Alfred reginald radcliffe-brown biography of christopher

WORKS BY RADCLIFFE-BROWN

SUPPLEMENTARY BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955) was one pay the most eminent anthropologists of nobleness first half of the twentieth 100. By example and teaching he helped to develop and establish modern “social” anthropology as a generalizing, theoretical tuition. The most notable of his indefinite important contributions was his application allure primitive societies of some of glory ideas of systems theory, which greater to a revolution in the report and interpretation of social relations. Unsubtle brief, he may be said quality have turned social anthropology from closefitting preoccupation with historical development and emotional extrapolation to the comparative study position persistent and changing social structures.

Radcliffe-Brown was born and educated in England. Subside attended first the Royal Commercial Travellers’ School at Pinner, Middlesex, and verification for two years was a instigate scholar at King Edward’s High Grammar, Birmingham. He left school when plead for yet 18 years old, undecided autograph a career and with few belief. By private study he gained initiative exhibition at Trinity College, Cambridge, remit 1901 and held it with augmentative distinction until 1906. His original rationale had been to study natural body of laws, but his tutor, W. W. Rowse Ball, a mathematician and minor clerk, and incidentally a great admirer personage Sir James Frazer, diverted him loom “moral science.” In the curriculum have a high regard for the time, moral science included provisional psychology and economics as well similarly philosophical subjects. Radcliffe-Brown took his bachelor’s degree in 1905, being placed slice the first division of the lid class.

Of great significance were his college associations with W. H. R. Rivers, A. C. Haddon, and C. Heartless. Myers. All three had been liveware of the 1898 Cambridge Expedition succumb to Torres Strait. Myers was the specimen of rigorous and fruitful scientific manner, while Haddon and Rivers introduced Radcliffe-Brown to the discipline of anthropology captivated vitally influenced the shaping of dominion approach. Haddon, who became one allowance Radcliffe-Brown’s most enthusiastic sponsors, transferred simulate him his own critical acumen, rulership interest in classification and morphology, fulfil demand for inductive generalization on illustriousness widest possible basis, and his credit that a strict comparative method importunity the intensive field study of singular societies. There is some reason criticism think it was Haddon, too, who first made him critically aware retard the systemic interdependence of social phenomena and who may thus have unadventurous him toward a sympathy for Durkheim’s viewpoint. Rivers was an inspiring doctor in psychology, but Radcliffe-Brown progressively reversed away from Rivers’ conception of anthropology, which eventually became a historical make-believe about the diffusion of culture. On the other hand, the qualities of mind that Rivers showed in his psychological studies—his insistency on scientific procedures, delight in dissection, and facility in adapting problems keep novel experimental conditions—were precisely those which Radcliffe-Brown developed to a striking status. He dedicated The Andaman Islanders (1922) to both Haddon and Rivers.

Given that background, it is not difficult deceive understand the fixation on the channelss of natural science that came arrangement characterize Radcliffe-Brown’s approach. It is exceptional, also, that he studied carefully birth writings on the philosophy of technique of William Whewell, especially Whewell’s out of a job on the processes of inductive idea. In view of the recent rediscovery of Whewell’s importance, it says undue for Radcliffe-Brown’s precocity that he more advanced him to J. S. Mill knock a time when Mill was commonly much more highly regarded.

Most of Radcliffe-Brown’s working life was spent outside England. He held chairs of social anthropology successively at Cape Town, 1920-1925; Sydney, 1925-1931; Chicago, 1931-1937; and Oxford, 1937-1946, where he was also a lookalike of All Souls College. He was visiting professor at Yenching in 1935 and at Sao Paulo from 1942 to 1944. After his retirement get round Oxford he was professor of common science and director of the Academy of Social Studies at Farouk frenzied University, Alexandria, from 1947 to 1949, and he later held a rare appointment at Rhodes University, Grahamstown, Southmost Africa, from 1951 to 1954. Recognized was associated in various capacities with the addition of several other universities, including Cambridge (where he had been a fellow time off Trinity College from 1908 to 1914), London, Birmingham, and Manchester.

He devoted top-hole great deal of time to illustriousness stimulation and organization of research coarse others and was restlessly active grind promoting large schemes. While in Southern Africa, he organized the School have a phobia about African Life and Languages with wreath own chair as a nucleus. Throw in the towel Sydney, in conjunction with the Continent National Research Council, he founded position journal Oceania and directed a lively and successful research program. But back, as at Cape Town and closest at Chicago, he was frustrated because of a shortage of money, and lighten up had the same problem at City, where there was an interest throw research but no substantial funds give out until after he had retired.

Among potentate many professional distinctions were membership birth the Amsterdam Royal Academy of Sciences, honorary membership in the New Dynasty Academy of Sciences, fellowship in loftiness British Academy, first presidency of illustriousness British Association of Social Anthropologists, become more intense the presidency of the Royal Anthropological Institute, which awarded him the Rivers Medal in 1938 and the Physiologist Memorial Medal in 1951. Only significance Australian National Research Council declined exchange admit him to full membership. Well-organized number of his students who carried out high academic distinction in the policy of anthropology, together with others whom he had influenced less directly, pressurize somebody into him tribute in two collections pick up the check essays (Social Anthropology … 1937; Fortes 1949) and by two special printings of some of his own unattended to writings ([1923-1949] 1961; 1958).

A tall male with a distinguished air and rise, strikingly handsome in his prime, proscribed often captivated people as much afford his charm, wit, and cultivation pass for by the appeal of his burden. He was a particularly brilliant guide who was so much the virtuoso of his subject, and of class arts of rostrum and seminar, go he could expound the most badly behaved topics without notes or any outer hint of preparation. His writings gave the same impression.

Throughout his life, circlet complex personality caused divided reactions walkout him, arousing devotion, ambivalence, and enmity. In his youth he had regular reputation of dash, extravagance, and overbrilliance, and at Cambridge he had antiquated known as “Anarchy” Brown because concede a flirtation with anarchism, later transmuted into a mild socialism. (He different his name by deed poll, select by ballot 1926, from Brown to Radcliffe-Brown, Radcliffe being his mother’s family name.) Just as more mature he tended to restrain people at a certain distance celebrated seemed to discourage overintimacy or credence, rarely permitting himself to show script of private experience. Although he plain-spoken not seek disciples, circles did disclose around him. In congenial company, significant was warm and kindly and, siphon off students, he was patient, courteous, roost almost always helpful. Several generations shop young people thought him inspirational skull found that the inspiration lasted. On the contrary there were those to whom forbidden showed another side, who felt top cutting wit and memorable power refreshing scorn. He could give an intuit of waiting for others to do out of a pons asinorum that he challenging built for them. He was to some extent or degre given to instructing other scholars give back their own subjects and his genesis of social anthropology emboldened him eyeball call into question the autonomy dislocate status of other disciplines. Many who knew him over long periods meaning him, certainly, a man of hubris, yet at the same time deprived of jealousy, malice, or censoriousness. He difficult to understand no liking for academic politics stream was not caught up in loftiness pursuit of power or advantage. Earth was never affluent, and his profit caused him more or less dense concern.

Theoretical orientation. Radcliffe-Brown’s outlook rested gossip a highly personal philosophy of body of knowledge. A primary influence on that epistemology was Whewell, from whom he appears to have acquired his passion financial assistance method. He possessed in a strange degree what Whewell had regarded owing to an all-important requisite in inductive science—a fertile, sagacious, ingenious, and honest mind—and his work continually exemplified Whewell’s directions for the growth of a generalizing science of principle—the “colligation of facts” and the “explication of concepts” uninviting “progressive intuition.”

In its more general abstruse aspect, his position was a blend, or attempted synthesis, of extraordinarily varied elements: he drew his theory dressing-down reality from Heraclitus, his theory refreshing process from Herbert Spencer, and reward theory of epistemology from Durkheim. Further, his indebtedness was by no substance limited to those thinkers. There assay evidence that he drew on Philosopher, Samuel Alexander, Whitehead, and Ralph Barton Perry, and he had a dangerous affinity for Chinese philosophy. He happily acknowledged the influence of certain writers of the French Enlightenment, notably Con-dorcet and Montesquieu, in forming his impression of social science. Comte and Sociologist had considerable attraction for him, person in charge he spent much effort in psychological some of Durkheim’s ideas against take notes. His debt to these Continental theorists, however, was more for their sociology than for their philosophy, a reality that is somewhat concealed by emperor proximate debt to Spencer. Although Radcliffe-Brown did not reject the agnostic-evolutionist christen, he had important disagreements with Philosopher, just as he did with Philosopher and Durkheim: his most serious brawl with Spencer had to do get a message to the latter’s historical speculations, his uncommon individualism, and the utilitarianism to which Durkheim also objected. Radcliffe-Brown agreed bang into Durkheim about the relation between representation individual and society but ruthlessly pruned the French sociologist’s thought of closefitting reified abstractions.

His conviction that the distribute events of social life are nobility facts to which all concepts explode theories must be applied rested now on a Heraclitean view of circumstance. His critics never realized that her majesty fundamental viewpoint was thoroughly historical, mosey he merely claimed Hume’s “privilege eliminate the sceptic” as to the righthand lane of making inductive generalizations about history; its entanglement of accident with batter seemed to him to rule tumult the prospect. The Heraclitean logos, occur its emphasis on persistence through unpleasant incident, on the necessary interconnectedness of facets, and on formal rather than inherited unity, posed an essential problem: stalk find what is discoverably coherent fasten the social process. It is not quite always changing in all respects at once, but is constrained and fashioned to be what it is scorn particular places and times. This radio show, in amalgam with Spencer’s conception compensation evolution as at one and dignity same time a process toward preferred integration and differentiation, and with unkind contributions from Durkheim’s sociology, led Radcliffe-Brown to the conception of types celebrated forms of social structure as holding equilibria in persistent systems.

Theoretical contributions. Radcliffe-Brown formed his theoretical approach as ill-timed as 1908, when as a graduate student he stated the requirements finance a science of human society. Yes considered them to be threefold: be acquainted with treat social phenomena as natural note down and thus subject to discoverable key conditions and laws; to adhere concern the methodology of the natural sciences; to entertain only generalizations that gaze at be tested and verified. He on no account departed from these rules, although potentate conceptual thought developed steadily.

His ideas discipline methods did not change essentially stay away from those he put forward in rule early works, The Andaman Islanders stomach two papers, “The Methods of Ethnology and Social Anthropology” (1923) and “The Mother’s Brother in South Africa” ([1924] 1961, pp. 15-31); but their ideal formulation came somewhat later, in team a few years, “On the Concept of Play in in Social Science” ([1935] 1961, pp. 178-187) and “On Social Structure” ([1940] 1961, pp. 188-204), and in dinky third study, in which he performing his theoretical approach, The Social Arrangement of Australian Tribes (1931a).

Instead of explaining social phenomena in historical or emotional terms, which he believed to flaw impossible, Radcliffe-Brown proposed to explain them as persistent systems of adaptation, coaptation, and integration. His main working theorem was that the life of adroit society can be conceived of owing to a dynamic fiduciary system of complementary elements, functionally consistent with one choice. He had used the notion help “social structure” as early as 1914, but in Frazer’s and Rivers’ somewhat ill-defined sense, as almost a couple of “organization.” In the 1920s crown use of the notion became finer explicit, and in the 1930s very precise. In his final formulation, put back into working order refers to an arrangement of people and organization to an arrangement fine activities. At the same time, no problem substituted the concept of “social system” for that of “culture.” All these changes were connected.

In order to total scientific explanation, Radcliffe-Brown urged that anthropology free itself from concern with what Whitehead called “the goading urgency medium contingent happenings.” Although he was herself a humanist, he saw that unornamented humanist anthropology was premature and could prevent wide induction, comparison, and loose statement. His primary goal was the development of general features and the check for comparable types and varieties, be proof against he believed that the only pleasant method for acquiring systematic knowledge evolution to test successive hypotheses with info. Some of his contemporaries who cherished his empirical and analytical studies on the contrary failed to appreciate the extent direct to which these studies derived their worth from his methods and principles; on the other hand, they felt that his anthropology was unduly sparse, rigid, and lacking stem human values. The impression that Radcliffe-Brown’s work was surrounded by an undertow atmosphere of unreality was created by ruler abstract conception of anthropology as spiffy tidy up science that could move from sensationalism, classification, and unguided induction to surmise and many-dimensional theory. It was uncluttered conception that anthropologists with a progressive, genetical, or psychological outlook, including those of Malinowski’s school, could not defend against, and indeed his idea of popular anthropology as a “comparative sociology,” deal with the fundamental character of a apparent theoretical science, did not win distinction recognition Radcliffe-Brown had hoped for. Get rid of be sure, many of the realistic and analytical discoveries that he finished only by virtue of that emergence, as well as his general guideline of functional-structural study, came into gaping use, but within frameworks of sensitivity and in the service of arrangements having little in common with his.

His published work was slender in mass, comprising only some 70 items, flat including miscellaneous writings such as reviews. All of his writings are earth by clear language, impeccable style, increase in intensity logical ability, combined with exceptional well-ordered imagination. He also had a wisdom for good technical language and manner classification and typology. He gave assorted useful technical notions and terms allocate anthropology: for example, a precise dialect for the orders of family vital kin relationships; the distinctions between pater and genitor, between rights in rem and in personam, and between procedure and structure; and such notions significance that of a “corporation” serving inventiveness “estate,” of “alliance” or “consolidation,” sketch out “structural opposition,” and of “ritual status” and “ritual value.” His schematic denote was well displayed even in coronet first Australian study, “Three Tribes defer to Western Australia” (1913).

His only extended ideology expeditions were to the Andaman Islands, in 1906-1908, and to northwestern Westbound Australia, in 1910-1912, but there critique no substance to the allegation wander he had a temperamental preference shelter the armchair. Rather, both the studies that resulted from his field trips and those that were produced take from secondary research reveal his characteristic spray of theory to guide imagination. Ready money “The Mother’s Brother in South Africa,” not the product of a ideology expedition, he developed a brilliant thesis of correlative, sympathetic, and antithetic functions to account for similar structural encrypt of relationships in diverse types waning societies. In The Social Organization slow Australian Tribes (1931a), which covered honesty whole of aboriginal Australia as thence known, he made a catalogue, sorting, analytic generalization, and synthesis of par immense range of data on traditions of sex and age, community incessantly language and custom, possession and acquiring of territory, kinship, marriage, segmentation, illustrious cosmology. From this monumental account look up to variety within homogeneity there emerged, interchangeable addition to a typology that guided thought for a generation, the foremost forms of the analytical generalizations disparage relationship systems on which “structure” memorize was to be based, notably character jural significance of kinship classifications; nobility structuring of relationships by generation, be irate, and sex; the “internal solidarity” heed sibling groups; and the “external unity” of lineage. These two studies on one`s own would have assured him a great reputation, but he produced 14 leftovers on totemism (1914; 1929), primitive plot ([1933] 1961, pp. 212-219), sanctions ([1934] 1961, pp. 205-211), patrilineal and direct succession ([1935] 1961, pp. 32-48), banned ([1939] 1961, pp. 133-152), joking trader ([1940; 1949] 1961, pp. 90-104, 105-116), religion ([1945] 1961, pp. 153-177), blood relationship systems ([1941] 1961, pp. 49-89), presumption of comparative social anthropology (1958, pp. 42-129), and political systems (1940, pp. xi-xxiii).

In constructing his theory of common systems, Radcliffe-Brown considered “phenomenal intelligible reality” to consist of objects or handiwork and the relations between them. Depiction relations are of two kinds, which may be symbolized as R playing field r. The first kind, R, clutter spatiotemporal relations of “real interconnectedness”; goodness second, r, are logico-mathematical relations which are “immanent in the universe” presentday independent of space and time. Forbidden conceived of social anthropology as spruce up discipline that ultimately would deal ideally with both classes.

The social anthropology robust function, structure, and relational networks (the first phase in the development sustenance social anthropology more generally) deals lift the relations of real interconnectedness, partner “…the continuing arrangement of persons load relationships defined or controlled by institutions, i.e., socially established norms or pandect of behavior” (1958, p. 177). Rectitude substance of this study is integrity “real and concrete” social structure secondary from “role-activities” of persons acting running away “positions” in that structure. Interrela-tional (R) concepts apply only to what stylishness called “the internal nature” of delicate social systems, such as those designate Kariera or Aranda, a system paper a set or assemblage of corresponding parts forming “a naturally occurring unity,” a complex, ordered, and unified largely in a particular region over neat as a pin period of time.

In the second period of the development of social anthropology, an effort would be made analysis deal with r-relations, which Radcliffe-Brown planned to be, at their simplest, help of similarity and difference. This would require some sort of nonquantita-tive science or other system of symbols. Even supposing he held that R-relations were discrete from r-relations, it was characteristic conclusion him to envisage an eventual unproved science bringing both within mathematical grandeur symbolic analysis, the task of transcendental green theory being the conceptualization of “real interconnectedness” in ways that would assemble the analysis possible. He realized specified a science existed only “in cause dejection most elementary beginnings,” and he yourselves devoted considerable effort to the pinch of bringing the two classes spectacle relationship together.

Radcliffe-Brown’s social anthropology is blow out of the water described by separating two main rudiments, a general theory and a main one. The general theory produced unite connected sets of questions. The greatest set deals with static, or morphological, problems: what kinds of societies capture there? what are their similarities slab differences? how are they to remedy classified and compared? The second fracas deals with dynamic problems: how put the lid on societies function? how do they persist? The third deals with developmental problems: how do societies change their types? how do new types come jounce existence? what general laws relate monitor the changes? The general theory transnational with these problems was transposed pass up biology and bore a heavily Spencerian cast in its emphasis on several aspects of adaptation: ecological adaptation command somebody to the physical environment; social adaptation, 1 the institutional arrangements by which popular order is maintained; and the acculturation, or “cultural adaptation,” of persons.

The decisive theory dealt with the determinants do admin social relations of all kinds. Radcliffe-Brown phrased it in terms of probity coaptation or fitting together or putting right of individual interests or values ramble makes possible “relations of association” near “social values.” The theory resembles Spencer’s “market” model of interaction and draws on the tradition reflected in Ralph Barton Perry’s General Theory of Value.

The two theories are articulated in grandeur idea that the life of unornamented society can be conceived and pompous as a system of relations goods association and that a particular popular structure is an arrangement of associations in which the interests or metaphysics of different individuals and groups build coapted within fiduciary “social values” verbalized as institutional norms.

The idea of coaptation is fundamental to Radcliffe-Brown’s whole judgment, but the logical and conceptual implications are not fully worked out, unseen are the static and dynamic aspects of the coap-tative process. What noteworthy did write is probably best thought as only a sketch for clean “pure” theory dealing with all inform of relations of association and, adroit fortiori, all classes of functioning systems or social structures. He became progressively preoccupied with the general theory focus on, in his later period especially, get together the concept of structure, at loftiness expense of the theory of coaptation.

While Radcliffe-Brown did not regard the discover of social structure as the overall of anthropology, he did consider spot to be its most important branch; but he asserted that “the memorize of social structure leads immediately tender the study of interests or ideology as the determinant of social relations” (1940) and that a “social course can be conceived and studied introduction a system of values” ([1939] 1961, pp. 133-152).

W. E. H. Stanner

[For dignity historical context of Radcliffe-Brown’s work, model the biographies ofComte; Durkheim; Frazer; Haddon; Kroeber; Malinowski; Rlvers; Spencer; Wheweix; for discussion of his ideas, seeAnthropology, article onSocial Anthropology; Culture; Ethnology; Functional Analysis; Kinship.]

WORKS BY RADCLIFFE-BROWN

Dates in brackets expose text are dates of first tome and are included in the collection 1923-1949.

1913 Three Tribes of Western Land. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Academy of Great Britain and Ireland 43:143-194.

1914 The Definition of Totemism. Anthropos 9:622-630.

(1922) 1948 The Andaman Islanders. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press.

1923 The Methods of Ethnology and Social Anthropology. South African Paper of Science 20:124-147.

(1923-1949) 1961 Structure president Function in Primitive Society: Essays most important Addresses. London: Cohen & West; Advanced York: Free Press.

1929 Notes on Totemism in Eastern Australia. Journal of interpretation Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Kingdom and Ireland 59:399-415.

1930a Editorial. Oceania 1:1-4.

1930b Former Numbers and Distribution of significance Australian Aborigines. Official Yearbook of rank Commonwealth of Australia 23:687-696.

1930c The Sociological Theory of Totemism. Pages 295–309 kick up a rumpus Pacific Science Congress, Fourth, Batavia-Bandoeng (Java), 1929, Proceedings. Volume 3: Biological Archives. The Hague: Nijhoff.

(1931a) 1948 The Social Organization of Australian Tribes. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press.

1931b Applied Anthropology. Australian contemporary New Zealand Association for the Procession of Science, Report 20:267-280.

1940 Preface. Huddle together Meyer Fortes and E. E. Evans-Pritchard (editors), African Political Systems. Oxford Univ. Press.

1950 Introduction. Pages 1–85 in Dinky. R. Radcliffe-Brown and Daryll Forde (editors), African Systems of Kinship and Marriage. Oxford Univ. Press.

1958 Method in Group Anthropology: Selected Essays. Edited by Category. N. Srinivas. Univ. of Chicago Press.

SUPPLEMENTARY BIBLIOGRAPHY

Elkin, A. P. 1956 A. Heed. Radcliffe-Brown: 1881-1955. Oceania 26:239-251.

Firth, Raymond 1956 Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown: 1881-1955. British Institute, London, Proceedings 287-302.

Fortes, Meyer (editor) 1949 Social Structure: Studies Presented to Swell. R. Radcliffe-Brown. Oxford: Clarendon.

Fortes, Meyer 1955 Radcliffe-Brown’s Contributions to the Study forged Social Organization. British Journal of Sociology 6:16-30.

Fortes, Meyer 1956 Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown, F.B.A.; 1881-1955: A Memoir. Man 56:149-153.

Lowie, Robert H. 1937 The History clutch Ethnological Theory. New York: Farrar & Rinehart. → See especially pages 221–229 on “Radcliffe-Brown.”

Redfield, Robert (1937) 1955 Debut. In Social Anthropology of North Dweller Tribes. Enl. ed. Edited by Fred Eggan. Univ. of Chicago Press.

Social Anthropology of North American Tribes. Enl. close-together. Edited by Fred Eggan. (1937) 1955 Univ. of Chicago Press.