Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
M A X GLUCKMAN
University of Mancheder
There has been considerable criticism of the use ofthe equilibrium model by social anthropologists. The
argument ofthis paper is that much of this criticism isdue to a misundershndin~arising baause though
all SOCW life exists in time, and aU processes in time involve changes, we have to dejine smeral dijermt
kinds of “time” as well as distinctive types of “change.” It is contended that each type of social institu-
tion, or cultural patlern, has a particular kind of time scale in its very structure. Thus the structure of a
family system can only be analyzed in four generations, and 4 subsistencesystems perhaps onLy in jive
to six generations. Other institutions &we other built-in time scales. It is proposed to call the time scale of
an institution its structural duration. One important way of studying an institution is to analyze i t s
structural duration. In an analysis of this kind, the emphharis is on the manner in which the institution
would operate through time internal contradictions or external intruding cuents did not interfere with
its passage through iAr structural duration. Therefore an analysis of the structural duration of an institu-
lion is necessarily in an equilibrium model. Many studies hawe taken this form,but have bemr misrcod as
if they were dealing with what happened in a c t d hislolical time. It is argued that since changes are of
several kinds in a suggested range, from repetitive or rccuwmt changes of personnel through limited
strwtural changes to radical structural changes, il is possible to assess what kinds of changes are accur-
ring only by examining them within the structural durations of institutions, held steady as a jirst step in
analysis as in actual equtXbrium. But this provides only a henrislic scheme in which to h a d e the
obserwations; it i s not a theory giving us a set of interdependent propositMns. More and more actual
changes may be fed in as the analysis tries to cope with greater ranges of reality. The argument i s illus-
trated with examplesfrom studies of several s o c a spheres. There is also a discussion of how the method
mables the a d y s t to analyze observations coUcckd ower a limited pniDd of time in terms of a much
longer period in order to assess the types of change that are occuwing.
available to manipulate to their advantage functionalists, in the sense that we try to assess
(Leach 1954; Bailey 1957; Van Velsen 1964). the significance of each element within the par-
When these complexities are reduced in a ticular structure we are studying.
structural analysis, much of the uniqueness I caution therefore that he who abuses an-
and richness of the data disappears. So the other as a structuralist must, insofar as he is
anthropologist has to wrestle with a dilemma: essaying a scientific study, be flagellating
if he presents all the data, we cannot see the himself. The trouble is that this distracts at-
GLUCKMAN] The Utility of the Equilibrium Model 235
tention from a whole field of problems. I have structures in the “passage of events in space-
been talking above of institutional structures time,” which is reality in Whitehead’s phrase.’
since this is the field in which I work, and I I have suggested, too, that the interlinking of
have argued that institutions have a tendency our varied sets of structures poses new fields of
to continuity over time through the systematic worthwhile problems; these are immensely
interrelation of positions, roles, material ap- difficult, as I see it, since I reject any reduc-
paratus, values, beliefs, etc. M y analysis is tionist essay to explain the system in one set of
developed for this field. But I recognize that events out of explanations of the system in
within the apparent continuity of form of a n other sets of events, whether of larger or smal-
institution (e.g., House of Commons) there ler scale (see Devons and Gluckman 1964; and
can be a slow accumulation of change: in types for a fine exposition, Mandelbaum 1955). I
of personnel, through drifts of style, through urge that i t is wiser to examine the problems
the operation of choices by individuals, and so and methods and difficulties of all other work-
forth. Lack of continuity seems marked in ers, rather than to dismiss them summarily
many patterns of interaction. Nevertheless, with intellectual abuse. One may learn some-
many studies have shown that there is a high thing from examination; dismissal teaches one
degree of continuity in interaction patterns, nothing. If we call others “ass-head,” we may
which makes emphasis on structure equally es- be in A Midsummer Night’s Dream (Act 111,
sential (see Goffman, various). B u t whether Sc. l), looking through bully Bottom’s mask.
interaction patterns are continuous or un-
stable or changing, it is important that we try NOTES
to see whether we can bring together these ap- I am grateful to Professors J. A. Barnes and M.
parently very diverse modes of analysis. I con- Fortes with whom I had stimulating preliminary dis-
sider this to be one of the challenges before us cussions on the roblems raised in this paper, and to
in the coming years, and hence I a m against my several colkgues at Manchester (P. Baxter,
K. Garbett, B. Kapferer, N. Long, J. C. Mitchell,
false disputation between persons dealing with E. L. Peters, M. Southwold, R. Werbner), who
different types of problems in which one person commented in seminar on an early draft and added
alleges, of ten enough, that the other’s analysis much that was valuable. Colleagues at the Center
for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences a t
is wrong in principle because it is not the kind Stanford gave me valuable help and the Center pro-
of analysis that he (the first) is interested in. vided many facilities. Professor Sally F. Moore
I would rather draw attention to the fact helped me with a final, constructive criticism.
that the separation of institutions from in- ‘For an dective similar argument see Smelser
teraction is to a large extent an analytical (1959) among many others.
ent elaborated in Gluckman (1964,
distinction. For it is partly from action and in- l&$ : n E m n and Gluckman (1965-66).
teraction that we build up our abstract struc- ‘1 have a summary discussion of this general
ture of institutions; and conversely, in studies problem in Gluckman 1965b: 101 f. Frankenberg
of interaction, we are concerned with in- (1958) a plied Evans-Pritchard’s general thesis
here to iiminate the role of “strangers” and “out-
capsulations from institutions. Somehow we siders” in the communal life of a Welsh village.
must try to bring these different types of 6 “Dendritic” means growing like a tree, with
analyses together. some branches continuing large. There are not
I believe firmly that anthropology is a cycles of development in these processes for large
villages, but there is a cycle for some smaller
science and therefore progressive and accumu- villagee.
lating in that, speaking for myself, I feel we a Note that though Meggitt’s book was published
pass the test that the fool of the later genera- in 1965, it went to press before Brookfield and
Brown’s book was published, so he could not con-
tion outdoes the genius of the previous genera- sider their criticisms of an early essayls statement of
tion. Clearly past theories and methods have the hypothesis.
t o be superseded: I have I hope sufficiently I have applied this proposition to developments
often in print (1965a and elsewhere; also with in quite different types of social relations between
Eggan, 1965-66) stated my welcoming aware- Whites and Blacks, and within White and Black
groups, in my Anulysis of a S o d Situation i n
ness of the new types of penetrating research Modern Zululand (first . published
. 1940 and 1942; re-
done by younger anthropologists. But I have printed 1958).
tried here to argue that they face the same Evans-Pritchard (1937); Wilson (1951); Nadel
I)