Compare, contrast, and assess attempts by at least two anthropologists to analyse politics in terms of temporal processes rather than (a-temporal) structure.
Edmund Leach published his account of the Kachin society in Highland Burma in 1954, fourteen years after Evans-Pritchard’s and Fortes’ classical structural-functionalist collection on ‘African Political Systems’. Only four years after Leach, Barth’s ‘Swat Pathans’ enters the debate. Both Barth and Leach differ remarkably in their methodological approach fousing on change and process. While Radcliffe-Brown (Fortes & Evans-Pritchard, 2006:vi) proclaims in his preface to ‘African Political Systems’ that the aim of anthropology is to "discover the universal, essential, characters which belong to all human societies, past, present and future", Leach (Leach, 2004) heavily criticises the implicit underlying assumption of equilibrium. Instead, he focuses on the study of the “constantly changing environment” and society as “a process in time” (ibid.:5). As I will argue his process is still very much structural, however. In contrast to structure, Barth makes individual action his centre piece that aggregates to higher political levels in temporal processes. In the following analysis, I will complement my analysis of the two core texts mentioned above with methodological writings comparing Barth’s and Leach’s account of political processes in Pakistan and Burma respectively.
Table of Contents
1. Compare, contrast, and assess attempts by at least two anthropologists to analyse politics in terms of temporal processes rather than (a-temporal) structure.
1.1 Leach’s Burma – ‘dynamised’ structures in oscillation
1.2 Barth’s Swat Pathans – individual micro-structures and conflict-ridden aggregation
1.3 We don’t need to…
Objectives and Topics
This essay aims to evaluate and compare the anthropological approaches of Edmund Leach and Fredrik Barth, specifically examining how they analyze political systems as temporal processes rather than static, a-temporal structures, while identifying the underlying tension between individual agency and structural constraints.
- Methodological shift from structural-functionalism to process-oriented analysis.
- Edmund Leach’s concept of cyclical oscillation in Kachin political systems.
- Fredrik Barth’s methodological individualism and micro-level social aggregation.
- The role of history, instability, and conflict in shaping political structures.
- Critical assessment of the interplay between agency and structure in anthropological theory.
Excerpt from the Book
Leach’s Burma – ‘dynamised’ structures in oscillation
In contrast to the structural-functionalist body-analogies and ‘butterfly-collections’, Edmund Leach prefers mathematics in his methodology. Symbolic logic, he proposes, serves as a starting point that leaves room for each particular case. From the collected empirical facts, possible general patterns in the peculiar ethnography can be discerned (Leach, 1966:10). In Leach’s view, a classical structural analysis that he equates with ‘typology making’ (ibid.:3), in contrast creates a “straightjacket of thought” (ibid.). Right from the beginning, it imposes a category of comparison on the entity studied and tries to “fit the facts of the objective world into the framework of a set of concepts which have been developed a priori instead of from observation” (ibid.:26). With his analysis of the Kachins in Burma, Leach wants to prove this methodological claim.
In his account, Leach applies his idea of dynamic in the concept of oscillation. His argument with regards to the political system of the Kachin is bluntly put as follows (ibid.:9): “Kachin communities oscillate between two polar types – gumlao ‘demogracy’ on the one hand, Shan ‘autocracy’ on the other. The majority of actual Kachin communities are neither gumlao nor Shan in type, they are organised according to a system described … as gumsa, which is in effect a kind of compromise between gumlao and Shan ideals.”
Summary of Chapters
Compare, contrast, and assess attempts by at least two anthropologists to analyse politics in terms of temporal processes rather than (a-temporal) structure.: This introductory section establishes the core critique of structural-functionalism and outlines the theoretical departure point for comparing Leach and Barth.
Leach’s Burma – ‘dynamised’ structures in oscillation: This chapter analyzes Leach's rejection of static equilibrium in favor of a cyclical theory of social change, exemplified by the oscillating political forms of the Kachin society.
Barth’s Swat Pathans – individual micro-structures and conflict-ridden aggregation: This chapter examines Barth's methodological individualism and his focus on how individual micro-level choices aggregate into complex, dynamic political systems among the Swat Pathans.
We don’t need to…: This concluding chapter synthesizes the findings, arguing that a comprehensive understanding of political processes requires integrating both structure and agency rather than viewing them as mutually exclusive.
Keywords
Anthropology, Temporal Processes, Structural-Functionalism, Edmund Leach, Fredrik Barth, Kachin, Swat Pathans, Social Change, Methodology, Political Systems, Individualism, Oscillation, Equilibrium, Social Agency, Ethnography.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this academic work?
The work examines how two prominent anthropologists, Edmund Leach and Fredrik Barth, move away from static, structural-functionalist interpretations of society to analyze politics as dynamic, temporal processes.
What are the central thematic fields addressed?
The central themes include the critique of equilibrium models, the role of individual agency, the concept of cyclical change, and the methodological tension between structure and process in social systems.
What is the primary objective of the research?
The primary goal is to assess how both authors conceptualize social change and to determine whether their models effectively capture the fluidity of political systems.
Which scientific methods are primarily employed?
The work employs a comparative methodology, analyzing core ethnographic texts by Leach and Barth through the lens of their respective theoretical frameworks—symbolic logic and oscillation for Leach, and methodological individualism for Barth.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The main body details Leach’s study of Kachin society in Burma and Barth’s study of political leadership among the Swat Pathans, critically assessing how each author integrates empirical facts into their process-oriented models.
Which keywords best characterize this publication?
Key terms include Anthropology, Temporal Processes, Structural-Functionalism, Social Change, Methodology, Political Systems, and Individualism.
How does Leach define the 'oscillation' of the Kachin political system?
Leach describes a cyclical movement where Kachin communities shift between the polar types of 'gumlao' (egalitarian) and 'Shan' (hierarchical) systems, often settling into a 'gumsa' compromise.
How does Barth's approach to social structure differ from Leach's?
While both emphasize process, Barth adopts methodological individualism, treating political systems as the sum of individual choices and exchanges, whereas Leach still relies on, albeit 'dynamized', ideal-type structural models.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Johannes Lenhard (Autor:in), 2012, Structure vs Process - How to look at politics, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/205568
