QUESTION: Comment on the view that comparative method is a 'method par excellence'.

ANSWER: In the field of social science, disciplines such as sociology and social anthropology
require different methodological perspectives to conduct research in order to study society- their
formation as well as transformation. One such research method adopted by social
anthropologists and sociologists has been the comparative method. The comparative method
refers to the method of comparing different societies or groups within the same society to show
whether and why they are similar or different in certain respects. Comparison was used as well
as recommended by early social researchers and scholars to explain and establish both
differences and similarities between societies and within societies. Thus, for a long period of
time, it is considered as a method par excellence.
In the chapter “Some Observations on the Comparative Method” from the book Sociology:
Essays on Approach and Method, Andre Beteille talks about how in earlier times, comparative
method was used by social anthropologists to devote their attention to the study of non-western
societies or primitive societies. This is because conclusions drawn about family, marriage,
economic processes, or relation between religion and society remain incomplete or even
misleading when they are based on studies confined within the context of a single society or a
single type of society. Here the work of scholars associated with the Anne Socioloque set an
example for they attempted to examine within a single framework all the varieties of human
society, both western and non-western from the simple to most complex.
Comparative method was determined as a great achievement of the 19th century sociology and
social anthropology. In this phase, most extensive comparisons were attempted which included
not only of whole societies but also of particular institutions and practices such as kinship
systems, marriage practices, techniques of agriculture and pottery, magical practices, religious
beliefs and so on. The central place assigned to the method of comparison was signaled by
Durkheim when he wrote: “Comparative sociology is not a special branch of sociology; it is a
sociology itself.” The broader view of comparison suggests that all sociologists and
anthropologists have to rely on it and they have to follow some method in the comparison they
make in their research. However, on one side, there are the enthusiasts about the comparative
method, namely, Herbert Spencer, Edward Tylor, Emile Durkheim and A R Radcliffe-Brown and
on the other side, there are the skeptics which includes Franz Boas, Alexander Goldenweiser
and E.E. Evans-Pritchard. Beteille mentions that though in the past great enthusiasm was
shown towards comparison method, now there is

more skeptics than enthusiasts but the method is still envisaged and used by various
sociologists and social anthropologists in order to study social reality.
Tracing back on the past enthusiasts of the comparative method, Durkheim was among the first
to highlight the significance of the comparative method through his book, “The Rules of
Sociological Method ''. He was among the strong advocates of comparative method along with
Spencer who believed in the possibility of a natural science of society that would establish
regularities of coexistence and succession among the forms of social life by means of
systematic comparisons and both were influenced by organic analogy. According to Durkheim,
since direct experiments like those employed in natural sciences cannot be applied in the
discipline of sociology, there is an emerging use of the method of indirect experiment, i.e.,
comparative method to develop general laws applicable across time and society. Moreover,
many social anthropologists of the nineteenth century were concerned with the origins of
phenomenon and the reconstruction of the stages through which they had evolved from the
simplest to the most complex forms. Thus, the early use of the comparative method was not
only tied to the idea of natural science of society but it was also tied to the theory of evolution.
A R Radcliffe Brown sought to extend Durkheim’s sociological theory. He borrowed a lot from
Durkheim including the idea that societies were governed by laws that could be discovered by
the application of the proper method, which was the comparative method based on observation,
description and comparison of societies as they actually exist. According to Radcliffe Brown, the
aim of the comparative method is to explore the varieties of forms of social life as a basis for
theoretical study of human social phenomena. Brown has tried to separate social anthropology
from ethnology and often used the term ‘comparative sociology’ as a synonym for social
anthropology. For him, one of the important tasks of comparative methods is to look for parallels
to similar social features appearing in different societies in the present or in the past.
Thus, by comparing and contrasting the relationship between social structure and religious
practices among the Australian aborigines and the Andaman Islanders. Radcliffe Brown has
tried to use the comparative method and this can be better explained by the means of
illustration. For instance, according to Radcliffe-Brown the Australian Tribal societies are divided
into oppositions based on totems. Birds and animals are used to categorise the moieties, like
the Eaglehawk and Crow, and this is found in many other societies as well. Radcliffe-Brown had
collected many stories about Eaglehawk and Crow in

different parts of Australia and in all of them the two are represented as opponents in some sort
of conflict. Radcliffe-Brown observed that in the stories narrated by the Australians, there are a
number of parallels to the tale of Eaglehawk and Crow like that of the tale of Wombat and
Kangaroo from the region where South Australia adjoins Victoria. Also, there are many more
tales which have the same single theme. The resemblances and differences of animal species
are translated into terms of friendship and conflict, solidarity and opposition. In other words, the
world of animal life is represented in terms of social relations similar to those of human society,
according to Radcliffe-Brown and therefore, a comparative study reveals the fact that the
Australian idea about the Eaglehawk and crow are only a particular instance of widespread
phenomena. Firstly, the tales collected through his study interpret the resemblances and
differences of animal species in terms of social relationships of friendship and antagonism as
they are known in the social life of human beings. Secondly, it can be said that natural species
are placed in pairs of opposites. They can only be so regarded if there is some respect in which
they resemble each other. Here, the eaglehawk and crow resemble each other in being the two
prominent meat eating birds. These are selected as representing a certain kind of relationship
which is called one of “opposition”.
According to Radcliffe-Brown, the next step in comparative study is to try and discover the
diverse forms that the opposition between the moieties of a dual division takes in actual life. The
expression of opposition between moieties may take different forms. One is the institution of ‘the
joking relationship’. A comparative study shows that in many primitive societies the relation
established between two groups of kin by marriage between a man of one group and a woman
of the other one is expressed by customs of avoidance and by joking relationship. For instance,
a man is permitted or even required to use the insulting behaviour to some of his wife’s kin of his

add relationships from ur notes

own generation. This institution is found in a variety of forms in a number of different societies
and calls for a systematic comparative study.
There is also a third relationship of opposition which is a combination of agreement and
disagreement of solidarity and difference. Radcliffe-Brown began with the existence of moieties
named after the Eaglehawk and Crow in Australia and by making comparisons amongst other
societies, observed that this was not particular or peculiar to one region but is a widespread
general tendency of human societies.
Another example is found in the yin-yang philosophy of ancient China. Yin is the feminine
principle and yan is the masculine principle, one yin and yang constitute the unity of a married
couple. Similarly, one yin and one yin

constitute time and summer or winter. In this ancient Chinese philosophy, this idea of unity of
opposites is given the widest possible extension. Thus, similarity in patterns of systems and
cultures can be seen through the comparative method.
Comparative method is therefore a method by which we pass from the particular to the general
laws, from the general to more general laws which finally can become universal according to
Radcliffe-Brown. Radcliffe Brown’s view on is dominated by the ‘natural kinds’ is critiqued by
Beteille as he explains how societies are different from animal or plant species when it comes to
their similarities and differences as they do not resemble each other like any animal species;
and moves on to say how Radcliffe-Brown later tried to rectify his mistake by explaining how
social life cannot be classified into species in the way it can be in organic life.
There are many skeptics of comparative methods as well. For instance, Franz Boas was not
convinced with the generalisations made by comparative method and suggested that limited
areas be studied with careful attention to facts. He was in favour of the historical method by
which the existence of a particular feature in a particular society is explained as the result of a
particular sequence of events. In addition, although Evans-Pritchard acknowledged the
importance of observation, classification and comparison in some form or the other, he
questioned the achievement of comparative method. He was very critical of the statistical use of
the comparative method. He reckoned that the comparative method used by Radcliffe-Brown
and many others were little more than the method of apt illustration. Evans Prichard took social
anthropology back to the historical method which viewed everything in a context while he
thought that the comparative method took things out of their context. He was of the opinion that
comparative method overlooked the richness of the context and they need to be treated with
suspicion when statistical techniques are used. Though he favoured, like Boas, small scale
comparison than large scale comparisons, but had reservation even for this.
Thus, in conclusion, Andre Beteille critically analysis comparative method and concludes by
explaining how, though the method is important in sociology nut due to the lack of a proper
method which includes a historical context in its comparisons, the ethnocentric attitude of
scholars which categorizes societies into progressive and traditional and a tendency to be
judgmental which prevents to showcase the uniqueness of different societies, the scope of
comparative sociology as a branch of sociology is limited. Nevertheless, explains that through a
proper methodological approach, comparative method can be very
 fruitful, as it helps in describing a general similarity in the nature of human kind in every society
while keeping each society’s uniqueness intact. As Beteille notes, it will be futile to suspend our
comparison until the perfect classification or perfect typology of human societies is placed within
our grasp.