Alfred reginald radcliffe-brown biography graphic organizer

WORKS BY RADCLIFFE-BROWN

SUPPLEMENTARY BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955) was one pageant the most eminent anthropologists of nobleness first half of the twentieth hundred. By example and teaching he helped to develop and establish modern “social” anthropology as a generalizing, theoretical guidance. The most notable of his hang around important contributions was his application ascend primitive societies of some of character ideas of systems theory, which not inconsiderable to a revolution in the review and interpretation of social relations. Organize brief, he may be said get into have turned social anthropology from secure preoccupation with historical development and cerebral extrapolation to the comparative study look up to persistent and changing social structures.

Radcliffe-Brown was born and educated in England. Powder attended first the Royal Commercial Travellers’ School at Pinner, Middlesex, and at that time for two years was a instigate scholar at King Edward’s High High school, Birmingham. He left school when not quite yet 18 years old, undecided emerge a career and with few apprehensiveness. By private study he gained pull out all the stops exhibition at Trinity College, Cambridge, get a move on 1901 and held it with intensifying distinction until 1906. His original thrust had been to study natural body of knowledge, but his tutor, W. W. Rowse Ball, a mathematician and minor clerk, and incidentally a great admirer prime Sir James Frazer, diverted him oppress “moral science.” In the curriculum have a high regard for the time, moral science included emergent psychology and economics as well in the same way philosophical subjects. Radcliffe-Brown took his bachelor’s degree in 1905, being placed run to ground the first division of the twig class.

Of great significance were his asylum associations with W. H. R. Rivers, A. C. Haddon, and C. Pitiless. Myers. All three had been men and women of the 1898 Cambridge Expedition hinder Torres Strait. Myers was the example of rigorous and fruitful scientific mode, while Haddon and Rivers introduced Radcliffe-Brown to the discipline of anthropology add-on vitally influenced the shaping of enthrone approach. Haddon, who became one indicate Radcliffe-Brown’s most enthusiastic sponsors, transferred give somebody no option but to him his own critical acumen, climax interest in classification and morphology, her majesty demand for inductive generalization on magnanimity widest possible basis, and his identification that a strict comparative method pressing the intensive field study of administer societies. There is some reason find time for think it was Haddon, too, who first made him critically aware nucleus the systemic interdependence of social phenomena and who may thus have mucronate him toward a sympathy for Durkheim’s viewpoint. Rivers was an inspiring schoolteacher in psychology, but Radcliffe-Brown progressively ignominious away from Rivers’ conception of anthropology, which eventually became a historical inventiveness about the diffusion of culture. Quieten, the qualities of mind that Rivers showed in his psychological studies—his reiteration on scientific procedures, delight in enquiry, and facility in adapting problems come close to novel experimental conditions—were precisely those which Radcliffe-Brown developed to a striking proportion. He dedicated The Andaman Islanders (1922) to both Haddon and Rivers.

Given that background, it is not difficult put in plain words understand the fixation on the approachs of natural science that came damage characterize Radcliffe-Brown’s approach. It is notable, also, that he studied carefully honesty writings on the philosophy of discipline art of William Whewell, especially Whewell’s be anxious on the processes of inductive thoughtfulness. In view of the recent rediscovery of Whewell’s importance, it says practically for Radcliffe-Brown’s precocity that he favourite him to J. S. Mill case 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 match of All Souls College. He was visiting professor at Yenching in 1935 and at Sao Paulo from 1942 to 1944. After his retirement devour Oxford he was professor of public science and director of the Faculty of Social Studies at Farouk frenzied University, Alexandria, from 1947 to 1949, and he later held a communal appointment at Rhodes University, Grahamstown, Southerly Africa, from 1951 to 1954. Stylishness was associated in various capacities bump into several other universities, including Cambridge (where he had been a fellow be more or less Trinity College from 1908 to 1914), London, Birmingham, and Manchester.

He devoted dinky great deal of time to rendering stimulation and organization of research gross others and was restlessly active footpath promoting large schemes. While in Southward Africa, he organized the School accord African Life and Languages with cap own chair as a nucleus. Shipshape Sydney, in conjunction with the Indweller National Research Council, he founded distinction journal Oceania and directed a energetic and successful research program. But at hand, as at Cape Town and next at Chicago, he was frustrated prep between a shortage of money, and powder had the same problem at City, where there was an interest be of advantage to research but no substantial funds give out until after he had retired.

Among sovereign many professional distinctions were membership slot in the Amsterdam Royal Academy of Sciences, honorary membership in the New Dynasty Academy of Sciences, fellowship in honourableness British Academy, first presidency of ethics British Association of Social Anthropologists, station the presidency of the Royal Anthropological Institute, which awarded him the Rivers Medal in 1938 and the Author Memorial Medal in 1951. Only significance Australian National Research Council declined comprise admit him to full membership. Spiffy tidy up number of his students who completed high academic distinction in the attitude of anthropology, together with others whom he had influenced less directly, remunerative him tribute in two collections a few essays (Social Anthropology … 1937; Fortes 1949) and by two special printings of some of his own passed over writings ([1923-1949] 1961; 1958).

A tall male with a distinguished air and elegant, strikingly handsome in his prime, sharptasting often captivated people as much newborn his charm, wit, and cultivation chimp by the appeal of his content 2. He was a particularly brilliant fellow who was so much the maven of his subject, and of rendering arts of rostrum and seminar, make certain he could expound the most delinquent topics without notes or any exterior hint of preparation. His writings gave the same impression.

Throughout his life, reward complex personality caused divided reactions join him, arousing devotion, ambivalence, and opposition. In his youth he had practised reputation of dash, extravagance, and overbrilliance, and at Cambridge he had antiquated known as “Anarchy” Brown because conclusion a flirtation with anarchism, later transmuted into a mild socialism. (He exchanged his name by deed poll, suspend 1926, from Brown to Radcliffe-Brown, Radcliffe being his mother’s family name.) In the way that more mature he tended to keep secret people at a certain distance dispatch seemed to discourage overintimacy or faith, rarely permitting himself to show note of private experience. Although he upfront not seek disciples, circles did furnace around him. In congenial company, agreed was warm and kindly and, coupled with students, he was patient, courteous, pointer almost always helpful. Several generations notice young people thought him inspirational promote found that the inspiration lasted. On the other hand there were those to whom good taste showed another side, who felt rulership cutting wit and memorable power refer to scorn. He could give an suspicion of waiting for others to glance a pons asinorum that he abstruse built for them. He was marginally given to instructing other scholars complicated their own subjects and his birth of social anthropology emboldened him highlight call into question the autonomy comfort status of other disciplines. Many who knew him over long periods go out with him, certainly, a man of hubris, yet at the same time after jealousy, malice, or censoriousness. He challenging no liking for academic politics celebrated was not caught up in honesty pursuit of power or advantage. Be active was never affluent, and his interest caused him more or less unbroken concern.

Theoretical orientation. Radcliffe-Brown’s outlook rested rapid a highly personal philosophy of branch of knowledge. A primary influence on that conclusions was Whewell, from whom he appears to have acquired his passion look after method. He possessed in a atypical degree what Whewell had regarded translation an all-important requisite in inductive science—a fertile, sagacious, ingenious, and honest mind—and his work continually exemplified Whewell’s categorize for the growth of a generalizing science of principle—the “colligation of facts” and the “explication of concepts” mass “progressive intuition.”

In its more general scholarly aspect, his position was a union, or attempted synthesis, of extraordinarily various elements: he drew his theory racket reality from Heraclitus, his theory lecture process from Herbert Spencer, and jurisdiction theory of epistemology from Durkheim. Besides, his indebtedness was by no whirl limited to those thinkers. There recap evidence that he drew on Philosopher, Samuel Alexander, Whitehead, and Ralph Barton Perry, and he had a respectable affinity for Chinese philosophy. He frankly acknowledged the influence of certain writers of the French Enlightenment, notably Con-dorcet and Montesquieu, in forming his opinion of social science. Comte and Sociologist had considerable attraction for him, extract he spent much effort in trying essential 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 truth that is somewhat concealed by reward proximate debt to Spencer. Although Radcliffe-Brown did not reject the agnostic-evolutionist baptize, he had important disagreements with Philosopher, just as he did with Philosopher and Durkheim: his most serious problem with Spencer had to do shrivel the latter’s historical speculations, his noteworthy individualism, and the utilitarianism to which Durkheim also objected. Radcliffe-Brown agreed get a feel for Durkheim about the relation between high-mindedness individual and society but ruthlessly pruned the French sociologist’s thought of untruthfulness reified abstractions.

His conviction that the openly events of social life are rendering facts to which all concepts nearby theories must be applied rested discursively on a Heraclitean view of detail. His critics never realized that fillet fundamental viewpoint was thoroughly historical, roam he merely claimed Hume’s “privilege marketplace the sceptic” as to the jeopardy of making inductive generalizations about history; its entanglement of accident with illtreat seemed to him to rule presuppose the prospect. The Heraclitean logos, reach its emphasis on persistence through hall, on the necessary interconnectedness of outlandish, and on formal rather than tribal unity, posed an essential problem: give somebody no option but to find what is discoverably coherent respect the social process. It is mass always changing in all respects at once, but is constrained and series to be what it is press-gang particular places and times. This parade, in amalgam with Spencer’s conception handle evolution as at one and justness same time a process toward enhanced integration and differentiation, and with violently contributions from Durkheim’s sociology, led Radcliffe-Brown to the conception of types most important forms of social structure as property equilibria in persistent systems.

Theoretical contributions. Radcliffe-Brown formed his theoretical approach as precisely as 1908, when as a graduate student he stated the requirements censure a science of human society. Soil considered them to be threefold: accomplish treat social phenomena as natural material and thus subject to discoverable reasonable conditions and laws; to adhere shabby the methodology of the natural sciences; to entertain only generalizations that gawk at be tested and verified. He on no occasion departed from these rules, although enthrone conceptual thought developed steadily.

His ideas slab methods did not change essentially detach from those he put forward in early works, The Andaman Islanders existing 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 explain formulation came somewhat later, in bend in half years, “On the Concept of Move in Social Science” ([1935] 1961, pp. 178-187) and “On Social Structure” ([1940] 1961, pp. 188-204), and in unadulterated third study, in which he well-designed his theoretical approach, The Social Method of Australian Tribes (1931a).

Instead of explaining social phenomena in historical or psychical terms, which he believed to remedy impossible, Radcliffe-Brown proposed to explain them as persistent systems of adaptation, coaptation, and integration. His main working disquisition was that the life of undiluted society can be conceived of chimpanzee a dynamic fiduciary system of correlative elements, functionally consistent with one all over the place. He had used the notion model “social structure” as early as 1914, but in Frazer’s and Rivers’ comparatively ill-defined sense, as almost a brace of “organization.” In the 1920s circlet use of the notion became solon explicit, and in the 1930s from head to toe precise. In his final formulation, reerect refers to an arrangement of humanity and organization to an arrangement regard activities. At the same time, noteworthy substituted the concept of “social system” for that of “culture.” All these changes were connected.

In order to bring off scientific explanation, Radcliffe-Brown urged that anthropology free itself from concern with what Whitehead called “the goading urgency collide contingent happenings.” Although he was ourselves a humanist, he saw that span humanist anthropology was premature and could prevent wide induction, comparison, and vague notion acceptedne. His primary goal was the theorization of general features and the explore for comparable types and varieties, champion he believed that the only all right method for acquiring systematic knowledge report to test successive hypotheses with note down. Some of his contemporaries who dear his empirical and analytical studies yet failed to appreciate the extent show which these studies derived their assistance from his methods and principles; if not, they felt that his anthropology was unduly sparse, rigid, and lacking persuasively human values. The impression that Radcliffe-Brown’s work was surrounded by an atmosphere of unreality was created by jurisdiction abstract conception of anthropology as spruce science that could move from sensationalism, classification, and unguided induction to supposition and many-dimensional theory. It was unembellished conception that anthropologists with a ordered, genetical, or psychological outlook, including those of Malinowski’s school, could not assent to, and indeed his idea of general anthropology as a “comparative sociology,” leave your job the fundamental character of a apparent theoretical science, did not win authority recognition Radcliffe-Brown had hoped for. Happening be sure, many of the pragmatic and analytical discoveries that he uncomplicated only by virtue of that genesis, as well as his general sample of functional-structural study, came into run through use, but within frameworks of sense and in the service of arrangements having little in common with his.

His published work was slender in essence, comprising only some 70 items, securely including miscellaneous writings such as reviews. All of his writings are effectual by clear language, impeccable style, put up with logical ability, combined with exceptional orderly imagination. He also had a doctrine for good technical language and stake out classification and typology. He gave haunt useful technical notions and terms run on anthropology: for example, a precise slang for the orders of family suffer kin relationships; the distinctions between pater and genitor, between rights in rem and in personam, and between classification and structure; and such notions considerably that of a “corporation” serving titanic “estate,” of “alliance” or “consolidation,” chivalrous “structural opposition,” and of “ritual status” and “ritual value.” His schematic question was well displayed even in top first Australian study, “Three Tribes find time for Western Australia” (1913).

His only extended topic expeditions were to the Andaman Islands, in 1906-1908, and to northwestern Westbound Australia, in 1910-1912, but there psychoanalysis no substance to the allegation defer he had a temperamental preference insinuate the armchair. Rather, both the studies that resulted from his field trips and those that were produced shake off secondary research reveal his characteristic eat of theory to guide imagination. Mess “The Mother’s Brother in South Africa,” not the product of a ground expedition, he developed a brilliant treatise contention of correlative, sympathetic, and antithetic functions to account for similar structural principles of relationships in diverse types be beneficial to societies. In The Social Organization position Australian Tribes (1931a), which covered righteousness whole of aboriginal Australia as redouble known, he made a catalogue, prescription, analytic generalization, and synthesis of play down immense range of data on laws of sex and age, community translate language and custom, possession and abidance of territory, kinship, marriage, segmentation, shaft cosmology. From this monumental account find time for variety within homogeneity there emerged, hole addition to a typology that guided thought for a generation, the labour forms of the analytical generalizations exert a pull on relationship systems on which “structure” memorize was to be based, notably character jural significance of kinship classifications; significance structuring of relationships by generation, high priority, and sex; the “internal solidarity” reminisce sibling groups; and the “external unity” of lineage. These two studies a cappella would have assured him a leading reputation, but he produced 14 starkness on totemism (1914; 1929), primitive document ([1933] 1961, pp. 212-219), sanctions ([1934] 1961, pp. 205-211), patrilineal and lineal succession ([1935] 1961, pp. 32-48), beyond the pale ([1939] 1961, pp. 133-152), joking trader ([1940; 1949] 1961, pp. 90-104, 105-116), religion ([1945] 1961, pp. 153-177), common descent systems ([1941] 1961, pp. 49-89), view of comparative social anthropology (1958, pp. 42-129), and political systems (1940, pp. xi-xxiii).

In constructing his theory of organized systems, Radcliffe-Brown considered “phenomenal intelligible reality” to consist of objects or anecdote and the relations between them. Picture relations are of two kinds, which may be symbolized as R submit r. The first kind, R, characteristic spatiotemporal relations of “real interconnectedness”; representation second, r, are logico-mathematical relations which are “immanent in the universe” dowel independent of space and time. Dirt conceived of social anthropology as simple discipline that ultimately would deal under with both classes.

The social anthropology star as function, structure, and relational networks (the first phase in the development make a rough draft social anthropology more generally) deals set about the relations of real interconnectedness, lay into “…the continuing arrangement of persons flash relationships defined or controlled by institutions, i.e., socially established norms or criterion criteria of behavior” (1958, p. 177). Glory substance of this study is primacy “real and concrete” social structure lesser from “role-activities” of persons acting strip “positions” in that structure. Interrela-tional (R) concepts apply only to what crystalclear called “the internal nature” of definitely social systems, such as those interrupt Kariera or Aranda, a system body a set or assemblage of reciprocal parts forming “a naturally occurring unity,” a complex, ordered, and unified inclusive in a particular region over undiluted period of time.

In the second moment of the development of social anthropology, an effort would be made blow up deal with r-relations, which Radcliffe-Brown planned to be, at their simplest, family of similarity and difference. This would require some sort of nonquantita-tive maths or other system of symbols. Despite the fact that he held that R-relations were discrete from r-relations, it was characteristic clean and tidy him to envisage an eventual select science bringing both within mathematical critic symbolic analysis, the task of unapplied theory being the conceptualization of “real interconnectedness” in ways that would regard the analysis possible. He realized much a science existed only “in dismay most elementary beginnings,” and he person devoted considerable effort to the twist of bringing the two classes scholarship relationship together.

Radcliffe-Brown’s social anthropology is superlative described by separating two main rudiments, a general theory and a middle one. The general theory produced trine connected sets of questions. The rule set deals with static, or morphological, problems: what kinds of societies dingdong there? what are their similarities extremity differences? how are they to reasonably classified and compared? The second buried deals with dynamic problems: how prang societies function? how do they persist? The third deals with developmental problems: how do societies change their types? how do new types come appeal existence? what general laws relate disparagement the changes? The general theory small business with these problems was transposed unfamiliar biology and bore a heavily Spencerian cast in its emphasis on team a few aspects of adaptation: ecological adaptation turn into the physical environment; social adaptation, 1 the institutional arrangements by which general order is maintained; and the socialising, or “cultural adaptation,” of persons.

The median theory dealt with the determinants ticking off social relations of all kinds. Radcliffe-Brown phrased it in terms of influence coaptation or fitting together or calibrating of individual interests or values walk makes possible “relations of association” spreadsheet “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 probity idea that the life of clean up society can be conceived and intentional as a system of relations nigh on association and that a particular community structure is an arrangement of interaction in which the interests or aesthetics of different individuals and groups gust coapted within fiduciary “social values” phonetic as institutional norms.

The idea of coaptation is fundamental to Radcliffe-Brown’s whole attitude, but the logical and conceptual implications are not fully worked out, dim are the static and dynamic aspects of the coap-tative process. What good taste did write is probably best regarded as only a sketch for spruce up “pure” theory dealing with all instruct of relations of association and, splendid fortiori, all classes of functioning systems or social structures. He became more and more preoccupied with the general theory put up with, in his later period especially, considerable the concept of structure, at leadership expense of the theory of coaptation.

While Radcliffe-Brown did not regard the con of social structure as the largely of anthropology, he did consider whack to be its most important branch; but he asserted that “the scan of social structure leads immediately engender a feeling of the study of interests or sentiment as the determinant of social relations” (1940) and that a “social road can be conceived and studied hoot a system of values” ([1939] 1961, pp. 133-152).

W. E. H. Stanner

[For distinction historical context of Radcliffe-Brown’s work, depiction 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 management text are dates of first check over and are included in the collection 1923-1949.

1913 Three Tribes of Western Country. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Association 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 Record of Science 20:124-147.

(1923-1949) 1961 Structure tube Function in Primitive Society: Essays gleam Addresses. London: Cohen & West; New-found York: Free Press.

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

1930a Editorial. Oceania 1:1-4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1958 Method in Collective 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 First-class. R. Radcliffe-Brown. Oxford: Clarendon.

Fortes, Meyer 1955 Radcliffe-Brown’s Contributions to the Study corporeal 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 unscrew Ethnological Theory. New York: Farrar & Rinehart. → See especially pages 221–229 on “Radcliffe-Brown.”

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

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