On History & De(con)struction in Rural Transformations

Table 1- Questions for Discussion
Table 2- Household by Form of (Re-)Production
Table 3- Conditions of Transformation

Bibliographical Notation

NEWMAN, C.A.   (1998).   On history and de(con)struction in rural transformations: differential responses to modernisation in Nubian villages: a review of Davidson's In the shadow of history, 1996.   University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W. [Dept. of Social Anthropology, School of Social Sciences: SOCY-304-8].

INTRODUCTION

In proposing a 'grass-roots anthropology' that commits itself to a de-mystifying of human behaviour, Davidson has striven to avoid both the ethereal macro-focus of post-structuralism, and the contrasting but equally exclusive micro-focus of 'post-modernism' with its existentialist themes of absolute responsibility and identity impasse.  The question of focus is graphically exemplified in the trasformation of Nuba Mountain village life, where structural assumptions lead to over-generalised predictions which fail to account for significant local differences, and where post-modern individualistic assumptions fail to apply at all to traditional status societies.   It is not just a question of level of analysis: those perspectives, Davidson implies, yield blurs.  They focus, in this context at least, on nothing at all, and must be replaced in the repertoire of the social anthropologist by some kind of cultural systems theory focused on household as the unit of study.  Even this perspective requires fine tuning, and according to the author further input from studies of:  historical, longitudinal interactions yielding social conditions; contextual constraints of both social and material conditions (normative, demographic, population and ecological);  as well as, and not least, micro-interactive strategies negotiated by 'real people' not seen as artificial structural instruments nor as private self-identities.

________________________________________________________________

Table 1
The questions I will endeavour to answer are :
1___ What differential outcomes have been established ?
2___ Do the outcomes relate to distinguishable social conditions, household ideologies, and individual negotiations, and in what proportions ?
3___ Could the responses to modernisation have been explained in any other way apart from the 'shadow of history' interactive thesis ?
4___ Are any other perspectives [whether structural, non-participant or 'post-modern'] better or ancillary in terms of logical analysis, simplicity & plausibility, or agenda if there is some margin of freedom in interpretation?
5___ Is Davidson's conclusion, that a micro-structural perspective of household reproduction formation with reference to historical & interactive choices offers the best hope of understanding change, both warranted & satisfying ?
________________________________________________________________

The central research question for the original study was to qualitatively probe the applicability of broad theoretical perspectives in

the transformation of rural populations by reference to the local but highly diverse context of the Nuba Mountains (Davidson, 1996: 4).

transition from a lineage-based society to an increasingly modern one   (1996: ibid.).

increase in the capacity for social transformation… linked with the process of structural differentiation and an increase in the formal rationality of social action (Roxborough, 1988: 756; Davidson, 1996: 4).

My discussion will contrast this approach with the three dominant approaches in contemporary social anthropology, namely French structuralism, Anglo-American structural-functionalism, and Anglo-French post-modernism.  I will also look at the internal workings of methodology and perspective.  One of Davidson's strengths is the linking of theoretical and field approaches, so that neither becomes too far removed from the other.  This enables an evaluation of approach and conclusions in concrete and reality-referent terms, and conversely an evaluation of methodology in terms of detection of the highly specific micro-structural conditions and interactive strategies that are the fundamentals of the (amended) cultural systems perspective.  Finally, I will examine the specific conclusions of the study in the context of criticisms variously levelled at this kind of approach in neglecting power structures, adaptive mechanisms, rational archetypes or existential relativities.  Is differential transition to a modern contract society from lineage society to be explained better by incorporating some or all of the above considerations ?
 

APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The original study emphasises that when social vision either telescopes out into macro-structure or concentrates itself so much that it can see no further than the level of personal interaction, the most telling data relating to social, in this case village, differentiation are simply lost.  The proposed explanatory perspective is that, instead,

at the village level, this approach specifies the structural linkages that internally differentiate and externally connect variant households, while within the larger society it vertically positions these households (Davidson, 1996: 14).

changes within the wider society may broaden or limit opportunities for diversification of livelihood strategies, and may weaken or reinforce older forms of social organisation (ibid.),

[t]he ability to alter present strategies is… shaped by strategies previously adopted in response to then-prevailing socioeconomic and physical conditions, so that, once pursued, livelihood  strategies create   their own social and organisational constraints to the  expansion or intensification of various economic activities (ibid.).

The approach has much in common with Evans-Pritchard's cultural systems theory, which in turn has some common ground with the ethnomethodology school of sociological interactionism.  It is, however, important to distinguish within this perspective three schools with radically different emphases.  Evans-Pritchard's is the classic but in some ways ambiguous forerunner of the approach, emphasising actions, ideas and beliefs in the context of a de-functionalised fieldwork approach otherwise owing much to Malinowski.  Clifford Geertz developed the approach within symbolic anthropology, and some would say mired it in relativism and semantics.   He did however demonstrate forcefully that the 'epiphenomena' of action matter.  Individualised meanings of practices and utterances typically do change the course of events.  Finally, post-modernists such as Jacques Derrida, heavily influenced by Sartre and French existentialism, moved micro-systems anthropology into a central concern with the 'authenticity' of the anthropologist in the sense of exclusive concern with self-awareness, particularly awareness of the impact of experience of 'the other' on the self.  This neglects the conditions of action altogether, denies the possibility of the other as real object of study, and adopts ethnography merely as an instrument for the development of 'self-consciousness', either of the anthropologist or of readers of the anthropological text.  Drawing from the moral reductionism of Sartre, epitomised in his 'authenticity ethic' (or 'search for self'), anthropological reductionism finally denies that there is anything real outside 'ego-text'.

With the more 'other-referent' cultural systems approach of Evans-Pritchard, Davidson combines a healthy dose of contextual realism and historical analysis.  The radical personalism and relativism of the dominant symbolic and postmodern schools are rejected in favour of an interactionism citing objective social structures of micro-culture as both historical ('vertical') aggregates of, and powerful ('lateral') constraints on individual action, interpretation and strategy.  This is a soft rationalism in that although the villager is seen as making choices - to engage in production, to choose from amongst a finite number of socially generated action strategies, to integrate into household or religious subculture to varying degrees, the menu of choices and interactions is limited by societal pressures mediated by economic and ecological conditions, by ascribed status (age & sex) and by constraints socially constructed from interactions between large-scale historical developments and household ethos.

Freedom is hypothetical rather than categorical.  That is, the Nuba villager may be subjectively free, but in Davidson's model social embeddedness and opportunity are supervening variables that, depending upon the 'moral economy' of interdependency, and social mobility related to the strength of community norms, yield economic styles and strategies that are the differential transformation responses at household level.  The reinforcer of economic production style is the stake in conformity (Davidson, 1996: 308; cf. Braithwaite,1989: 86) fostered by membership of a communitarian culture, defined by the network of attachments to the conventional household and larger village entities.  Attachment is largely defined by kinship, and, according to Davidson, is strengthened by the absence, and weakened by the presence, of 'contract norms' that directly challenge the social cement of a status society.  Here he implies a paradox.  Freedom to contract is mostly inversely proportional to the (limited) freedom to pursue different strategies.  Despite some complex temporary reverses, contractual freedom has the net effect of driving the Nuba villager out of lineage, status society into a global, economically rationalist and for that reason relatively more determined set of structurally predictable economic responses (challenging the usual 'rationalist/structuralist' dichotomy).  Yet the transformation is astonishingly uneven, and this unevenness argues for a 'vertically interactive' and qualitative rather than quantitative model, with a margin of indeterminacy.

Mainstream cultural systems theory is a rationalist version of control theory, incorporating intervening variables from other perspectives, and then adopting as its unit of analysis at an individual level the social micro-system over time, and as mechanisms value interpretation and cognitive (social) learning.   An economic version of the theory, Davidson's model places a limited hypothetically free, moral margin of rational action within a natural framework which includes learned cognitive behaviour; also interactive (negotiated), micro-structural (control/contract), dynamic (politico- economic) and ecological (resource) parameters.   A post-modern version of the theory might define rural transformation as an interaction between blame-avoiding rationalisations for which the individual is essentially responsible ('inauthenticity', 'bad faith' or 'positivisation of action'), and created micro-structural (control) identity conditions such as 'individualism' (egoism, anomie and contract) versus 'communitarianism'.  Rational causes would be less categorically libertarian, as reasons would result from ultimate identity with structure, transformation strategies being related to level of individualism (contract), even ignoring opportunity.  Davidson conversely implies some psychophysical interaction between ultimately separable structural and rational worlds, that is, categorical freedom to invest energy or not in the goals determined in the social world.  However, he also shows that whilst in transformation societies 'freedom of contract' corrodes the foundation of that society, the 'status community', the structural parameters as a result grow stronger.

The vertical aspect of Davidson's approach is in frank conflict with Malinowski's functionalism, which specifically rules out non-lateral aspects of culture such as 'past historical events' (1974: 476).  Lateral aspects, on the other hand, are in broad agreement with the classic functionalist insistence on the central importance of

the part which [anthropological facts] play within the integral system of culture by the manner in which they are related to each other within the system (Malinowski, 1974: 476).

the Nuba's need and ability to trade was inexorably connected to the incessant warfare enveloping the jebels [mountains] .  Weapons wereessential for village defence - protection from Turkish or Baggara    raiding parties and from other Nuba groups as well.  The dominant currency of this trade involved slaves and cattle (Davidson, 1995: 71).

More generally, functionalist approaches rely on a natural science, positivist model of anthropology that emphasises reliability and the goal of making generalisations.  Participant observation and qualitative approaches such as Davidson's are frequently criticised on the ground that methodology is not replicable but is instead largely subjective, and that reliability, and therefore the ability to generalise, are relatively low.  The qualitative researcher, particularly the phenomenologist of meaning, might readily agree insofar as that

to some extent my approach must be unique to myself, to the particular situation, and to the state of knowledge existing when I began research (Whyte, in Haralambos, 1980: 506).

However, this is surely still too narrow a justification, even on a positivist or falsificationist view of social science.  Apart from [1] obtaining information about rational models which can only be obtained from naturalistic research; and
[2] elucidating social systems and negotiation processes that produce transformation outcomes, qualitative studies also furnish functional analysis with its requirements by [3] negative case analysis to refine theory.  Finally, cutting itself adrift from the functional approach, the basic tenet of qualitative research is that people actively involved in economic systems and processes are a microcosm of the whole, illustrating the way beliefs, attitudes and behaviour negotiate different transformations.

Radcliffe-Brown's structural-functionalism, arising out of relativistic problems in rational interpretation, pursues a path even further removed from meaning systems in setting up action as a product of a total 'organic' social structure.  Now in decline but still dominant in conservative Anglo-American anthropology, it sets up an agenda for 'explaining' lineage societies that is self-serving in two senses.  First, the structure itself is unfalsifiable, and therefore circular; and, secondly, the total system defines function and structure in terms which can only lead to economic rationalist, contract and growth-oriented concepts of adaptation.  It is not only exploiter-centred anthropology, but also insensitive to the level of analysis required for understanding why people living in the same area create their own different structural parameters.

People are the crux of social reality, and by giving meaning to the physical world they set their stamp on space and time (Davidson: 146).

French structuralism, after Lévi-Strauss, also turns away from native belief and meaning, this time to 'universal rational archetypes' as the underlying structural reality.  Action is explained in terms of unavoidable propensities of mind which are unconscious but may be distilled from comparative ethnography (Lévi-Strauss, 1983: 59-60).  Transforming societies are seen as more eclectic, more cosmopolitan in their motivational myths, and transformations are viewed collectively as dissociative.  The mythic content of a transformation society is said to resemble the mental content of a 'schizophrenic psychosis' (ibid.: 241-51).  Although not an approach available to the fieldworker except indirectly, and viewed as another macro-system perspective failing to explain household deviations, universal schema are in principle testable against negative cases.  Mythic or linguistic motivators are theoretically applicable to action, but complexity renders the task a seldom plausible confluence of linguistics, ecology and (analytic) psychology.

Cultural systems methodology has been harshly criticised for neglecting the importance of power relations and economic interests in transforming societies, as

any object which is subordinated and manipulated is partly the product  of a power relationship, and to ignore this fact is to misapprehend the nature of that object (Asad, 1979: 92).

________________________________________________________________

Table 2
Household by Form of (Re)Production

CE= Capitalist entrepreneurial- substantial off-farm economic interests
SC= Small-scale capitalist- not able to withdraw from market- regularly work off-farm
LM= Lineage/market- able to withdraw fr. market- intermittently work off-farm
LS= Lineage subsistence- most traditional type- trade & barter- no surplus capital
WL= Wage labour household- livelihood fr. off-farm sale of labour- usu. + jubraka garden
________________________________________________________________
Source: Davidson, 1996: 171

The macro-focus of traditional Marxist perspectives results in loss of the most pertinent information, differentiation of production culture according to local factors, vertical (historical), strategic and ecological.  Given the close proximity and similar macro-structural social siting of these villages, how else can the relative persistence of lineage forms and absence of wage labour in Shatt Damam be adequately explained?   Once brought to this level, a refined neo-dynamic analysis becomes desirable within a mixed model :

choice may be infinite but in reality structural parameters are imposed by particular household reproduction form in which people live (Davidson, 1995: 171).

We have seen how self-sufficiency is the economic framework in which  modes of production and of circulation of goods develop: a direct mode of  production, involving relations of production of a personal and immediate nature; a mode of circulation without exchange and based on these personal relations which it confirms and extends (1978: 153).

The determining role of economic conditions is not immediately  apparent because these societies are based on a weak material infrastructure which gives proportionately greater importance to intellectual phenomena.  What baffles those economists who look for simplistic economic determinism, is the fact that the system of circulation of goods which they observe develops by way of the handling of knowledge of non-material phenomenon (ibid.).

Maintenance of the authority of the seniors over the juniors is the outcome of a contradiction between establishing social relationships designed to strengthen the existing kinship system and the ability of these relationships to form autonomously outside the framework of kinship… and challenging it (Meillasoux, 1978: 138).

Some criticisms of personalist versions of cultural systems theory cannot be levelled at Davidson, who has carefully avoided the more extreme positions.  As shown, unlike Evans-Pritchard, Geertz or Derrida, his eclectic methodology accepts that

an exclusively interpretative approach logically makes it difficult, if not impossible, to bring into account the contingent flow of social events (Evens, 1982: 213).

compromis[es] its own integrity by making fundamentally uncertain the meaning of meaning (ibid.).

Back to top of Page...
 

DAVIDSON'S CONCLUSIONS

Davidson argues that, in fact, all of the household reproduction forms shown in Table 2, even including the lineage subsistence type, are transformation types.  This is because there are at least two axes of transformation, one temporal (the historical interactions with and derivations from colonist political economies, and strategies developed therefrom), the other proximal (modern trading economies via media of transformation).  As all villages must be considered in a post-colonial dimension, all outcomes are shown to reflect differentiated residual as well as novel processes of transformation.

Of the theoretical types, villages are seen to exhibit a different mix across all household categories, except that Shatt Damam does not have any wage labour households (although intermittent sale of labour does occur) and generally favours more traditional forms.

Paradoxically, unlike the villages of Somasem and Shair Tomat, Shatt Damam exists on the margins of modernisation (Davidson, 1996: 271).

the matrilinear system of kinship which facilitates life-long relations between brothers and sisters, coupled with female access to land, cross-cuts the more negative effects of patriarchy (ibid.).

requires a large family and retaining grown children in the village, as well as maintaining relations of reciprocity and good will inherent in calling a nafir party (op.cit.: 276).

elders strongly encourage juniors to migrate for employment purposes… at the cost of [local] labour and thus of nafir.   The rapid rise in the out-migration of young men in recent years erodes  the core of   the lineage economy;  namely through the increased reliance on wage-labour and the rise of the shayl [=lender] in meeting household reproduction requirements (ibid.).

slowly and silently dismantling the lineage system and eroding the basis of the moral economy (Davidson: 295).

Transformation strategies diversify mainly at the household level noted.  However, village level opportunity and system is also of importance as shown at Shatt Damam.  At Somasem, specific changes include tractorisation, cattle marketing and cash returns from returning migrants (1996: 302-3), related to

early conversion to Islam, an abundance of arable lands, and a proximity to state-sponsored mechanised farming schemes (ibid.).

A strong sense of community well-being permeates Shair Tomat and has helped stem the more onerous effects of social differentiation and inequality (ibid.).

The general finding of Davidson's study is that conditions of transformation are complex, variable in application, and include a margin of freedom in terms of household livelihood strategies interactively negotiated in the context of historical micro-structures rather than relating to individualistic criteria.  Predictability is low from the usual sociological perspective, higher from a micro-systems anthropological perspective with household the unit of analysis.
 

________________________________________________________________

Table 3
Significant Conditions of Transformation

Condition 1 *Evitable Household Livelihood Strategies.
Condition 2 * 'Art of muddling through' - interaction of purpose & structure
Condition 3 *Social relationships - micro-systems; capital inequality
(Conditions 4-9 *Structural parameters - Elements of Mediation)
Condition 4 *Contract Economy - basis of liberal, capitalist system
Condition 5 *Technology - e.g. tractors, fertiliser, pumps
Condition 6 *Shops & Markets - exchange values vs. use values
Condition 7 *Growth & Scarcity - surplus economy; needs; land pressure; resource pressure
Condition 8 *Inflation - rationalist economic transformation: supply & demand
Condition 9 *Wage Labour - due to: out-migration of nafir labour; brideprice; brideservice
Condition 10 *Process- Impress of history- built-in strategies & constraints
Condition 11 *Household (re)production form - see Table 2

________________________________________________________________
Source: Davidson, 1996: 131-53; 297 ff.

Back to top of Page...

Condition 1 *Evitable Household Livelihood Strategies

Davidson's first condition of transformation is strategy at the household level.  This is not determined, though is constrained, by micro-system factors and by forces of the 'process of modernisation'.

Each villager, by virtue of this continuous process, recognises malleabilities in parameters to behaviour (1996: 302).

Condition 2 * 'Art of muddling through'

The way livelihood strategies are adopted is seen as dictated by

social relationships set against the backdrop of structure and process (Davidson, 1996: 299).

Condition 3 *Social relationships

This emphasises that it is the interactions of people through which the transformation strategies are filtered.  The micro-system is more explanatory than the macro-structure.
 

Conditions 4-9 *Structural parameters - Elements of Mediation

Although Davidson divides these into spatially fixed elements (services and institutions) and mobile elements (instruments and human agents), principally due to their physical relation to village, he also groups a number of them in terms of broad structural constraints, which are listed here.  These are mediation elements between households and explicitly external forces of transformation.  Of these the first two are pre-eminent -
 

Condition 4 *Contract

The domestic community or lineage society is defined in terms of its tendency to self-sufficiency based on a demographic and ecological status quo being maintained.  The system is essentially a

[structure] of inequality based on status, privilege and prestige  (Davidson, 1996: 105).

Condition 5 *Technology

Tractors and fertilisers can disrupt many aspects of Nuba society.  By increasing intensity of land use, needs-expectations and yields, also by damaging soil profiles and enlarging and intensifying wage labour and market demands, all of domestic economy, nafir labour system and ecology are altered.  Water pumps, on the other hand, can decrease mortality and work demands.  As technology is a facet of traditional culture, drastic changes reverberate to basic social dispositions.

Go to Other Conditions...

Back to top of Page...
 
 

DISCUSSION

Whilst the conditions supported in Davidson's study are clear enough, they do not seem at first sight to cover the field of a non-determinist study.  Nominally rationalist, the facts provide a margin with so little overt impact that a mentalistic condition is not mentioned.  This may be related to the view that individualistic phenomena are not appropriate in a social scientific study except as illustrative of effects of broader collective phenomena.  The question then also arises, in what sense is the study anthropological rather than sociological?  In other words, what conditions relate to humanistic rather than system phenomena?  The answer clearly is that Davidson uses humanistic conditions of social history and kinship-affinity to explain reproduction forms, and of strategic action and collective interpretation of meaning to explain the reasons for operation of constraining 'structural' conditions.

Could the responses to modernisation have been explained in any other way apart from the micro-historical interactive thesis ?

There is a mutual 'embeddedness' of individual and social aspects in each condition, here expressed socially but which could also perhaps be expressed psychoanalytically in terms of 'social character'.

The theory [of social character] postulates that in the social process human energy is structuralised into character traits common to most members of a [group] and/or of the whole society;  the social character motivates them to behave in such a way that they fulfill their social-  economic functions with an optimum of energy and a minimum of friction.  The social character is the result of the adaptation of human nature to the given socioeconomic conditions, and secondarily tends to   stabilise and maintain these conditions (Fromm & MacCoby, 1970: 230).

new economic opportunities tend to attract individuals with a character structure which in the past was a deviant type with limited social function, villagers with a productive-exploitative character    (op.cit.: 231).

The interrelationship between household reproduction form and the history of interactive choices between household and wider contagion societies through media of contact is compelling.  This would be a truism, were it not for the fact that so many other anthropologists of village society have adopted either rigid and structurally simplistic, or nebulous and inconclusive formats of understanding.   The idea that change in values and interpretations is covertly much more advanced than the economic changes they pre-dispose has been supported in other (characterological) studies already mentioned :

The process of industrialisation, increasing alienation and hunger for commodities, and the new values of industrial society, profoundly influence the mentality of the peasant in spite of the fact that economically he [at first] hardly participates in the new structure (Fromm & MacCoby, 1970: 237).

As an alternative model to the dominant approaches, Davidson's account of transformation remains satisfying on a number of levels.  It avoids the relativism and subjectivism that prevent effective analysis of social relations in terms of native meanings, which it validates as complex systems creating and transforming structure.  It affirms household as the focus of study providing maximum intelligibility to economy, both in terms of interpretation and process.  It provides a format for understanding transformation in terms of an interaction between two vertical (historical) dimensions, those of household and larger currents of economic order through elements of mediation.  Finally, Davidson avoids both the circularity and agenda of structural-functionalist 'development' accounts of modernisation which characterise contract societies as functional, adaptive and determined in macro-structure.  Further studies relating his findings to larger social currents, power relations and imaginitive changes in the underlying mythic construction of transforming societies may aid understanding, but need firm micro-system analysis as their basis.  The post-modern deconstructionist approach, on the contrary, provides an agenda for ignoring, discounting and trivialising the people and processes of transforming societies, and thus aiding in their de(con)struction.  In supplying a distorting mirror, it aids in fulfilment of its prophecies.

Back to top of Page...

REFERENCES

ASAD, T.   (1983). Anthropological conceptions of religion: reflections on Geertz.  Man, Vol.18, No.2, pp.237-259.

ASAD, T.   (1979). Anthropology and the colonial encounter.  The politics of anthropology, G.Huizer & B.Mannheim  (eds.).  The Hague: Mouton Press, pp. 85-94.

BERGER, P.L. & LUCKMANN., T.   (1967).   The social construction of reality.  London: Allen Lane, pp. 77-80, 149 'society to be understood in terms of ongoing dialectical process between subjective and objective reality' [interactive dialectic].

BRAITHWAITE, J.   (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration.  Cambridge: University Press, pp. 9-12 'human agency'; 38-43 'on consensus'; 76 'gossip: moral importance of ~; unifying character of ~'; 84-97 'social conditions of communitarianism & interdependency'; 108 'ethnographic research'.

DAVIDSON, A.P.   (1996). In the shadow of history: the passing of lineage society.  New Brunswick (U.S.A.): Transaction Publishers, esp. pp. 3 [definition of household] ; 10 'theoretical perspectives'; 23-56 'households, activities & livelihood strategies'; 70-71 [jallaba merchants] ; 104 [domestic economy & self-sufficiency] ; 106 [economic differentiation within lineages] ; 107-118 'lineages in historical perspective'; 118-129 'multiple systems & social complexity'; 133ff. 'elements of mediation'; 139 [exchange modes; use values] ; 141 [tajir hoarding] ; 157-78 'household forms & social differentiation'; 297ff. [conclusions] .

EVENS, T.M.S.   (1982). Two concepts of 'society as moral system': Evans-Pritchard's heterodoxy.  Man, Vol.17, No.2, pp. 205-218.

FEDER, E.   (1971 [1968] ).   The trend towards hired cash-wage workers and conflicts associated with it.  Peasants and peasant societies, edited by T.Shanin.  Aylesbury, Bucks (U.K.): Penguin Books, pp. 93-96.

FROMM, E. &  MACCOBY, M.   (1970).   Social character in a Mexican village.   New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., pp. 83-125 'the character of villagers'; 126-143 'character, socioeconomic & cultural variables'; 230-36 'the theory of social character'; 237ff. [process of industrialisation; outlook] .

GALESKI, B.   (1971 [1968] ).   Social organisation and rural social change.  Peasants and peasant societies, edited by T.Shanin.  Aylesbury, Bucks (U.K.): Penguin Books, esp. pp. 115-120 'organisational transformation in agricultural production'; 134-37 'transformation of rural social organisation'.

HARALAMBOS, M. &  HEALD, R.   (1983 [1980] ).   Sociology: themes and perspectives.  Bungay, Suffolk, U.K.: Chaucer Press, pp. 7ff. 'status & role'; 18-21 'positivism & phenomenology'; 82-83 'social mobility in capitalist society'; 344ff. [Talcott Parsons] 'isolated nuclear family'; 492-507, 518-20 'methodology'; 521ff. 'sociological theory'.

HARRISON, P.   (1993 [1979] ).   Inside the third world: the anatomy of poverty.  St.Ives, England (U.K.): Pelican Books, pp. 63-76 'eco-catastrophe in Africa'.

KIDDER, L.H.   (1981). Research methods in social relations.  New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 101-117 'participant observation'.

LIENHARDT, G.   (1966). Social anthropology.   Oxford University Press, pp. 92-114 'kinship & affinity'.

LEVI-STRAUSS, C.   (1983). Le regard éloigné.  Paris: Plon, pp.49-62 'l'ethnologue devant la condition humaine' [ethnologist before the human condition] ; 59 [sociobiology & comparative ethnology] ; 143-66 'structuralisme et écologie'; 241-51 'cosmopolitisme et schizophrenie' [comparing myth in a transitional society with psychosis] .

LEVI-STRAUSS, C.   (1974).   Structural analysis in linguistics and anthropology.  Theory in anthropology: a sourcebook, R.A.Manners & D.Kaplan (eds.), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp.530-540.

MALINOWSKI, B.   (1974).   The sexual life of savages in north-western Melanesia.  Frontiers of anthropology, ed. A.Montagu.  New York: Putnam's Sons, pp.467-86.

MEILLASOUX, C.   (1978).   The economy in agricultural self-sustaining societies: a preliminary analysis. Relations of production, D.Seddon (ed.).  London: Frank Cass, pp. 127-157, esp. 153 'self-sufficiency: modes of production & circulation of goods'.

POPPER, K.R. &  ECCLES, J.C.  (1983 [1977] ).   The self and its brain: an argument for interactionism.  London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 471-478 'active interaction: the searchlight theory of mind;  self-conscious mind'.

SAUL, J.S. &  WOODS, R.   (1971).   African peasantries.  Peasants and peasant societies, edited by T.Shanin.  Aylesbury, Bucks (U.K.): Penguin Books, pp. 103-114.

Back to top of Page...
 

Go to Campbell Newman (See Other Published Works)...