Cultural Anthropology of Mozambique

PROVOCATIONS

Is Anthropology a science?
Why does Anthropology fit into the social sciences?
What are the words associated with Anthropology?

UNID.I Foundation of Social Sciences: general introduction

1.1 Constitution and Development of Social Sciences

The concept of Social Sciences or, as Nunes (1987) refers to them, Sciences of Man,
it only exists in a fragmentary conception, encompassing a set of sciences
disparate and disconnected. In this comprehensive context, Silva and Pinto (1986)
they present as some of these sciences, Sociology, Economics, Psychology
Sociology and Anthropology, to which Nunes (1987) adds Human Geography,
Demography, Political Science, Linguistics, and Social Ethnology.

Silva and Pinto (1986) state that the common objective of the social sciences is the search
of knowledge of reality. Not delving into the inherent philosophical questions
to this delimitation, these same authors define this search, for the construction
of categorical frameworks, logical operators for classification and sorting, by means of
complex processes still influenced by our needs, experiences and
interests, building in this way, tools that provide us with information
about this reality and ways to make it intelligible, without ever confusing themselves
with her. Gurvitch (1963; cited by Nunes, 1987) highlights the fact that reality
studied by these sciences, it is one, this being the human condition considered
about a certain perspective and made the object of a research method
specific.

From a social perspective, human actions unfold in material practices.

and symbolic, relationships with nature and relationships with other men, in the context of
groups with various dimensions, from elementary groups like families to
vast organizations that we call societies. According to Nunes (1987: 29), "the
the constitution of the Social Sciences was directly related to the
historical possibility of asserting the autonomy of the social; that is, with the
socio-economic, political, and theoretical developments that in the 17th centuries,
The XVIII and XIX centuries imposed the idea of the existence of a secular and collective social order.
not directly determined by divine will, irreducible to social action and
submitted to laws.
In a historical delimitation, it is not possible to define dates and periods that support the
formation of Social Sciences, given that each of the disciplines that constitute
this universe we designate as Social Sciences has its own history, in
over which it accumulated a specific heritage of paradigms, theories,
techniques and methods, reference works and teaching manuals, diffusion circuits
of results, training schemes, skills, customs, as well as,
professional inertias (Silva & Pinto, 1986).

We know that the Social Sciences constitute an autonomous universe, this

it is different from other discursive forms (common sense, religion, politics, philosophy,
literature, etc.), only at the end of the 19th century.

However, the study of culture, as a differentiated thematic sphere, is still found

in this poorly developed moment. Two other disciplines are still dedicated to
cultural issue: History, with the studies of civilizations, and Anthropology,
focused on indigenous societies. Civilization, however, has another
meaning; no longer opposes Kultur, as expression of Art and of
Spirit, but encompasses a set of modal values that constitute the identity of
peoples. Fernand Braudel observes that the term, conjugated in the singular in the age of
Lights, with the entry into the 19th century, become plural (cf. Braudel, 1991).

Anthropology is dedicated to cultural issues with the works of Tylor,

Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown. The use of thermoculture and thus associates with
study of 'primitive' peoples in contrast to de-civilization, applied by the
historians to the so-called "evolved" societies. With American culturalism,
one step further is taken, as some authors will propose the existence of a Theory
of Culture, a comprehensive matrix capable of encompassing the expressions of all
human societies. Culture would mean in this case a totality that would encompass
from material artifacts to symbolic universes. Meanwhile, this hardly pleases
theoretical ambition, never realized and somewhat illusory, the anthropologists
they confined their studies to indigenous societies, gradually expanding
your interests in the peasant world and the contrasting cultural manifestations
with modernity "Western" (magical-religious beliefs, communities, etc.).

1.2 Plurality, diversity, and interdisciplinarity in the Social Sciences

Interdisciplinarity is an expression endowed with various meanings and used to

design different situations of interrelation between two or more subjects. How
Japiassu (1976) observes that the term interdisciplinarity does not yet have a clear meaning.
unique and stable epistemological. It is a neologism whose meaning neither
is always understood in the same way by different people.

The search for a definition of interdisciplinarity has been undertaken by

various scholars and, as it was to be expected, in relation to the optics and the position
adopted theory, there are different understandings regarding the matter. There are, by
example, theorists who seek to define interdisciplinarity from differentiation
about aspects such as multi-, pluri-, and transdisciplinarity. Others that are
worried about how interdisciplinarity is developing, seeking
to make historical retrospectives of the evolution of knowledge through the centuries.

Social sciences study the social aspects of the human world, that is, the way
social of individuals and human groups. This includes Anthropology Studies of
communication, Economics, Human Geography, History, Linguistics, Political Science
Psychology and Sociology.

1.3 Social Sciences break with common sense

Descartes (17th century) formulated a paradigm that placed as a principle of

truth as the "clear and distinct" ideas, separating the thinking subject (Ego cogitans)
of the extensive thing (res extensa), that is, philosophy and science. This model was called
Morin's 'paradigm of simplification', from which the 'model of rationality' descends.
The simplification paradigm is the basis for the model of scientific rationality.
Santos) which accepts an internal variety but distinguishes itself from common sense
and the humanities.

Ratzel criticizes the established formulations up to that point (1882), due to the tendency that
they presented to separate the set of constituent elements of the
"terrestrial complex", inseparable in his opinion. The author defended borders
flexible, permeable between disciplinary cooperations, and the adoption of a criterion
of holographic investigation, that is, 'encompassing the whole earth' (investigation
holographic).

In 'Social Morphology', Durkheim suggests that Geography, due to its character

restrictive, would be incapable of handling the syntheses intended by Ratzel and proposes
that she assumes her condition, restricted, worrying about the 'lesser' elements
"essentials" of the "social substrate" (soil, watercourses, mountains...).

Febvre's work marked the end of a period of intense debates, where they could
to confront different perspectives for the social sciences. Among them
the analytical approach and disciplinary disconnection prevailed; the formulations that
they bet on the opposite sense of the fragmentation of knowledge (such as those of
Ratzel) were voted into ostracism. Febvre's work became a landmark.
of the new situation (disciplinary disconnection).

Prigogine talks about the need to abandon the extremes of representations

founded exclusively on the determinism of natural laws or on events
arbitrary and unpredictable. This mediating description, situated between a world
deterministic and a world subjected to pure chance implies a stance.
on the part of scientific knowledge and its fields of specialization. Captured from
city: The provided text is a URL and cannot be translated.
social-sciences/#ixzz24kujTKTk

Social sciences sprouted in nineteenth-century Europe, but it is in the century

XX, as a result of the works of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber that
social sciences develop.

Thus, with Durkheim, Marcel Mauss will set the tone for the renewal of
anthropology in France. In a different context, English, Bronislaw Malinowski
will also contribute to the renewal of anthropology through the method
functionalism that will mark a rupture with the colonialist bias of studies
anthropological studies thus far developed in England.

Unit II Cultural Anthropology in the field of Social Sciences

Currently, one cannot speak of an independent discipline or science or

isolated from the interest of others, in a given area. When we call upon Anthropology
Cultural in the field of Social Sciences, we intend to achieve interdisciplinarity.
Given that we live in oikos (space) where we need reciprocal collaboration.
with neighbors or the community seeking cooperation and mutual help. This is the
what also happens with the sciences.

Anthropology, to develop its object of study, needs support from

other sciences. Since no science can provide on its own, this is the reason for
relate to Sociology, History, Economics, Geography,
Psychoanalyze among others.

2.1 Definition, object and fields of approach

ANTHROPOLOGY is the science that studies man, his activities and the
behavior.

The concept of Anthropology etymologically comes from two concepts.

Greek: anthropo means man; elogía, study, science. The word
Anthropology was first used in 1795 in the sense of 'History'
Natural to Man.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the term still served to designate the science to which
it is currently called Physical Anthropology. More recently, it tends to
to signify the knowledge of the general properties of social life and the various
human societies, thus covering a wide range of sciences that
they study man such as: Physical Anthropology, Social Anthropology,
Cultural anthropology, Political anthropology, Psychoanalytic anthropology,
Economic Anthropology, Ethnology, Ethnography, certain aspects of
Linguistics, Comparative Technology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Psychology
Social, etc.

Anthropology takes into account all aspects of human existence: biological

the cultural, past and present combining these diverse materials in a
integrated approach to the problem of human existence.

The term Anthropology indicates different causes depending on the countries.

In question. In continental Europe, Anthropology refers to the physical study of
man, what corresponds to Physical Anthropology; and to Anthropology
Culturalusa uses the term Ethnology, so there is a tendency to consider them.
synonyms. In England, the term Social Anthropology is used as a synonym
Cultural Anthropology. In the USA and in most countries, the term
Cultural Anthropology, which is divided into: ethnology and ethnography.

Ethnology is concerned with the comparative study of culture and the investigation of
theoretical problems that arise or emerge from the analysis of customs
Humans. Ethnography deals with the description of concrete cultures.

In short, ethnology is the comparative theoretical study of cultures while

ethnography provides a description of concrete cultures.

Object of study - Anthropology has a double object of study:

a) Material object that corresponds to the study of man;

b) Formal object that corresponds to the study of man and his
behavior as a whole.

Objective of Anthropology

According to Hoebele Frost (1981:3,4), anthropology establishes as its

"Objective of the study of humanity as a whole..." and no other science.
systematically researches all manifestations of the human being and of
human activity in such a unified way.
It is an extremely broad objective, aiming at man as an expression
global –biopsychocultural–, that is, man as a thinking biological being,
producer of crops and participant in society, trying to reach, thus,
understanding of human existence.

Cultural Anthropology encompasses the study of man as a cultural being, that is,
culture maker, your basic objective consists in the problem of the relationship
between instinctive (hereditary) behaviors and acquired (by
learning) as well as the general biological bases that serve as
structures the cultural capabilities of man (Heberer, cited by Marconi)
1998:26).
2.2 Methods and techniques of investigation in Anthropology: ethnography, work
of field, participant observation and interpretation.

Anthropology is a social and human science, well characterized, having its

well-defined fields of action and their own methods and techniques of
work. This allows the anthropologist to observe and classify phenomena,
analyze and interpret the data obtained from the research, enabling you to
establish correlations and generalizations.

Considering the two fields of research in anthropology (the biological and the
(cultural), a distinction is made between method and technique relevant to each one.
theirs.

Physical or biological anthropology and Cultural anthropology rely on certain

procedures in order to achieve your objectives more easily and
secure. To achieve this, they use various methods and techniques that often
are used concurrently. For this we have methods and techniques:
Ethnographic method,fieldwork, participant observation and the
interpretation,historical statistician comparative you ethnological
genealogical, functionalist. As research techniques in anthropology we have:
observation, interview, form.
Unit III History of Anthropological Thought

3.1 Intellectual curiosity and interest in the exotic

We will treat Anthropology here as a historical fact, as a human activity.

located in time and space and with a minimum of systematization. The
studies of anthropology have never served any systematization or
monopoly of the nation or people and its development has never been regular due to
that any division of anthropology is arbitrary.
4.1 According to Penniman, the history of Anthropology has the following division:

1st training period (1835);

2nd period of convergence (1835–1869);

3rd construction period (1969–1900);

4th period of criticism (1900...).

4.2 For Paul Marcie there is another period that he calls pre-history.

1st prehistory period (…1835);

2nd period of Ambitions (1835–1900);

3rd period of discovery (1900–1930);

4th period of conquest (1930…).

The division according to Penniman

1st training period (1835);

This period begins with the very culture of humanity. Anthropology does not
there is no exact date of birth, as science does not arise overnight.
It is a slow process that involves accumulation and reformulation of
knowledge. We can call this period the prehistory of
Anthropology. It encompasses all the reflection of man about himself and about the universe.
In all cultures, the reflection on origin has always been present.
reality and the destiny of man and his social group. The same Marcier
it is called spontaneous anthropology. In this sense, it can be stated that
the cultural manifestations of man throughout the ages present themselves
as effective contributions to the constitution of anthropology: engravings,
paintings, objects, etc.

The Greco-Roman tradition through its eminent scholars such as: Herodotus,
Plato, Aristotle, Hippocrates, and so many others can be pointed out as
exponents who greatly contributed to modern anthropological studies.
Romans: Lucretius, Tacitus, Marcus Aurelius, Caesar; In the Middle Ages: St
Augustine, Avicenna, Averroes, Bacon, Montaigne; Ibn Khaldun.

Modernity is characterized by a growing anthropocentrism, it was the

Age of Enlightenment, the worship and reason; studies were set aside.
cosmological of antiquity.

2nd period of convergence (1835–1869);

Consider whether this period is more of a one-off or of construction. According to
Marcier calls this period of ambitions. There were great voyages recorded.
exploration that led to the multiplication of contacts between peoples
developing in this way the maritime exchanges between all continents and
emergence of travel reports that constituted baseline documents
for the development of anthropology. It studies the other, the different value
of the cultural heritage of the various geographic areas visits and of the peoples
found. It is important to emphasize the work of Charles Secondat, Baron of
Montesquieu (1689 to 1755), Persian letters, which help to understand the
development of basic concepts of cultural anthropology. The method
experiment and induction were increasingly cultivated. It started to
specialization of knowledge and for Anthropology the most important facts
significant were: the development of Cultural Anthropology, the
systematization of Physical Anthropology, emergence of prehistory and of
archaeology.

3rd period of elaboration and construction (1969–1900);

It is the construction period around a unit, the concept of evolution.

This gives anthropology its first impulse and a certain unity. The various
formulations about society and culture converge on three objectives
commons: origins, age and change. Several association magazines emerge.
scientific: the American journal Current Anthropology; the British Mane
Frenchman. Some of the highlights of this period are Charles
Darwin (1809–1882), Edward Burnett Tylor (1832–1917), Herbert Spencer (1820–
1903), Auguste Comte (1798–1846) and others.
What distinguishes this period from the previous one is the fact that the work has appeared
classic on biological evolution, the origin of species by Charles Darwin.
It is also during this time that evolutionism reaches its peak as a theory.
and in this context, modern anthropology is born. Its founder is
Edward Brunet Tylor. In his book Primitive Culture from 1871, he sought to use the
comparative method, showing the evolution that religion has undergone
through the ages. Another significant work is The Primitive Society, by
Lewis Morgan, published in 1877, which this scholar sought to establish the
path followed by the family organization through the various stages of
development. Tylor is the most important of all scholars of the period,
he was the one who defined the term culture. The main criticism made to the
evolutionism was almost absent from the field that weakened the
methodological and scientific vigor.

4th period of criticism and new approaches (1900...).

This period goes from 1900 to the present day and is the most fruitful of
anthropology in which the initial canons (precepts or rules) were criticized
of the discipline. New approaches have been proposed to Anthropology. It is a period
in which there was a reformulation of Cultural Anthropology. There was progress in the
sciences, especially in the media for the dissemination of ideas. The
socio-cultural reality takes new directions and is analyzed by various perspectives.
Anthropology frees itself from colonial servitude and becomes a discipline.
mandatory in universities.

Today a remarkable and promising fact occurs: the peoples, previously only objects of
They themselves begin to cultivate the studies of anthropology.
a series of new circumstances that enrich anthropology:
psychological guidance, the study of linguistics, and field research. We have
like great authors: James Frazer (1854−1941), of evolutionary tendency
developed the comparativism between societies; Alfred Radcliffe−Brown
(1881−1955), the first professional anthropologist who practiced the work of
field; Bronislaw Malinowski (1884−1942), founder of English anthropology
more modern and methodical in field research; Edward
Evans-Pritchard (1902-1973), sociologist who studied social dynamics,
conflicts and cultural changes.
In France, we highlight, among others, the sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858−1917),
institutionalized Sociology in France, analyzed modern societies;
Marcel Mauss (1872−1952), sociologist who formed the first generation of
French anthropologists.

In North America, Franz Boas (1858−1942), a physicist and geographer who founded the
anthropological tradition in America at the end of the 19th century and founder of the
the first professional American anthropologists. The subsequent generation, formed
by Abrahan Kardiner (1891−1981); Margareth Mead (1901−1979) and
RafalfLinton who followed the culturalist trend.
Starting from the 1950s of the 20th century under the influence of Edward
Evans-Pritchard (1902-1973), Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908-2009), one of the
great intellectuals of the time and contemporary authors, as well as Mary
Douglas Anthropology follows a complex trajectory manifesting a
interest in History and the change, conflicts of social dynamics.

In the 70s and 80s, there is also an interest in representations and beliefs,
by ideology and the relations of production, by social organization and the
kinship, through myths and systems of thought and through symbolism.
New fields open up for anthropology: studies of urban anthropology, the
globalization and others.

The anthropological studies conducted during this colonial period in

Mozambique can be found in the books of: Jorge Dias Os Macondes
from Mozambique, by Henri Junod Uses and Customs of the Bantu, by Friar João of
SantosEastern Ethiopia in the ethnographic monographs of the Administrators
colonial.
3.2 From the colonial project to the crisis of Anthropology

1970s: Colonialism as a problem for knowledge and practice

Anthropological books that addressed the issue in the early 1970s:
Reinventing Anthropology (1972), edited by Hyme, Anthropology and the colonial
Encounter (1973), edited by Talal Asad.

Reinventing Anthropology (1972) Context Change in social conditions and

policies in which Anthropology was inserted. With political decolonization, there was
a fundamental change in the conditions under which fieldwork could occur
to be conceived and realized. Emergence of moral and political issues regarding the
anthropological undertaking questioning the relationship between
objectivity of ethnographic data and political interest. With the publication of
Malinowski's diaries, in 1967, the relationship between ethnographer and informant began to
to attract attention.

Reinventing Anthropology (1972) Central question: could Anthropology manage

reinventing oneself to reflect the demands for political accountability,
ethical concerns and critical social commitment? Two currents inspired the
book: 1) Of Boasian tradition, which saw anthropological thought as a
reflective critique of civilization (Edward Said, Ruth Benedict and Paul Radin); 2)
Inspired by Marxism, concerned with highlighting the situation of societies
peasants in imperialist capitalism.

Anthropology and the colonial encounter (1973) The concerns of the book
Anthropology and the colonial encounter were distinct from Reinventing Anthropology,
despite sharing, Americans and Brits share the concern with the
changes occurred in Anthropology. The emergence of new nations in Africa
(Sudan, 1956; Ghana, 1957; Nigeria, 1960) made it inevitable that the
historical approach to the colonial system is increasingly difficult not to criticize the
ahistorical functionalism and empiricism characteristic of British Anthropology.

1980s: the focus shifted from the role of discipline in the project
colonial and the policies of its practitioners concerning the concern with the forms of
knowledge about non-European worlds. More epistemological concern than
politics (colonialism as a problem of representation). Interest in textuality
from the ethnographic description, in the sense that this is a language artifact.

Sources of change: 1–Decline of anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism as

starting point of political-ideological concerns (the end of the Vietnam War and
the period of R. Reagan marked the decline of interest among intellectuals in
First World by changes in the Third World; decline of experiments
with radical social transformation in many independent countries of Africa, southern
Asia, Caribbean and Latin America). 2–Intellectual transformations in understanding and
in the practice of the human sciences: from determinism (Leslie White, Julian Steward) and
functionalism (Radcliffe-Brown) for social and cultural constructivism,
mainly the 'return to meaning'.

The concern with modes of representation in social and cultural analyses

created the context for the emergence of Colonial Studies, which contributed to the
institutionalization of the renewal of intellectuals' perspective on colonialism.

3.3 The universalization of Anthropology

Anthropology, as a science of modernity, sets up its theoretical apparatus constructed
in the past, with the possibility of, in the present, explaining and understanding the intense
movements provoked by globalization: on one hand, the processes
homogenizing the world social order and, on the other hand, contrary to that trend, the
claim of singularities, pointing to the constitution of humanity
as a diverse one.

However, this tradition is now the subject of controversy, as the facts

resulting from the intense transformation of reality seem to be contained in
its explanatory principles. In this field of tension, it is argued that either the
the trajectory of anthropology has been to assess social, ethnic, and
others with the purpose of providing intervention alternatives on reality
social in a way that does not deny differences; now would not it be the anthropological tradition
sufficient to cope with the political context of the differences and, as such, would be
overcome in its purposes.

Arising from the questioning that affects the human sciences in a way
general in the second half of the twentieth century, and in particular anthropology,
emerging other theoretical perspectives, among which the so-called stand out
cultural studies, whose definition is given within the so-called postmodern currents.

Anthropology has followed the challenges of each historical moment, concerned with
explain human social diversity based on singularities and particularities
that cover different groups and societies. Between one century and another, it privileged the
the field of differences has moved towards the recognition of diversities
socio-cultural of your time. Linked to human universals, at the end of the 20th century
places, for the world, the challenge of having to acknowledge differences and to establish
a mode of dialogue, but has not yet found its full realization.

UNIT IV Theoretical currents of Anthropology

4.1 Evolutionism

When talking about evolutionism, one automatically thinks of Darwin,

natural selection of species, in the survival of the strongest and in the origin of
man. The idea of evolution was the dominant idea of the 19th century, in the intellectual climate
of an entire scientific world. Remember that Darwin was not the only one to think about
terms of evolution. In classical antiquity, thinkers were concerned with the
problem of the origin of man and the universe, of movement and transformation.
In the book of Genesis, there are theories of origin as well as original sin. This
the example of Genesis does not constitute a theory of progress but we have those that communicate
a circular progress according to Melo (2004:201) citing Eva M. Lakatos,
...argues that the history of humanity goes through cycles: cultures undergo
a series of successive stages, returning to the original cycle and restarting
cycle...

Much more optimistic are the concepts of linear and vertical progress. For this
there are authors linked to these conceptions: the Greek poet Hesiod and the philosopher
Roman Lucretius.

In the Middle Ages, pessimism returned as in Genesis on one side, with St.
Augustine and on the other hand with the social philosopher of the 14th century, the Arab Ibn Khaldun with
your theory of social evolution in spiral.

The Enlightenment served as the foundation for the later growth of all theories.
evolutionists for a progress of associations.

In Anthropology, the most important name was Charles Darwin, who in 1859
published his most famous book, The Origin of Species. In this work, he exposed the
set of your ideas regarding the evolution of all species. It dealt with the
natural selection of the survival of the fittest and established the concepts of evolution,
of survival and function. Also not less important was the Monet of
Lamarck, an eminent biologist, considered the founder of the theory of evolution and prior to
Darwin.

One of the most well-known ideas of Lamarck is the one that refers to the statement that
"the function creates the organ." This idea was put forward by him: "the necessity
creates the necessary organ and its use strengthens and considerably increases; the lack of
use, on the contrary, leads to atrophy, to the disappearance of the useless organ

James Frazer had his name linked to Evolutionism for having managed
popularize Social Anthropology and also argued that all societies
they passed through three stages: magic, religion, and science.

Magic - it depends on what nature gives;

Religion - trust what God will give, trust in the one who created nature;

Science denies God and transforms nature into a machine, it is trust.

excessive of human reason.

Cultural evolutionism: representatives

The period of construction of Anthropology was entirely dominated by

evolutionary orientation. However, evolutionism was an optimistic way of
face human reality.

Representatives of cultural evolutionism: Edward B. Tylor (1832-1917, Saint-

Simon (1760-1825), Auguste Comte (1798-1870), Herbert Spencer (1820-1903),
Henry Maine (1622-1888) and James Frazer (1854-1941).
TPC. Develop the characteristics and mention the representatives.
cultural evolutionism.

4.2 Diffusionism and Culturalism

The term 'Diffusionism' was first used in

1930 to designate the 'anthropological movement that sought to explain the
cultural development through the process of diffusion of cultural elements from
one culture to another, emphasizing the relative rarity of new inventions and the
importance of constant cultural loans in the history of humanity.

According to Melo (2004:222), the term Diffusionism is also known as

Historicism encompasses several theoretical trends in cultural anthropology. The word
"Historicismo" denotes a theory according to which the essence of phenomena of
society and culture consist in their dynamic character and development,
highlighting the human reality and human work. For
adepts of this school of thought, the cultural similarities and differences
result more from the presence or absence of diffusion processes than from the
isolated innovations from different cultures. These try to explain the similarities.
the differences between particular cultures emphasizing the phenomenon of diffusion and
of concepts among the peoples.

Markoni (1998:251) argues that Diffusionism was a reactionary movement to

19th century evolutionism. Even affecting the technical orientation of
methodological procedures, it did not completely reject the contents
basic formulated by Evolutionism.

According to Martinez (2000:87), Diffusionism is within the critical period, that is, between
1900-1930. But it was the 1920s that gained its greatest acceptance and
popularity.

Diffusionism focused on making the methods of Cultural Anthropology more

rigorous, more scientific; for which field research was developed with
considerable intensity.

Several research techniques have been developed, mainly observation.

participant. Indirectly, the field research led anthropologists to learn
several unknown languages. This fact helped to promote the growth of another branch
from Cultural Anthropology: Linguistics.

It becomes necessary to change the focus of study: emphasis is placed on the study of
particular cultures and not to universal culture. This allowed for great security in
information and a greater understanding of phenomena, so far, relegated to a
secondary plan.

Diffusionism is divided into: English school, German school, and school

Each of these schools has representatives.

Culturalism is an American school of Anthropology that tends to consider

essential to the specificity of "culture", viewed as the habit of the social group, by
opposition to nature.

During the period between the two world wars, it developed, fundamentally in
United States, a culturalist stream in anthropology, whose basic premise was
that a given culture imposes a certain way of thinking to
men included in it. Culture conditions the psychological behavior of the
individual, their way of thinking, the way they perceive their surroundings and how they extract,
accumulates and organizes the information derived from it. In this sense, they were
significant are the works of Ruth Benedict, carried out in the 1930s, about
the Pueblo Indians of the southwestern United States -- who, despite being immersed
in a physical environment similar to that of the neighboring ethnic groups, they reasoned in a way
very different in the face of identical problems.

Margaret Mead primarily analyzed the importance of education in the formation of

adult personality. Ralph Linton and Abram Kardiner, in turn, presented the
concept of basic personality, which would consist of a common psychological minimum
to all members of a society.

Culturalism attempts to describe society from a combined perspective of

Anthropology and Psychoanalysis. Culturalism is one of the branches of sociology.
which dominated American sociology from 1930 to 1950. Borrowing the concept of
the culture of anthropologists, he seeks to account for social integration.

TPC.Developing schools of diffusionism: what it advocates and main points

representatives.

4.3 Functionalism

Functionalism emerges with the fieldwork of Bronislaw Malinowski in the Islands

Trobriand, starting from the year 1914. Since then, its influence has been growing.
in intellectual circles until it reached its peak in the years 1930-1940.

What marks Functionalism is the new orientation towards the study of Anthropology. Until
so both Evolutionism and Diffusionism were concerned with the
origins, with the problems of socio-cultural transformations. Malinowski and later,
Radcliffe-Brown was concerned with studying and explaining the functioning of culture
at a given moment. Functionalism was not interested in explaining the present by
the past, but explain the past through the present.

This current of anthropological thought has had a nearly secular tradition. Its
roots are linked to the names of Spencer, Durkheim, and generally to tradition
French.

TPC. Develop the Functionalism of Malinowski-Radcliffe-Brown (characteristics

e factors).

4.4 Structuralism

Structuralism in Melo's view (2004:262) is like a kind of refinement

of Functionalism. It is important to understand that this school does not oppose to
Functionalism. But it has common points among them that are as follows:

a) both constitute models of approach that allow to explain the aspect

synchronous of culture; both in Functionalism and in Lévi-Strauss's Structuralism
Strauss defends the thesis of the possibility of explaining culture and society
without a necessary incursion into history;

b) both take as a fundamental point the assumption of society and culture

to form a totality and in this or through this, one can and should seek the
explanation of the component parts; what do these schools mean by using
a systematic analysis;

both share a mark of French tradition, which means they bring

common characteristics: a pronounced positivism, a sociological explanation and a
study of immaterial culture rather than material.

For Lévi-Strauss, "structure" is the model established to grasp reality.

empirical. Therefore, he makes a distinction between social relations and structure. Lévi-
Strauss was inspired by the structuralism of Ferdinand de Saussure.

The term structuro-functionalism originates from Ferdinand de Saussure's Course in General Linguistics.

Saussure (1916) proposed to approach any language as a system in

each of the elements can only be defined by equivalence relations or
of opposition that it maintains with the other elements. This set of relationships
forms the structure.

Structuralism is an approach that came to be one of the most methods.

extensively used to analyze language, culture, philosophy of
Mathematics and society in the second half of the 20th century.

The work of Ferdinand de Saussure influenced many linguists during the period between the
1st and 2nd World Wars. In the USA, for example, Leonard Bloomfield developed
your own version of structural linguistics, just as Louis Hjelmslev did in
Scandinavia. In France, Antoine Meillet and Émile Benveniste would continue the
Saussure's program. However, even more importantly, members of the school of
Prague Linguistics as Roman Jakobson and Nikolai Trubetzkoy led
very influential research.

4.5 Other currents: French sociological and Marxist

4.6 Emerging Paradigms in Anthropology (Post-modernism e

Interpretivism

4.7 The anthropological currents and their operationalization in Mozambique

Unit V Ethnographic Practices in Colonial and Post-Colonial Mozambique

4. Anthropological Concept of Culture.

4.1 The Anthropological Concept of Culture (Plurality and Diversity of

definitions and approaches);

Definition of culture
There are several concepts of culture, despite the figure having exceeded 160.
definitions, have not yet reached a consensus on the exact meaning of
Term. For some, culture is learned behavior; for others, it is not.
behavior, but abstraction of behavior; and for a third one
group, culture consists of ideas. There are those who consider as culture
only the immaterial objects, while others, on the contrary, what is
refer to the material. There are also scholars who understand culture as both the
material things as well as non-material ones.

In 1869, Matthew Arnold defined culture as the pursuit of perfection.

that implies an internal condition of the mind and spirit (sweetness and light) through
of the good and the best that has been thought and said in history.
Edward Brunet Tylor (1871) was the first to formulate the concept of culture.
For him, "culture is that complex whole that includes knowledge, the...
beliefs, art, morality, law, customs and all other habits and skills
acquired by man as a member of society.

The concept of Tylor encompasses all things and events related to

man prevailed in the field of anthropology for several decades.

For Ralph Linton Beals (1936), the culture of any society "consists of the
the total sum of ideas, emotional reactions conditioned to patterns of
behavioral habits that its members acquired through instruction
an intuition that everyone, to a greater or lesser extent, participates.” This author
assigns two meanings to the term culture: one in general, meaning 'the heritage
social, total of humanity,” another, specific, referring to a
a certain variant of social inheritance.

Franz Boa (1938) defines culture as 'the totality of reactions and activities.'
mental and physical characteristics that define the behavior of individuals who
comprise a social group.

Malinowski (1934) in a scientific theory of culture defines culture as

or the whole consistent global of implements and consumer goods, of castes
constitutional for the various social groups, ideas, and human occupations,
belief and customs.
Herkovits (1948) defines culture as 'a part of the environment made by man.'

There is no exact consensus on the meaning of culture, however it advances.

it has two meanings or significations:

a) Humanist significance is that which is restricted and traditional, popular and is

limited. The most used is pejorative, creates differentiations. It means
(acquisition of well-systematized knowledge in a certain area);
b) Anthropological meaning.

4.2 About the origin and development of culture.

The term culture (colere, to cultivate or instruct; cultus, cultivation, instruction) does not
restricts to the field of anthropology. Several areas of human knowledge:
agronomy, biology, arts, literature, history, etc.

Often, the word culture is used to indicate development.

of the individual through education, instruction. In this case, a person
"Cultured" would be one who has gained mastery in the intellectual or artistic field.
It would be 'uncultured' for someone who has not received education.

Anthropologists do not use the terms cult or uncultured, which are popular usages, and
they do not make value judgments about this or that culture, for they do not consider
one superior to the other.

All societies - rural or urban, simple or complex - possess

culture. There is no human individual devoid of culture except for the newborn.
born and feral man; one because he has not yet undergone the process of
enculturation and the other, because it was deprived of human interaction.

For anthropologists, culture has a broad meaning: it encompasses the ways

common lessons learned from life, transmitted by individuals and groups in
society.

4.2 Factors of culture

Individuals and peoples are, therefore, the fundamental factors of culture. Others
factors are at the base of the construction of culture and at least two of them have
a weight equally basic and fundamental. They are the environment and the weather.
To highlight the essentiality of the concept that is intended with them
house
chronos

5.3 Characteristic of culture

Symbolism

Culture is symbolic. The symbol is a key to understanding culture.

When studying a culture, it is necessary to refer to the function and symbolism of
certain objects, actions, and institutions. Man lives between two
spaces, two worlds that complete each other: the world of the referent, that is, the
outer space; and the symbolic world or imaginary space. All culture
can be considered as a set of symbolic systems and consists of
in fact, a set of communications. We can consider the human being
as a symbolic animal. In this sense, not only verbal language, but
also the rites, cultural institutions, relationships, customs, etc., do not
they are more than symbolic forms. The symbolic world is not comprehensible
without an initiation, for each people dresses the absolutes in a garb
own symbolic.

A symbol is a physical phenomenon that has the meaning conferred by those who
they use and that only they know. The signs used by the symbols (objects,
gestures, language) degrade over time: they can lose their
understanding the changes that arise or even due to routine.

Social Culture

Culture is not of an individual, it is of a group and sociability is

characteristic of culture.

5.3.3 Dynamic and stable culture

Culture is stable due to tradition (conservation of values). Culture is

dynamic, culture must be dynamic and the essential values of culture must
to be adjusted at the moment.

Selective culture

This selects the accepted values in society (religious values, integrated and
permanent) that will result in a new cultural synthesis, a new standard of living
different and new behavior.

5.3.5 Culture is universal and regional

Culture is both comprehensive and limited. Here we have social groups or societies.
different. With the same aspirations and the same fundamental needs.
With cultural universality, cultures respond logically,
satisfactory and harmonious. The response models are different.

5.3.6 Culture is determinant and determined

Man determines the way of being and culture determines the human being or the
culture makes man and man makes culture. Cultural heritage is sufficiently
strong for shaping habits and customs and ways of thinking and acting of
man. Culture is also determined by man. He is the active agent
of its own culture.

The culture has its subcultures. E.g. the chuabo culture has the subculture:
political, social and economic. The subculture in certain societies may be
linked to certain social strata, castes or social classes. Therefore, the
subcultures are constitutive parts of global culture.

5.5 Cognitive aspects of culture

There are three cognitive aspects of culture: normative, belief aspect, and morality.

Normative - it means how to act, seeking the just way of acting.

I believe – the meaning of the universe, the beliefs of the people, of nature, of
theology, its explanation or answers to deep whys.

A moral - meanings of value what is desirable, good, beautiful and the opposite:
the values, the ethics.

Exercise 2

What are norms, values, and sanctions?

6. Cultural dynamism and the processes of: Enculturation, Acculturation,
Inculturation and Deculturation.

a) Enculturation

The process of learning and education in a culture from childhood, or

process that structures the conditioning of behavior, providing stability to
culture.

Each individual acquires the beliefs, behavior, and ways of life of

society to which one belongs. No one learns, however, the entire culture, but is
conditioned by certain particular aspects of the transmission of its group.

Societies do not allow their members to act differently.

All actions, behaviors, and attitudes of its members are controlled.
for her.

b) Acculturation

Acculturation is a phenomenon of cultural transformation resulting from

meeting of two or more cultures. The first meaning of this term, at the end
of the last century, it referred only to the passive aspect of assimilation of
cultural elements of a dominant culture. But it soon became clear that
the phenomenon never operates in just one direction. The colonial period, during which
many peoples have suffered the rule of great powers and in which their
cultures were impacted by forms of life equipped with industrial technology,
This phenomenon highlights the essential aspects.

Today, the term acculturation generally applies to the phenomenon, which can be
considered normal, the meeting and the exchange that is established between the
cultures. None of the human cultures is autonomous, that is, closed in on itself.
own, just as no man is an island.

c) Inculturation

Inculturation refers to the processes of learning through which a

an individual or even a group assimilates the conceptions and the rules of life
belonging to the group or the communities to which it belongs, and of which
consequently, it becomes an active and passive participant. This phenomenon
becomes particularly visible in the involvement of the child and the boy until the
adolescence and adulthood. But the phenomenon does not end with reaching the
adult age and full individual autonomy. This verifies whether, in a more
or less apparent, during all ages and throughout individual life.

d) Desculpturation

It constitutes the passive balance of acculturation. If cultural exchanges give rise to

new developments that change the conceptions and ways of life of
peoples, in the same way, losses of other elements already received by the
tradition. There is not necessarily an exact balance and correspondence
perfect between what is gained and what is lost. The phenomenon,
precisely because it is fundamental and not always perceptible in its origins,
it doesn't always seem logical and presents itself as if it were whim. In reality,
when you manage to reach your roots, you discover that this, which us
acculturative aspects that are de-culturative respond to precise choices.