week 4 - british imperialism and malinowski Flashcards
(22 cards)
What was Malinowski’s main methodological innovation in anthropology?
Malinowski introduced participant observation:
-> argued that anthropologists should live among the people they study, observe daily life, and learn the local language.
-> this was a break from “armchair anthropology” and became the cornerstone of modern ethnography
What are the key features of participant observation according to Malinowski?
Empirical (direct observation and documentation), holistic (attention to the “imponderabilia of everyday life”), and conducted in the local language.
How did Malinowski’s approach differ from predecessors like Frazer?
Frazer relied on second-hand accounts and comparative methods, while Malinowski insisted on direct, immersive fieldwork.
What is Malinowski’s theory of functionalism?
Every aspect of culture and society (kinship, economy, religion, etc.) serves to fulfill fundamental human needs, especially universal biological needs.
Culture is an “instrumental apparatus” for satisfying these needs.
How does Malinowski’s functionalism differ from Radcliffe-Brown’s structural functionalism?
Malinowski focuses on the satisfaction of individual needs (especially biological), while Radcliffe-Brown focuses on the needs of the social structure itself - and the maintenance of the social system as a whole (balance).
What is the relationship between individual, group, and society in Malinowski’s thought?
Social institutions mediate between individual needs and group life; culture is functional because it helps individuals navigate their environment and society.
What is the Kula Ring and why is it important?
-> The Kula Ring is a ceremonial exchange system in the Trobriand Islands.
-> It involves the circulation of shell necklaces and armbands.
-> It is not about material need but about creating and reinforcing social bonds, prestige, and status.
How did Malinowski’s analysis of the Kula influence later anthropology?
-> It became foundational for the study of gift exchange and reciprocity (see Mauss, The Gift).
-> Malinowski showed that “primitive” economies are rational and governed by social rules.
What is the “law of reciprocity” and how does it relate to Malinowski?
-> The idea that social exchanges (even gifts) are governed by expectations of return, forming the basis of social relationships.
-> Malinowski’s work on the Kula was key for this concept.
What are some critiques of Malinowski’s approach?
-> His focus on the present (“synchronism”) led to neglect of history, violence, and change.
-> He also risked reducing culture to a set of responses to biological needs (biological determinism).
How has recent scholarship challenged Malinowski’s view of the Kula?
New research (e.g., Kula archaeology) has revealed more about the historical dynamics, violence, and creativity in the region, which Malinowski’s synchronic approach overlooked.
How was Malinowski’s work connected to British imperialism?
He worked during the height of British colonialism and was involved in debates about colonial policy, especially indirect rule (using local rulers to administer colonies - dual rule).
What was Malinowski’s stance on anthropology’s role in colonial governance?
-> He favored indirect rule and argued that anthropologists should advise colonial administrators
-> but he also criticized the use of racial science and intelligence testing.
How did functional anthropology serve colonial interests?
By providing knowledge of local customs and social structures, it helped colonial rulers govern more effectively, especially through indirect rule.
If the colonial administrators knew all the cultural structures that served the native population’s ‘needs’ they cut disturb those structures to keep the population controlled.
How can one critique Malinowski’s functionalism from a contemporary perspective?
Consider how focusing on function and present-day regularities can obscure power, history, and agency.
Compare with later approaches that emphasize change, conflict, and historical context.
How does Malinowski’s work connect to debates about the ethics of anthropology?
His involvement with colonial administration raises questions about the complicity of anthropology in imperial projects and the responsibilities of anthropologists.
How might you link Malinowski’s ideas to other theorists?
Compare his functionalism to Durkheim’s focus on social facts and collective consciousness, or to Mauss’s theory of the gift.
Contrast his methods with Frazer’s, and his focus on the individual with Radcliffe-Brown’s focus on structure
How does Malinowski describe the goals and process of ethnographic fieldwork in Argonauts (1922)?
He describes three layers:
(1) the organization of the tribe and the anatomy of its culture
(2) the “imponderabilia” of actual life and the type of behavior observed
(3) the corpus inscriptionum -> the collection of statements, stories, and language from the people themselves.
He emphasizes the need to triangulate these layers for a holistic understanding.
How does Malinowski conceptualize the relationship between the individual and the group?
-> he argues that social institutions exist to meet the needs of individuals, but individuals are always embedded in groups.
-> he rejects the idea that society is simply a collection of individuals (methodological individualism), but also resists the idea that the group is primary/collective consciousness (as in Durkheim).
-> instead, he sees a dynamic interplay: institutions mediate between individual needs and collective life.
How can you use Malinowski’s work to critique the equilibrium assumption in anthropology?
Malinowski’s focus on function and stability (equilibrium) can be critiqued for ignoring processes of change, conflict, and power.
Later anthropologists (e.g., Gluckman, Leach) argued that societies are not always in equilibrium, and that anthropology must account for history, contradiction, and transformation.
How does Malinowski’s work on reciprocity connect to Mauss’s theory of the gift?
Malinowski’s empirical study of the Kula provided the foundation for Mauss’s theoretical work on the gift, reciprocity, and social obligation.
Both see gift exchange as central to social life, but Mauss places more emphasis on the moral and spiritual dimensions, while Malinowski focuses on function and need.
How does Malinowski’s emphasis on “the native’s point of view” relate to debates about ethnographic authority and representation?
Malinowski’s insistence on understanding people’s own perspectives was revolutionary, but later critics (e.g., postcolonial and feminist anthropologists) have questioned whether the anthropologist can ever fully access or represent the “native’s” voice, given power imbalances and the colonial context.
Eg, Annette Weiner revisited the Trobriand Islands to fix the triple male bias in Malinowski’s ethnography (which barely engaged with women) and found out about the importance of women’s wealth in Trobriand society (banana leaves, ceremonial dresses).
