Download On Social Structure

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.