Relationship of Sociology

UNIT 3 RELATIONSHIP OF SOCIOLOGY with Anthropology

WITH ANTHROPOLOGY*

Structure
3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Nature of Sociology and Social Anthropology
3.3 Emergence and History of Sociology
3.4 Emergence and History of Anthropology
3.5 Similarities between Sociology and Anthropology
3.6 Differences between Sociology and Anthropology
3.7 Let Us Sum Up
3.8 Check Your Progress
3.9 References

3.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this Unit, you will be able to understand:
Introduce the relationship of sociology with social anthropology;
To understand the nature of sociology and social anthropology;
To locate the emergence and history of sociology and social anthropology;
To examine similarities and differences of sociology and social anthropology;
and
To understand the nature of sociology and social anthropology in
contemporary times.

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Sociology and social anthropology are closely related in many aspects.
Sometimes, it is rather difficult to differentiate sociology from social
anthropology in some areas of enquiry and methodology. There are also certain
differences that can also be observed between the two subjects in terms of the
areas and thrust of enquiry, methodology, practice and tradition. Such differences
although minor in essence, also becomes a matter of differentiation with the
development of varying academic disciplines and departments in the university
systems. John Beattie (1980) rightly points out that “sociology is social
anthropology’s closest companion discipline, and the two subjects share a great
many of their theoretical problems and interests. Social anthropologists are
sociologists as well, but they are at once something less, because their actual
field of investigation has on the whole, been more restricted, and something
more, because although they are concerned with social relationships, they are
concerned with other aspects of culture as well” (p.31).It is, therefore, necessary
to go through the historical as well as the contemporary development of the two
subjects to understand its relationship.
*This Unit is contributed by R. Vashum, IGNOU 35
Sociology and Other Social
Sciences 3.2 NATURE OF SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
Sociology is the youngest of the social sciences. It is also one of the fastest
growing academic disciplines. The word ‘sociology’ is derived from the Latin
word ‘socius’ (‘companion’ or ‘associate’)and the Greek word ‘logie’/
‘logos’(‘knowledge’). The term ‘sociology’ was coined by Auguste Comte in
1838. Sociology is a scientific study of human society which tries to explain the
contexts of social phenomena. It emphasizes on the collective aspects of human
behavior. The broad nature of the subject has resulted to overlap with many
other social sciences disciplines, such as anthropology, political science,
economics, psychology, geography, education, law and philosophy.
Anthropology(derived from Greek words, ‘anthropos’ meaning ‘man’, and
‘logia’/ ‘logos’ meaning ‘study of’) is the only subject that surpasses the scope
of sociology in the study of human society with its branches encompassing social/
Cultural anthropology (also called socio-cultural anthropology), physical
anthropology, archaeological anthropology (also called pre-historic archaeology),
and linguistic anthropology. According to Merriam Webster dictionary, the “word
‘anthropology’ dates back to the late 16th century”. The anglicised word
‘anthropology’ is said to have appeared for the first time in the year 1805 (McGee
and Warms, 2012; 6).
Social/Cultural anthropology has been historically very close to sociology from
their beginnings as they both study human society. Although, anthropology has
been regarded as the study of pre-literate societies (wrongly labeled as ‘primitive’
societies by early anthropologists and other scholars) and sociology as dealing
with the more contemporary, urban and developed societies, this distinction is
no longer true. The earlier trend in Anthropology being associated with micro
studies (particularly exotic village studies) and sociology being identified with
macro studies (particularly the modern societies) is no longer true in the
contemporary times. In the same way, the study of the rural communities once
identified mainly with anthropologists and the study of the urban communities
mainly identified with sociologists in the initial stages of the development of
the disciplines has also become blurred. Today, a trend has set in where
sociologists have carried out much studies on rural communities, villages and
micro settings, while anthropologists have also ventured on the urban settings
and macro studies. There are ample examples of this emerging trend which is
most obvious in the studies carried out by both sociologists and anthropologists
in the developing countries. Hence, there has been much overlapping in the
areas of enquiry and interest between sociologists and anthropology, particularly
social anthropology and/or cultural anthropology.

3.3 EMERGENCE AND HISTORY OF

SOCIOLOGY
Sociology as a scientific study of society has a relatively short history of
development. It emerged only in the early 19th century as an academic discipline.
The study of society, although not specific to sociology, was for long of interest
to the Greek philosophers such as Socrates as early as 5 th century B.C., Plato
and Aristotle in the 4th century B.C., and Marcus Tullius Cicero, the Roman
36 philosopher, in the first century B.C. who made immense contribution to the
understanding of society in their times. They attempted a systematic study of Relationship of Sociology
with Anthropology
human society, particularly on the general consideration of society, philosophy,
politics, law and the state. By the 16th century A.D., the works of Thomas Hobbes
and Machiavelli on society and state have been impactful to the understanding
of the concepts of society and the state. By 18th century A.D. after the experience
and influence of the Renaissance in Europe, there were many eminent
philosophers who made immense contributions to the understanding of society,
including Rousseau, Vico and Baron de Montesquieu who dealt with the social
phenomena of those times. These earlier works certainly laid the philosophical
foundation for the development of the social sciences and the science of human
society including sociology and anthropology. The application of positivism to
the study of human society transformed the conceptualization of society from a
divine or God given condition to one that could be viewed as a product of human
agency. This made the objectification of society possible and also introduced
the notion of social transformation through human effort and action.

The most significant factors for the emergence of sociology is however attributed
to the various intellectual and socio-political changes taking place in the 18 th
and 19th centuries in Europe. Some of the important influences include the French
Revolution and the Industrial Revolution in Europe. Although, Claude Henri
Saint Simon used the idea of “the science of society”, it was August Comte
(1798 – 1857), the French philosopher who is generally credited for laying the
foundation of the emergence of sociology. The term ‘sociology’ is coined in
1838 by Auguste Comte in his book, Positive Philosophy. He considers sociology
as a science based on systematic observation and classification of the social
phenomenon. Herbert Spencer, an English social philosopher is one of the
pioneers who laid the foundation of sociology. His book, Principles of Sociology
(1876), based on organic analogy of human society, was an important contribution
of those times. In America, social philosopher, Lester F. Ward, made a significant
contribution to development of sociology through his book, Dynamic Sociology
(1883) which engages with the concepts of social progress and social action.
But the most significant contribution to the development of sociology using
scientific methodology was made by Emile Durkheim in his works — Rules of
Sociological Method (1895) and Suicide (1897). Max Weber, one of the pioneers
of sociology, introduced a new kind of approach to the understanding of social
phenomena. His well-known works include, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit
of Capitalism and Economy and Society. Karl Marx also made significant
contribution to the development of sociology although his contributions go much
beyond sociology itself. His most popular work related to sociology is Das
Kapital(Das Capital). Some of the other pioneers include George Herbert
Mead,Vilfredo Pareto, Georg Simmel and Ferdinand Tonnies. These pioneers
were followed by many well-known modern sociologists including Charles
Horton Cooley, Pitirim Sorokin, C. Wright Mills, Talcott Parsons, Robert K.
Merton, Erving Goffman, George C. Homans, Michel Foucault, Jurgen
Habermas, Pierre Bourdieu and Anthony Giddens.

3.4 EMERGENCE AND HISTORY OF

ANTHROPOLOGY
Anthropology is a diverse and comprehensive field that studies humans and
their culture society. In fact, it is considered as the broadest discipline that deals
37
Sociology and Other Social with the study of human kind and its multiple aspects. The subject matter of
Sciences
anthropology and its academic profession began as an intersection of natural
science and humanities. This trend is largely followed even today. The main
reason behind this position is that the subject has been considered as a ‘holistic
study of mankind’. It also emerged with the understanding that the humans as a
species are evolved and follow the same natural laws as all other natural species
and phenomenon. In view of the highly differentiated subject matter of
anthropology, it is rather difficult to comprehensively locate the strands of
intellectual development and the emergence of the discipline. Nevertheless, the
hallmarks of the trends of the beginning and growth of the subject can be broadly
situated. The historical delineation can be focused on socio-cultural anthropology
(social anthropology as founded in Britain and cultural anthropology as used in
the United States of America) as it is the closest branch of anthropology with
sociology.

Like sociology, the emergence and development of anthropology is said to be

directly linked to the scientific development in the western world. The foundation
of anthropology has also been dated back to the Greco-Roman renaissance period,
particularly beginning with the writings of Herodotus in the 5th Century B.C.
According to Voget (1975:7), Herodotus “has been even cited as a likely
forerunner, if not the “father,” of ethnography”. The Greek philosophers of the
time, particularly, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle also influenced on the study of
man and society. Later, the Roman philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero also
significantly contributed to the understanding of human society. After a gap of
several centuries some philosophers began to take interest in the study of society
and the state, particularly in the 16th century A.D. Some of these scholars include
Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli. Prior to this, mention may be made of the
significant contribution of Ibn Khaldun in the 14th century A.D. on the moral-
historical philosophy and structural-functional analysis of social phenomena.

By 18th century A.D. after the experience and influence of the renaissance in
Europe, there were many eminent philosophers who have made immense
contributions to the understanding of society, including Rousseau, Vico, Baron
de Montesquieu and John Locke who dealt with the social phenomena of the
time. These earlier works certainly laid the philosophical foundation for the
development of the social sciences and the science of human society including
anthropology. The development of anthropology and social science which makes
departure to the earlier philosophical and historical studies came in two phases.
The first phase (1725 - 1840) “philosopher scientists succeeded in separating
the study of man, society, and civilization from history and thereby formulated
a general social science” (Voget, 1975:41). However, Hoebel (1958) is of the
view that “anthropology stems primarily from natural science and carries a greater
measure of the natural science tradition” (p.9) and not from history or philosophy.
On the other hand, Marvin Harris (1979)opines that anthropology “began as the
science of history” (p.1).The problem of its earlier association and the nature of
anthropology are such that E.E. Evans-Pritchard even in the mid-20 th century
had to grapple with the situation in British Anthropology (particularly social
anthropology). On the nature of social anthropology, he states that “there is a
broad division of opinion between those who regard social anthropology as a
natural science and those, like myself [Evans-Pritchard], who regards it as one
of the humanities. This division is perhaps at its sharpest when relations between
anthropology and history are being discussed” (Evans-Pritchard, 1951:7). An
38
important stimulus for the development of anthropology as a discipline was the Relationship of Sociology
with Anthropology
spread of Europeans to other parts of the world for reasons of trade, travel and
colonization. Anthropology also developed in an attempt to explain human
diversity and variation. It was initially also referred to as the study of ‘Other
Cultures’, thus differentiating it from sociology that was regarded by the western
people as study of their won society.

In the second phase (1840-1890) there was “transition in the natural sciences
from a static equilibrium model to a dynamic model. Its culmination came with
the introduction of thermodynamic and Darwinian evolutionary theory” (Voget,
1975:42).With such a diverse field as anthropology, an attempt was made in the
1860s for integrating into a general anthropological discipline that would engage
on the early history of man. By 1870 and after, “a distinctive character of
anthropology began to manifest itself” by unifying physical anthropology,
prehistory and ethnology (cf. ibid.). This period marks the emergence of
anthropology into an academic discipline. It is through the inspiration of the
“triumphs of the scientific method in the physical and organic domain, nineteenth-
century anthropologists believed that socio-cultural phenomena were
discoverable lawful principles. This conviction joined their interests with the
aspiration of a still earlier period, extending back before the social sciences had
been named, to the epochal stirrings of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment
and the vision of a universal history of mankind” (Harris, 1979:1).However, it
emerged as an academic discipline only in the nineteenth century. According to
Kuper (2018), the “modern discourse of anthropology crystallized in the 1860s,
fired by advances in biology, philology, and prehistoric archaeology”. The
division of Anthropology into distinct sub-disciplines (or specialized field areas),
namely, Physical or Biological Anthropology, Archaeological Anthropology,
Social or Cultural Anthropology (also called Socio-Cultural Anthropology), and
Linguistic Anthropology— and some would still include Psychological
Anthropology came about by the later part of the 19th century through the middle
of the 20th century. Of these branches of anthropology, social or cultural
anthropology (also called socio-cultural anthropology) has been the closest
branch of anthropology to sociology.

The pioneers of anthropology (socio-cultural anthropology) among others include

Lewis Henry Morgan (1818-1881), John Ferguson McLennan (1827-1881),
Sir Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-1917), Franz Boas (1858-1942), Sir James
George Frazer (1854–1941) and W.H.R. Rivers. Some decades later (since the
1920s), anthropology (socio-cultural anthropology) evolved into a ‘modern
anthropology’, particularly with the works of two outstanding anthropologists,
namely, Bronislaw Malinowski and A.R. Radcliffe-Brown. Malinowski’s book
Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922) on one hand, and Radcliffe-Brown’s
The Andaman Islanders (1922) were the earliest significant modern works which
obviously mark the emergence of new modern phase of Anthropology. These
works were primarily based on rigorous field works (ethnographic works) with
theoretical orientations. The influence of the works of these two anthropologists
soon spread beyond Britain, even to the extent of reaching North America, a
region which was generally considered as the domain of cultural anthropology.
There were also many anthropologists who contributed to the development of
modern anthropology at that time and even later but they would not attain such
stature as those of Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown.
39
Sociology and Other Social
Sciences 3.5 SIMILARITIES BETWEEN SOCIOLOGY
AND ANTHROPOLOGY
Sociology is very close to social/cultural (Socio-Cultural) anthropology. The
relationship between the two is so close that in the contemporary times the
difference has become very bleak. There are many eminent anthropologists who
have opined the close relationship between Sociology and anthropology,
particularly socio-cultural anthropology. For instance, Frazer is, perhaps, the
first anthropologist who in his Inaugural Lecture as the first Professor of Social
Anthropology in1908 defined “social anthropology as that branch of sociology
that deals with primitive societies” (Radcliffe-Brown,1952:2; cf. Voget,
1975:143). According to Frazer, sociology “should be viewed as the most general
science of society. Social anthropology would be a part of sociology, restricted
to the “origin, or rather the rudimentary phases, the infancy and childhood of
human society” By limiting social anthropology to a study of savage life, Frazer
echoed the ideas of Waitz and of Tylor in placing the anthropological emphasis
on the early history and institutions of mankind” (Voget, 1975:143).

According to Radcliffe-Brown (1983) social anthropology is a ‘comparative

sociology’. By the term ‘comparative sociology’, he would mean “a science
that applies the generalizing method of the natural sciences to the phenomena of
the social life of man and to everything that we include under the term culture or
civilisation” (p.55). Thus, he is of a considered view that social anthropology
should look for ‘nomothetic’ approach (search for general laws of society) rather
than the idiographic approach (search for particular scientific facts and processes,
as distinct from general laws). It is a method to demonstrate “a particular
phenomenon or event” to establish a “general law” (ibid.). There are also many
other anthropologists who concur to his view. For instance, Evans-Pritchard,
another well-known anthropologist considers social anthropology as “a branch
of sociological studies, that branch which chiefly devotes itself to primitive
societies” (1951:11). He opines that “[w]hen people speak of sociology they
generally have in mind studies of particular problems in civilized societies. If
we give this sense to the word, then the difference between social anthropology
and sociology is a difference of field (ibid.).According to E.A. Hoebel, the
relationship between sociology and social anthropology are, “in their broadest
senses, one and the same. Both are the study of social interrelationships, i.e., the
relations of men to men” (1958: 9). Lucy Mair (1965) and many other
anthropologists also consider social anthropology as a ‘branch’ of sociology.

Although, anthropology (an integrated anthropology including physical

anthropology) is said to have emerged earlier than sociology, from the very
beginning it was very difficult to differentiate between the subject matters of the
two, particularly with socio-cultural anthropology. While anthropology was
formulated as a holistic study of mankind and related aspects, Auguste Comte
also considered that sociology would be the overarching study of human society,
and therefore, sociology should be the “queen of all sciences”. Anthropology
and sociology also founded with the significant elements from the natural sciences
in one way or another although the subject matter of anthropology (integrated
anthropology), particularly due to the components of physical anthropology and
archaeological anthropology exceeds sociology in terms of its linkage with the
physical sciences. Even when the discipline of sociology and socio-cultural
40
anthropology were established their relationship still existed. The relationship Relationship of Sociology
with Anthropology
is mainly because of the similarity in the subject matter and methodology.
According to Fred W. Voget (1975), the difference between sociology and
anthropology (particularly socio-cultural anthropology) is more on the application
level rather than at the level of the scope, concept, and method. He states:

The procedural distinctions by which early sociologists sought to separate

and to relate anthropology and sociology did not hold historic development
of the disciplines. Both anthropology and sociology, following the model
of science, combined description and generalization. The pragmatic
distinction between these two disciplines came when their respective
exponents began fieldwork (Voget, 1975:144).

In fact, there had been many universities and colleges where sociology and social
anthropology existed in the same department in many universities of the world.
It was only by the early 20th century that the distinction became more visible
with the establishment of respective academic disciplines. The relationship has
been growing even more in the contemporary times that it is becoming more
difficult to distinguish between the two despite the maintenance of discipline-
based barriers. The relationship of the two subjects is also due to the necessity
of the cross-use of concepts and also the identical theoretical and research
problems and their findings. This is for the fact that both the subjects need each
other to strengthen their disciplines and also do justice to the scope of the study
of society at large.

Since one significant difference between the two was, from the point of view of
the western scholars, social anthropology was the study of the ‘others’, and
sociology of their own society; when the ‘others’, that is the non-western scholars
who were earlier only the subject matter of social anthropology, became scholars,
the difference between the two disciplines became blurred. For example while
western scholars would study caste as social anthropology, for the Indian scholars
it could well be sociology.

In the non-European and non-Western regions, particularly in the context of

‘Third World’ countries, the distinction between “social anthropology and
sociology at the level of theory and method is extremely tenuous” (Jain1986:1).
In the Indian context, it has become even more difficult to differentiate between
sociology and social anthropology in many respects. The similarities include
identical syllabi in Indian Universities, the methodology, theories and the universe
of research studies. It is no wonder why many of the sociological well-known
research works in India are village centric studies with a rural setting which
otherwise is supposed to be the traditional domain of social anthropology. It is
also true that some of the famous sociologists in India are trained social
anthropologists. As a matter of fact, the Indian Council of Social Science Research
(ICSSR), the apex nodal funding agency of the social sciences considers
sociology and social anthropology in the same unit. At present, it is also noticeable
where many social anthropologists are absorbed as faculties in Sociology
departments and/or sociological research works.

41
Sociology and Other Social
Sciences 3.6 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOCIOLOGY
AND ANTHROPOLOGY
Although the subject matter, interests, theories and methodology overlap between
sociology and Anthropology, there are also certain differences. The first and
foremost difference lies in the definition of the scope of the subjects itself.
Sociology is the study (or science) of society, whereas anthropology (integrated
anthropology) is the study of man and everything that concerns man, including
the physical and socio-cultural aspects. The distinction between sociology and
socio-cultural anthropology (which shall be focused hereafter) is however much
limited.

A notable difference between sociology and anthropology can be traced through

historical roots. Anthropology is generally considered to have “no roots in
philosophy” while “the former has” (Sarana 1983:14). While the emergence of
sociology can be mainly attributed to the attempt to bring about social order in
the society (in the European social context) after the great social transformation
brought about by industrial revolution and French revolution, its influence on
the emergence of anthropology was not as direct as with sociology or other
social sciences; rather it was an indirect influence through the opening up of
intellectual and geographical spaces to enable the European scholars to go outside
the European society and study the pre-literate societies (the ‘other’ non-European
societies) (cff. Eriksen et al 2001; Sarana 1983). On the existence of the According
to Merriam Webster dictionary, the “word anthropology dates back to the late
16th century” (The anglicised word ‘anthropology’ is said to have appeared for
the first time in the year 1805 (McGee and Warms, 2012; 6) while sociology
was coined somewhat later in 1838.

The original focus of the areas of interest between sociology and anthropology
(socio-cultural) has been one of the main factors of divergences. Sociology began
with the focal interest with the study of society-as a generalizing social science,
particularly with a focus on a larger societal context to explain social phenomena.
It focuses on the study of industrialized societies (the western societies,
particularly Europe) who are considered as modern societies. On the other hand,
the initial focal interest of anthropology was the study of the ‘other’ exotic
communities that are non-European and/or non-western societies. Hence, their
focus and practice was on the study of simple, small-scale, and pre-literate
societies situated outside Europe and western societies. The trend changed
particularly from about the mid-20th century when anthropologists have expanded
their field studies to modern and urban settings while sociologists have also
ventured out to the studies of rural and simple societies.

The other distinction between sociology and socio-cultural anthropology can be

located in its methodology, particularly methods and techniques of research.
Sociologists largely employ quantitative methods like questionnaires to collect
data and subsequent analysis of the data with the help of statistical techniques.
Anthropology began as a field-based science. Anthropologists largely use
qualitative methods, particularly ‘participant observation’ along with other
methods and techniques. Anthropologists go out to the field and live with the
people for several months or even for years and learn their culture as one of the
insiders. However, over a period of time, the differences in the use of research
42
methods and techniques have changed as sociologists began to extensively Relationship of Sociology
with Anthropology
employ qualitative methods, while anthropologists also began to profusely use
quantitative methods along with qualitative methods. The distinction of sociology
and anthropology was also due to the historic development of the early exponents
of the disciplines, particularly in the way they conducted their fieldworks. In
this regard, Voget (1975:144) writes: At such time [early developmental stage]
anthropologists and sociologists distinguished themselves and their disciplines
not by what they said but what they did. Anthropologists entered the field to
record the lifeways of Trobrianders, Zulus, and Zunis, while sociologists compiled
information on urban life in the West from census data, interviews and
questionnaires. The necessity for gathering firsthand facts about the beliefs,
customs, ceremonial, art, technology, and social organization of pre-industrial
peoples made an enduring impact on anthropology and emphasized a continuing
collection of new data.”

The differences in the nature of sociology and social anthropology till mid-20 th
century or even later can be summed up from the statement of Hoebel (1958)
which he opines are mainly due to the following historical reasons:

“Each field [sociology and social anthropology — even including

social psychology] has had a different background, uses somewhat
different methods of investigation, and has differing traditional
attitudes and concepts. Anthropology tends more to work in terms of
culture and whole societies. Sociology tends more to work in terms
of aspects of complex Western society. Anthropology stems primarily
from natural science and carries a greater measure of the natural
science tradition. Still the methodological differences between these
fields of study grow less with each passing year, as anthropology
becomes more analytical and sociology more objective, so that today
the measure of difference is one of convenience. The anthropologist
concentrates chiefly on the societies of primitive[sic] people and the
sociologist concentrates on our own [European and/or Western
Societies’] contemporary civilization” (p.9).

The relationship between sociology and social anthropology has not been the
same in different countries and contexts. The perception and consideration of
“what is sociology?” and “what is social anthropology?” takes regional variations.
In this regard, Beteille (1974) writes:

In the United Kingdom the objective condition to which the distinction

between sociology and social anthropology corresponded was the
distinction between society and culture in the metropolitan country, and
in the colonies, particularly the United States it was the distinction
between life in the industrial city and in the tribal reservation. No two
worlds could be more sharply separated than the aggressive, expanding
world of the American city and the stagnant, moribund world of the
American reservation. Small wonder, therefore, that the distinction
between sociology and social anthropology was more marked in the
United States than in any other country. Again, it may not be an accident
that in the United Kingdom the distinction between the two became

43
Sociology and Other Social less marked after the loss of empire which reduced the sharpness of the
Sciences
distinction between the metropolitan country and the colonies (p.703).

There is also a general conception in Britain who makes “a simple distinction

between themselves and the natives; when they studied themselves they were
sociologists, when they studied the natives they became social anthropologists…
[T] here is [also] a tendency for Americans to make a similar distinction, though
not as explicitly. When they study the core of their own society and culture they
are sociologists. When they study other societies and cultures, particularly in
Africa, Asia and Latin America (or marginal groups in their own society), they
tend to become ethno sociologists. The great pity is that some Indians are now
inclined to feel that they ought to apply the same distinctions among themselves”
(Beteille, 1974:704).

In the context of Third World countries, particularly India, the relationship of

sociology and social anthropology is rather ambiguous. When sociology is
introduced in India sometime in the 1920s, “sociology had already established
its legitimacy; it had found a place for itself in some, though not in all, western
universities, and it was relatively easy for Indian sociologists to claim a place
for it in their universities” (Beteille, 2004:5). In fact, the “distinction between
sociology and social anthropology that we find in the Indian university system
was not devised by Indian scholars themselves, but was acquired from the West.
In the West itself this distinction became most marked in the period between the
two world wars which was precisely the time when the sciences of society and
culture were beginning to take root in India. If many Indian social scientists are
perplexed by this distinction today, it is because it does not correspond to their
conditions of work, which in any case was not the main source from which it
grew” (Beteille, 1974:703). This is for the fact that the “objective conditions of
work in India are very different, although the old labels are still put to use.
Almost all Indians — whether ‘sociologists ‘or ‘social anthropologists’ — study
one or another sector of Indian society which is, on the whole, neither too
primitive nor too advanced. When an Indian studies a ‘tribal’ village he is an
‘anthropologist’ and when he studies a ‘nontribal’ village he is a ‘sociologist’;
or, when he studies a village, tribal or non-tribal, he is an ‘anthropologist’, but
when he studies a town or city, he is a ‘sociologist’” (Ibid:703-704). Therefore,
Beteille is of the view that “the distinction between ‘tribal’ and ‘nontribal ‘village,
or between village and town in India is of a totally different kind from the
distinction between city and reservation in the United States, or between
metropolitan country and colony in the British Empire” (ibid:704).

3.7 LET US SUM UP

The relationship of sociology with social anthropology is very close indeed.
The two disciplines are very close that it is difficult to differentiate, particularly
in the scope, interest areas, theories, methodology, and practice. The tradition in
which they were evolved also had much convergence in its thrust areas of enquiry.
This is due to the fact that both sociology and social anthropology study human
society and largely share their theoretical problems and interests. This is also
the reason why social anthropology is considered by many scholars to be part of
sociology or a branch of sociology. Despite its similarities, there are also certain
differences between the two subjects which can be located from the early
44 developmental phase to the later phases as well in terms of the areas and thrust
of enquiry, preference of the use of methodology, theories, and practice. Such Relationship of Sociology
with Anthropology
differences although minor in essence, also becomes a matter for differentiation
in view of the development of varying academic disciplines and departments in
the university systems. Another important aspect that needs consideration is the
ambiguity of the conception of sociology and social anthropology, particularly
in the context of third world countries including India. As much as sociology
and social anthropology is the invention of the West, the conception and
perception of the same subjects and also the practitioners have been perplex and
blur. The reality is that the western sociologists, particularly in America and
Britain largely consider sociologists as ‘social’ or ‘cultural’ anthropologists when
the research studies pertain to tribal and/or rural areas and also in the colonial
countries at large. On the other hand, they would consider the sociologists as
‘sociologists’ when the same sociologists study ‘urban’ and/or ‘advanced’
societies. This is very true even in the context of Indian sociologists. Therefore,
in the perspective of the western sociologists, all Indian sociologists are social
anthropologists for the fact that the sociologists in India study both ‘tribal’ and
‘rural’ communities and also urban communities at one time or another. The
other consideration is that many trained anthropologists in India have also
professed sociology right from the early phases of the establishment of sociology
in India. Moreover, the increasing trend of the use (or incorporation) of methods
and techniques by both sociologists and social anthropologists which were
otherwise traditionally the domain of either sociology or social anthropology as
distinct disciplines have further led to the entrenched relationship between
sociology and social anthropology in India. If the trend is any indication sociology
and social anthropology, the close relationship of the two disciplines is likely to
continue even in the future.

3.8 CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

1) Discuss the emergence of sociology and social anthropology.
2) Examine the similarities and differences of sociology and social
anthropology.
3) Discuss the relationship of sociology and social anthropology with special
reference to India.

3.9 REFERENCES
Beattie, John. 1980 (1964). Other Cultures. London and Henley: Routledge &
Keagan Paul
Beteille, Andre. 1974. “Sociology and Ethnosociology.” International Social
Science Journal, Vol.XXVI, No. 4. Paris: UNESCO.
Beteille, Andre. 2004 (2002). Sociology: Essays on Approach & Method. (3rd
Impression).New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Eriksen, Thomas Hylland and Finn Sivert Nielsen. 2001. A History of
Anthropology (Second Edition). New York: Pluto Press.
Evans-Pritchard, E.E. 1951. Social Anthropology. London: Cohen & West Ltd.
Harris, Marvin, 1979 (1969). The Rise of Anthropological Theory. London &
45
Sociology and Other Social Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Sciences
Hoebel, E.A. 1958. Man in the Primitive World. New York/ London/ Toronto:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, INC.
Jain, R.K. 1986. “Social Anthropology of India: Theory and Methods.” Survey
of Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology (pp.1-50).New Delhi: Indian
Council of Social Science Research.
Kuper, Adam J. 2018. “History of Anthropology.” In Encyclopaedia Britannica
(“Anthropology”). https://www.britannica.com/science/anthropology (Accessed
20 July 2018).
Mair, Lucy. 1965. An Introduction to Social Anthropology. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Malinowski, Brownislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account
of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New
Guinea. London: George Routledge & Sons Ltd.
McGee, R. J. and Warms, R. L. (2012). Anthropological Theory: An Introductory
History (5th edition). USA:McGraw-Hill.
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1922. The Andaman Islanders. London: Cambridge
University Press.
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1952. Structure and Function in Primitive Society: Essays
and Addresses. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1983 (1958). Method in Social Anthropology. Chicago,
Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
Sarana, Gopala. (1983). Sociology and Anthropology and Other Essays. Calcutta:
Institute of Social Research & Applied Anthropology.
Voget, Fred W. 1975. A History of Ethnology. USA: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

46