Was Evans-Pritchard a structural-functionalist?
Evans-Pritchard is widely known as a structural-functionalist (Kuper, 1988). What sense does this question make taken by its face-value? Let us understand it as a mathematical exercise. The question asks whether the works of Evans-Pritchard can be described as a subset of the anthropological tradition referred to as structural-functionalism. As I will argue, his works can not – at least in their entirety – both temporally and partially be seen as a subset of structural-functionalism. Especially in his later works, Evans-Pritchard stresses individual agency, the importance of history as well as personality in a way that is not congruent with structural functionalism in its traditional way. But before I am able to assess the congruency of Evans-Pritchard’s work with structural-functionalist imperatives in detail, the latter needs to be expressed in a clear set of statutes. The work of Radcliffe-Brown (Radcliffe-Brown, 1940) and Fortes (Fortes, 1953) can serve as a guideline for this.
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- Was Evans-Pritchard a structural-functionalist?
- Methodological Statutes and Theoretical Foundation
- Evans-Pritchard and Structural-functionalism: A Closer Look
- Fieldwork, Comparison and Categorisation
- Equilibrium and Coherence
- Age-Sets and Feuds
- Beyond Structural-Functionalism
- Evans-Pritchard's Focus on Knowledge, Learning and Meaning
- Individual Agency and History in Evans-Pritchard's Work
- The Question of Evans-Pritchard's Development
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
This text examines the question of whether the work of anthropologist Edward Evans-Pritchard can be classified as structural-functionalist. It analyzes Evans-Pritchard's methods, theoretical frameworks, and key findings, particularly in his studies of the Nuer and Azande, to assess his alignment with the structural-functionalist tradition.
- The methodology and theoretical foundations of structural-functionalism
- Evans-Pritchard's adherence to structural-functionalist methods, particularly in his analysis of Nuer society
- Evans-Pritchard's divergence from structural-functionalism, particularly in his later works and his emphasis on individual agency, history, and knowledge
- The impact of Evans-Pritchard's work on the development of anthropological thought
- The debate over the validity of applying "schools" to scientific inquiry
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
The text begins by examining the central question of whether Evans-Pritchard's work can be categorized as structural-functionalist. It then delves into the methodological statutes and theoretical foundation of structural-functionalism, focusing on the work of Radcliffe-Brown and Fortes. The text then explores the congruency of Evans-Pritchard's work with these tenets, analyzing his fieldwork, methods, and emphasis on equilibrium and coherence, especially in his studies of the Nuer.
Moving beyond structural-functionalism, the text discusses Evans-Pritchard's focus on knowledge, learning, and meaning, as well as his emphasis on individual agency and the role of history. It then delves into Evans-Pritchard's later works, particularly his account of Nuer religion, and how they exhibit a departure from traditional structural-functionalist principles.
The text concludes by examining the question of whether Evans-Pritchard's work can be definitively categorized as structural-functionalist, arguing that his later works demonstrate a significant shift in his perspective.
Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
This text focuses on the relationship between Edward Evans-Pritchard's work and the structural-functionalist tradition in anthropology. Key terms include structural-functionalism, individual agency, history, knowledge, meaning, Nuer, Azande, fieldwork, social structure, and equilibrium.
- Quote paper
- Johannes Lenhard (Author), 2012, Was Evans-Pritchard a Structural-Functionalist?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/205569
