peoples who depend for subsistence upon wild resources, with obvious similarities.In other words, between a whetherfishing, collecting, or gathering.Finally, if this simplisticevolutionist position that claims to identify technicaldefinition appears a good one it is not because past cultureswith those of the presentand the opposite of a materialism that I believe should be a question position that restrictsitself to observingdifference and ratherthan a doctrinebut ratherbecause it allows the rejects even the idea of comparison,there is an inter- explicitformulation of one ofthe questionsthat give the mediate and more subtle position that takes account of studyof hunter-gatherers its interest:Is therea relation, both evident differencesand apparent similarities. and, if so, how should it be expressed,between the This contentionmay seem trivialto some, but it is still techno-economiclevel of a society and the various as- heresyto others. pects of its social organization?This definitionseems a The relation between existing and past hunter- good one (although it should be emphasized that any gatherersocieties is problematic,and it is our job to definitionis inevitablyprovisional) because it does not constructa conceptionof it. The answerto the question evade the problemas would a definitionin purelysocial cannot be otherthan complex,and the two extremere- terms,5which would mix in the verymoment of its ut- sponses I have evoked both errby excess of simplicity, teranceterms referring to technical activities("hunter-