INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY

Patrick Ifechukwude Okonji

Abstract

The study of humans is a cogent and inevitable endeavor that had attracted from time immemorial the

concern of mere rational and intellective individuals at informal levels, but much more has joined in the

now distinctive field of study in seeking the meaningful life that man aspire for. In discussing the subject

matter of this discipline, it was better expedient to examine the historical development, sub-divisions,

methods of good anthropological inquiry, and areas of cardinal interest such as society and culture,

language, and change, all of which explicate the integrative nature in the human condition

Introduction to Social Anthropology

Definition of Anthropology:

Anthropology is the study of man and his ecology. It is also the science of man’s development that

transcends through his physiology and psychology, and the novel effect of the matrix of both. Again,

anthropology can be defined as a systematic inquiry and observation of the development of man as a

physical and moral being. Thus, anthropology is a term derived from Greek words where anthropos

means humans, and logy means study.

However, anthropology is a recent discipline that compare with such others as history, cultural studies

and sociology among others. It actually originates in a little more than a hundred years ago when its

first course was offered at the University of Rochester at about 1879 in New York.

Brief Historical Development of Anthropology

travelers.

First, Oke (2006) noted in the line of social thinkers, such philosopher as Xenophanes who argued that

man was the one that created his society and appointed his super humans and unique ones as

governors. This kind of thought was obviously anthropological, and was actually delimited in the era

before Christ known as the classical era.

Another social thinker was Herodotus, a Greek traveler who delimited the physical and cultural traits of

the people he came across in the 4 th century, and posited that the Greek way of life was superior, in-

spite of contrary opinions. Again, it is obvious that the contribution of Herodotus is no less

anthropological ….such that orchestrated the might of men as centre of life. This line of thought

continued until the fall of the Roman Empire when disrepute was attended to the classical domain.

Consequently there arose another line of social thought that has been categorized under the middle

ages. The trust of this medieval philosophy is the recognition of the place of man in his environment and

that of the transcendental omnipotence. Thus, Oke (2006) observed that Thomas Aquinas, a renowned

European scholar, in addressing the issue of human capability, noted that humans have a place of glory

on the surface of the earth. This is because they are endowed with rational capacity and much great

potential even though they share some characteristics with lesser being as animals. In addition, Aquinas

believes in the combination of the temporalness of life and the divinity in the affairs of men. This is in

line with his belief in the idea that life could form from non-living materials or plant life. In other words,

development in life is from simple to complex forms.

However, Mann (1999) observed that St Augustine, a prominent scholar, took a giant anthropological

stride when he observed that human beings are perfect unity of soul and body, with soul being the

superior component to the body, and probable in the end. The world view of St Augustine, like many
others in the medieval period, touch on some of the salient concern of anthropology. However, in the

Enlightment, a lot more social thinkers exist including John Lock, Thomas Hobbes among others. Forrest

(2008) noted that John Lock saw human nature in the origin as tabula rasa. Not only that, he saw the

mind of man as being filled through continuous socialization and personal experience. Again, another

Enlightment interjection in the trend of social thought was given by Montesquieu. In using key

anthropological feature like comparative analysis, Montesquieu categorized human society in terms of

the organization and cultural attainment. A lot more scholars like Herbert Spencer actually elaborated

on this line of categorization. However, the nineteenth century ushered in the age of evolutionary

thought. This evolutionary thought was the principle that shaped the conventional anthropological

discipline. Although the popular protagonist of evolutionary thought was Charles Darwin, through his

writing which includes origin of species, 1959, among others, there actually exist forerunners for Charles

Darwin. These include Archbishop Ussher of 17 th century Ireland who calculated the age of creation of

the earth to 6,000 years before present, and Buffon, a prolific French Scholar who posited that creation

was 70,000 years. The idea is not in whether they are right or wrong but in the fact of the content of

evolutionary and anthropological idea in their thinking (Campbell, 1996; Feder, 1996) Darwin eventually

elaborated the evolutionary anthropology in his biological genre through natural selection. However,

this was later adapted in the socio-cultural anthropology in the 19 th century by European classical

anthropologist. Unfortunately, this simultaneously heralded very unwholesome and racist dimensions

until the 20th century when Franc Boas, a German born American Scholar founded the emphatic

particularity of a people’s history. Furthermore, was the principle of functionality introduced to explain

human society by Bronislaw Malinowski and elaborated by Alfred Kroeber in the twentieth century

(Oke, 2006)

The nature of anthropology

Anthropology is embedded in a multi-disciplinary composition where on the one hand, it is manifested

on anatomical comparativeness, and on other, socio-cultural investigation. Thus, in a general sense,

anthropology is said to be diachronic in its approach. In other words, anthropological inquiry is a

rigorous endeavor which tracks the origin and development of a given subject along evolutionary

perspective.

The subject matter of anthropology and its parallel tradition

Anthropology pertains to the study of man and his ecology. This is explicated in the reach into pre-

history, the humanities and the physical sciences. Thus, it anchors on two broad and major aspects

namely, physical or biological anthropology and the socio-cultural anthropology. Physical anthropology

focuses on the place of man in nature. It is an inquiry into the ancestry, genealogy, development and

other characteristics of the human species. It also views man as a biological being under such divisions

as anatomy, physiology and zoology. Thus, it has been pre-occupied with the way physical traits differ

among various populations, on the earth as a member of the animal kingdom and therefore, examining

the origin and population of the earth (Park 1996). On the other hand socio-cultural anthropology

focuses on the mutually complementary mandate of inquiry into social and cultural factors of

anthropology with sociality of man being considered through relationship among roles and among

institutions, and the way of life of a people as expressed through symbols and values (Campbell 1983).

The socio-cultural anthropology is the umbrella term for the social and cultural factors in anthropology

as observed by (Campbell, 1983). It is interesting to note that the dichotomy between the social factors

in anthropology and that of the cultural is more as a result of mere tradition of scholars of thought. The

social anthropology is a tradition led by Bronislaw Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown in Great Britain,

while cultural anthropology follows the tradition Franc Boas, a German born American anthropologist.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the two approaches can never be truly isolated from each

other as they frequently converge, and generally complement each other. Little wonder, that both

dimensions to anthropology share the same features such as comparative methodology, system

concept, holistic approach, folk view and case typology (Oke, 2006).

1. Comparison in anthropology:

This refers basically to the dimension of ethnographic survey on a given subject or object of

study. In this regard, the two main dimensions in focus is the implicitness or explicitness of

comparison that can be meted on a subject of study. The implicit comparison imply when an

ethnographer is on fieldwork on a study location or population or group other than his own. In

other words, he carries his biases to the field where he makes critical observations. On the other

hand, the explicitness of comparison is in the systematic contrast of various aspects of two or

more societies. In other words, it is the method of intercultural or cross-cultural comparison

(Oke,Ibid).Obviously, the use of the word ‘comparison’ is clearly beyond the problem of

semantic in this matter. Rather, the bulk of the differences are anchored on the polar tradition

in anthropology. The general trend in American anthropology holds skepticism on the

‘comparative’ coinage; instead they prefer the use of the word ‘historic’ method. For the British

school, the word comparative is just appropriate, and it actually extends cross-culturally on the

field.

2. Systems concept in anthropology:

Systems theory refers to the wholeness of human behavior and his environment. In other

words, there is no such character of subject/object duality in human system as in the closed

thermodynamics of natural sciences. Rather, it is a new social science system that is ‘open’ as to

allow for free flow of process and interaction. The anthropologist, Gregory Bateson founded the

system theory after the Macy conference in the 1940s, when he recognized its application to
 human societies along with their numerous and flexible variables .Thus, Bateson (1991) describe

system as ‘any unit containing feedback structure and therefore competent to process

information’. In this case, it is implied that the human environment is an inevitable aspect of the

system since what goes on in one’s mind and in ones behavior is an interlock of the individual,

his mind and the environment such that constitute a network.

3. Holistic Approach:

This refers to the core in ethnographic research which enables the inventory of adequate data

for anthropological purposes and which make anthropology unique. In other words, the holistic

approach enables a researcher to take into consideration such elements outside the specified

area of societal study. This means that apart from considering the independent and dependent

variables in a study, the holistic approach allows for the consideration of intervening variables.

This is so as according to Oke (2006) the anthropologist would be interested in discovering the

dynamic processes that characterize the system, and how its elements integrate into a

functional whole. In this light, it is clear that while the main topic of research is kept in emphatic

focus, the anthropologist cannot afford to ignore the role of other institutions in the one of

study: say economy in kinship or kinship in economy. However, it may happen that he may not

be able to go into all the details of kinship if his focus is on economy.

4. Folk view and its analytical perspective

The Folk view point refers generally to the depth and adequacy of the understanding and

explanation of the cultural world of a subject of study by cultural anthropologists. In this sense,

the folk view is expected to give the insiders account also known as emic view on a

phenomenon of study. However, an analytical view also known as etic view is required of any

trained ethnographer for an adequate and objective observation (Lenkeit 2001).For scupin et al

(2005) the etic view is the ‘outsider’s objective, quantifiable data that is used to scientifically
analyze the culture of a society’. This, he maintains can provide background for the cultural

anthropologist’s direct or participation observations. In essence, he recognized the

complementary use of both perspectives with the etic derived from the idea of phonetics in

linguistics as sounds of a language, and the emic derived from the idea of phonemics in

linguistics as sound units of language of meaning to the speakers.

5. Case typology:

This is a view in post-modern anthropology that enables the development of hypothesis and

generalization in comparative analysis of societies. Implicit in the case study typology is the

scientific inclination in anthropology where similar cultures or societies can be compared, or

provide for a background hypothesis for the study or understanding of similar culture (Oke

2006). However, it is of note that the Boasian anthropology had certain skepticism to the entire

comparative project; instead it had favored the study of small and local communities as unique

and manageable.

The sub-fields of anthropology

The roots of anthropology are delved into the sciences and the humanities such that afford in

the first instance, a liberal art education, and in the other, the reconstruction of the human

ecology (Scupin, 2005). Among the subfields include: the physical anthropology and socio-

cultural anthropology as the two broadest based disciplines. Further subdivisions are as follows:

Physical anthropology Socio-cultural anthropology

Human Paleontology Archaeology

Primatology linguistic

Human variation/Genetics Ethnology

called Biological anthropology and the specialist in this field seeks to describe and explain the

biological evolution and variations in the human species. These include the sub fields of

paleontology, primatology and human variation.

Paleontology is the study of human biological evolution through scientific consideration of the

fossil of our ancient ancestors and relatives. By this, the paleontologist does a comparative

consideration of legs of species to determine its locomotive nature from the neck structure and

the distribution of body weight (Lenkeit 2001.

Primatology is the study of primates. Scupin (2005) observed that primatology is another means

of exploring human evolution. By this, such primates as chimpanzees, gorillas, gibbons and

orangutans are considered as closest relatives of man, and thus differences and similarities

between these primates and man are considered in determining human medical and social

behavior (Park, 1996). For example, nearly a million rhesus monkeys were used in the research

for the polio vaccine. This could have been difficult using humans. Again, research on primates

social behavior in the 1960s has proved to have vital implications for human psychological

development.

Human variation is the study of the variation of human physical trait around the world. A major

specialist in this subfield is the anthropometrist who analyze in great detail on the skull, cranial

cavity, jaw structure, the angle of the brow among others. The analysis of these variations gives

vital clue to our prehistoric root and human adaptability to environmental extremes. The

geneticist also consider the biological blue prints that dictate the inheritance of physical

characteristics especially in identifying the genetic source of some diseases (scupin 2005) .

Socio-cultural anthropology: is the mutually complementary mandate for studying relationship

among roles and among institutions on the one hand, and on the other, that of symbols and
values (Campbell, 1983). It is an umbrella term covering social anthropology and cultural

anthropology. However, it is important to note that socio-cultural anthropology in looking at

the social relationship and cultural symbols and values everywhere in the whole world and cut

across ages in the past and present, is embedded in such sub disciplines as archaeology,

linguistic and ethnology.

Archaeology is the study of remains of past cultures as a means of reconstructing the life ways

of the people of such cultures. In other words, archaeology helps to establish time-lines for past

cultures, describe past life ways and understand the process of adaptation and change in

prehistory (Lenkiet,2001).The archaeologist can work in concert with such other anthropologists

as the paleontogist, forenscist among others.

Linguistic anthropology is the study of the relationship between language and culture. It seeks to

explain the use of language in society, and how the human brain acquires and uses language.

Thus, we have descriptive linguistic describing the sounds used in language under phonology;

historical linguistics reconstructing history of language; and socio linguistic evaluating

relationship between language and social relationship and reality (Lenkeit 2001). The interest in

language by anthropologists under scores its basic role in development of human culture.

Ethnology is the comparative study of cultures. In this comparative sense, an analytical

generalization is what is being hoped for. However, before ethnological comparison can be

made, there must have been ethnographic work (fieldwork) of about one year in various

cultures upon which comparison can be made. This comparison is expected to show the

differences and similarities between cultures. The ethnological focus there is said to be for the

understanding of the various cultures. Oke (2006) observed that it is on ‘how and why patterns
of behavior differ in contemporary societies, the dynamics of cultural change and how cultures

interact’.

Basic anthropological orientations: Theories

Theory in anthropology like in any other field of study represents the framework with which a

phenomenon can be understood and interpreted. Thus, in anthropology, theoretical framework

follows from such basic orientations or schools of thought that exist on the study of man and his

society. However, as observed by Oke (Ibid), anthropological theories are not without

limitations.

Nevertheless, it is upon the appreciation of these limitations that other theories are realized in

historical sequence especially after the age of enlightment.

Nineteenth century evolutionism

This was intended for the explanation of the similarities and differences in the level of society’s

development and evolution. Scupin (2005) noted that the theory is known as unilineal

evolutionism, but was advanced with different perspectives by Edward Tylor and Henry Lewis

Morgan. In this theory, Edward Tylor who was a British scholar posited that societal progress

was to be from savagery to Barbarism before civilization. This notion by Tylor was an adaptation

of Charles Darwin’s explanation on biological evolution in his origin of species, 1959. Tylor saw

evolution as development from simple to complex forms especially as his belief in the psychic

unity of mankind was his main motivator for the theory. The same applies to Morgan, an

American scholar, who speculated that kinship systems in non-western societies show that they

are at the lowest web of development, and have to imitate the European world if they must get

to civilization.
The nineteenth century evolutionism also known as classical evolutionism was a breakthrough in

the scientific world for its attempt at systematic explanation for the similarities and diversities

among humans. However, this attempt has been noted to be replete with inadequate

conclusions that were colored with ethnocentricism and mere speculations. Their claim about

non-European low intelligence compared to the Europeans is unacceptable. Nevertheless, it is

this attempt at systematic approach to understanding man and his society that earned Edward

B. Tylor the position of the first university chair in anthropology.

Historical Particularism:

This is a theory which is mainly a reaction against the nineteenth century evolutionism and it

expects the understanding of society to be along its unique historical development. The major

proponent of this theory is Franc Boas (1858 – 1942) a German born American anthropologist

who maintained that the unilineal evolutionary theory with its psychic unity of mankind was

that of armchair anthropology. Moreover, that its aim at comparative conclusions are

ethnocentric. For Boas, a fieldwork should be undertaken to understand society in terms of its

own cultural practices and values. This approach he called cultural relativism and it was adopted

by his students to the extent that it became the dominant theoretical trend in anthropology

during the first half of the twentieth century (Oke, 2006).

Diffusionism

Diffusionism is another school of thought which maintains that culture change and development

in a society is attained by borrowing from the cultural traits of another.

century after the unilineal evolutionism has faced disrepute. The major proponents in this

school are divided into two viz a viz, the British and the German schools. The British school

includes such scholars as G. Elliot Smith, William Perry and W.H.R. Rivers who were

exceptionally overwhelmed about the archaeological findings on human brain in their study of

Egyptology (Oke, 2006). Thus, they conclude that those cultures that now lack Egyptian cultural

traits are inherently uninventive and represent the uncivilized world.Moreover; they maintained

that Egypt is the only source of all cultural traits. On the other hand, the German school include

such scholar as father Wilhelm Schmidt. Schmidt argues that there existed several early centres

of civilization from where cultural traits diffused outward. Moreover, the most widely

distributed traits found to exist around such a centre is seen as the oldest. The greatest flaw of

diffusionism is its ethnocentric disposition where non-western societies are seen as inferior to

their European counter part. Moreover, the assumption that cultural trait in the same vicinity

will inevitably spread from one place to another lacks validity.

Functionalism:

This refers to the theory of how a society is sustained by necessary institutions. The theory was

proposed by Bronislaw Malinowski, an outstanding anthropologist with Mathematics

background. Scupin (2005) observed that Malinowski saw the behavior of the individual in

society as a means of adaptation to society. Indeed, this perspective is known as ‘psychological

functionalism’ as the society serves the interest of the individual. Malinowski observed among

the Trobiand Islanders with whom he did extensive fieldwork, that when they fish in the lagoons

they merely depended on skills and knowledge, but when they fish in a more dangerous open

sea, they employ magical powers also to serve their present need.
Structural functionalism

This theory denotes the part played by an institution in a structural whole. Unlike Malinowski’s

focus on the function of a cultural trait in a system, Radcliffc-Brown, A.R, the proponent of

structural functionalism, focuses on the part played by an institution in concert with other

institutions as a structure. In explaining the function of social institution in structural

functionalism, Oke (2006) quotes Radcliffc-Brown (1935) that it is ‘ the part it plays in the social

life as a whole, and therefore the contribution it makes to the maintenance of structural

continuity’. However, it is noteworthy that the functionalist theory either of Malinowski or

Radcliffc-Brown did not address the important area of change in society. Neither could it explain

why some societies differ from others especially in the area of institutions. In discussing the

integrativeness of society through the function of institutions, it left out the factor of culture

history.

Later Evolutionism:

This refers to the resurgence of the idea of evolution after it had suffered disrepute among such

scholars as Franc Boas. The later evolutionism is sometimes referred to as neo evolutionism

especially as regards the general evolution perspective of leslie white. Another prominent

proponent of later evolutionism is Julian Steward whose perspective is of the specific evolution.

Leslie White’s General evolution intends to explain cultural evolution from the increase in the

amount of energy harnessed per capita per year in a socio-cultural system. According to Scupin

(2005), in the words of White, ‘culture evolves as the amount of energy harnessed per capita

per year is increased, or as the efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to

work is increased’. Although, White objectively sees evolution as development from simple to
complex forms, like the early evolutionists, he insinuates that the non-European societies are

not as industrious as the Europeans in harnessing energy especially in technology, and thus are

so inferior. However, in harnessing energy and technology, he lost sight of the part played by

environmental and historical values. Thus, he is seen as ethnocentric.

The specific evolution perspective by Julian Steward stressed a cultural ecology where there is

an adaptive relationship between the natural and cultural environment of a society. However,

this has also been criticized as inadequate in not considering the political and historical

antecedence of the people.

Methods in anthropological inquiry

Anthropology as a behavioral science makes use of all such social science methods. However,

the procedure in which anthropologists use these methods is what is unique. Oke (2006)

observed that the anthropologist employ several methods in doing fieldwork. This he called

‘multi-instrument’. The reason for employing multi-instrument is the simple fact of the holistic

imperative transcending any anthropological inquiry. Thus, it is proper to say that the

anthropological method is the ethnographic fieldwork where such key techniques as participant

observation is mainly used for the purpose of eliciting the Emic view in the study while

dovetailing it as complements are such others as key informant interview, collection of life

histories, and structured interview. The combination of some of these techniques is essential in

anthropology going by the overall aim of anthropology to collect adequate and representative

data.

This eclectic approach is imperative especially when the study population or location is a large

one. Thus, Lenkeit (2001) observed that an anthropologist may be ‘intimately involved as

participant observer with a particular neighborhood and its people, while gathering data from
other segments of the population by employing sampling methods’. This is further stretchened

by the observation of Scupin (2005) that ‘long-term collaboration with key-informants is an

integral part of quality ethnographic research’. Moreover, Lenkeit (Ibid), observed that eclectic

approach helps to reduce biases and bring about objective finding.

Participant observation is a technique of immersion’ in a particular society or social group for

the purpose of eliciting the emic view of the subject of study. Scupin (2005) noted that it is the

direct observation of the institutions and values by a resident anthropologist , and refereed to it

as naturalistic observation. This naturalistic observation enables what he called time-allocation

analysis to record how much time the people spend in various activities. It is from this that

meanings such as institutions or values of the people are drawn as pattern of behavior.

Participant observation give an insider’s view such that is only accomplished by staying among

the people for a period of about one year or more to the extent of understanding their

language. However, the findings in participant observation may be limited in objectivity as the

researcher may have been over whelmed in his role among the subjects. Contrarily, if he makes

his research identity known the finding may also be limited by the control response of the

subject. In the whole, it is better to conceal the research identity and augment participant

observation with purely ‘occasional informal interviews’, especially as used in the term when

the occasion permits in such large field space as suggested by lenkeit (Ibid).

Key-informant interview:

This is an interview that is granted to a researcher by a member of a social group for the

purpose of gathering data on phenomenon of remote consequences. However, the selection of

the key informant is an area that requires patient and professional explanation. Thus, it should
be pointed out that key-informant in a general social science research is not the same with that

of anthropological research. The social science may be more scientific for the purpose of

eliminating bias and thus, focus on formal members of community or key-informant selected by

random sampling, but for anthropology the case is that of an art where ethnographic research

enables an atmosphere overtime where the key-informant naturally emerges among the vast

membership of the community as close confidant. Thus, the key-informant interview in

anthropology has an ethnographic context where ‘occasional informal interview’ is adopted.

Collection of life histories:

This is another notable means of gathering data in attempt to reconstruct a particular life way to

which some notable persons belong. Lenkeit (2001) observed that comparing the life histories of

individuals within a community enables pattern of the culture of that community to emerge and

also affords a researcher the opportunity to learn about changes that have affected the culture.

However, Oke (2006) observed that anthropologist have noted the inadequacies in using

collection of life history especially as representative of a whole culture. Thus, life history

collection is encouraged mainly in combination of other research methods.

Structured Interviews:

This is a set of questions used to gather information in a survey. Usually, it is a printed paper or

form that contains questions with which information is gathered. The questionnaire and

interview schedule originated from the French concept of asking question for organized and

defined information. Thus, Lenkeit(2001) referred to this method of research as ‘formal

Interview’. One advantage of this research method is that it reduces situational biases since all

respondents are asked the same questions in the same sequence and under the same condition.
Many anthropologists have adopted this quantitative tool of inquiry to offset some of the

criticism leveled against the participant observation However, it is often the interview schedule

where the organized questions are read to the respondent and the interviewer fills in the

responses on the question paper.

Some other areas of interest in anthropology

Society and Culture

What is a society?

A society can be defined as a population of not less than two individuals, interrelating within the

context of a unique way of life. In order words, a society is an interrelating individuals under the

auspices of a particular culture. The status of a set geographical situation notwithstanding, the

component of interrelationship is sufficient to show the necessary integrativeness that form a

society. Otherwise, an aggregation of individuals may not be better than a crowd at the bus

stop. Thus Otite and Ogionwo (1985) define a society as a network of relationships. Obviously,

underlying the relationship in the view of Otite et al, is suggestive of some set of rules and

regulations. This underscores not only the place of culture in the society but more importantly,

the indivisibility of the two. The question may be raised as to what point is a society realized or

which came first, society or culture. The answer is, not until there is culture among a population

it remains a crowd or an incidental gathering not a society. Thus, a society can be delineated in

such social units as the household, extended family, clan, village, and nation. Otherwise it can be

delineated along occupational and recreational lines as association, clubs, and religious order

among others especially in heterogeneous environment.

What is Culture?
Culture is the totality of a people’s way of life as spelt down in their patterned institutions,

customs and values among others, such that give symbolic understanding and right of place to

members of the society. Edward B. Tylor gave the classic definition of Culture as ‘that complex

whole which include knowledge belief ,art , morals , law , custom , and any other capabilities

and habits acquired by man as members of society’ (scupin 2005). This view of Tylor is

characterized among others that culture is adaptive in enabling members of a population to

cope with their society and physical environment .Culture is also dynamic in that a peoples’

need is what spurs their culture at any given time. The dynamics of culture can be view from

Leslie white theory on cultural evolution according to the level of industry of a people (Scupin,

ibid).Again, culture is cognitive as it provides a framework for peoples thought and their

eventual choices in life paths. Culture is symbolic in that it is shared and learned among a

population and give meaning and direction over the generations.

Language and Culture.

Language is a means of communication that is unique to humans, unlike the other forms of

communication that is used by other creatures and animals.

Language depends on a capacity and design that is genetic and neurophysiologic over an

evolutionary period of time and is unique especially in its production of articulate speech within

the purview of societal enculturation. However the relationship between language and culture is

better expressed within the domain of ethno linguistics (Lenkeit,2001). Nevertheless, Oke (2006)

observed that sociolinguist have noted from their ethnography of speaking that culture may

affect the structure and content of its language. In this regards, it means that linguistic diversity

is derived from cultural diversity. Thus, it seems very clearly that both the ethno linguistic and

sociolinguistic perspectives throw weight on the notion that culture influences languages.
However, the area of more contention is the aspect of the influence of language on culture.

Lenkeit (2001) observed that studies of the language of the Hopi, a North American people

variously by Benjamin Lee Whorf and Edward Sapir led them to the conclusion that ‘Language

constructs human perception of reality’. In other words, language influences culture. This

assertion is what is contained in what is known as the SAPIR- WHORF HYPOTHESIS.

This hypothesis, according to Scupin (2005) is said to show a difference in the ‘verb forms’ and

‘timing’ among the Hopi in contrast to other languages, especially English. Thus, language

determines reality, for instance, among the Hopi.

Culture Change

Culture Change is the experience of bifurcation on a hitherto stable Culture where a non-linear

leap to a new level of stability occurs. Again, it also refers to the invention or borrowing of new

traits or the formation of new patterns of existing traits. However, this change in culture is

usually from two sources, namely, internal and external sources.

Internal source of change

Internal source of change is by invention. Lenkeit(2001) observe that to invent is to create

something that has not previously been part of the culture or society. This new creation comes

in form of discovery when it is first introduced by an individual or a few individuals, then it

becomes an innovation when it is generally accepted. Moreover, this invention may be a

recycled idea or material culture item or a new combination of already existing culture trait.

Interestingly, however, George Murdock, a renowned anthropologist had observed that

inventions in society constitute only 10 per cent of culture change, while diffusion account for

the remaining 90 per cent (Dafleur, 1981)

External Source of Change

spread of culture or culture trait from one place to another. However, diffusion may be

categorized into two viz-a-viz primary and secondary diffusion

Primary diffusion is the ‘culture borrowing’ that takes place between two cultures. Usually, this

is seen as border contact borrowing. Defleur (1981), refer to this kind of diffusion as culture

borrowing in that the culture in which the trait is borrowed may be far removed in space and

time, except for the border contact that enables for the exchange of cultural traits.

Secondary diffusion refers to the spread of cultural traits from one sector or section to another

in the same society. It is also the spread of cultural trait to an increasing number of members of

society as an accepted innovation in society (Defleur,ibid).

Conclusion:

The search for a better human condition and national development would continue to engage

the attention of anthropology. Beyond that, there is a growing refinement in the discipline itself

such that it is increasingly becoming ready to provide conceptual and intellectual solution that

are pragmatic to such problems as that of individual in society, communication and

development

Revision Questions

1. How has anthropology been able to look at the salient concerns of the human condition?

2. How has criticisms added to the richness of anthropological theories?

3. Discuss the versatility in anthropological methods of inquiry.

4. What is the place of culture in society?

Bateson and Donaldson, R(1991),A Sacred Unity: Further steps to an ecology of mind. London:
Cornelia and Michael Bessie Book.

Campbell and Loy,J.(1996),Humankind Emerging. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers

Campbell, D(1983)The two distinct routes beyond kin selection to ultra sociality: implications
for human and social sciences. In: The nature of prosocial development: theories and
strategies. D. Bridgman (ed)New York: Academic Press

Defleur, M. et al(1981),Sociology :Human Society .Illinois :Foresman and company

Feder,K.(1996),Frauds , Myths, Mysteries. Mountain view: Mayfield Publishing Company

Forrest,B(2008),From Plato to Derradi .Upper Saddle River New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall

Lenkeit,R(2001),Introducing Cultural Anthropology. New York: McGraw Hill.

Oke, E.(2006)An introduction to social Anthropology Ibadan: Agbo Areo Publishers

Otite,O. and Ogionwo W.(1985),An introduction to Sociological Studies. Ibadan: Heinemann

Park, M.(1996),Biological Anthropology. Mountain View :Mayfield Publishing Company