Scale and Social Relationsl

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Vol. 19, No.2, June 1978 @ 1978 by The Wenner·G~n Foundation for Anthropological Research OOII·3204/78/1902..{)()().l$03.0S Scale and Social Relations l by Gerald D. Berreman INTRODUCTION integration, cohesion, and change among the Aleuts of Alaska's westernmost islands (Berreman 1955, 1964), later on culture Scale or size as a variable in social organization first received and social organization (with emphasis on caste) in the lower my attention in an explicit way when I was invited to par Himalayas of northern India (Berreman 1962c, 1972a), and ticipate in the Wenner-Gren symposium on the subject which most recently on social and ethnic relations in a North Indian resulted in this paper. With the topic thus thrust before me, city (Berreman 1972b). Each of the studies was undertaken I set to thinking about what I had read and what my own from a theoretical perspective which is in part structural research suggested about it. My thoughts turned first to the functionalist and in part what has been described as u sym• Wilsons' (1945, 1971) discussions of scale, then to a wide bolic interactionist" or flethnomethodologist" but I prefer to variety of theorists' societal typologies and contrasts which, call simply uinteractionist" (cf. Blumer 1969; Cicourel 1964, if not explicitly based on scale, have depended at least partly 1968,1973; ]. Douglas 1970; Dreitzel 1970; Garfinkel 1967; upon variation in the sizes of the societies discussed. I thought Gollman 1959, 1963, 1967, 1969, 1971, 1974; Schutz 1962; also of the literature on urban society, notable among which Roy Turner 1974). (For an account of ethnomethodology as are \Virth's (1938) discussion of urbanism and Sjoberg's a lltheoretical break" from traditional sociology, advocated and (1960) work on the preindustrial city. I compared these with enacted by a "coherent group" of sociologists, see Griffith and what I know of the ethnographic literature, in an attempt to Mullins 1972.) The interactionist perspective became increas judge critically the cross-cultural validity and relevance of the ingly explicit from the first to the last of these studies. It typologies and contrasts and to assess the contributions they entails an approach which utilizes detailed observation and might make to clarification of the concept llscalell and its ap inquiry regarding how people behave in face-to-face and in· plication to the comparative analysis of social organization. direct interaction, in order to discover how they choose among Finally, I thought about my own field research, first on social alternative behaviors in terms of their own definitions of the situations in which they act, Le., the meanings they attach to 1 This paper was originally prepared for Burg Wartenstein Sym the persons, actions, circumstances, tasks, and goals which are posium No. 55, entitled "Scale and Social Organization," organized the substance and context of their daily lives. Cognitive worlds by Fredrik Barth and held July 31-August 8, 1972, under sponsor ship of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. -the understandings, definitions, perceptions, and systems of That symposium, including my paper, is to be published as a book relevance-which underlie behavioral choices are the subject under Barth's editorship (Barth 1978). The present version resulted of study. Garfinkel (1967:11, 35) calls them "the routine from revision undertaken while I was a Fellow at the Center for grounds of everyday activities." Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, Calif., 1976 77. I wish to thank the Center and the National Science Foun I had previously made three empirical comparisons in my dation, which contributed to my stay there, as well as the research reports which were in part comparisons of scale and Wenner-Gren Foundation. were therefore relevant to this discussion: (1) comparison between the small-scale society of the Aleuts before European contact and during 200 years of postcOntact incorporation into GERALD D. BERREMAN is Professor of Anthropology at the Uni the large-scale networks of Russian and American societies versity of California, Berkeley (Berkeley, Calif. 94720, U.S.A.). (Berreman 1955, 1964); (2) comparison between the small Born in 1930 1 he was educated at the University of Oregon scale, relatively isolated villages of the Indian Himalayas and (B.A., 1952 i M.A., 1953) and at Cornell University (Ph.D., Indo~ 1959). He has been a visiting professor at Delhi University the larger-scale village society of the densely populated (1968-69) and the University of Stockholm (1972) i he was a Gangetic plain of North India (Berreman 1960a, 1972a); and Guggenheim Fellow 1971-72 and a Fellow of the Center for (3) comparison between social relations in the contemporary Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences 1976-77. His re North Indian city of Dehra Dun and those in the mountain search interests are South Asia, social inequality, social organi zation, qualitative research methods, ethics in research, and and plains villages of its hinterland (Berreman 1971, 1972b). social interaction. Among his publications are Hindus oj the I came to the conclusion that my most useful contribution Himalayas: Eth110graphy and Change (Berkeley: University of would come directly from my own field research, with its California Press, 1972); Caste in the Modem World (Morris interactionist bias and its concern with the dynamics of strati town, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1973); uSocial Categories fication and pluralism and how they are experienced by people. and Sodal Interaction in Urban India" (American Anthropolo gist 74: 567-86) i "Race, Caste, and Other Invidious Distinctions I shall begin with some preliminary remarks on scale as in Sodal Stratification" (Race 23:385-414); and "Is Anthro it is reflected in a variety of concepts from the literature of pology Alive? Social Responsibility in Social Anthropology" anthropology and related disciplines. The purpose of this dis (CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 9:391-96, 425-27). cussion will be to draw attention to the complexity and diver· The present paper, submitted in final form 22 vm 77, was sent for comment to SO scholars. The responses are printed below sity of the concept without undertaking to analyze that com ~nd ~rc followed by n reply by the author. plexity in any definitive wa.y, J will then tum to the rather Vol.IP • No. Z • J,me IP78 225 disparate inferences I have drawn in my own research that contrast between Getneinschaft and GesellschaJt (Tonnies seem germane to scale and social relations. I say that my 1940), Maine's status and contract (Maine 1861), Durkheim's thoughts on scale are disparate because I have no "theory of mechanical and organic solidarity (Durkheim 1933). We are scale." In fact, I doubt that so gross a concept can be very familiar with efforts of social commentators since the classical useful in social analysis. At best, I have a few specific, em Greeks to identify the distinguishing characteristics of ucivi pirically derived intuitions about some of the limits imposed lized" or "complex" societies as compared with llprimitive" and the possibilities offered people in their relationships with ones (in anthropology the unilineal evolutionists come to mind, one another as a result of the scale of the societies in which as do the names of such relatively recent figures as Golden they live. weiser [1922], Childe [1950, 1965], Kraeber [1948], Redfield [1953J, Kluckhohn [1949J, Steward [1955J, White [1959J, and the historian Toynbee [1947]). More recently, some of these ABSTRACT OPPOSITIONS: FOLK-URBAN AND issues have been addressed insightfuUy by Wolf (1966), Ser THE LIKE vice (1966, 1975), Fried (1960, 1967), Sahlins (1968), and Krader (1968), among others. Wirth (1938) drew upon Sim My interactionist predilections impel me to ask: How does mel (1950), Weber (1958), and Park (1925), among others, scale affect the nature and quality of social interaction in so when he set forth his classic definition and description of cieties? This question is relevant here because social organi urbanism as a way of life associated with, but not restricted to, zation is inevitably expressed in interaction, and analysts dis eities. His own summary (p. 1, italics mine) bears quotation cover it by observing interaction or by listening to statements (some of its shortcomings will be mentioned shortly): about interaction. It does not preclude inferences about struc While the city is the characteristic locus of urbanism, the urban ture, for structure too is an abstraction deriving from inter mode of life is not confined to cities. For sociological purposes a action. Thus, for example, social stratification (the ranking of city is a relatively large, dense, and permanent settlement of hetero categories of people so that they have differential access to geneous individuals. Large numbers account for individual vari~ valued things and exhibit hierarchical patterns of interaction ability, the relative absence of intimate personal acquaintanceship, [ef. Berreman 19670; 1968; 1972':401; 1977; n.d.]) does not the segmentalization of human relations which are largely anony~ occur in the smallest societies. In fact, it is often described mous, superficial, and transitory, and associated characteristics. as a product of the urban revolution, with the occupational Density involves diversification, and specialization, the coincidence diversification, specialized manufacture, and external trade of close physical contact

Load more