Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
On Social Structure Author(s): A. R. Radcliffe-Brown Source: The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 70, No. 1 (1940), pp. 1-12 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2844197 Accessed: 08/11/2010 10:20 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. http://www.jstor.org ON SOCIAL STRUCTURE PresidentialAddress By A. R. RADCLIFFE-BROWN, M.A. It has been suggestedto me by some of myfriendsthat I shoulduse this occasionto offer some remarksabout my own pointof view in social anthropology;and since in my teaching, beginningat Cambridgeand at the London School of Economicsthirtyyearsago, I have consistentlyemphasisedthe importanceof the study of social structure,the suggestionmadeto me was thatI shouldsay something on thatsubject. I hope you will pardon me if I begin with a note of personalexplanation. I have been describedon morethan one occasionas belongingto somethingcalled the " FunctionalSchool " and even as beingits leader, or one of its leaders. This Functional of Social Anthropology Schooldoes not reallyexist; it is a mythinventedby ProfessorMalinowski. He has explained how,to quote his own words," the magnificent title of the FunctionalSchool of Anthropology has been bestowedby myself,in a way on myself,and to a largeextentout ofmy ownsenseof irresponsibility." ProfessorMalinowski'sirresponsibility has had unfortunateresults,since it has spread over anthropology a dense fog of discussionabout " functionalism."Professor Lowie has announcedthat the leading,thoughnot the only,exponentof functionalism in the nineteenthcenturywas ProfessorFranz Boas. I do not thiinkthat thereis any special sense, otherthan the purelychronologicalone, in whichI can be said to be eitherthe followerof ProfessorBoas or the predecessorof ProfessorMalinowski. The statementthat I am a " functionalist," or equallythestatementthat I am not,wouldseemto me to conveyno definite meaning. Thereis no place in naturalsciencefor" schools" in thissense,and I regardsocial anthropologyas a branchof naturalscience. Each scientiststartsfromthe workof his predecessors, and by observationand reasoningendeavours findsproblemswhichhe believesto be significant, to make some contributionto a growingbody of theory. Co-operationamongstscientists resultsfromthe factthattheyare workingon the same or relatedproblems. Such co-operation does not resultin the formation ofschools,in the sensein whichthereare schoolsofphilosophy or ofpainting. Thereis no place fororthodoxiesand heterodoxies in science. Nothingis more in than pernicious science attemptsto establishadherenceto doctrines. All that a teachercan do is to assistthe studentin learningto understandand use the scientific method. It is not his to make business disciples. A 2 Address A. R. RADCLIFFE-BRowN-Presidential I conceiveof social anthropologyas the theoreticalnatural science of lhumansociety, that is, the investigationof social phenomenaby methodsessentiallysimilarto those used in the physicaland biologicalsciences. I am quite willingto call the subject " comparative sociology,"if any one so wishes. It is the subjectitself,and not the name,that is important. who hold that it is not possible, As you know,thereare some ethnologistsor anthropologists or at least not profitable,to apply to socialphenomenathe theoreticalmethodsof natural that does not, as I have definedit, is something science. For thesepersonssocial anthropology, and neverwill,exist. For them,ofcourse,myremarkswillhave no meaning,or at leastnotthe meaningI intendthemto have. While I have definedsocial anthropology as the study of humansociety,thereare some ofdefiniwhodefineit as the studyofculture. It mightperhapsbe thoughtthatthisdifference kinds of study,betweenwhich tion is of minorimportance. Actuallyit leads to two different ofproblems. in the formulation it is hardlypossibleto obtainagreement clear that what we of social phenomenait seems sufficiently For a preliminary definition have to deal withare relationsof associationbetweenindividualorganisms. In a hive of bees thereare the relationsof associationof the queen, the workersand the drones. Thereis the and herkittens. These are social phenomena; associationof animalsin a herd,of a mother-cat of course, I do not supposethat any one will call themculturalphenomena. In anthropology, as I defineit, what we we are onlyconcernedwithhumanbeings,and in social anthropology, beings. have to investigateare the formsofassociationto be foundamongsthumaxn Let us considerwhatare the concrete,observablefactswithwhichthe social anthropologist is concerned. If we set out to study,for example, the aboriginalinhabitantsof a part of Australia,we finda certainnumberofindividualhumanbeingsin a certainnaturalenvironment. ofcourse,theiracts ofspeech, We can observetheacts ofbehaviouroftheseindividuals,including, and the materialproductsof past actions. We do not observea " culture,"since that word denotes,not any concretereality,but an abstraction,and as it is commonlyused a vague abstraction. But directobservationdoes revealto us that these humanbeingsare connected " to denotethis by a complexnetworkof social relations. I use the term " social structure networkofactuallyexistingrelations. It is thisthat I regardit as mybusinessto studyif I am but as a social anthropologist.I do not mean working,not as an ethnologistor psychologist, but I do regardit as being of is the whole social anthropology, thatthe studyofsocialstructure partofthe science. in a veryimportantsensethe mostfundamental My view of naturalscienceis that it is the systematicinvestigationof the structureofthe universeas it is revealedto us throughoursenses. Thereare certainimportantseparatebranches theaim beingto discover ofscience,each of whichdeals witha certainclassorkindofstructures, of all structuresofthat kind. So atomic physicsdeals withthe structure the characteristics and colloidalchemistry of atoms, chemistrywith the structureof molecules,crystallography of withthe structureof crystalsand colloids,and anatomyand physiologywiththe structures have which will of science for a branch natural I organisms. Thereis, therefore,suggest,place of thosesocial structuresof whichthe forits task the discoveryof the generalcharacteristics componentunitsare humanbeings. On Social Structure 3 Social phenomenaconstitutea distinctclass ofnaturalphenomena. Theyare all, in one way or another,connectedwiththe existenceofsocial structures, eitherbeingimpliedin or resultinig are as real as are individual fromthem. Social structures just organisms. A complexorganism fluidsarrangedin a certainstructure; and a living is a collectionoflivingcells and interstitial of complexmolecules. The physiologicaland psychocell is similarlya structuralarrangement logical phenomenathat we observein the lives of organismsare not simplythe resultof the moleculesor atomsofwhichtheorganismis builtup, but are the result natureoftheconstituent of the structurein whichtheyare united. So also the social phenomenawhichwe observein any humansocietyare not the immediateresultof the natureofindividualhumanbeings,but are tlie resultof the social structureby whichtheyare united. It shouldbe noted that to say we are studyingsocial structuresis not exactlythe same thingas sayingthatwe studysocialrelations,whichis howsomesociologistsdefinetheirsubject. A particularsocial relationbetweentwo persons(unlesstheybe Adam and Eve in the Gardenof Eden) exists only as part of a wide networkof social relations,involvingmanyotherpersons, and it is thisnetworkwhichI regardas the object of ourinvestigations. I am aware, of course,that the term" social structure" is used in a numberof different true of many othertermscommonly senses,some of them veryvague. This is unfortunately is a matterof scientific used by anthropologists.The choice of termsand theirdefinitions ofa scienceas soonas it has passed thefirstformative but one ofthecharacteristics convenience, periodis the existenceoftechnicaltermswhichare used in the same precisemeaningby all the revealsitselfas not studentsofthat science. By this test, I regretto say, social anthropology yet a formedscience. One has thereforeto select for oneself,for certainterms,definitions whichseemto be the mostconvenientforthepurposesofscientific analysis. who use the termsocial structureto referonlyto persistent Thereare some anthropologists social groups,such as nations,tribesand clans, whichretaintheircontinuity,theiridentity as individualgroups,in spite of changesin theirmemberlship.Dr. Evans-Pritchard,in his recentadmirablebook on the Nuer, prefersto use the term social structurein this sense. Certainlythe existenceof such persistentsocial groupsis an exceedinglyimportantaspect of structure.But I findit moreusefulto includeunderthe termsocial structurea good deal more than this. In the firstplace, I regardas a part of the social structureall social relationsof personto person. For example,the kinshipstructureof any societyconsistsof a numberof such dyadic relations,as betweena fatherand son, or a mother'sbrotherand his sister's son. In an Australiantribethe wholesocial structureis based on a networkof such relationsof person to person,establishedthroughgenealogicalconnections. of individualsand of classes Secondly,I includeundersocial structurethe differentiation socialpositionsofmenand women,ofchiefsand commoners, bytheirsocialrole. The differential of social relationsas belongingto of employersand employees,are just as muchdeterminants nations. different clans or different A2 4 Address A. R. RADCLIFFE-BROwN-Presidential the concreterealitywithwhichwe are concernedis the set In the studyofsocial structure, of actuallyexistingrelations,at a givenmomentof time,whichlink togethercertainhuman beings. It is on thisthat we can make directobservations. But it is not thisthat we attempt to describein its particularity. Science (as distinguishedfromhistoryor biography)is not concernedwiththe particular,the unique,but only with the general,with kinds,with events whichrecur. The actual relationsof Tom, Dick and Harryor the behaviourof Jack and Jill may go down in our fieldnote-booksand may provideillustrationsfora generaldescription. purposesis an accountoftheformofthestructure.For example, But whatwe needforscientific if in an AustraliantribeI observein a numberofinstancesthe behaviourtowardsone another ofpersonswhostandin therelationofmother'sbrotherand sister'sson,it is in orderthat I may be able to record as preciselyas possiblethe generalor normalformof this relationship, abstractedfrom the variations of particular instances, though taking account of those variations. This importantdistinction,betweenstructureas an actuallyexistingconcretereality,to describes,may be made be directlyobserved,and structuralform,as what the field-worker ofsocialstructure ofthecontinuity throughtime,a continuity clearerperhapsby a consideration like that of the organic whichis not static like that of a building,but a dynamiccontinuity, the lifeof an organismits structureis beingconstantly structureof a livingbody. Throughout renewed; and similarlythe social lifeconstantlyrenewsthe social structure. Thus the actual relationsof personsand groupsof personschangefromyearto year,or even fromday to day. by birthor immigration;othersgo out ofit by deathor New memberscomeintoa community emigration.Thereare marriagesand divorces. Friendsmay becomeenemies,or enemiesmay changesin thisway,the general makepeace and becomefriends. But whilethe actual structure structuralformmay remainrelativelyconstantovera longeror shorterperiodoftime. Thus if and revisitit afteran intervaloftenyears,I shallfindthat I visit a relativelystablecommunity have been born; the memberswho stillsurviveare others manyofits membershave died and now ten yearsolderand theirrelationsto one anothermay have changedin manyways. Yet fromthose I may findthat the kinds of relationsthat I can observeare verylittle different observedten yearsbefore. The structuralformhas changedlittle. But, on the otherhand, the structuralformmay change,sometimesgradually,sometimes with relativesuddenness,as in revolutionsand militaryconquests. But even in the most changessome continuityof structureis maintained. revolutionary I mustsay a fewwordsaboutthe spatialaspectofsocialstructure.It is rarelythatwe find thatis absolutelyisolated,havingno outsidecontact. At the presentmomentof a community history,the networkof social relationsspreads over the whole world,withoutany absolute whichI do not thinkthatsociosolutionof continuityanywhere.This givesrise to a difficulty whatis meantby the term" a society." They ofdefining logistshave reallyfaced,thedifficulty discreteentities,as, forexample, talk ofsocietiesas if theyweredistinguishable, do commonly whenwe are told that a societyis an organism. Is the BritishEmpirea society,or a collection ofthe RepublicofChina? ofsocieties? Is a Chinesevillagea society,or is it merelya fragment On Social Structure 5 If we say that our subjectis the studyand comparisonof humansocieties,we oughtto be able to say whatare the unitentitieswithwhichwe are concerned. If we take any convenientlocalityof a suitablesize, we can studythe structuralsystemas it appears in and.fromthat region,i.e., the networkof relationsconnectingthe inhabitants amongstthemselvesand withthe people of otherregions. We can thus observe,describe,and comparethesystemsof social structureof as manylocalitiesas we wish. To illustratewhat I mean, I may referto two recentstudiesfromthe Universityof Chicago,one of a Japanese village, Suye Mura,by Dr. JohnEmbree, and the other of a French Canadian community, St. Denis, by Dr. Horace Miner. Closely connectedwith this conceptionof social structureis the conceptionof " social " as thepositionoccupiedby a humanbeingin a socialstructure, thecomplexformed personality by all his social relationswithothers. Every humanbeinglivingin societyis two things: he is an individualand also a person. As an individual,he is a biologicalorganism,a collection of a vast numberof moleculesorganisedin a complexstructure,withinwhich,as long as it persists,there occur physiologicaland psychologicalactions and reactions,processes and and psychologists. changes. Human beingsas individualsare objectsofstudyforphysiologists The humanbeingas a personis a complexof social relationships.He is a citizenof England,a a memberof a particularMethodistcongregation, husbandand a father,a brick-layer, a voter a memberofhis tradeunion,an adherentof the Labour Party,and so in a certainconstituency, or to a place in a social on. Note that each of thesedescriptionsrefersto a social relationship, structure.Note also that a social personality is somethingthatchangesduringthecourseofthe lifeof the person. As a person,the humanbeingis the object of studyforthe social anthropologist. We cannotstudypersonsexceptin termsof social structure, norcan we studysocial structureexceptin termsofthe personswho are the unitsofwhichit is composed. If you tell me that an individualand a personare afterall reallythe same thing,I would remindyou oftheChristiancreed. God is threepersons,but to say that He is threeindividuals is to be guiltyof a heresyforwhichmenhave been put to death. Yet the failureto distinguish individualand personis not merelya heresyin religion; it is worsethanthat; it is a sourceof confusionin science. I have nowsufficiently defined,I hope,the subjectmatterofwhatI regardas an extremely importantbranchof social anthropology.The methodto be adoptedfollowsimmediately from thisdefinition.It mustcombinewiththeintensivestudyofsinglesocieties(i.e., ofthestructural systemsobservablein particularcommunities)the systematiccomparisonof many societies (or structuralsystemsof different types). The use of comparisonis indispensable. The study of a singlesocietymay providematerialsforcomparativestudy,or it may affordoccasionfor hypotheses,which then need to be tested by referenceto other societies; it cannot give demonstrated results. Our firsttask,of course,is to learnas muchas we can about the varieties,or diversities, of structuralsystems. This requiresfieldresearch. Many writersof ethnographical descriptions do not attemptto give us any systematicaccount of the social structure. But a few social 6 Address A. R. RADCLIFFE-BROWN-Presidential -do recognisethe importanceof such data and theirwork hereand in America, anthropologists, theirresearches bodyofmaterialforourstudy. Moreover, is providingus witha steadilygrowing in are no longerconfinedto what are called " primitive" societies,but extendto communities suchregionsas Sicily,Ireland,Japan,Canada and the UnitedStates. of societies,however,we must aim at If we are to have a real comparativemorphology of typesof structuralsystems. That is a complexand buildingup some sortof classification difficult task,to whichI have myselfdevoted attentionforthirtyyears. It is the kind of ofa numberofstudentsand I thinkI can numberon myfingers taskthatneedsthe co-operation I believesomeprogress in it at thepresenttime. Nevertheless, thosewhoare activelyinterested is beingmade. Such work,however,does not producespectacularresultsand a book on the best-seller. subjectwouldcertainlynotbe an anthropological and biologydid not becomefullyformedsciencesuntil thatchemistry We shouldremember of the thingstheywere considerableprogresshad been made withthe systematicclassification in the other. dealingwith,substancesin the one instanceand plantsand animals comparisonand classification study,consistingin the definition, Besidesthismorphological of diversestructuralsystems,thereis a physiologicalstudy. The problemhere is: how do structuralsystemspersist? What are the mechanismswhich maintaina networkof social and physiology, relationsin existence,and how do theywork? In usingthe termsmorphology to the analogybetweensocietyand organismwhichwas so popular I mayseem to be returning was takenoverand oftenmisusedby nineteenth centurysociologists, withmediaevalphilosophers, and is completely rejectedbymanymodernwriters. But analogies,properlyused, are important analogybetweenorganicstructure thinkingand thereis a real and significant aids to scientific and social structure. we are concernednot onlywithsocialstructure, In whatI am thuscallingsocialphysiology, and but with everykind of social phenomenon. Morals,law, etiquette,religion,government, a which social mechanism structure all of exists the and persists. are by education parts complex If we take up the structuralpointofview,we studythesethings,notin abstractionor isolation, to the way in but in theirdirectand indirectrelationsto social structure,i.e., with reference whichtheydependupon, or affect,the social relationsbetweenpersonsand groupsof persons. ofwhatthismeans. I cannotdo moreherethan offera fewbriefillustrations Let us firstconsiderthe studyoflanguage. A languageis a connectedset ofspeechusages and their observedwithina definedspeech-community.The 'existenceof speech-communities a certainverygeneralrelationbetween sizesarefeaturesofsocial structure.Thereis, therefore, of a particular social structureand language. But if we considerthe special characteristics its morphology, and even to a greatextentits vocabulary-thereis no language-its phonology, or mutual determination betweenthese and the special one-sided of either connection direct of the social structureof the communitywithinwhichthe languageis spoken. characteristics that two societiesmighthave verysimilarformsofsocial structureand conceive can We easily kinds of language,or vice versa. The coincidenceof a particularformof social verydifferent a particularlanguagein a given communityis always the resultof historical and structure On Social Structure 7 accident. Theremay,ofcourse,be certainindirect,remoteinteractions betweensocialstructure and language,but thesewouldseemto be ofminorimportance. Thus the generalcomparative carriedout as a relativelyindependentbranchof science, studyof languagescan be profitably in whichthe languageis consideredin abstractionfromthe social structureof the community in whichit is spoken. But, on the otherhand,thereare certainfeaturesoflinguistichistorywhichare specifically connectedwith social structure. As structuralphenomenamay be instancedthe processby whichLatin, frombeingthelanguageof the small regionof Latium, becamethe languageof a considerablepart of Europe, displacingthe otherItalic languages,Etruscan,and manyCeltic languages; and the subsequentreverseprocessby whichLatin splitup intoa numberofdiverse local formsofspeech,whichultimatelybecamethe variousRomancelanguagesofto-day. Thus the spread of language,the unificationof a numberof separate communities into a and the reverseprocess of subdivisioninto differentspeech-comsingle speech-community, munities,are phenomenaof social structure. So also are thoseinstancesin which,in societies of speechusage in different havinga class structure, thereare differences classes. I have consideredlanguagefirst,becauselinguisticsis, I think,thebranchofsocialanthropology whichcan be most profitablystudied withoutreferenceto social structure.There is a reason forthis. The set of speechusages whichconstitutea languagedoes forma systemand systemsof this kind can be comparedin orderto discovertheircommongeneral,or abstract, the determinationof which can give us laws, which will be specifically laws Qf characters, linguistics. and theirrelation Let us considerverybrieflycertainotherbranchesofsocial anthropology to the studyof social structure. If we take the social lifeof a local community over a period, let us say a year,we can observea certainsumtotal ofactivitiescarriedout by thepersonswho of theseactivities,one persondoing composeit. We can also observea certainapportionment certainthings,anotherdoing others. This apportionmentof activities,equivalent to what is sometimescalled the social divisionoflabour,is an importantfeatureofthe social structure. Now activitiesare carriedout because theyprovidesome sort of " gratification," as I propose featureof social lifeis that activitiesofcertainpersonsprovide to call it, and the characteristic forotherpersons. In a simple instance,when an Australianblackfellowgoes gratifications hunting,he providesmeat,not onlyforhimself,but forhis wifeand childrenand also forother relativesto whomitis his dutyto givemeatwhenhe has it. Thusin any societythereis not only ofthegratifications ofactivities,but also an apportionment an apportionment resulting therefrom, and some sortofsocialmachinery, relativelysimpleor,sometimes, highlycomplex,by whichthe systemworks. orcertainaspectsofit,thatconstitutes thespecialsubject-matter stuidied It is thismachinery, by the economists. Theyconcernthemselveswithwhatkindsand quantitiesof goods are produced,howtheyare distributed(i.e., theirflowfrompersonto person,or regionto region) and the way in whichtheyare disposedof. Thus what are called economicinstitutionsare extensivelystudiedin moreor less completeabstractionfromthe rest of the social system. This a A. R. RADCLIFFE-BRowN-Presidential Address methoddoes undoubtedlyprovideusefulresults,particularlyin the studyof complexmodem societies. Its weaknessesbecomeapparentas soon as we attemptto applyit to the exchangeof goodsin whatare called primitivesocieties. of a societyappearsin quite a newlightifit is studiedin relation The economicmachinery to the social structure.The exchangeof goods and servicesis dependentupon,is the resultof, and at the same time is a means of maintaininga certainstructure,a networkof relations betweenpersonsand collectionsof persons. For the economistsand politiciansof Canada the and it was ofAmericawas simplywastefulfoolishness potlatchof the Indians ofthe north-west forbidden. For the anthropologistit was the machineryfor maintaininga social therefore ofrankdefined oflineages,clansand moieties,withwhichwas combinedan arrangement structure by privileges. of the economicinstitutionsof humansocietiesrequiresthat they Any fullunderstanding should be studiedfromtwo angles. From one of these the economicsystemis viewed as the mechanismby whichgoodsofvariouskindsand in variousquantitiesare produced,transported and utilised. Fromthe otherthe economicsystemis a set ofrelationsbetween and transferred, personsand groupswhichmaintains,and is maintainedby,thisexchangeor circulationofgoods and services. Fromthe latterpointof view,the studyofthe economiclifeof societiestakes its place as part of the generalstudyof social structure. to the reciprocal Social relationsare onlyobserved,and can onlybe described,by reference to be described behaviourof the personsrelated. The formof a social structurehas therefore in theirdealingswithone by thepatternsofbehaviourto whichindividualsand groupsconform another. These patternsare partiallyformulatedin rules which,in our own society,we distinguishas rulesofetiquette,ofmoralsand oflaw. Rules, ofcourse,onlyexistin theirrecogniwhentheyare stated as tion by the membersof thesociety; eitherin theirverbalrecognition, as everyfield-worker rules,or in theirobservancein behaviour. Thesetwomodesofrecognition, be taken into account. and both have to same thing knows,are not the If I say that in any societytherulesof etiquette,moralsand law are partofthemechanism by whicha certainset ofsocialrelationsis maintainedin existence,thisstatementwill,I suppose, be greetedas a truism. But it is one of thosetruismswhichmanywriterson humansociety verballyaccept and yet ignorein theoreticaldiscussions,or in theirdescriptiveanalyses. The point is not that rules exist in every society,but that whatwe need to knowfora scientific is just howthesethingsworkin generaland in particularinstances. understanding Let us consider,forexample,the study of law. If you examinethe literatureon jurisare studiedforthemostpartinmoreorlesscomplete prudenceyouwillfindthatlegalinstitutions abstractionfromthe restof the social systemof whichtheyare a part. This is doubtlessthe studies. But foranyscientific methodforlawyersin theirprofessional investigamostconvenient tionofthe natureoflaw it is insufficient.The data withwhicha scientistmustdeal are events whichoccurand can be observed. In the fieldof law, the eventswhichthe social scientistcan thattake place in courtsofjustice. These observeand thustake as his data are the proceedings and for the social the theyare the mechanismor processby which are anthropologist reality, On Social Structure 9 certaindefinablesocial-relations betweenpersonsand groupsare restored, maintainedormodified. Law is a partofthemachinery by whicha certainsocial structureis maintained. The systemof laws of a particularsocietycan onlybe fullyunderstoodif it is studiedin relationto the social and inverselytheunderstanding ,structure, ofthesocial structure requires,amongstotherthings, a systematicstudyofthe legal institutions. I have talkedabout social relations,but I have not so faroffered you a precisedefinition. A socialrelationexistsbetweentwoormoreindividualorganismswhenthereis someadjustment of theirrespectiveinterests,by convergenceof interest,or by limitationof conflictsthat might arise fromdivergenceof interests. I use the term" interest" herein the widestpossiblesense, to referto all behaviourthat we regardas purposive. To speak of an interestimpliesa subject and an object and a relationbetweenthem. Wheneverwe say that a subject has a certain interestin an objectwe can state thesame thingby sayingthatthe objecthas a certainvalue for the subject. Interestand value are correlativeterms,whichreferto the two sides of an asymmetricalrelation. Thus the studyof social structureleads immediatelyto the studyof interestsor values as thedeterminants ofsocialrelations. A social relationdoes not resultfromsimilarity ofinterests, but restseitheron the mutualinterestof personsin one another,or on one or morecommon interests,or on a combinationof both of these. The simplestformof social solidarityis where two personsare both interestedin bringingabout a certainresultand co-operateto that end. in an object,that objectcan be said to have a Whentwo or morepersonshave a common interest social valueforthe personsthus associated. If, then,practicallyall the membersof a society have-aninterestin the observanceofthe laws,we can say that the law has a social value. The a partofthe studyofsocialstructure. studyofsocial values in thissenseis therefore in It was fromthis point of view that an earlyworkI approachedthe studyof what can be called ritualvalues,i.e., the values expressedin ritesand myths.It is perhaps conveniently again a truismto say thatreligionis thecementwhichholdssocietytogether.But fora'scientific understanding we need to knowjust how it does this,and thatis a subjectforlengthyinvestigaformsofsociety. tionsin manydifferent As a last examplelet me mentionthe studyof magicand witchcraft, on whichthereis an would literature. I extensiveanthropological workon the Zande pointto Dr. Evans-Pritchard's as an illuminating exampleofwhatcan be donewhenthesethingsare systematically investigated in the social relations of the membersof a community. in termsof the part theyplay to describe,social institutions, Fromthe pointof viewthat I have attemptedbriefly in the senseofstandardisedmodesofbehaviour,constitutethe machineryby whicha social structure, a networkof social relations,maintainsits existenceand its continuity.I hesitateto use the term" function,"whichin recentyearshas been so muchused and misusedin a multitudeof termsoughtto be, to meanings,manyof themveryvague. Instead of beingused, as scientific it is now used to confusethingsthat oughtto be distinguished. assist in makingdistinctions, For it is oftenemployedin place ofthemoreordinarywords" use," " purpose" and " meaning." to speak ofthe use or uses It seemsto be moreconvenientand sensible,as wellas morescholarly, 10 A. R. RADCLIFFE-BROWN-Presidential Address ofan axe or diggingstick,the meaningofa wordor symbol,the purposeofan act oflegislation, ratherthan to use the wordfunctionforthese variousthings. " Function" has been a very and by analogywithits use in thatscienceit wouldbe a very usefultechnicaltermin physiology convenientmeans of expressingan importantconceptin social science. As I have been accustomedto use the word,followingDurkheimand others,I would definethe social functionof a sociallystandardisedmode of activity,or mode ofthought,as its relationto the social structure to the existenceand continuityof whichit makessome contribution.Analogously,in a living functionofthebeatingoftheheart,or thesecretionofgastricjuices, organism,thephysiological ofwhichit makesitscontributo theexistenceorcontinuity is itsrelationto theorganicstructure tion. It is in thissensethat I am interestedin such thingsas the social functionofthe punishmentofcrime,orthe socialfunctionof the totemicritesof Australiantribes,or of the funeral ritesof the AndamanIslanders. But thisis not what eitherProfessorMalinowskior Professor Lowie mean by functionalanthropology. Besides these two divisionsof the study of social structure,which I have called social of the processesby which thereis a third,the investigation and social physiology, morphology comeintoexistence. Ofthisimportant change,ofhow newformsofstructures social structures fromthe fieldofcolonialsociology. branchofstudyI have timeforonlyone illustration, Let us suppose that we wish to studyand understandwhat is happeningin a British or Frenchcolonyor dependencyin Africa,at thepresenttime. Formerlythe regionwas inhabited havingtheirownsocialstructure.Nowa newand morecomplexsocial structurehas byAfricans been broughtinto existence. The populationnow includesa certainnumberofEuropeanstraders,missionariesand, in some instances,settlers. The new political governmentofficials, structure is one in whichtheEuropeanshave a largemeasureofcontrol,and theygenerallyplay of this kind an importantpart in the new economicstructure. The outstandingcharacteristic classes, with different of social structureis that Europeans and Africansconstitutedifferent sets of values and ideas. It is an customsand modesof life,and different languages,different elements. As such it has a certain extremeexampleof a societycompoundedofheterogeneous due to the lack ofadjustmentofdivergentinterests. instability, In orderto understandthe social changesthat are takingplace in a societyofthiskind,it seemsto me essentialto studythe wholeset of relationsamongstthe personsinvolved. This kindof studywas undertakenby some ofus in SouthAfricatwentyyearsago and is stillbeing social anthroI think. A fewyearsago, as a resultperhapsofre-defining continued,profitably, wewereaskedtoabandonthiskindofinvestigapologyas thestudy,notofsociety,but ofculture, tionin favourofwhatis now calledthestudyof " culturecontact." In place ofthestudyofthe formationof new compositesocieties,we are supposedto regardwhat is happeningin Africa as a processin whichan entitycalled Africanculturecomesinto contactwithan entitycalled European or Westernculture,and a thirdnew entityis produced,or is to be produced,whichis ofabstracAfricanculture.To methisseemsa fantasticreification to be describedas Westernized tions. European cultureis an abstractionand so is the cultureof an Africantribe. I findit fantasticto imaginethese two abstractionscominginto contactand by an act of generation On Social Structure 11 producinga thirdabstraction. Thereis contact,but it is betweenhumanbeings,Europeanand African,and it takesplace withina definitestructuralarrangement. You are aware that in certainanthropologicalcirclesthe term " evolutionaryanthropologist" is almosta termof abuse. It is applied,however,withoutmuchdiscrimination.Thus althoughhe rejectedthe theoryoforganicevolutionand Lewis Morganis called an evolutionist, whichhe conceivedas the steady in relationto societybelieved,notin evolution,but in progress, materialand moralimprovement of mankindfromcrudestoneimplementsand sexual promiscuityto the steam enginesand monogamousmarriageof Rochester,N.Y. But even such antievolutionists as Boas believein progress. It is convenient, I think,to use theterm" progress" fortheprocessby whichhumanbeings throughthe increaseofknowledgeand attain to greatercontrolover the physicalenvironment improvement oftechniqueby inventionsand discoveries. The way in whichwe are now able to resultsofprogress. destroyconsiderableportionsofcitiesfromthe air is one ofthelateststriking Progressis not the same thingas social evolution,but it is, I believe,verycloselyconnected withit. to a processof emergenceof new Evolution, as I understandthe term,refersspecifically formsof structure. Organicevolutionhas two importantfeatures: (1) in the courseof it a small numberof kinds of organismshave given rise to a verymuch largernumberof kinds; (2) morecomplexformsof organicstructurehave come into existenceby developmentout of meaningto suchphrasesas theevolution simplerforms.WhileI am unableto attachany definite of cultureor the evolutionoflanguage,I thinkthatsocialevolutionis a realitywhichthe social shouldrecogniseand study. Like organicevolution,it can be definedby two anthropologist features. Therehas been a processby which,froma smallnumberofformsofsocialstructure, formshave arisenin the courseof history; that is, therehas beena processof manydifferent have differentiation. Secondly,throughoutthisprocessmorecomplexformsofsocialstructures developedout of,or replaced,simplerforms. to theirgreateror less comJusthow structuralsystemsare to be classifiedwithreference plexityis a problemrequiringinvestigation.But thereis evidenceof a fairlyclose correlation betweencomplexityand anotherfeatureof structuralsystems,namely,the extentofthe fieldof social relations. In a structuralsystemwitha narrowtotal social field,an average or typical personis broughtinto directand indirectsocial relationswith only a small numberof other persons. In systemsof this type we may findthat the linguisticcommunity-thebody of is even personswho speak one language-numbersfrom250 to 500,whilethepoliticalcommunity smaller,and economicrelationsby the exchangeof goods and servicesextendonlyovera very narrowrange. Apartfromthe differentiation by sex and age, thereis verylittledifferentiation of social rolebetweenpersonsor classes. We can contrastwiththisthe systemsof social structure that we observeto-day in England or the United States. Thus the process of human historyto which I thinkthe term social evolutionmay be appropriatelyapplied mightbe definedas the processby whichwide-rangesystemsof social structurehave grownout of, or 12 Address: On Social Structure A. R. RADCLIFFE-BRoWN-Presidential replaced,narrow-range systems.Whetherthisview is acceptableor not,I suggestthat the concept of social evolutionis one whichrequiresto be definedin termsof social structure. Thereis no timeon this occasionto discussthe relationof the studyof social structureto attemptto bringthe two kinds of studytogetherI the study of culture. For an interesting would referyou to Mr. GregoryBateson's book Naven. I have made no attemptto deal with social anthropologyas a whole and with all its various branches and divisions. I have endeavouredonly to give you a verygeneralidea of the kind of studyto whichI have found it scientifically profitableto devotea considerableand steadilyincreasingproportionofmytime and energy. The onlyrewardthat I have soughtI thinkI have in somemeasurefound-somethingof the kind of insightinto the natureof the worldof whichwe are part that only the patientpursuitof the methodof naturalsciencecan afford.