Postmodernism

As an intellectual movement postmodernism was born as a challenge to several modernist themes that were first articulated during the Enlightenment. These include scientific positivism, the inevitability of human progress, and the potential of human reason to address any essential truth of physical and social conditions and thereby make them amenable to rational control (Boyne and Rattansi 1990). The primary tenets of the postmodern movement include: (1) an elevation of text and language as the fundamental phenomena of existence, (2) the application of literary analysis to all phenomena, (3) a questioning of reality and representation, (4) a critique of metanarratives, (5) an argument against method and evaluation, (6) a focus upon power relations and hegemony, (7) and a general critique of Western institutions and knowledge (Kuznar 2008:78). For his part, Lawrence Kuznar labels postmodern anyone whose thinking includes most or all of these elements. Importantly, the term postmodernism refers to a broad range of artists, academic critics, philosophers, and social scientists that Christopher Butler (2003:2) has only half-jokingly alluded to as like “a loosely constituted and quarrelsome political party.” The anthropologist Melford Spiro defines postmodernism thusly:
The postmodernist critique of science consists of two interrelated arguments, epistemological and ideological. Both are based on subjectivity. First, because of the subjectivity of the human object, anthropology, according to the epistemological argument cannot be a science; and in any event the subjectivity of the human subject precludes the possibility of science discovering objective truth. Second, since objectivity is an illusion, science according to the ideological argument, subverts oppressed groups, females, ethnics, third-world peoples. [Spiro 1996: 759]
Postmodernism has its origins as an eclectic social movement originating in aesthetics, architecture and philosophy (Bishop 1996). In architecture and art, fields which are distinguished as the oldest claimants to the name, postmodernism originated in the reaction against abstraction in painting and the International Style in architecture (Callinicos 1990: 101). However, postmodern thinking arguably began in the nineteenth century with Nietzsche’s assertions regarding truth, language, and society, which opened the door for all later postmodern and late modern critiques about the foundations of knowledge (Kuznar 2008: 78). Nietzsche asserted that truth was simply:
a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms – in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are. [Nietzsche 1954: 46-47]
According to Kuznar, postmodernists trace this skepticism about truth and the resulting relativism it engenders from Nietzsche to Max Weber and Sigmund Freud, and finally to Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and other contemporary postmodernists (2008:78).
Postmodernism and anthropology - Postmodern attacks on ethnography are generally based on the belief that there is no true objectivity and that therefore the authentic implementation of the scientific method is impossible. For instance, Isaac Reed (2010) conceptualizes the postmodern challenge to the objectivity of social research as skepticism over the anthropologist’s ability to integrate the context of investigation and the context of explanation. Reed defines the context of investigation as the social and intellectual context of the investigator – essentially her social identity, beliefs and memories. The context of explanation, on the other hand, refers to the reality that she wishes to investigate, and in particular the social actions she wishes to explain and the surrounding social environment, or context, that she explains them with. In the late 1970s and 1980s some anthropologists, such as Crapanzano and Rabinow, began to express elaborate self-doubt concerning the validity of fieldwork. By the mid-1980s the critique about how anthropologists interpreted and explained the Other, essentially how they engaged in “writing culture,” had become a full-blown epistemic crisis that Reed refers to as the “postmodern” turn. The driving force behind the postmodern turn was a deep skepticism about whether the investigator could adequately, effectively, or honestly integrate the context of investigation into the context of explanation and, as a result, write true social knowledge. This concern was most prevalent in cultural and linguistic anthropology, less so in archaeology, and had the least effect on physical anthropology, which is generally the most scientific of the four subfields.
Modernity first came into being with the Renaissance. Modernity implies “the progressive economic and administrative rationalization and differentiation of the social world” (Sarup 1993). In essence this term emerged in the context of the development of the capitalist state. The fundamental act of modernity is to question the foundations of past knowledge, and Boyne and Rattansi characterize modernity as consisting of two sides: “the progressive union of scientific objectivity and politico-economic rationality . . . mirrored in disturbed visions of unalleviated existential despair” (1990: 5).
Postmodernity is the state or condition of being postmodern. Logically postmodernism literally means “after modernity. It refers to the incipient or actual dissolution of those social forms associated with modernity" (Sarup 1993). The archaeologist Mathew Johnson has characterized postmodernity, or the postmodern condition, as disillusionment with Enlightenment ideals (Johnson 2010). Jean-Francois Lyotard, in his seminal work The Postmodern Condition (1984) defines it as an “incredulity toward metanarratives,” which is, somewhat ironically, a product of scientific progress (1984: xxiv). Postmodernity concentrates on the tensions of difference and similarity erupting from processes of globalization and capitalism: the accelerating circulation of people, the increasingly dense and frequent cross-cultural interactions, and the unavoidable intersections of local and global knowledge.
Some social critics have attempted to explain the postmodern condition in terms of the historical and social milieu which spawned it. David Ashley (1990) suggests that “modern, overloaded individuals, desperately trying to maintain rootedness and integrity . . . ultimately are pushed to the point where there is little reason not to believe that all value-orientations are equally well-founded. Therefore, increasingly, choice becomes meaningless.” Jean Baudrillard, one of the most radical postmodernists, writes that we must come to terms with the second revolution: “that of the Twentieth Century, of postmodernity, which is the immense process of the destruction of meaning equal to the earlier destruction of appearances. Whoever lives by meaning dies by meaning” ([Baudrillard 1984:38-39] in Ashley 1990).
Modernization “is often used to refer to the stages of social development which are based upon industrialization. Modernization is a diverse unity of socio-economic changes generated by scientific and technological discoveries and innovations. . .” (Sarup 1993).
Modernism should be considered distinct from the concept of “modernity.” . Although in its broadest definition modernism refers to modern thought, character or practice, the term is usually restricted to a set of artistic, musical, literary, and more generally aesthetic movements that emerged in Europe in the late nineteenth century and would become institutionalized in the academic institutions and art galleries of post-World War I Europe and America (Boyne and Rattansi 1990). Important figures include Matisse, Picasso, and Kandinsky in painting, Joyce and Kafka in literature, and Eliot and Pound in poetry. It can be characterized by self-consciousness, the alienation of the integrated subject, and reflexiveness, as well as by a general critique of modernity’s claims regarding the progressive capacity of science and the efficacy of metanarratives. These themes are very closely related to Postmodernism (Boyne and Rattansi 1990: 6-8; Sarup 1993).
  Postmodernism - Sarup maintains that “There is a sense in which if one sees modernism as the culture of modernity, postmodernism is the culture of postmodernity” (1993). The term “postmodernism” is somewhat controversial since many doubt whether it can ever be dignified by conceptual coherence. For instance, it is difficult to reconcile postmodernist approaches in fields like art and music to certain postmodern trends in philosophy, sociology, and anthropology. However, it is in some sense unified by a commitment to a set of cultural projects privileging heterogeneity, fragmentation, and difference, as well as a relatively widespread mood in literary theory, philosophy, and the social sciences that question the possibility of impartiality, objectivity, or authoritative knowledge.

Criticisms:

Roy D’Andrade (1931-) - In the article "Moral Models in Anthropology," D'Andrade critiques postmodernism's definition of objectivity and subjectivity by examining the moral nature of their models. He argues that these moral models are purely subjective. D'Andrade argues that despite the fact that utterly value-free objectivity is impossible, it is the goal of the anthropologist to get as close as possible to that ideal. He argues that there must be a separation between moral and objective models because “they are counterproductive in discovering how the world works.” (D’Andrade 1995: 402). From there he takes issue with the postmodernist attack on objectivity. He states that objectivity is in no way dehumanizing nor is objectivity impossible. He states, “Science works not because it produces unbiased accounts but because its accounts are objective enough to be proved or disproved no matter what anyone wants to be true.” (D’Andrade 1995: 404).
Ryan Bishop - “The Postmodernist genre of ethnography has been criticized for fostering a self-indulgent subjectivity, and for exaggerating the esoteric and unique aspects of a culture at the expense of more prosiac but significant questions.” (Bishop 1996: 58)
Patricia M. Greenfield  Greenfield believes that postmodernism’s complete lack of objectivity, and its tendency to push political agendas, makes it virtually useless in any scientific investigation (Greenfield 2005).  Greenfield suggests using resources in the field of psychology to help Anthropologists gain a better grasp on cultural relativism, while still maintaining their objectivity.
Bob McKinley - McKinley believes that Postmodernism is more of a religion than a science (McKinley 2000).  He argues that the origin of Postmodernism is the Western emphasis on individualism, which makes Postmodernists reluctant to acknowledge the existence of distinct multi-individual cultures.
Christopher Norris - Norris believes that Lyotard, Foucault, and Baudrillard are too preoccupied in the idea of the primacy of moral judgments (Norris 1990: 50).
Pauline Rosenau (1993) Rosenau identifies seven contradictions in Postmodernism:

1. Its anti-theoretical position is essentially a theoretical stand.
2. While Postmodernism stresses the irrational, instruments of reason are freely employed to advance its perspective.
3. The Postmodern prescription to focus on the marginal is itself an evaluative emphasis of precisely the sort that it otherwise attacks.
4. Postmodernism stress intertextuality but often treats text in isolation.
5. By adamantly rejecting modern criteria for assessing theory, Postmodernists cannot argue that there are no valid criteria for judgment.
6. Postmodernism criticizes the inconsistency of modernism, but refuses to be held to norms of consistency itself.
7. Postmodernists contradict themselves by relinquishing truth claims in their own writings.

Marshall Sahlins (1930 - )- Sahlins criticizes the postmodern preoccupation with power. "The current Foucauldian-Gramscian-Nietzschean obsession with power is the latest incarnation of anthropology's incurable functionalism. . . Now 'power' is the intellectual black hole into which all kinds of cultural contents get sucked, if before it was social solidarity or material advantage." (Sahlins, 1993: 15).
Melford Spiro (1920 - ) - Spiro argues that postmodern anthropologists do not convincingly dismiss the scientific method (1996). Further, he suggests that if anthropology turns away from the scientific method then anthropology will become the study of meanings and not the discovery of causes that shape what it is to be human. Spiro further states that, “the causal account of culture refers to ecological niches, modes of production, subsistence techniques, and so forth, just as a causal account of mind refers to the firing of neurons, the secretions of hormones, the action of neurotransmitters . . .” (1996: 765).
Spiro critically addresses six interrelated propositions from John Searle’s 1993 work, “Rationality and Realism":

1.   Reality exists independently of human representations. If this is true then, contrary to postmodernism, this postulate supports the existence of “mind-independent external reality” which is called “metaphysical realism”.
2. Language communicates meanings but also refers to objects and situations in the world which exist independently of language. Contrary to postmodernism, this postulate supports the concept of language as have communicative and referential functions.
3. Statements are true or false depending on whether the objects and situations to which they refer correspond to a greater or lesser degree to the statements. This “correspondence theory” of truth is to some extent the theory of truth for postmodernists, but this concept is rejected by many postmodernists as “essentialist.”
4. Knowledge is objective. This signifies that the truth of a knowledge claim is independent of the motive, culture, or gender of the person who makes the claim. Knowledge depends on empirical support.
5. Logic and rationality provide a set of procedures and methods, which contrary to postmodernism, enables a researcher to assess competing knowledge claims through proof, validity, and reason.
6. Objective and intersubjective criteria judge the merit of statements, theories, interpretations, and all accounts.

Spiro specifically assaults the assumption that the disciplines that study humanity, like anthropology, cannot be "scientific" because subjectivity renders observers incapable of discovering truth. Spiro agrees with postmodernists that the social sciences require very different techniques for the study of humanity than do the natural sciences, but while insight and empathy are critical in the study of mind and culture, intellectual responsibility requires objective

Feminist Theories

Feminist theory is one of the major contemporary sociological theories, which analyzes the status of women and men in society with the purpose of using that knowledge to better women's lives. Feminist theorists have also started to question the differences between women, including how race, class, ethnicity, and age intersect with gender. Feminist theory is most concerned with giving a voice to women and highlighting the various ways women have contributed to society.
There are four main types of feminist theory that attempt to explain the societal differences between men and women:

• Gender Differences: The gender difference perspective examines how women's location in, and experience of, social situations differ from men's. For example, cultural feminists look to the different values associated with womanhood and femininity as a reason why men and women experience the social world differently. Other feminist theorists believe that the different roles assigned to women and men within institutions better explain gender difference, including the sexual division of labor in the household. Existential and phenomenological feminists focus on how women have been marginalized and defined as the “other” in patriarchal societies. Women are thus seen as objects and are denied the opportunity for self-realization.
• Gender Inequality: Gender-inequality theories recognize that women's location in, and experience of, social situations are not only different but also unequal to men's. Liberal feminists argue that women have the same capacity as men for moral reasoning and agency, but that patriarchy, particularly the sexist patterning of the division of labor, has historically denied women the opportunity to express and practice this reasoning. Women have been isolated to the private sphere of the household and, thus, left without a voice in the public sphere. Even after women enter the public sphere, they are still expected to manage the private sphere and take care of household duties and child rearing. Liberal feminists point out that marriage is a site of gender inequality and that women do not benefit from being married as men do. Indeed, married women have higher levels of stress than unmarried women and married men. According to liberal feminists, the sexual division of labor in both the public and private spheres needs to be altered in order for women to achieve equality.
• Gender Oppression: Theories of gender oppression go further than theories of gender difference and gender inequality by arguing that not only are women different from or unequal to men, but that they are actively oppressed, subordinated, and even abused by men. Power is the key variable in the two main theories of gender oppression: psychoanalytic feminism and radical feminism. Psychoanalytic feminists attempt to explain power relations between men and women by reformulating Freud's theories of the subconscious and unconscious, human emotions, and childhood development. They feel that conscious calculation cannot fully explain the production and reproduction of patriarchy. Radical feminists argue that being a woman is a positive thing in and of itself, but that this is not acknowledged in patriarchal societies where women are oppressed. They identify physical violence as being at the base of patriarchy, but they think that patriarchy can be defeated if women recognize their own value and strength, establish a sisterhood of trust with other women, confront oppression critically, and form female separatist networks in the private and public spheres.
• Structural Oppression: Structural oppression theories posit that women's oppression and inequality are a result of capitalism, patriarchy, and racism. Socialist feminists agree with Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels that the working class is exploited as a consequence of the capitalist mode of production, but they seek to extend this exploitation not just to class but also to gender. Intersectionality theorists seek to explain oppression and inequality across a variety of variables, including class, gender, race, ethnicity, and age. They make the important insight that not all women experience oppression in the same way. White women and black women, for example, face different forms of discrimination in the workplace. Thus, different groups of women come to view the world through a shared standpoint of "heterogeneous commonality."

 

Karl Marx

 Karl  Marx ( 5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883) was a German philosopher, economist, sociologist, historian, journalist, and revolutionary socialist. Marx's work in economics laid the basis for the current understanding of labour and its relation to capital, and has influenced much of subsequent economic thought.

It is important to recognize that Marx viewed the structure of society in relation to its major classes, and the struggle between them as the engine of change in this structure. His was no equilibrium or consensus theory. Conflict was not deviational within society's structure, nor were classes functional elements maintaining the system. The structure itself was a derivative of and ingredient in the struggle of classes. His was a conflict view of modem (nineteenth century) society.
The key to understanding Marx is his class definition.¹ A class is defined by the ownership of property. Such ownership vests a person with the power to exclude others from the property and to use it for personal purposes. In relation to property there are three great classes of society: the bourgeoisie (who own the means of production such as machinery and factory buildings, and whose source of income is profit), landowners (whose income is rent), and the proletariat (who own their labor and sell it for a wage).
Class thus is determined by property, not by income or status. These are determined by distribution and consumption, which itself ultimately reflects the production and power relations of classes. The social conditions of bourgeoisie production are defined by bourgeois property. Class is therefore a theoretical and formal relationship among individuals.
The force transforming latent class membership into a struggle of classes is class interest. Out of similar class situations, individuals come to act similarly. They develop a mutual dependence, a community, a shared interest interrelated with a common income of profit or of wages. From this common interest classes are formed, and for Marx, individuals form classes to the extent that their interests engage them in a struggle with the opposite class.
At first, the interests associated with land ownership and rent are different from those of the bourgeoisie. But as society matures, capital (i.e., the property of production) and land ownership merge, as do the interests of landowners and bourgeoisie. Finally the relation of production, the natural opposition between proletariat and bourgeoisie, determines all other activities.
As Marx saw the development of class conflict, the struggle between classes was initially confined to individual factories. Eventually, given the maturing of capitalism, the growing disparity between life conditions of bourgeoisie and proletariat, and the increasing homogenization within each class, individual struggles become generalized to coalitions across factories. Increasingly class conflict is manifested at the societal level. Class consciousness is increased, common interests and policies are organized, and the use of and struggle for political power occurs. Classes become political forces.
The distribution of political power is determined by power over production (i.e., capital). Capital confers political power, which the bourgeois class uses to legitimatize and protect their property and consequent social relations. Class relations are political, and in the mature capitalist society, the state's business is that of the bourgeoisie. Moreover, the intellectual basis of state rule, the ideas justifying the use of state power and its distribution, are those of the ruling class. The intellectual-social culture is merely a superstructure resting on the relation of production, on ownership of the means of production.
Finally, the division between classes will widen and the condition of the exploited worker will deteriorate so badly that social structure collapses: the class struggle is transformed into a proletarian revolution. The workers' triumph will eliminate the basis of class division in property through public ownership of the means of production. With the basis of classes thus wiped away, a classless society will ensue (by definition), and since political power to protect the bourgeoisie against the workers is unnecessary, political authority and the state will wither away.
Overall, there are six elements in Marx's view of class conflict.

• Classes are authority relationships based on property ownership.
• A class defines groupings of individuals with shared life situations, thus interests.
• Classes are naturally antagonistic by virtue of their interests.
• Imminent within modern society is the growth of two antagonistic classes and their struggle, which eventually absorbs all social relations.
• Political organization and Power is an instrumentality of class struggle, and reigning ideas are its reflection.
• Structural change is a consequence of the class struggle.

Marx's emphasis on class conflict as constituting the dynamics of social change, his awareness that change was not random but the outcome of a conflict of interests, and his view of social relations as based on power were contributions of the first magnitude. However, time and history have invalidated many of his assumptions and predictions. Capitalist ownership and control of production have been separated. Joint stock companies forming most of the industrial sector are now almost wholly operated by non-capital-owning managers. Workers have not grown homogeneous but are divided and subdivided into different skill groups. Class stability has been undercut by the development of a large middle class and considerable social mobility. Rather than increasing extremes of wealth and poverty, there has been a social leveling and an increasing emphasis on social justice. And finally, bourgeois political power has progressively weakened with growth in worker oriented legislation and of labor-oriented parties, and with a narrowing of the rights and privileges of capital ownership. Most important, the severest manifestation of conflict between workers and capitalist--the strike--has been institutionalized through collective bargaining legislation and the legalization of strikes.
These historical events and trends notwithstanding, the sociological outlines of Marx's approach have much value. His emphasis on conflict, on classes, on their relations to the state, and on social change was a powerful perspective that should not be discarded. The spirit, if not the substance, of his theory is worth developing. 

Class Conflict: One of the major concerns that the conflict theory deals with is class conflict. As mentioned, Karl Marx thought that as in human societies, there is always a group of people ruling another group. Usually, the small group controls the production and there is a clash between these classes. For example, if we apply it to modern day we could see that the factory owners owns all of the production and gets most of the profit while the factory workers, the larger group of people does not receive the same benefits. So when you approach a situation with the conflict theory, it is essential to keep in mind that there is always a smaller group that is controlling the means of production or other essential goods rather than the larger group or be at a state of equilibrium.

Women Vs. Men: Conflict theory's next concern is the male vs. women issue. For example, feminists stress the importance that men and women should have equal rights. Thus, they should not be treated with any inequality whatsoever. When getting a pay from the job that a woman and male both have which is on the same position and the male receives a higher wage, the conflict theory would concern the issue of women vs. men rather than other issues.

Dominance: Whether it be dominance over a group of people, race, or gender, the conflict theory's third concern is dominance. For example, a long time ago, the dominance of men over women was accepted in a society. The conflict theory would look at that sort of situation and call it a dominance.

Exploitation: Lastly, the conflict theory deals with exploitation. Exploitation is when a group of people dominate over another and use it to their benefit. For example, exploitation was used when different European countries used the countries in Africa to get the natural resources and bring them back to their own country. This is an example of exploitation.



Critism
Whereas American sociologists in the 1940s and 1950s generally ignored the conflict perspective in favor of the functionalist, the tumultuous 1960s saw American sociologists gain considerable interest in conflict theory. They also expanded Marx's idea that the key conflict in society was strictly economic. Today, conflict theorists find social conflict between any groups in which the potential for inequality exists: racial, gender, religious, political, economic, and so on. Conflict theorists note that unequal groups usually have conflicting values and agendas, causing them to compete against one another. This constant competition between groups forms the basis for the ever-changing nature of society. Critics of the conflict perspective point to its overly negative view of society. The theory ultimately attributes humanitarian efforts, altruism, democracy, civil rights, and other positive aspects of society to capitalistic designs to control the masses, not to inherent interests in preserving society and social order.
 

Conflict theories

Conflict theories are pespectives in sociology that emphasize the social, political, or material inequality of a social group, that critique the broad socio-political system, or that otherwise detract from structural functionalism and ideological conservativism. Conflict theories draw attention to power differentials, such as class conflict, and generally contrast historically dominant ideologies. It is therefore a macro level analysis of society. Karl Marx is the father of the social conflict theory, which is a component of the 4 paradigms of sociology. Certain conflict theories set out to highlight the ideological aspects inherent in traditional thought. Whilst many of these perspectives hold parallels, conflict theory does not refer to a unified school of thought, and should not be confused with, for instance, peace and conflict studies, or any other specific theory of social conflict.
Social conflict theory is a Marxist-based social theory which argues that individuals and groups (social classes) within society have differing amounts of material and non-material resources (the wealthy vs. the poor) and that the more powerful groups use their power in order to exploit groups with less power.

Definition of Conflict Theory

Conflict theory suggests that human behavior in social contexts results from conflicts between competing groups. Conflict theory originated with the work of Karl Marx in the mid-1800s. Marx understood human society in terms of conflict between social classes, notably the conflict in capitalist societies between those who owned the means of economic production (factory or farm owners, for example) and those who did not (the workers). Subsequent thinkers have described different versions of conflict theory; a common theme is that different social groups have unequal power, though all groups struggle for the same limited resources. Conflict theory has been used to explain diverse human behavior, such as educational practices that either sustain or challenge the status quo, cultural customs regarding the elderly, and criminal behavior.


Conflict theory emphasizes the role of coercion and power in producing social order. This perspective is derived from the works of Karl Marx, who saw society as fragmented into groups that compete for social and economic resources. Social order is maintained by domination, with power in the hands of those with the greatest political, economic, and social resources. When consensus exists, it is attributable to people being united around common interests, often in opposition to other groups.
According to conflict theory, inequality exists because those in control of a disproportionate share of society’s resources actively defend their advantages. The masses are not bound to society by their shared values, but by coercion at the hands of those in power. This perspective emphasizes social control, not consensus and conformity. Groups and individuals advance their own interests, struggling over control of societal resources. Those with the most resources exercise power over others with inequality and power struggles resulting. There is great attention paid to class, race, and gender in this perspective because they are seen as the grounds of the most pertinent and enduring struggles in society.
Whereas most other sociological theories focus on the positive aspects of society, conflict perspective focuses on the negative, conflicted, and ever-changing nature of society. Unlike functionalists who defend the status quo, avoid social change, and believe people cooperate to effect social order, conflict theorists challenge the status quo, encourage social change (even when this means social revolution), and believe rich and powerful people force social order on the poor and the weak. Conflict theorists, for example, may interpret an “elite” board of regents raising tuition to pay for esoteric new programs that raise the prestige of a local college as self-serving rather than as beneficial for students.
Whereas American sociologists in the 1940s and 1950s generally ignored the conflict perspective in favor of the functionalist, the tumultuous 1960s saw American sociologists gain considerable interest in conflict theory. They also expanded Marx's idea that the key conflict in society was strictly economic. Today, conflict theorists find social conflict between any groups in which the potential for inequality exists: racial, gender, religious, political, economic, and so on. Conflict theorists note that unequal groups usually have conflicting values and agendas, causing them to compete against one another. This constant competition between groups forms the basis for the ever-changing nature of society. Critics of the conflict perspective point to its overly negative view of society. The theory ultimately attributes humanitarian efforts, altruism, democracy, civil rights, and other positive aspects of society to capitalistic designs to control the masses, not to inherent interests in preserving society and social order.

Criticism of Conflict Theory

Predictably, conflict theory has been criticized for its focus on change and neglect of social stability. Some critics acknowledge that societies are in a constant state of change, but point out that much of the change is minor or incremental, not revolutionary. For example, many modern capitalist states have avoided a communist revolution, and have instead instituted elaborate social service programs. Although conflict theorists often focus on social change, they have, in fact, also developed a theory to explain social stability. According to the conflict perspective, inequalities in power and reward are built into all social structures. Individuals and groups who benefit from any particular structure strive to see it maintained. For example, the wealthy may fight to maintain their privileged access to higher education by opposing measures that would broaden access, such as affirmative action or public funding.

Roy Rappaport

Roy Rappaport (1926–1997) was a distinguished anthropologist known for his contributions to the anthropological study of ritual and to ecological anthropology.
Instead of analyzing the cultures as units, he focused "on populations in the ecological sense, that is, as one of the components of a system of strophic exchanges taking place within a bounded area." (Biersack,1999,5). Rappaport explained his reasoning behind using populations as opposed to cultures, "Cultures and ecosystems are not directly commensurable. An ecosystem is a system of matter and energy transactions among unlike populations or organisms and between them and the non-living substances by which they are surrounded. 'Culture' is the label for the category of phenomena distinguished from others by its contingency upon symbols." (Biersack,1999, 6). Throughout his work, he studied how an ecosystem maintains itself through a regulatory force. He aimed to show the adaptive value of different cultural forms in maintaining the pre-existing relationship with their environment. In this case, it was ritual acting as the regulator, when pigs were sacrificed during times of warfare. This was done by the tribal members to acquit themselves of debts to the supernatural. Herds of pigs were maintained and fattened until the required work load pushed the limits of the tribes carrying capacity, in which case the slaughter began.

Julian Steward

Julian  Steward (1902 –1972) was an American anthropologist best known for his role in developing "the concept and method" of cultural ecology, as well as a scientific theory of culture change.
Julian Haynes Steward is regarded as a significant contributor to the field of anthropology and as a major player in the field’s progression and innovation. He is perhaps best known for his writings on his Great Basin experiences between the years of 1918 and 1943, where he published an impressive number of papers and made substantial achievements in his career (Clemmer 1999: ix). While Steward’s career was a diverse and evolving one, he was generally known and praised for his systematic analysis and empirical approach to the field of anthropology, as well as his contribution to the creation of the field of “cultural ecology”. Steward’s impressive career and extensive education, combined with a well rounded and multifaceted personality make him stand out as significant participant and catalyst in the continuing expansion and progression of the field of Anthropology.
Multilinear evolutionists 

Multilinear evolutionists argue that we cannot trace the development/evolution of culture in a unilinear way. Culture can be developed through numerous ways or lines. In the process of development, we can see various cultures that are evolved in different places taking different direction or combined again and forward in the same direction in the specific circumstance.

The term “multilinear evolution” was not coined by Julian Steward only it is associated with his name because of his contribution. For Steward, multilinear evolution means methodology based on the assumption that significant regularities in cultural change occur. According to Steward, we can see parallel developments among historically unrelated cultures. As a multilinear evolutionist anthropologist, Steward focuses on the following points.

• Multiple development sequences (lines or events)
• Empirical methods rather that deductive
• Emphasized on particular cultures
• Concreteness of specifically
• Determination of cultural law.  

Talcott Parsons

Talcott Parsons (1902-82) was for many years the best-known sociologist in the United States, and indeed one of the best-known in the world. He produced a general theoretical system for the analysis of society that came to be called structural functionalism. Parsons' analysis was largely developed within his major published works:

The Structure of Social Action (1937), The Social System (1951), Structure and Process in Modern Societies (1960), Sociological Theory and Modern Society (1968), Politics and Social Structure (1969).  Talcott Parsons viewed society as a system. He argued that any social system has four basic functional prerequisites: adaptation, goal attainment, integration and pattern maintenance. These can be seen as problems that society must solve if it is to survive. The function of any part of the social system is understood as its contribution to meeting the functional prerequisites.   Another in support of Functionalism is Talcott Parsons. Parsons claims that society is the way it is as social structures are interconnected and dependant on each other. Functionalists therefore see change as evolutionary – change in one part of society will eventually occur in another. Social ills e.g. crime and deviance, have disabling effects on society and gradually effect other parts. They recognise interconnections between various parts of society occur due to a value consensus. Parsons believes that as society changes, it develops and the pattern variables within it will become more complex. Change, therefore, trickles throughout society. Parsons summed this up as the ‘Organic Analogy’. Criticisms of Talcott Parsons Structural Function Criticisms of Talcott Parsons' Structural Functionalism Talcott Parsons' sociological theory of structural functionalism was a dominant perspective of analyzing society until the 1960s. It was particularly very influensive in English speaking countries, especially in the United States of America, since the end of the Second World War. However, its significance began to be questioned, in the 1950s, as a result of increasing criticisms labeled at its discovered inadequacies. Criticisms arose in critical attack of Structural Functionalism's static and abstract focus on maintenance of social order, social stability/regulation and the structures within society and its lack of acknowledging social change and conflict. In other words it was criticized of its conservatism to sustain status quo. Thus, this paper will discuss the main reasons why Structural Functionalism was considered by critics as having a conservative bias in its analysis of society.

Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942)

It is important to remember that Malinowski is a product of his times and those who came before him. His belief that society is a system of “interrelated parts” as well as the thought of the Kula as a physical system directly mirrors Spencer’s “organic analogy.” Though Malinowski was influenced by Durkheim, similar to Radcliffe-Brown; Malinowski studied behavior in cultural context, dissimilar to Radcliff-Brown who observed social structures as an abstract concept that exist separate from the individuals. Malinowski incorporated the Boasian concepts of participant observation and integration of culture in his work,  but he also vehemently opposed Boasian Historical Particularism and Marxist doctrine; respectively, focusing on the “interrelation of elements within a society” instead of the history of the group in question and his having called idea of “the primitive communism of savages” a “widespread misconception.”
Malinowski was a Polish-born British anthropologist, known for his theories in Psychological Functionalism. He thought that culture and cultural practices fulfilled an individual’s biological needs, therefore concluding that humans can never be without culture because they would not be able to survive. From the book, these biological needs included nutrition, reproduction, bodily comforts, safety, relaxation, movement, and growth. Without fulfilling these needs, individuals would not help in contributing to a culture’s success. In his research, Malinowski looked into how people pursued their own goals while working within the confines of cultural limitations. How does he view native populations? What were Malinowski’s views on colonialism and racial hierarchy?

Malinowski originated the school of social anthropology known as functionalism. In contrast to Radcliffe-Brown's structural functionalism, Malinowski argued that culture functioned to meet the needs of individuals rather than society as a whole. He reasoned that when the needs of individuals, who comprise society, are met, then the needs of society are met. To Malinowski, the feelings of people and their motives were crucial knowledge to understand the way their society functioned:

Besides the firm outline of tribal constitution and crystallized cultural items which form the skeleton, besides the data of daily life and ordinary behavior, which are, so to speak, its flesh and blood, there is still to be recorded the spirit—the natives' views and opinions and utterances.

Malinowski likewise influenced the course of African history, serving as an academic mentor to Jomo Kenyatta, the father and first president of modern-day Kenya. Malinowski also wrote the introduction to Facing Mount Kenya.

Strength and Weakness 

His methodology in achieving this involved a three part system:

1.     Complex relationships recorded in Synoptic charts:
Just as kinship charts detail complex familial relations, these synoptic charts illustrate relationships in other dimensions of culture economic, legal, magical, rights to territory, etc.

2.     Nuances of behavior (the imponderabilia of actual life) Malinowski reminded ethnographers that their subjects are living humans, not museum specimens.

3.     Subjective mental states, derived from

According to Malinowski, culture exists to meet the basic biological, psychological, and social needs of the individual.  

Weakness 

1. Malinowski extrapolated from the particular case of the Trobriand islanders to all traditional societies.
2. Non-falsifiable: you can always come up with some functional explanation of a particular practice in terms of needs. But dont societies do things which are counter-productive for the individuals, or that are maintained because they are simply customary, not having any particular function?

 

Radcliffe Brown

Radcliffe Brown (1881 – 1955) was an English social anthropologist who developed the theory of Structural Functionalism.
He shared with Lévi-Strauss the notion that a major goal of social anthropology was to identify social structures and formal relationships between them, and that qualitative or discrete mathematics would be a necessary tool to do this. In that sense Radcliffe-Brown may be considered one of the fathers of social network analysis.
In addition to identifying abstract relationships between social structures, Radcliffe-Brown argued for the importance of the notion of a 'total social structure', which is the sum total of social relations in a given social unit of analysis during a given period. The identification of 'functions' of social practices was supposed to be relative to this total social structure.
Society is an organism
Radcliffe-Brown drew from Durkheim the idea that social institutions perform a ‘function’ which corresponds to the needs of the social organism, society. Durkheim attempted to find objective criteria by which to judge whether a given society at given time is normal or pathological, eunomic or dysnomic. He argued that the increase in the rate of suicide was symptomatic of a dysnomic or in his terminology, anomic social condition.

Radcliffe-Brown made an analogy between social life and organic life. An animal organism is an agglomeration of cells, an integrated living whole, an integrated system of complex molecules. The system of relations by which these units are related is the organic structure.

The life of an organism is conceived as the functioning of a structure. It is through the continuity of the functioning that the continuity of the structure is preserved. The function of any part is the part it plays in, the contribution it makes to, the life of the organism.

If we examine such a community as an African or Australian tribe we can recognise the existence of a social structure. Individual human beings, the essential units in this instance, are connected by a definite set of social relations into an integrated whole.

Criticisms

Radcliffe-Brown was often criticized for failing to consider the effect of historical changes in the societies he studied, in particular changes brought about by colonialism, but he is now considered, together with Bronisław Malinowski, as the father of modern social anthropology

Emile Durkheim

Émile Durkheim ( 1858 – 1917) was a French sociologist. He formally established the academic discipline and, with Karl Marx and Max Weber, is commonly cited as the principal architect of modern social science and father of sociology.
Much of Durkheim's work was concerned with how societies could maintain their integrity and coherence in modernity; an era in which traditional social and religious ties are no longer assumed, and in which new social institutions have come into being. His first major sociological work was The Division of Labor in Society (1893). In 1895, he published his Rules of the Sociological Method and set up the first European department of sociology, becoming France's first professor of sociology. Durkheim's seminal monograph, Suicide (1897), a study of suicide rates in Catholic and Protestant populations, pioneered modern social research and served to distinguish social science from psychology and political philosophy. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912), presented a theory of religion, comparing the social and cultural lives of aboriginal and modern societies.
Society as collective representation
Regarding the society itself, like social institutions in general, Durkheim saw it as a set of social facts. Even more than "what society is", Durkheim was interested in answering "how is a society created" and "what holds a society together". In his Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim attempted to answer the question of what holds the society together. He assumes that humans are inherently egoistic, but norms, beliefs and values (collective consciousness) form the moral basis of the society, resulting in social integration.Collective consciousness is of key importance to the society, its requisite function without which the society cannot survive. Collective consciousness produces the society and holds it together, and at the same time individuals produce collective consciousness through their interactions. Through collective consciousness human beings become aware of one another as social beings, not just animals.

The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society forms a determinate system with a life of its own. It can be termed the collective or common consciousness.

 

In Suicide (1897), Durkheim explores the differing suicide rates among Protestants and Catholics, arguing that stronger social control among Catholics results in lower suicide rates. According to Durkheim, Catholic society has normal levels of integration while Protestant society has low levels. Overall, Durkheim treated suicide as a social fact, explaining variations in its rate on a macro level, considering society-scale phenomena such as lack of connections between people (group attachment) and lack of regulations of behavior, rather than individuals' feelings and motivations.

Strength and Weakness:

It is right to see Durkheim's work as a unity of thought, even though it shows development between works and within them. It is possible to see The Division of Labour, The Rules of Sociological Method, Suicide and The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life as phases, but...
It will not do, in short, to divide Durkheim's thought into mutant and disconnected phases labelled evolutionary, metaphysical, empirical and functional-institutional and to assert that these reflect, in order, his four major published works. What all four works have in common - and this applies also to the books posthumously published as well as the articles that appear in L'Année and elsewhere - is a social metaphysic and a methodology rooted in the conviction that took shape in Durkheim's mind as he wrote The Division of Labour: that all human behaviour above the strictly physiological must be regarded as emanating from, or else sharply conditioned by, society: that is, by the totality of groups, norms and institutions within which every human being consciously and unconsciously exists from the moment of his birth. (Nisbet, 1970, 87-88).
For Durkheim any need for reduction did not go beyond the social. The social is the concern of sociology, and if it wasn't then there was no sociology. The collective conscience, or the conscience collective, exists above and beyond individual psychology. This is our understanding of and commitment to society through its many norms. The Rules of Sociological Method (1982), itself an interesting title, argues the case for social facts. We are born into collective institutions and we face them in making ourselves individuals. Suicide (1951) is where he demonstrated the level of the social, that its rate of change is reflected in collective events. There is a more than a hint towards the symbolic (linguistic) too with collective representations, being the communication of general ideas and beliefs.
Social facts rise above individual circumstances and have their own existence. They meet us from the outside, as it were, and seem to strike everyone as being the same. Durkheim categorised them into mechanistic and organic, but did not give much in the way of a causal relationship of development, a legitimate area of sociological enquiry at the social level, but said more about how they functioned.
In The Division of Labour in Society (1982) Durkheim was interested in the moral density of society - how people interact. This "moral" meant the method of interaction.
Mechanistic society was self-same in its parts, well defined as a collective conscience and strongly disciplined.
Increasing specialisation and diversity leads to organic solidarity from mechanistic solidarity and a weakening in the collective conscience.
Nevertheless the collective conscience is important because it underpins the potential anarchy of individualistic economic contracts with shared assumptions and understandings. An example would be, "My word is my bond" in the City of London, which came from the British upper class society of gentlemen. The guiding collective conscience however is more far reaching than this example.

Structural functionalism

Structural functionalism, or simply functionalism, is a framework for building theory that sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. This approach looks at society through a macro-level orientation, which is a broad focus on the social structures that shape society as a whole, and believes that society has evolved like organisms.This approach looks at both social structure and social functions. Functionalism addresses society as a whole in terms of the function of its constituent elements; namely norms, customs, traditions, and institutions.
A common analogy, popularized by Herbert Spencer, presents these parts of society as "organs" that work toward the proper functioning of the "body" as a whole.In the most basic terms, it simply emphasizes "the effort to impute, as rigorously as possible, to each feature, custom, or practice, its effect on the functioning of a supposedly stable, cohesive system".
For Talcott Parsons, "structural-functionalism" came to describe a particular stage in the methodological development of social science, rather than a specific school of thought.The structural functionalism approach is a macrosociological analysis, with a broad focus on social structures that shape society as a whole.

G. Elliot Smith

G. Elliot Smith (1871-1937) was a prominent British anatomist who produced a most curious view of cultural distribution that Egypt was the source of all higher culture. He based this on the following assumptions: (1) man was uninventive, culture seldom arose independently, and culture only arose in certain circumstances; (2) these circumstances only existed in ancient Egypt, which was the location from which all culture, except for its simplest elements, had spread after the advent of navigation; (3) human history was full of decadence and the spread of this civilization was naturally diluted as it radiated outwardly.

British anthropologists Arthur Keith and Grafton Elliot Smith both supported the European origin of humankind as opposed to models of Asian and African origin. In several of his works, Smith argued that Europe was the cradle of humanity, identifying a European Mediterranean race as the occupants of the original home of modern humans. His cradle was large, as he claimed the Mediterranean race had occupied the Levant, Egypt and western Europe, including the British isles. He especially linked the Mediterranean race to the civilization of Egypt. Smith's arguments later became known as his theory of diffusionism. According to Smith and William James Perry Egypt was the source of all cultural innovations and the ultimate source of human civilization.
According to Smith “Man did not become truly erect until his brain had developed in a very particular way to make it possible for him to use his hands”, this line of reasoning reinforced the European origin of human which both Smith and Arthur Keith supported as the mostly large brained specimens such as the Cro-magnon had been found in Europe.

Strength:
Smith and other British Diffusionists developed an assumption that to understand culture and society we should understand the diffusion process.This emerged a new perspective in anthropology. He mention Egypt as a favourable place and environment for emergence of culture. He developed that culture and civilization go head to head.

Weakness:
1.Culture is not the subject that emerges on a specific place and time, therefore ancient Egypt only cannot be taken as cultural cardle.
2. The analysis of British diffusionist is so narrow line.
3. Smith has given name as uncivilized societies to those societies which are out of influence of the civilization and culture of Egypt.
4. There is a lack of scientific interpretation and analysis about cultural diffusion.
 

Diffision and Franz Boas

Diffusionism
Diffusionism as an anthropological school of thought, was an attempt to understand the nature of culture in terms of the origin of culture traits and their spread from one society to another. Versions of diffusionist thought included the conviction that all cultures originated from one culture center (heliocentric diffusion); the more reasonable view that cultures originated from a limited number of culture centers (culture circles); and finally the notion that each society is influenced by others but that the process of diffusion is both contingent and arbitrary.
Diffusion may be simply defined as the spread of a cultural item from its place of origin to other places (Titiev 1959:446). A more expanded definition depicts diffusion as the process by which discrete culture traits are transferred from one society to another, through migration, trade, war, or other contact.
Diffusionist research originated in the middle of the nineteenth century as a means of understanding the nature of the distribution of human culture across the world. By that time scholars had begun to study not only advanced cultures, but also cultures of nonliterate people (Beals and Hoijer 1959:664). Studying these very diverse cultures created the major issue of discerning how humans progressed from primeval conditions to superior states (Kuklick 1996:161). Among the major questions about this issue was whether human culture had evolved in a manner similar to biological evolution or whether culture spread from innovation centers by diffusion.


Franz Boas
Franz Boas (1858 – 1942) was a German-American anthropologist and a pioneer of modern anthropology who has been called the "Father of American Anthropology"
Among Boas' main contributions to anthropological thought was his rejection of the then popular evolutionary approaches to the study of culture, which saw all societies progressing through a set of hierarchic technological and cultural stages, with Western-European culture at the summit. Boas argued that culture developed historically through the interactions of groups of people and the diffusion of ideas, and that consequently there was no process towards continuously "higher" cultural forms. This insight led Boas to reject the "stage"-based organization of ethnological museums, instead preferring to order items on display based on the affinity and proximity of the cultural groups in question. Boas also introduced the ideology of cultural relativism which holds that cultures cannot be objectively ranked as higher or lower, or better or more correct, but that all humans see the world through the lens of their own culture, and judge it according to their own culturally acquired norms. For Boas the object of anthropology was to understand the way in which culture conditioned people to understand and interact with the world in different ways, and to do this it was necessary to gain an understanding of the language and cultural practices of the people studied. By uniting the disciplines of archeology, the study of material culture and history, and physical anthropology, the study of variation in human anatomy, with ethnology, the study of cultural variation of customs and descriptive linguistics, the study of unwritten indigenous languages, Boas created the four field subdivision of anthropology which became prominent in American anthropology in the 20th century.
<sup>Strength
Boas is an important person with the logic of the understanding of the development of culture through the diffusionist perspective in anthropology. He empowered diffusionst interpretation in the study of culture by saying the culture goes ahead through expand and develop. Franz Boas became able to make establish the study of the relationship between human and culture in anthropology. Likewise he conducted the study of ethnic groups and their historical development process especially focused on their language, culture, traditions, magic, folk tales, art, song, dance, etc. Therefore he is also known as mythologist who determines the subject matter of anthropology. He conducted the study of physical growth and change of human beings. He used historical approach in anthropological study.

Weakness:
How much he emphasized the process of diffusion in the development of culture the much he became unable to the interrelated interpretation about the impact of geographical, environmental and ecological aspects in culture. He has not mentioned well about the condition of culture diffusion depends on the interaction of human beings. How much the culture differs in the course of time and how much culture does on changing with the lapse of time is also not mentioned well in his study.</sup>

E B Tylor

Edward Burnett Tylor (1832–1917) is often considered the father of the discipline of anthropology. Despite such eminence, his biography has never been written and the connections between his life and his work have been largely obscured or ignored. This article presents Tylor's main theories in the field of anthropology, especially as presented in his four published books, the most famous of which is Primitive Culture, and in the manuscript sources for his last, unpublished, one on ‘The natural history of religion’. One of Tylor's major areas of interest was the use of anthropological evidence to discover how religion arose. This preoccupation resulted in his influential account of ‘animism’. Drawing upon biographical information not known by previous scholars, Tylor's Quaker formation, later religious scepticism and personal life are connected to his intellectual work. Assumptions such as his evolutionary view of human culture and intellectualist approach to ‘savage’ customs, his use of the comparative method, and distinctive notions of his such as ‘survivals’ are first explained, and then the discussion is taken a step further in order to demonstrate how they were deployed to influence contemporary religious beliefs and practices. Tylor argued that the discipline of anthropology was a ‘reformer's science’. Working within the warfare model of the relationship between faith and science, I reveal the extent to which this meant for him using the tools of this new field of inquiry to bring about changes in the religious convictions of his contemporaries.

Tylor and Interpretation of Culture:

Tylor provided the macro-meaningful of culture as 'Culture or civilization is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, laws, custom and any other compabilities and habits acquired by men as a member of society. Tylor believes on unilinear concept for the study of historical process of civilization and culture, and further emphasis that it has to be accepted. In this regard he has defined cultural development process as a process of lower level to higher level heading process. The conclusion by him about the interpretation of the culture are:-

• The concept of culture includes holistic aspect.
• Human creates culture.
• Culture slowly develops simple to complex being purified.
• The process of cultural evolution always goes forward through unilinear process.

Tylor and Evolutionary Interpretation:-

 Tylor has forwarded a logic that society and culture and their evolution process goes on in  unilinear model and always forwards from simple to complex and progressive situation. He has divided the stages of evolution of civilization and culture into three levels as:-

1. Savagery Stage

2. Barbarism Stage

3. Civilization Age

The initial age of human society and culture was savagery. The society was simple and nomadic. The second stage is barber age. In this age , stable settlement, the us of mud and metal weapons has started. The latest stage is civilized age in which human uses brain and developed language, art, literature, politics etc. Tylor has mentioned the fact that the development of human civilization and culture was done in these three stages gradually from simple to complex.

Tylor and Interpretation of Religion

In the context of the interpretation of evolution Tylor has also mentioned about religion. He has mentioned the stages of the development of religion like this:-

1. Animism

2. Polytheism

3. Monotheism

Tylor has taken religion as important element in the socio-cultural aspects. In this regard he has a logic that the emergence and development process of society and culture should be analysed. Among these stages in the process of socio-cultural evolution, animism was the first stage. There was a strong belief of human beings towards animism. In the second, polytheism concept emerged among human beings and they started to worship gods and goddesses and based on these values, socio-cultural lifestyle developed. The development stage of religion development ended on monotheism. According to this, today people find a single main god of a family taken as virtual and tradition.

Strength:-

Tylor contribution is considered as:-

• The conclusion of him remained that there is greater impact of culture in the explanation of culture and human life.
• In anthropological study field work study and comparative study got the applied form which proved as the important achievement for the anthropological study.
• Emphasized on historical process of society and culture.

The contribution of him in anthropology is incomparable. He has developed a concept  by the scientific interpretation of culture that is acquired. He is able to do the interpretation of evolution of religion.

Weakness:-

In anthropology Tylor is called chair-lover anthropologist. The meaning is that he could do interpretation and analysis of the facts brought by his students. Next allegation is that he emphasized more to the secondary data rather than primary data. He did not do the interpretation of social aspect of religion and stayed on spiritualism.

L.H Morgan

Lewis Henry Morgan (November 21, 1818 – December 17, 1881) was a pioneering American anthropologist and social theorist who worked as a railroad lawyer. He is best known for his work on kinship and social structure, his theories of social evolution, and his ethnography of the Iroquois. Interested in what holds societies together, he proposed the concept that the earliest human domestic institution was the matrilineal clan, not the patriarchal family; the idea was accepted by most pre-historians and anthropologists throughout the late nineteenth century.

In the years that followed, Morgan developed his theories. Combined with an exhaustive study of classic Greek and Roman sources, he crowned his work with his magnum opus Ancient Society(1877). Morgan elaborated upon his theory of social evolution. He introduced a critical link between social progress and technological progress. He emphasized the centrality of family and property relations. He traced the interplay between the evolution of technology, of family relations, of property relations, of the larger social structures and systems of governance, and intellectual development.

Looking across an expanded span of human existence, Morgan presented three major stages: savagery, barbarism, and civilization. He divided and defined the stages by technological inventions, such as use of fire, bow, pottery in the savage era; domestication of animals, agriculture, and metalworking in the barbarian era; and development of the alphabet and writing in the civilization era.

1. Savagery Stage:

According to the analysis of Morgan the initial stage of the evolution of human society and culture was savagery stage. Savagery society was nomadic and hunting nature. This stage has also been divided into three stages as:

a. Lower Savagery stage

b. Middle Savagery stage

c. Upper savagery stage

In the society of lower savagery stage the feeling of you and me was not developed. The life was fully nomadic and there was the trend of hunting through the use of naturally made weapons.Likewise, the period of middle savagery stage has some significance because of the invention of fire. The feeling of group protection had come within  the people. In the upper savagery stage, it is taken that family life started to develop because of which sexual relation become limited and started the stability of human life. According to Morgan the people of this stage developed bows.

2. Barbaric Stage:

Morgan mentioned that up to this stage some some socio-cultural development had began. In this stage the invention of mud utensils, stability of settlement, development of the concept about property, construction of weapons, farming system etc. were under formulation process, Morgan has divided this stage also into threee stages as:-

a. Lower barbaric stage

b. Middle barbaric stage

c. Upper barbaric stage

In lower barbaric stage, the art of to make mud utensils, stability of family and communal feeling rapidly developed. In the middle barbaric stage developed the the system of farming and the system of barter exchange. In upper barbaric stage, industrial development started to develop in human society. the discrimination between male and female and the division of labor started. Similarly, the development of small federal states also was done on this stage.

3. Civilization Stage:-

In the process of evolution of society and culture this stage has great significance. In this Stage, script, writing skills, literature and language developed. Morgan in the context of interpretation of his own evolutionary theory about how the evolution of family occured has mentioned his interpretation in different five stages as:

a. Consanguinal family

b. Punaluwa Family

c. Syndasmain family

d. Patriarchal family

e. Monogamous Family.

Strength:

Morgan has great contribution not only to the development of American anthropology but also to the development of anthropological theories in general. He became able to establish the value by explaining the fact that how evolution seems to the development of society and culture. He did the explanation of social organization/institution based on kinship system. More than this, his study helped to understand towards socio-cultural change. He used the study method of primary fact and field study in anthropological study.

Weakness:

The social and cultural organisation and characteristics found by him are not determined as these are of certain period of time. The method of comparative study has not been used. He is unable to study other aspect of culture,i.e religion. The question has been raised that what the cultures develops in all places on the same speeds mention by him?

Positivist and Interpretive debates on Sociological Theory

There is a important role of positivist or scientific perspective and interpretive perspective in the process of study of social events. But there is theoretical debate about which perspective or concept is more important for the study of the problems which are in the social complexity.

According to August Comte Positivism(positive philosophy) is the scientific study of social phenomena.

In Cours de philosophie positive, Comte began by asserting that ‘‘the first characteristic of Positive Philosophy is that it regards all phenomena as subject to natural Laws’’ .

the goal of positivistic sociology is to ‘‘pursue an accurate discovery of . . . Laws, with a view to reducing them to the smallest possible number,’’ and ‘‘our real business is to analyze accurately the circumstance of phenomena, to connote them by natural relations of succession and resemblance’’. Comte’s exemplar for this advocacy was Newton’s law of gravitation, an affirmation of his early preference to label sociology as ‘‘social physics.’’ Moreover, such laws were to be used to reconstruct society.

The concept of ‘‘positivism’’ was originally used to denote the scientific study of social phenomena, but today the term positivism has become vague. Most often, it is used as a pejorative smear for certain kinds of intellectual activity in the social sciences, sociology in particular. Most frequently, at least within sociology, positivism is associated with such undesirable states as ‘‘raw empiricism,’’ ‘‘mindless quantification,’’ ‘‘anti-humanism,’’ ‘‘legitimation of the status quo,’’ and ‘‘scientific pretentiousness.’’ With few exceptions (e.g., Turner 1985), sociologists are unwilling to label themselves ‘‘positivists.’’ Yet, the titular founder of sociology—Auguste Comte—used this label as a rallying cry for developing formal and abstract theory that could still be used to remake society;

In today’s context it is not possible not possible to reduce the rules of sociology to an abstract principle such is in natural sciences for example Newton’s law of gravitation holds true for the whole of universe.

But in study of society all the phenomena of a single nature can not be abstracted in a single principle such as the meaning of swastika in Nepali culture it is considered auspicious and used in the religious ceremonies and rituals but this symbol was used by the Hitler as a Ethnic symbol and to wage war against other races.

The role of positivism in the study of social phenomena are:

1. Social science should be objective and value free.

2. the objective of social research should be able to generalize the conclusion through the study of cause and effect of event.

3. There remains the possibility of pro-declaration in the study of social subjects.

4. The elements to justify the conclusion should be based on positivist fact.

5. By using objective method, we can count the real facts of social events.

Interpretive (also non-positivist or Anti positivism  is the view in social science that academics must necessarily reject empiricism and the scientific method in the conduct of social theory and research.

Antipositivism relates to various historical debates in the philosophy and sociology of science. In modern practice, however, non-positivism may be equated with qualitative research methods, while positivist research is more quantitative. Positivists typically use research methods such as experiments and statistical surveys, while antipositivists use research methods which rely more on unstructured interviews or participant observation. Currently, positivist and non-positivist methods are often combined.

In sociology, interpretive analysis concept can be understood in the following meaning.

1. The meaning of event should be understood centralized in the social context.

2. Social study has to be done from the perspective of value laden rather than value free. the impact of social value should be understood.

3. In the study of social events, the study of individual events should be emphasized by using inductive method.

4. we can understand the social realities on the basis of social comparison.

5. We can understand the facts and figures from personal perspective, interpretation and analysis.

In sociological and anthropological study, these two concepts or theories have their own value and importance. These two concepts or theories can be understand in relations of social complexity by centralize only the social research on objective an subjective interpretation.