The Past and the Present in the Present Author(s): Maurice Bloch Source: Man, New Series, Vol.

12, No. 2 (Aug., 1977), pp. 278-292 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2800799 . Accessed: 25/06/2013 11:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Man.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 145.18.242.72 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:59:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE

PAST

AND

THE

PRESENT

IN THE

PRESENT*

MAURICE BLOCH

& Political London School of Economics Science forsocialchange of how to account theold problem by considering Thislecture starts either theysee thesocialprosomeof themodelsusedbecause, theoretically and criticises cessin terms used by the actorsand so are unableto explainhow it is thatactorscan of changeas occurring in terms or theysee the mechanisms changethoseterms, totally mechanisms can be transformed how these aliento theactors and so are unableto explain notionthat to Durkheim's is traced action.The sourceof thisproblem into meaningful whichare it is arguedthatthoseconcepts By contrast is sociallydetermined. cognition in ritual butonlyfound ofknowledge arenottypical mouldedto socialstructure discourse, as therequirebysuchfactors areconstrained discourse usingnon-ritual whiletheconcepts availableto actors are terms This meansthatthere by ments of humanactionon nature. it is are mouldedby it. Finally sincenotall terms can be criticised whichthesocialorder about statements folk onlyrefer to ritualized as socialstructure thatsuchnotions suggested whichare withthoseconcepts precisely discourse expressed in ritual statements society, The Durkof cognition. relativity of the cultural of thetheory givenas demonstrations of onlycertain a correlation is merely and cognition between society correlation heimian is present in difThis typeof discourse of cognition. aspects statements and certain ethical hierarchy ofinstituted to the degree amounts according in varying of society ferent types of time theories abouttheconceptualisation manifest. Anthropological societies thatthese argument. are givenas an example of thegeneral

I in his styleof in two ways. First In thislecture I want to followMalinowski one might as wellhangfora that which, as I seeit,is basedon thebelief argument view ofthe highly realistic sheepas fora lamb,and secondby usingMalinowski's ForMalinowtheories. other as a toolforcriticising matter subject anthropologist's placeamongthepeople taking skiwhatwas to be studied was a longconversation' join. A long withwhom we live during and in whichwe inevitably field-work but fromtimeto timealso conversation wherenot only words are exchanged language and blows, but where nonetheless animals,people, gestures things, in that was to be foundthere, part.For him everything playsa mostprominent naturally ofthepastfollowed importance conversation. His view ofthetheoretical converbe seenin thison-going from this.On theone hand,sincethepastcannot hand,whenit does appearin value,and on theother it hasno explanatory sation, of thepresent. in terms matter it has to be explained discourse as a subject value,is clearly thatthepasthas no explanatory The first conclusions: of these has begunlong observes whichtheanthropologist wrong.The long conversation anyof thepeopletheanthrobefore he came and indeedit hasbegunlong before
* The Malinowski MemorialLecture, delivered at the London School of Economics& Political Science on 7 December I976.
Man (N.S.)
12, 278-292.

This content downloaded from 145.18.242.72 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:59:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAURICE

BLOCH

279

and statements theseobserved meets havebeen born.As in all discourse pologist conof shared and in terms communicative bothsemantically actsmustbe related andso,ifonly them that havepreceded suchas words, syntax, etc.to those ventions it. it answers thepastin that apartfrom thepresent cannot be understood forthis, of is not the onlyrequirement relation to past utterances However a semantic otheranthropologists and Malinowski in stressing something was right meaning, in hand.So evenif to thetasks that whatis saidmustalso be adapted often forget, ask with view about the we can nonetheless Malinowski's we reject past general him what explains the appearanceof the past as a subject matterin the present? of social theory however, I wantto look once againat Radcliffe-Brown's First, in hasbecomean essential A denunciation ofthis partofallpubliclectures structure. of thesedebut whatconcerns me hereis thattheveryfrequency anthropology theories itself raisesinteresting Why if Radcliffe-Brown's problems. nunciations more fruitful? Or, to put the matter were so wrong,were theyso evidently a science is now clear, ifwhathe was talking aboutwas not,as I think specifically, he be dealtwithonce and for and culture, whatwas it and whycannot of society and morefundaleavingtheearlier first, all? I wantto answerthislastquestion later. mental one until are and these Durkheim from inherited two keypropositions Radcliffe-Brown and selfus here: i) thatsocietyis a homogeneous, what concerns organised of classiand systems of understanding entity; 2) thatthecategories reproducing comesfrom influence that constructive on them aresocialin origin, is,that fication between them, andthelinkage whichexists suchthings as theform ofsocialgroups thissecond theextra-social world.Now, although and not from constraints from is themoreadvenof cognition thesocialdetermination concerning proposition The first, by anthropologists. challenged it has hardly been theoretically turous static rule-governed on the otherhand,thatsociety is an organic, harmonious, of the Actuallymostof the critics has come in forcontinual criticism. system, pointabout cognition, have acceptedthe Durkheimian organicview of society by thenotionthat is implied butI wantto showthattheorganic view of society of thislatter and,thatit is becauseof theacceptance determines cognition society fail. nature of socialstructure of thestatic pointthatthecriticisms has gone systems of thesocialoriginof cognitive The reasons why thetheory is linked to a arenot at all clear, but it is in partbecausethistheory unchallenged have or societies cultures belief adhered to by mostanthropologists; thatdifferent used as part of Durkheimhimself systems of thought. fundamentally different by constrained were primarily evidenceagainst the view thatcognitive systems ideasof suchthings peopleshad different datawhichshowedthatdifferent nature, Sincewe had as time, and so on (Durkheim I9I2). causation space,animalspecies, different he argued,but all lived in the same world, the of thought, systems has differences must comefrom American cultural anthropology Similarly society. like Herder: thatevery of Germanromantics via Boas, the theories inherited, fromthe view of theworld(Lowie I937). Equally, own proper peoplehavetheir untheDurkheimian oftheorigin system hasgonelargely ofcognitive theory left, Marx's own forgetting of Marxism, This is becausemanyversions challenged. alsorelyon theHegeliannotionof distinction between ideologyand knowledgez,

This content downloaded from 145.18.242.72 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:59:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

280

MAURICE

BLOCH

therelativity Thisis especially trueofsomeoftherecently ofcognition. influential Althusserian versions. Givensuch broad agreement it is not surprising thatthe viewthat aresocially determined cognitive hasagainbeenrecently systems poweras Levi-Strauss fullyput by such variedbut influential writers (I962), Douglas to mention (I966; I970; I975), Geertz(I973) and Godelier only anthro(I973), pologists. If theview of thesocialdetermination and classification is everyof cognition where,so have forquitea timebeen criticisms of thenotionof socialstructure. on thepointthatalthough Theseall focus is claimed socialstructure to be a theory of society, it onlyconcentrates on verylimited of thenatural aspects phenomena, and thatwithitsemphasis on thereproduction it fails ofthesystem to account for changeand conflict. Thus criticisms of Radcliffe-Brown's position have focused on two points:the first itis nottrue is,that that societies thesame,and that stay therefore someroom has to be madein thetheory forchange, and thesecond, thatrulesof behaviour, sincetheyare notnecessarily arenot 'all thestory'.In mostcasesthese followed, twopoints arelinked, andthesolution offered to these in Radcliffe-Brown's failings notionofsocialstructure is theconstruction ofa two-level modelofsociety which in a variety incorporates of waystheMarxist-inspired distinction between superand infra-structure. structure The clearest of thesetheories is perhaps Firth's disbetweenthelevel of socialorganisation tinction and thelevel of socialstructure (Firth I964). ForFirth is muchwhatRadcliffe-Brown socialstructure meant bythe whilesocialorganisation is thepattern phrase, ornot produced bypeoplefollowing therulesof socialstructure. of these rulesleads following disobedience Systematic to social changeat the level of organisation and Firthsuggests thatsomehow things can reachsucha pointthat changes becomenecessary in thesocialstructure. Such a formulation seemsat first to do whatwas intended, is to modify sight that theoriginal of socialstructure theory so that it can account forchange, is butthat an illusion. The reasonliesin thefactthatthelevelof organisation, thepresumed inthesocialstructure, source ofchange iscontained within thelevel:socialstructure. The levelof organisation can onlybe apprehended in terms of thesocialtheory of theactors; their ofsocialclassification system andrules, whichis whatis referred to by the phrase'social structure'. is a matter Organisation of following or not following rules;ruleswhichapplyto rolesrecognised This by thepeoplestudied. meansthatwithin sucha theoretical framework, is accounted although deviance it is not possible to understand for, how therulesand thesocialcategories which givedeviance meaning can,themselves, be changed, since they aregiven in thevery within whichsocialorganisation language is discussed. Thiskindof difficulty also existsin the many similar theoretical formulas associated with such writers as Gluckman andhismanyfollowers. Thisis theproblem whichLeach'sformulation in Political systems ofhighland Burma tries to overcome, thoughin theend he too thesameproblem.In orderthattheruleswill not containthe comes up against he suggests rangeof possibleactions, thatwe shouldhave three levelsnot two: a level of shared meanings common throughout the area he studies; 2) a levelof I) ruleswhichare notnecessarily consistent one withanother and whichare chosen ad hoc in terms by theactors ofa third level,a levelofenlightened self-interest very similar to Firth's 'social organisation'. In thisway Leach is able to accountfor

This content downloaded from 145.18.242.72 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:59:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAURICE BLOCH

28I

aboutwhether to obey or choicesare decisions in rules.While,forFirth, changes withwhichrule to obey. Leach, forLeach choicesare concerned disobeyrules, however,has to facetheproblemthatthe actorsmustbe able to communicate becausethentheir Clearlytheycannotchoose any system among themselves. and so Leachshowsthatall one foranother, actions would stopbeingmeaningful understanding of categories, rulesembody the same meaningful thesevarying conarea.This doesavoidthedifficulty in thewholegeographical whichis shared butitbrings us backin a different probway to theearlier cerning communication Instead ofactions bythemeanbeingbounded theory. lemwhichwe saw in Firth's areboundedbythemeaning by the givento them they byrules ingsgivento them cannotaccountfor theory shared Thus,forthesamereasonthatFirth's concepts. of new Leach'stheory cannotaccountforthecreation thecreation of new rules, concepts. becauseit is difficult to see whysome a strange problem Thisseemsat first sight is socialsystem cannot at a certain say: this of theactors pointin thesocialprocess and buildup a new system. look at thesituation no good at all,let us takea fresh liesin the thetheoretical framework discussed, within The reason cannot, whythey of thought. Simplyif all concepts notionof thesocial determination unanalysed since a fresh look is impossible are determined by thesocialsystem and categories all cognition is already mouldedto fitwhatis to be criticised. whatis to do precisely in a theory whichseems theproblem alsoexists Strangely whichcan be used to to theactorsa sourceof knowledge neededsinceit offers This is a theory by a variedgroupof writers, thesocialorder. expressed challenge fromMarx (Meillassoux I972: inspiration French, who have drawntheir mainly Leach and Firth would criticise TerrayI969: GodelierI966; I973). This position be contheinfrastructure in theway outlined proposethat above and as a solution in terms ofthe rulesor concepts, structed in a way that is totally external to either and reproduction. could thenbe History of theprocesses of production rationale neither one beingreduced nature, seenas theinteraction of two levelsof different between them. dialectic couldexist progressive to theother, so thata continually truly achievetheelusivegoal of a dynamic This kindof theory would therefore ofpeoplewithout whichtakes theshared of meanings system intoaccount system comesfrom the there, however, itsmovement within it.The problem beingcaught Now for that theinfrastructure is seenas external oftheactors. to theconcepts fact apprehend itto be a source that peoplemust itmeans ofcriticism ofthesocialorder with it in terms from and incompatible availableto themand whichare different by it. This meanstermsnot determined social theory. thoseof the dominant socialtheory, to thedominant however contradictory Otherwise theinfrastructure, is nevertransformed on in itsown sweetway,totally intoactionandjust carries of history. irrelevant to theprocesses if we believein thesocial One can put theproblemgenerally by sayingthat, as all thewriters or explicitly mentioned so fartacitly determination of concepts, leavestheactors and so change their society withno language to talkabout do, this are explains whyanthropologists it.Thisproblem can onlytalkwithin it,sincethey who so to thoseof thehistorians of society similar pictures continually producing wellexplained thelogicofthefeudal whypeasants' they alsoexplained system that workleavesus totally whyanthropologists' revolts couldnotoccur.It alsoexplains

This content downloaded from 145.18.242.72 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:59:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

282

MAURICE BLOCH

in the forthedramatic andrevolutionary whichareoccurring changes unprepared veryareastheyhave studied. of is there forthecrucial and apparently testable proposition So whatevidence of knowledgefromrecentstudiesof cognition? Well, thesocial determination contradictof cognitive at present seemstrangely studies systems anthropological Geertz, as Levi-Strauss, ory. On theone handwe have theworkof suchwriters thevariation in systems of classification of such Douglas, and Willis,whichstress of as animals, andwhich, in various ways,linkthese systems things plants, colours, different On theother handwe also havecompletely to socialstructure. cognition associated withtheworkofKay (I975), Berlin studies (I972), Berlin& principally etal. (I973) andBulmer comeup with (I967; I968; I970) which Kay (I969), Berlin thatcolour,plant,animaland even human totallydifferent findings. Basically, and subclasses are basedon identical and produceidentical criteria classifications between I believethecontradiction classes varying onlyin degreeof elaboration. and it is to thisthatI now turn. can be explained, thesetwo typesof studies II made themostfundamental letuslook atwhatisprobably First claim, repeatedly boundtosocialorganisation relativists-that oftimeareclosely bycultural concepts Thisis nota topicthat, as faras I know, and therefore to society. varyfrom society But social has actuallybeen examinedby Berlinand Kay or theirassociates. have loved to tellus thatthenotionof time,whichwe feelis Evans-Pritchard3 in other in totally different can be experienced cultures, ways,not as self-evident, butperhaps as static or as cyclic. Thisis a really linear claimto makeamong popular if onlyforthereasonthatif it,and all it implied, all were true, anthropologists, shouldreally funded onessuchas physics, academicsubjects, especially thebetter becomesimply a sub-trade ofanthropology. Thisindeed theposition of was almost Whorf(i956) butit is also rather carelessly implied by manyothers. In one senseat leastwhatthey is iftheclaimabouttherelativity sayis true, that of concepts of timeis upheld,it is so fundamental, thatit inevitably the justifies that all aspects conclusion ofculture arerelative. However,evenbefore we look at this ought to makeussuspicious. In itsfull baroque proposition critically, something formtherelativists' that can a whole will have us believe we produce argument cultures. However,an examination rangeofdifferent concepts oftimefordifferent ofthis'range oftime. it by and largeboilsdown to onlytwo notions 'revealsthat On theone handwe have concepts rather likeour own folkeveryday conceptof lineardurational timeand on theother handa conceptof a static notionof time often referred to as cyclic, thetwo wordsreferring to thesamesortof evidence. to be made.In reducing theevidence Before proceeding, however, one pointmust of the perception two typesI am, of course,talkingabout claimsconcerning notthewaysin whichtimeis divided duration up, or metaphorically represented. These are,of course, to our argument. The Malagasy legionbut are not relevant usedto, and still oftheparts of thehouse sometimes now, dividethedayin terms of their orientation reached by theraysofthesun.Thisworksbecauseofthestrict butitonlytells us that usedifferent types ofclocks from us. Thisis not houses, they

asDurkheim asvaried (I962, I966), and scientists (I9I2), Boas(I966), Le'vi-Strauss

This content downloaded from 145.18.242.72 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:59:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAURICE BLOCH

283

claim thatdifwhatI am talking about.Let us return to the morefundamental ferent people perceivetimedifferently. Firstof all thereare a prioriarguments invarying against this type ofclaimwhich havebeenformulated waysby,amongst others, Gellner (I968) in answer to Winch,Max Black (I959) in answer to Whorf, and in philosophy to theNew Hegelians. The mostreby Ayer(I973) in answer 'iflionscould suchpointis contained in Wittgenstein's famous remark that current speakwe couldnot understand them'.4 In other words,thatcommunication with different ofideasandlife is notpossible, creatures witha fundamentally system and surely peoplewitha different conceptof timewould in thisrespect be likelions, since abouttheparticularly fundamental nature ofthis everyone agrees proposition. to thefact On theother ofanthropology itself bears witness that hand, theexistence itis possible, ifwithcertain difficulty, to communicate withall other human beings, however different their culture. Wittgenstein's zoologybrings to mindanother rethat markby a supporter ofcognitive relativity and showsitsnaivety, is,thecriticismmade by Evans-Pritchard other of anthropologists who triedto understand cultures in terms to them. this whichmadesense He ridiculed typeofreasoning by it as 'if I were a horse' arguments; theimplication describing beingthatforthe ofother to pretend thethought to reconstruct anthropologist processes peopleis as But surely, there ridiculous as trying to reconstruct thethought ofhorse.5 processes is no reasonto believethatifhorses could speak,we would understand themany better thanlions,while Evans-Pritchard's whole work is a demonstration that, withhelpfrom we can indeedunderstand theAzandeor the theanthropologists, Nuer. This is possibly seemsto have overbecauseof a factthatEvans-Pritchard if In other horses. neither looked; that he,norother anthropologists, study words, other .people reallyhad different conceptsof time we could not do what we patently do, thatis communicate withthem.Evidenceforsucha conclusion also comesfrom a completely different source, and that is themassof recent of studies syntax andsemantics ofdifferent languages that havebeencarried outbyAmerican and polemics in this linguists. Disagreements field aremany, butat leastconsensus seems to be emerging on onepoint, andthat isthat thefundamental logicemployed inthesyntax ofall languages is,Whorf notwithstanding, thesame.The implications of thisfornotionsof timeare clear.The logic of languages impliesa notionof is basedon thesamelogic,all speakers temporality andsequence andso ifall syntax must at a fundamental timein thesameway,andindeedthis levelapprehend seems confirmed tests to substantiate the bythetotal failure ofpsychological andattempts claims ofWhorf andSapirin this respect (Brown & Lenneberg I954; Hoijeri954). of prooffortheclaimthat Becauseof this kindof a priori objection theburden concepts of timeareculturally variable mustsurely lie withtherelativists. Clearly I cannotexamine all suchclaimsand so I have chosenone examplebecauseof its nature. Geertz(I973) in a famousarticle, setsout to eleganceand its influential show how the Balinesehave a different conceptof time.(Actually the Balinese havea 'broad back' and havebeenusedforthissortof thing before whichmakes theircase particularly interesting.) He offers evidencefromthreemain sources. The first is thecalendars theBalineseuse: a lunarcalendar and moreimportantly another calendrical system consisting of a numberof cyclesof daysof differing whichrunindependently length of eachother in theway thatweeksand months runindependently of eachother in our own calendar. The surprising thing hereis

This content downloaded from 145.18.242.72 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:59:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

284

MAURICE

BLOCH

the tells us that normally cycles-tenin all-but Geertz thenumber of concurring threeof them.Geertzin any case does not make the Balinese only eniphasise a different unitsof timeimplies thatsimply mistake havingdifferent of thinking forhimis thefact that whatis stressed by the More significant concept of duration. is the conas astrology, or fixingtempleceremonies, Balinesefor such things The equivalent in different forus to theconcurrence of cycles. junctionof stages on coincidence of different cyclesand on reFridays, the i3th,and it is thestress thattheBalinese assertion have a non-durational currence whichleadsto Geertz's and greeting and there of address patterns notionof time.Then he looksat terms of personhoodlinked to a detemporalising conhe notes a depersonalisation and their witha view of of socialrelations formality together is theritualisation in religious andstate festivals whichmakes events irrelevant to the timeas expressed is thatbecauseof the evidencepresented 'steadystate'. His generalconclusion
404).

oftime ception (I973:

39I).

Thefinal main ofevidence produced byGeertz type

'takes social life (I973: Balinese placein a motionless present'

ofBalinese lifewhichdo notfit, admits that there aresomeaspects Now Geertz of revolutionary is viewed,likethegrowth liketheway Sukamoand nationalism like theexistence of othersystems of address which and their ideologies, parties thattheyalso have calendrical and even, in a footnote, and stress individuals and of to ourselves, but this, he tellsus, is: 'unstressed similar notions durational Well is it?It is difficult to see how thepolitical importance'. distinctly secondary forthe Balinesein and Sukamo could have been of so little importance parties all there sortofpolitics was new: after had beenthe I958 or indeedto see how this thisit is also clearthata linear view of Quite apartfrom Dutch and theJapanese. at thevillagepolitics also exists on individuals level.MarkHobart timeand stress ofBalinese andlackoftemporality villagecouncils hasdescribed how theformality links(Hobart are paralleled patron/client by highlypersonaland manipulative arena. is thestress outside theformal by Hobart Equallyimportant I975) operating thatagriculture is not organised article by the complexmulti-cyclic in another to above. referred calendar
weresummed The viewsofthevillagers bythepriest ofthelocalPuraDalem. up succinctly inhisofficial outthat, he usedtheabovetwo calendars He pointed discussed (those capacity, to themajority to estimate ritual dateswhereas ofpeople,as they werefarmers, by Geertz) Forother thecycle ofseasons wasseenas themost relevant. there was a matters immediately of well remembered basedon a series and events, including wars,earthquakes chronology and morerecently, theofficial calendar (Hobartin press). volcanic (Gregorian) eruptions,

theBalinese havea non-durational It seemstherefore to saythat notion misleading and in some of time.Sometimes contexts and in other contexts theydo, sometimes village and national they do not, and thosewhere theydo not (agriculture, cannothonestly be calledunimportant. politics, economics) is wherewe can see theusefulness of theMalinowskian perNow this naturalist thesocialprocess as one or several systems superimposed Instead ofseeing spective. it enablesus to see thatin thelong conversation on each other, thatis Balinese at sometime, one notion oftimeis used,and at others another, andwe can society, timecomesfromthat forstatic or cyclical immediately noticethattheevidence of the in thebroadsense whichwe can labelritual specialtypeof communication, formula, formalbehaviourand above all term: greetings, and fixedpoliteness

This content downloaded from 145.18.242.72 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:59:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAURICE BLOCH

285

in whichnotions rituals, whether social,religious thecontexts or state. By contrast of durational timeare used are practical and unactivities, especially agriculture institutionalised power. This contrast betweennon-ritual and communication and universal concepts, and strange otherways of thinking, ritualcommunication theapparent explains studies whichI noted.When we look contradiction in thefindings of cognitive we find that whereBerlin andKay gettheir information itis from non-ritual from, such as Douglas, Geertz, On the otherhand,writers practical communication. almostexclusively on ritualcomTurner, Willis, and Levi-Strauss, concentrate in itself, Of course there is nothing munication and myth. but wrongin doingthat there thatwhatthey findis thecognitive of thepeople is,ifit is suggested system This is especially theystudied. so sinceit has alwaysbeen,and stillis, a recurrent to exaggerate theexoticcharacter professional of anthropologists of malpractice of theworldapparent in ritual on thepicture othercultures. Only concentrating and it obscures thefactof the communication maywell be due to thistendency, available in all cultures. universal nature of a partof thecognitive system In other theview thatnotions of doesnot support wordstheBalineseevidence it only shows that,in ritualcontexts, the time vary fromcultureto culture, contexts Balineseuse a different notionof timefromthatin moremundane and that contexts and classification inthese mundane categories are,it maybe assumed from basedon cognitive universals. Berlinand Kay's findings, wherewe findthesecognitive Furthermore, the natureof the contexts universals an explanation itself of their likeothers after suggests presence. Durkheim, thenotionthatcognition was constrained to him,rejected by nature, by pointing thevariability of concepts, especially of concepts of time; but if he is wrongin hisobjection itis in contexts this, cannot hold.Whatis more, since wheremanis in mostdirect contact withnature that we find universal concepts, thehypothesis that it is something in theworldbeyondsociety whichconstrains at leastsome of our cognitive categories is strengthened, this though neednotbe nature as an independententity to man,but,as I believeis suggested by Berlinand Kay's dataand foreshadowed by Marx, natureas the subjectof human activity (see also Rosch
I975).7

III in mindletus turn Now withthis to theother thatevident in cognitive system: ritual communication andsee,ifthere atleast, thenotion that itissociety is the that sourceofcognition can be retained. To do this, it is necessary to look at however, this 'society' which it is claimeddoes the constraining. Well, Durkheimand are quiteclearaboutit,it is thepattern Radcliffe-Brown ofcorporate groups and roleswhichreproduces itself through not of flesh time.It is a system and bone moment butone whichtranscends peopleat anyparticular of peoplebothin terms their individuality and their temporality. Thisis the'on theground phenomenon' whichmouldsideas'up in theair'. Now there aretwo things to noteaboutthis is someofsociety. The first theory thingthatat first sightappearsa coincidence, thatis its extraordinary similarity withwhatGeertz tellsus is theBalineseview of timeand persons. To go back to our earlier quote: he saysoftheBalinese thatthey havea notionof depersonalisa-

This content downloaded from 145.18.242.72 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:59:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

286

MAURICE BLOCH
391).

The of socialstructure. of thetheory elegantdescription This could be a highly is that, secondpoint,one whichhas oftenbeen made by Leach among others, as an empirical groups ofrolesandcorporate thetheory thepattern presents though thisis not so, and, as graduate with the ideas it produces, by contrast reality, easyto see to their cost, itis notall that in this tradition havefound trained students whichthe and persons of events in thestream or hearanybitsof socialstructure key It is onlywhenwe look againat Radcliffe-Brown's witnesses. anthropologist we realise inprimitive whythisis. worksin Structure society (1952) that andfunction to is againnotthewholeofthe he is referring phenomenon The kindof empirical but onlycertain, partsof it,partswhich relatively occasional long conversation, talksof roles,he in theritualmode. When Radcliffe-Brown are almostentirely or rites de as sacrifices to rolesas manifested turns during suchevents immediately or totemic worship he looksat ancestor groups, When he talksof descent passage. that he is dealing we find is notdealing withrituals When Radcliffe-Brown rituals. as into such things in the wider sense.He is referring with ritualbehaviour The onlypartofwhatpeoplesayto eachother jokingor avoidance. stitutionalised as kinship at any lengthare such things to be discussed encounters in ordinary fieldworker and politeness formula. Now, once the bewildered greetings terms, it is in thistypeofbehaviour, alone, that and in thistypeofbehaviour hasrealised and the taskis disappear theproblems thathe needsto look forsocialstructure, whenit is rites depassage are therareoccasions madestrangely easy.For example, and even quite and duties, to hearpeople givinglistsof rights possibleactually or as is thecaseofceremonial clothing to seerolesbeingputon individuals literally forancestor worship predescent groupsgathered Similarly, bodilymutilation. and whatis can actually be photographed, sidedover by eldersactingas priests, it will actually at sometimein theproceedings that probable more,itis extremely be said thatthey'go on forever' and are 'one body'. if one conThis meansthat,not only is it easy to build up social structures in it,givento us in butalso,thatwe find communication, centrates onlyon ritual of social structure.8 theacademictheory theverywordsof thepeople we study, communithatsocialstructure is onlyextracted from ritual Now once we realise it is thefolk socialtheory in this typeof communication, and that expressed cation by Geertzfor the Balinese, withthe view of the world extracted itssimilarity understandable. becomesimmediately communication, also onlylookingat ritual view of society, like Geertz,not using a long conversation Radcliffe-Brown, when all abouttheother ofthediscourse. UnlikeMalinowski, parts forgot simply had stopped hisspells, they did notstayto watchthecanoe incanting themagician building. of classification farfrom turns out to be a system beingsociety, Socialstructure, notion suchas theritual linkedto other ritual systems, cognitive of humanbeings moonlyat certain expression of time.Like ritual timeit has phenomenological it too also seemsto be different and interestingly ments of thelong conversation, we For example, of discourse. socialsystem moments of other from thecognitive groups, groups, local that cooperative find suchgrouping as agricultural continually such 1940), socialrelations, suchas Nuervillages andcattle camps(Evans-Pritchard in and share-cropper landlord Hobart, by as described as thoseofpatron and client

of time(1973: to a detemporalising conception linked tionofpersonhood

This content downloaded from 145.18.242.72 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:59:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAURICE BLOCH

287

in ritual; India(MayerI960), have no place in theclassification system expressed existence and a cognitive system yet obviously, their too mustrequireconcepts ofsociety, is double.On aboutpeople.In other words, cognition likethatoftime, is a system basedon universal theone handthere usedin normalcommunication in wayswhich and in whichpeople are visualised notions of timeand cognition, a system whichis usedfortheorganisafrom to culture, seemto differ little culture and on theotherhand tionof practical activities, especially productive activities, is another referred to by Radcliffe-Brown as social different there totally system, classiof a and more specific system based on stranger much culturally structure, fication.9 (see also n. 6) ofthat is therefore one ofthecomponents ofthepastin thepresent The presence of ritual another communication, other system of cognition whichis characteristic that in thecognitive ofeveryday communiworldwhichunlike manifested system a world It is therefore linkup withempirical cationdoesnotdirectly experiences. groups(inpeopled by invisible entities. On the one hand rolesand corporate bothtypes halosas Nadel (1957) putit) and on theother visible godsandancestors, of manifestations intoeach otheras is shownso subtly by Fortes' studyof fusing worldwhose therepresentation ofTallensi descent groups (Fortes 1949).' 0 Another of timeand the depersonalisation of intwo maincharacteristics, the dissolution of the can be linked,as I have arguedelsewhere, withthe mechanics dividuals, ritual semantic of formalised, communication. system whichorganise two thepresence of two cognitive Now, recognising systems, at different in thelongconversation, kinds ofcommunication, occurring moments thosesocialtheories solvesthetheoretical difficulties whichwe raisedconcerning whichmakeuse ofnotions ofsuperstructure and infrastructure. The problem was thateither sinceit could only be the infrastructure was not trulyindependent, in theterms because apprehended of thesuperstructure, or thatit was irrelevant it was formulated If,on theother hand, in a way thatactors couldnotapprehend. we realisethatwhat was meantby social structure but only was not a system, cognitive certainmoments in a long conversation, characterised by a specific and thatinfrastructure to the othermoments in the conversation, system, refers is used, the difficulty diswhen a different nature-constrained cognitive system The infrastructure hasthen itsown cognitive fortheactors and its appears. system realisation can be, and is, used occasionally thatotherconsciousness, to challenge of an invisible static The timeless pastin system created by ritual:socialstructure. thepresent cannotbe achieved is thenchallenged by thepresent. This challenge arebarriers whichusually sideby sidewithin easilybecausethere stoptheputting an argument, ideasand concepts of communication, comingfromthetwo types butthese canin theendbe overcome barriers words, people (Bloch 1975). In other modelsof their maybe extensively mystified by thestatic and organic imaginary in ritual communication; society whichgaina shadowy phenomenological reality buttheyalso have availableto themanother sourceof concepts, theuse of which can lead to therealisation of exploitation and itschallenge. IV Now in thislastsentence I havejumped aheadof myself and to explainwhatI

This content downloaded from 145.18.242.72 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:59:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

288

MAURICE

BLOCH

whichis inevitably to ask one lastquestion, meantI wantby way of conclusion whenit could be raisedby whatI have said so far.Why two cognitive systems, can be glimpsed to thisquestion from anassumed thatone would do? An answer for a longtimeto be muchmoredisturbing datawhich havebeenfelt thropological madeagainst thantheovert criticisms ofsocialstructure ofthetheory to therepose theamount ofsocialstructure seemsto vary that to therealisation it.I am referring andtheIndians from caseto case.On theonehandwe havepeopleliketheBalinese itis a positive embarrassment. that who haveso muchsocialstructure Theyseemto roles thanare needed for the and specialist have far more groups,sub-groups seemto be examples, and on theother handthere of anynatural working system, hunters and gatherers suchas theHadza, of people who fromAfrican especially The realisahaveany(Woodburni968a; i968b; 1972; 1976; forthcoming). hardly criticism of nearlyall acceptedtheories a fundamental tion of this constitutes or as an or something like it, as everything, which eithersee social structure, or an essential level.If socialstructure analytical equalssociety, partofit,it seems of the nature to say thatone society has moreor less.The fundamental nonsense reactions of disbelief the extraordinary challenge brought by such data explains in his Hadza data in theearlyI96os in seminars whenWoodburnfirst presented of thetheory of socialstructure. and London,some of theheartlands Cambridge confirmation whichhas now been made impossible Disbelief by theindependent Turnbull theworkof,amongothers, from (I966) and Lee (1972). He showedthat no concepts of permanent rolescategorically the Hazda had practically binding attention to supernatural and gave little people or setsof people together beings. I have outlined we use theMalinowskian If,however, perspective above,it is not that canhavea varying ritual communication rolein different so surprising societies. as was halffeared, It is not thatsocieties liketheHazda have lesssociety, but that in the languageof ritual, theyhave less of theirsocial theory expressed while is reflected in their people liketheBalinesehave more.This difference respective of time.While theBalinesein their ritual communication concepts livein a timeis in a phenomenological that oftimewherethepresent lesspresent, representation thatthepresent is a meremanifestation and thepastareso fused of thepast,these hunters andgatherers arecharacterised bywhatwas notedbyWoodburn, Turnbull and Lee, and called by Meillassoux (I967) their 'present orientation', thatis the in their totalabsence ofthepastas a subject matter discourse. Thereis lackofconcernwiththepastin thepresent, correlated withminimal in ritual communication their longconversation. Theyhaverelatively fewrituals ofsocialrelations, rites of birth passage, ceremonies, funerals, ancestor worship, exceptinterestingly enough forone majorritual whichis primarily concerned withtherelationship ofmenand lastfact, taken women.Now this withthemoregeneral contrast together between, on theone handtheBalineseand theIndians, and on theother theHadza, givesa pointerto what it is thatwe are dealingwith,when we are considering the amountof social structure. differential We are also helped in thistask by an interesting mistakemade by Meillassoux(I967). He attributed the 'present ofhunters orientation' andgatherers to thetechniques bywhichthey obtain a living from nature. The trouble withthisexplanation, however, is thatthough it seems supported bytheAfrican hunter andgatherer dataitdoesnotfit suchother hunters as theAustralian and gatherers aborigines or thenative Americans on the North

This content downloaded from 145.18.242.72 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:59:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAURICE BLOCH

289

withsuchpeople as theHazda, is fullof ritual by contrast West coast.Theirlife, Thiscontrast is explained byWoodburn ofthepastin thepresent. andthepresence is no fundathere wherehe pointsout thatthough publication, in a forthcoming foodfrom hunters and gatherers obtaintheir in theway African difference mental is a fundamental difference obtain there theirs, Aborigines theway someAustralian of irrespective women.Woodburnsays:'all overAustralia, in theway theytreat to be concerned in thelong-term themselves promenconsider thelocal ecology, overand bring in whichtheyassert control daughters, up their ductive enterprise who the husband will be' (1976: I7). deciding over theirmarriages negotiating overwomenis not onlyto obtain dealings Now, we knowthatthepointofthese of daughters to others, thepromise of wivesbut,through number themaximum complex and maintaining establishing over othermen,thereby to obtaincontrol between theAustralian thedifference aborigines words, In other age basedranking. This explainswhy the hierarchy. and the Hadza lies in a degreeof instituted ofproduction, arein this in spite oftheir respect techniques Australian Aborigines, from insufficient theinevitably suggest, similar to theBalinese.I would therefore comof 'socialstructure' type that theamount that canbe presented here, evidence The Hadza have very little varieswith the amount of hierarchy. munication and exceptbetweenmen and women atid mothers-in-law hierarchy instituted of these ritualcommunication and theyhave little exceptin respect sons-in-law The oriented. Their conceptsof time are almostentirely present relationships. communicaevenmore, havea lot ofritual andtheBalinese Australian aborigines, discourse. thisoccupiesa surprisingly largepartof their tion or socialstructure; and their view of timeis,forthatpartof their societies hierarchical Theirhighly dominated by thepastin thepresent. discourse, in thisrespect is whatemerges forfrom studies of greeting Equallysignificant in the extreme ritualisation of theircomrelevant mulas. These are especially inthat ritual communicashowwelltheconnexion between they form, municative haloscalledrolesand corporate of these invisible groups.It tionand thecreation to foranycommunication has sometimes been arguedthatgreetings are essential manyenthis is notso, that showsthat takeplacebetween peoplebuttheevidence at all and that oftimein the thelength arenotaccompanied by greetings counters as Again,itvaries, varies. rolecreating procedures conversation givenoverto these withthe has been shownby E. Goody (1972) and Irvine(I974) forwestAfrica, in thesociety concerned. degreeof hierarchy of the past in the present, of ritual Here too the amountof social structure, and is correlated, hierarchy with the amountof institutionalised communication a simple Please note,however,thatI am not proposing thatis whatit is about. as is often manifested connexion withthe degreeof inequality. Some inequality and unstable, unadorned but,as Weber pointedout,it is thenhighly oppression, into itself arehiddenand whenit transforms whenitsorigins onlybecomesstable worldwhichwe call a legitimate in an imaginary orderof inequality hierarchy: 'nature'and consisting of a mystified socialstructure. Thisis doneby thecreation of conceptsand categories of time and personsdivorcedfrom everydayexand whereinequality partof an of an inevitable takeson theappearance perience, ofideasconcerning in herstudy Strathern, Marilyn system." Forexample, ordered showshow womenaresometimes (1972) womenin theNew GuineaHighlands

This content downloaded from 145.18.242.72 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:59:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

290

MAURICE

BLOCH

offoodandchildren, as times forwhatthey while at other are,producers seen, in Itisnotsurprising that activities ofmen. the creative creatures spoiling polluting systems are two cognitive simultaneously two suchtheories order to maintain as usualby theexotic, fascinated many anthropologists, Unfortunately needed. contheother forgetting to theworld as seenin ritual, haveonly paidattention is denied which their informants alsohold, andwhich oftheworld ceptualisation ascultural have areinfact variation what communication. They presented byritual the ritual communication between viewofthe people they world ofthe differences one.In doing they andunlike Malinowski, andour this, everyday practical study by thesystems with thesystems we knowtheworld bywhich haveconfounded we hideit. which
NOTES

forhelp in preparingthislectureto: J. Gumperz,M. Hobart, W. A. Karim,J. I am grateful Woodburn and membersof the Departmentof Social Anthropologyof Stockholmand Goteborg Universities. I This type of view of the subject matterof social studyis one which has run throughthe in linguistic theories.It is present in oppositionto various 'structuralist' work of many writers recentsocial scientists philosophyand phenomenologyand has throughthischannelinfluenced to below. Malinowski seems to have adopted thispoint of including Geertz who is referred (see Robins I97I). view independently 2 Marx makesit quite clear in Part I of The German thathe does not equate ideology ideology especiallyas to the and knowledge or consciousnessbut in thiswork alone he is inconsistent source of non-ideological knowledge in feudal and capitalistsocieties,a type of knowledge a conof theworking-class, forrevolution.In otherplaces he talksof the consciousness essential however, was at painsto pointout. This lecture, ceptnot withoutproblemsas theearlyAlthusser and to thetheory of theconsciousness of theworking-class to make a contribution is an attempt as thisconsciousness seeing it as based on the real processesof productionbut not attributing society.A discussionof the almostexclusivelyto communist Marx does in The German ideology betweenIdeology and Knowledge in Marx is foundin Lefebre(I966: chap. 3)-I do distinction not however completelyadopt Lefebre'spositionhere. 3 Leach, who has written scintillatingly on time does not in the end make his positionon this between 'ritual', point clear. In his writingon time (I96I) (I976: chap. 7), he distinguishes 'abnormal', 'sacred' timeand othernotionsof timein a way thatseemssimilarto thatproposed the arbitrariness of the division of time and the abnormal notion of here. He goes on to stress non-ritual, sacredtimebut he saysnothingof theothertypeof timehe implies; thenon-sacred, normal. This means thatthough he may not be arguing thatconceptsof time are relativehe leaves us with the impressionthathe does. 4 That remarkwas drawn to my attention S. Ehrington. by Professor 5 Professor M. Forteshas drawn my attention to thefactthatthisaphorismwas oftenused by and was common currency Radcliffe-Brown at the time. 6 I have discussedwhat I mean by ritual communicationin 'Symbol, song and dance: is religion an extremeformof traditional authority?'(Bloch I974). There I argued for a continuum in communicationfromrepetitive (formalised)communicationto generative(everyday) end of thecontinuum. (formalised) communication. Ritual communicationlies at therepetitive I am considering here: 'rituals' in thenarrowsense,greetings, Since thetypeof communication formalised joking and avoidance, politeness,lie quite clearlyfar to the repetitiveend of the continuumthe difficult questionof where to draw theline betweenthetwo typesof communicationdoes not arise.In any case it does not seem to me thatthereare manytypesof communication which fall at the middle of the continuumfor reasons which have to do with the very different natureof the semanticsused at eitherend. Unlike Leach (I954) who sees ritualas an I would argue thattheritualmessageis carriedin nearlyall casesby clearly aspectof all activity, distinct momentsof the conversationas is argued by Malinowski in his famous discussionof magic (Malinowski I922). In the same paper I also explained how it is the very semantic mechanicsused by ritualwhich createa staticor cyclic view of time. 7 I am not making the empiricist thatconceptsas conceptsare given in mistakeof thinking of natureon thoughtgiven the human condition.In nature,I am only talkingof the constraints thisI am followingPiaget (I968). It would be nonsenseto say thatour everydayconceptsare

This content downloaded from 145.18.242.72 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:59:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MAURICE BLOCH

29I

likefolk notions oftime. The notions oftime heldbyphysicists arenotremotely true concepts handmyposition of Levi-Strauss who argues is totally opposedto that oftime.On theother in whatever is an unordered phenomenon onlyordered by culture that nature in this respect takes it. way thelogicofthought madeby Leach(I954: I4). 8 Thispoint is already iskinship since thetwosystems ofcognition 9 One ofthefewdomains which tries to merge of and of theirrigation and reproductive concerns bothof practical it partakes productive is inevitably unsuccessful andit seems to me to lie at Thismerging society. authority through hasmadeinvarious andinvarious which Fortes waysbetween places thebackofthedistinction domain(FortesI969). This merging could also domainand thepolitico-jural thedomestic has a in anthropology whether fortherecurrent inconclusive controversies kinship account in domestic constraints to be evident baseor not.We wouldexpect natural kinship biological in thepolitico-jural domain. and negated 10 Thispoint is particularly powerfully putby I. Kopytoff (I97I). in a moreextended fashion in M. Bloch(I975). "I Thisis discussed
REFERENCES

& Nicolson. London:Weidenfeld A. J. I973. Thecentral question of philosophy. Ayer, nomenclature. of ethnobotanical Language in B. I972. Speculation and the growth Berlin, ofclassification andnomenD. E. Breedlove& P. H. Raven I973. General principles clature in folk biology. Am.Anthrop. 75, 2I4-42. Phil.Rev.68,228-38. Lee Whorf. relativity: theviewsofBenjamin Black,M. I959. Linguistic oftraditional form anextreme authority? M. I974. Symbol, songanddanceorisreligion Bloch, Eur. J. Sociol. New In Political andoratory intraditional societies. London, language I975. Introduction. York: Academic Press. In Handbook Indians American (ed.) P. Holder.Lincoln:Univ.of of Boas,F. I966. Introduction. Nebraska Press. oflanguage andcognition. Psychol. 49, R. & E. Lenneberg J. abn.social Brown, I954. A study taxonomy among the A problem ofzoological nota bird? Bulmer, R. I967. Whyisa cassowary KaramoftheNew Guineahighlands. Man (N.S.) 2, 5-25. 1 6 of Karamnatural Mankind Wormsthatcroakand othermysteries history. I968. ortheEgghead? In1Echanges thechicken etcommunications (eds) I970. Whichcamefirst, The Hague: Mouton. J.Pouillon& P. Maranda. andtaboo. London: ofconcepts ofpollution anddanger: an analysis Douglas,M. I966. Purity Routledge& KeganPaul. incosmology. London:Barrie& Rockliffe. symbols: explorations I970. Natural London:Routledge& KeganPaul. in anthropology. I975. Implicit meanings: essays tot6mique enAustralie. le systeme E. I9I2. Lesformes ele'mentaires de la viereligieuse: Durkheim, Univ.Press. London:Oxford Evans-Pritchard, E. E. I940. TheNuer. and values(Lond. Sch. Econ. Monogr. Social Firth, R. I964. Essayson socialorganisation London:Athlone Press. Anthrop.). Univ.Press. London:Oxford among theTallensi, Fortes, M. I949. ThewebofKinship i 969. Kinship and London:Routledge & the social the ofLewis Henry Morgan. order, legacy KeganPaul. in Theinterpretation in Bali. Reprinted ofculture. C. I973. Person, timeand conduct Geertz, New York: BasicBooks. & A. E. I968. Thenew idealism. In Problems (eds)I. Lakatos inthe philosophy ofscience. Gellner, Amsterdam: NorthHollandPublications. Musgrave Paris:Maspero. etirrationalite' eneconomie'. Godelier, M. I966. Rationalite' Paris:Maspero. trajets marxistes enanthropologie. I973. Horizons, The interpretation of of respect 'Begging' and thepresentation Goody,E. I972. 'Greeting', ritual London:Tavistock. (ed.)J.La Fontaine. village society. ofpolitical leader in Balinese andpatrons: twotypes Hobart, M. I975. Orators In Political New York: society (ed.) M. Bloch.London, andoratory in traditional language Academic Press
Paris: Alcan.
62I-39.

Society.I, 5i-86. Univ. of California Press. & P. Kay I969. Basiccolor terms. Berkeley:

454-62.

This content downloaded from 145.18.242.72 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:59:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

292

MAURICE

BLOCH

In Natural ofresponsibility. M. inpress. insouth Hobart, Padi,punsandtheattribution symbols east Asia(ed.) G. Milner. inculture, Hoijer,H. (ed.) I954. Language Chicago:Univ.Press. ofstatus in theWolofgreetings. In Explorations Irvine, J. I974. Strategies manipulation inthe ethnography ofspeaking (eds)R. Bauman & J.Sherzer. Cambridge: Univ.Press. in diachronic in Kay, P. I975. Synchronic variability changein basiccolorterms. Language Society 4, 25I-70. in Africa. andelders I. I97I. Ancestors Kopytoff, Africa 41, I29-42. London:Bell. Burma. Leach,E. R. I954. Political systems ofhighland of time.Reprinted Two essays thesymbolic concerning I96I. representation in Rethinking anthropology (Lond.Sch.Econ. Monogr.socialAnthrop. 22). London: Athlone Press. andcommunication, Univ. Press. I976. Culture Cambridge: ofBotswana. In Hunters and Lee, R. B. I972. The !KungBushmen gatherers today (ed.) M. G. Bicchieri. New York. deMarx,Paris:Presses Universitaires de France. Lefebre, H. I966. Sociologie Paris:Plon. Levi-Strauss, C. I962. La pense'e sauvage. Paris: Plon. aux cendres. -~ I966. Du miel R. H. I937. History Univ. of California Lowrie, ofethnological theory. Berkeley: Press. London:Routledge& KeganPaul. B. I922. Argonauts theWestern Malinowski, Pacific. qf London:Laurence& Wishart. Marx,K. & F. Engels.I970. TheGerman ideology. incentral India. A. I960. Casteandkinship London:Routledge& KeganPaul. Mayer, d'un niveaude determination dansla societe C. I967. Recherche Meillassoux, cynegetique. etla Socie't6 L'Homme 6, 95-I05. to reproduction. Econ.Soc. I, 93-I05. I972. From production structure. London:Cohen & West. Nadel,S. I95I. Thetheory ofsocial de France. Paris:Presses Universitaires Piaget, J. I968. Le structuralisme. in primitive A. R. I957. Structure and andaddresses. Radcliffe-Brown, function society: essays London:Cohen & West. New York: Free Press. -~ I957. A natural science ofsociety. In Social R. H. I97I. Malinowski, Firth andthe'Context ofSituation'. and Robins, anthropology Brit.Commonw., language (ed.) E. Ardener. (Ass.socialAnthrop. Monogr.]0). London: Tavistock. in natural Rosch,F. I975. Basicobjects categories (Working Papersof theLanguage Behaviour Research ofCalifornia. Laboratory). Berkeley: University M. I972. Women inbetween:female roles ina male Mount Strathern, world, Hagen, NewGuinea. Press. London, New York: Seminar E. I969. Le marxisme Terray, devant lessocie'te's primitives. Paris:Maspe'ro. C. I966. Wayward & Spottiswood. Tumbull, servants. London:Eyre B. L. I956. Language andreality. Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Whorf, thought Boston, Willis,R. I974. Man andbeast. London:Hart-Davis McGibbon. Woodburn, J.I968a.An introduction to Hazda ecology. In Man the hunter (eds)R. B. Lee & I. DeVore. Chicago:Aldine. andflexibility in Hazda residential groupings. In Man the hunter (eds) I968b.Stability R. B. Lee & I. DeVore. Chicago:Aldine. ---I972. Ecology, nomadicmovement and thecomposition of thelocal groupamong hunters and gatherers. In Man, settlement andurbanism (eds) P. J. Ucko et al. London: Duckworth. I976. Hunters andgatherers todayon thereconstruction ofthepast.Paperprepared in forparticipation advance in theBurgWartenstein Symposium No. 70. forthcoming. Minimal politics, the political organisation ofthe Hadzaofnorth Tanzania. In Festschrift forProfessor IsaacSchapera.

This content downloaded from 145.18.242.72 on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:59:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions