Sociology and Social Anthropology

Sociology and Social Anthropology

The relationship between sociology and social anthropology is one of the closest in the social sciences. In most countries, anthropology is a broad field that includes archaeology, physical anthropology, cultural history, several branches of linguistics, and the study of all aspects of life in what used to be called "simple societies." Our concern here is specifically with social and cultural anthropology, because these branches share the most ground with sociology.

The traditional dividing line was simple: sociology was seen as the study of modern, complex societies, while social anthropology was seen as the study of simple societies. But this division was never neutral. Each discipline has its own history, and that history shaped what it studied and how. Social anthropology developed in the West at a time when it meant that western-trained anthropologists went out to study non-European societies, which were often thought of as exotic, barbaric, and uncivilised. The unequal relationship between those who studied and those who were studied was rarely remarked upon in those early days.

Times have changed. The erstwhile "natives" — whether Indians or Sudanese, Nagas or Santhals — now speak and write about their own societies. The anthropologists of the past documented the details of simple societies in what appeared to be a neutral, scientific fashion. In practice, however, they were constantly comparing those societies against the benchmark of the western modern society. That implicit comparison shaped everything they recorded.

Other changes have also redefined both disciplines. Modernity, as we have seen, set off a process whereby even the smallest village came to be impacted by global processes. The most obvious example is colonialism. Under British colonialism, the most remote village of India saw its land laws and administration change, its revenue extraction alter, and its manufacturing industries collapse. Tea pickers in Assam were drawn into a global economy they had never chosen. Contemporary global processes have further accentuated this "shrinking of the globe."

The old assumption behind studying a simple society was that it was bounded — a self-contained unit that could be studied in isolation. We know this is not so today. No village, however remote, exists outside the reach of global forces.

This traditional study of simple, non-literate societies had a pervasive influence on the content and subject matter of social anthropology. Social anthropology tended to study society in all its aspects, as a whole. When its practitioners did specialise, they did so on the basis of area — the Andaman Islands, the Nuers, or Melanesia, for instance. Sociologists, by contrast, study complex societies and therefore often focus on parts of society: the bureaucracy, religion, caste, or a process such as social mobility.

The two disciplines also developed different methods. Social anthropology was characterised by a long tradition of fieldwork — living in the community being studied and using ethnographic research methods. Sociologists have often relied on the survey method and quantitative data, using statistics and the questionnaire mode. (Chapter 5 gives a more comprehensive account of these two traditions.)

Today, the distinction between a simple society and a complex one itself needs major rethinking. India is a complex mix of tradition and modernity, of the village and the city, of caste and tribe, of class and community. Villages nestle right in the heart of the capital city of Delhi. Call centres serve European and American clients from different towns of the country. Where does the "simple" end and the "complex" begin?

Indian sociology has been far more eclectic in borrowing from both traditions. Indian sociologists often studied Indian societies that were both part of and not part of one's own culture. They dealt with the complex, differentiated societies of urban modern India as well as the study of tribes in a holistic fashion. …