Anthropology Science of Human Being-Professor Mohammad Shahjalal

ANTHROPOLOGY
Science of Human Being
MOHAMMAD SHAH JALAL

Jahangirnagar University
Anthropology: Science of Human Being
By Mohammad Shah Jalal
First Edition 2017
Published by
Early Concern Society for
Childhood Research and Development
Suite 403, Concord Tower
113 Kazi Nazrul Islam Avenue
Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh
Cover designed by Hazrat Ali

Printed by Riyad Book, Nilkhet, Dhaka 1205
Distributor: Matribhasha Prokash
11 PK Roy Road, Banglabazar, Dhaka 1100
Price: BDT 500
USD 20
ISBN: 978-984-34-2578-2
Copyright © 2017 by Author
Original, compilation and editorial matter
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted
by the Bangladesh Copyright Act without the prior written permission of
the author.
Views expressed are those of the author, and may not necessarily be
attributed to publisher.
Dedication
Murshida Khanom, my daughter

Contents
Foreword
Acknowledgements
Brief Notes on Author
1 Introduction 11
2 b„weÁvb: ÁvbZË¡xq cÖm‡½ wKQz ch©‡eÿY 14
3 Conceptualization of Human Being: Vision of an Anthropologist 36
4 Formation of Anthropology as a Science of Human Being: A
Theoretical Exploration in Historical Perspective 44
5 Nikolai Nikaliavich Miklouho-Maclay, the Founder of Empiricism

in Anthropology: The Lacunae in Anthropology 75
6 Soviet Anthropology: An Outline of Theoretical Approach 92
7 Culture: Theoretical Exploration 109
8 G_&wbK cÖwµqv b„weÁv‡bi †K›`ªxq cÖZ¨q: Bg&wcwiK¨vj I
ÁvbZË¡xq we‡kølY 123
9 Health and Disease of Human Beings: Issue of Survival or
Living 143
10 Birth and Growth of Human Beings 181

Foreword
I am pleased to note that the book is written by Mohammad Shah Jalal on
Anthropology as a specialized field of knowledge. The author has
addressed the issue on the formation of the discipline. He has raised
questions that are in my view relevant as Anthropology in its course of
formation underwent multiple transformation, shift, turn and through
incorporation of new and rejection of so called old thought. It appears to
be that interdisciplinarity has come from diverse origin and made
together to create an estuary.
Therefore, the outcome of integration of all sources and the processes
need to be revealed in order for Anthropology to be an insightful
specialized field for study of human beings.
This book is a reasonable attempt to make Anthropology to be an
academic discipline. It will be useful for readers to have a closer look at
the pros and cons of the entire process of formation.
I wish that such endeavor need to have a go.
Further, all the best wishes to the author and expect that the readers
would be kind enough to go through the text and search for their queries.
Best wishes.
Dr. Farzana Islam April 4, 2017

Vice Chancellor &
Professor, Department of Anthropology
Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka
Acknowledgements
At the outset, I would like to express my sincerest and deepest gratitude
to Professor Dr. Farzana Islam, the first female Vice Chancellor of a
public university in Bangladesh. In essence, I am fortunate for her being,
who has extended extraordinary supports for two decades, being my
colleague at the Department of Anthropology, Jahangirnagar University.
Her family, especially, great son Protik, husband Akter Hossain, both
brothers Professor Dr. Nazrul Islam and Professor Dr. Hedayatul Islam
have inspired me in preparing the context for writing this wok.
I am graceful that Zahirul Islam, being my student been transformed to
be my son who is intrinsic in preparing me in every aspect that is
possible for a human being who inevitably worked relentlessly in
preparing this book.
A. K. M. Mamunur Rashid, my student has outstanding contribution
both in my personal and academic endeavor. I am deeply indebted to
Mohammad Nasir Uddin, my student and later colleague who has been a
great hope of my life and has truly contributed in shaping my thought. I
extend tribute to Md. Adil Hasan Chowdhury, my student and later
faculty at the Department of Anthropology, Rajshahi University for his
intense supports that he had provided to me. I acknowledge all my
colleagues and staff members of the Department of Anthropology,
Jahangirnagar University. Finally, I express my eternal gratitude to my
parents.
Mohammad Shah Jalal

Brief Notes on Author

Mohammad Shah Jalal is a professor in the Department of Anthropology,
Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka. He had a rare opportunity to
have a state scholarship to study anthropology at the University of
former Leningrad (present Saint Petersburg) in 1973, just having
completed schooling at secondary and higher secondary standard from
academic institutions in Dhaka. He underwent phases.
Initialy been admitted in Vorovezh State University, at central Russia, he
completed basic training needed to study anthropology, say biological
foundation of human being, linguistics, ecology and others. He had been
admitted to Rostove-on-Don Regional Academy of Cultural Education,
to undergo a two years diploma course in anthropology. Later he was
admitted to Leningrad University and completed graduation in
anthropology in 1980, and M. A. in 1981. During the same period (1977-
1981) Jalal had completed a graduation and an M. A. degree in orchestra
conducting (Symphonic orchestra). Later, in December 1981 he was
admitted to the N. N. Mikluho-Maklay Institute of Ethnography of the
USSR Academy of Sciences, Leningrad branch to peruse a Ph. D degree.
The degree had been conferred in 1984.
Having returned to Bangladesh he was appointed to the department of
folklore, research and compilation as coordinator in Bangla Academy in
March 1985 where he served till 1987 and after opening the first
Department of Anthropology in the country at the Jahangirnagar
University (JU) been appointed as a lecturer in 1989, since then
continuing at JU uninterruptedly.
In 1990, Jalal was appointed as a visiting lecturer at the National Institute
of Preventive and Social Medicine (NIPSOM) under the BSM Medical
University and served till 2012. In 1995 the author had been appointed to
the department of architecture as a part-time teacher at the Bangladesh
University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) and served for a
short period of time.
Before, going to former USSR in 1973, he was trained in Indian classical
music - both vocal and instrumental.
Finally, it is inexplicably, the author has had deep interest on exploring
human being and given to reason, wanted that a science of human being
as an independent academic discipline must be and it needlessly to be.
The process of formation is underway and the author would like to be a
part of the academic endeavor.
Chapter 1
Introduction
To begin thinking with an academic discipline that studies Homo
sapiens, termed as human being which is the subject and object as a
species, while the author is a member and contain all the attributes that
the species has, the key and central issue is to define the relationship
between the author and the discipline – anthropology. This is eternal and
undisputable cause to address the most vital issue that is the
methodology as to how to study the object as the author is a subject and
an object of the discipline. The primary question is – is it feasible that the
author could absorb the entire diversity that the species has already
absorbed in and containing self within it in terms of religion, ethnicity,
language, adaptation to immensely different ecosystem, cognitive world,
social, economic, political, and life ways. The species has also created a
world of its own as well. Most prominently gender, class, caste, religion,
race, are not merely diversity, but deleterious sources of inequality and
division of the human created world into deadly antagonism.
Therefore, could the author overcome all these, being a member of the
species, come out and go above all these and attain a position of a
researcher, be neutral, deal with theoretical concepts objectively free of
p[fo_ doâg_hn [h^ ìffiq Doleb_cg‖m Rof_ i` Ihp_stigation which is
the first and prior is to treat object and subject or any social phenomenon
11
[m ―nbcham‖. In this regard, the author conceives that as of Lienhardt,

could an anthropologist work without being seized to be self.
This particular book is in its inception thoughts to center into
fundamental questions that need to be addressed in order for
anthropology to have a formation as a science of human being that would
be capable of understanding ánthrōpos (human or নৃ ), as it has had a long
journey with numerous resurrections, turns, frustration, agony, laps,
gaps, emergence, reemergence, hopes, hopelessness, disjunctions, loss of
canonization, and often self identity.
A vast country such as former USSR, had been trying to move forward
with extraordinary theory of Ethnos, while the great United States of
America has been experiencing experiments in the theory of physical
anthropology, cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology, and
archeology. And most importantly, struggling with hierarchically
constructed evolutionary model of Morgan that is progress of human
being (humanity) with ethnographic era, savagery – barbarism –
civilization, in one hand and from promiscuity – group marriage – pair
marriage to monogamous marriage with drawing the similar hierarchical
mn[a_m i` jlial_mm, qbcf_ Tsfil‖m gi^_f i` l_fcacih b[^ g[^_ ]ofnol_
synonymous to progress based on hierarchy.
The mighty England had been preparing to construct anthropology as the
science to study culture (Malinowski) and more strongly a discipline that
would be a comparative sociology (A. R. Radcliffe-Brown). Darwin had
created a great controversy in his writing. France has been using all its
mnl_hanb ni ai qcnb Egcf_ Doleb_cg ni l_[]b ―ac`n nb_ils‖ \s M[l]_ff
Mauss to be the founder of anthropology in France.
12
India almost made anthropology synonymous to caste study and or

―nlc\[f‖ mno^s. Wbcf_, ip_lqbelming majority of the country of the world
is yet thinking whether anthropology has its own merit to be an
independent discipline.
In this context, the author has raised a few epistemological issues and
concluded the journey that yet to be taken for anthropology to be the
science of human being that can assume the role of the science of human
beings.
Author is writing this book being aware of that anthropology in the first
half of 21st century is no more a science, neither it would be, as it is
infeasible as postmodernism, and postmoderns are convinced that it is a
discipline of fiction writing. As Tylor think no observer and no body to
be observed so it only would be a dialogical discourse.
However, author strongly believes that having lived at the earth, Einstein
could develop the theory of relativity that helped develop an
overwhelming knowledge about the universe that helped shaping the
world in a reincarnated way. On the other hand, anthropology is heading
towards nihilism as Nietzsche say that construction of reality on the
earth, and human would be the most stupid ( see his aphorism) .
In Writing Culture, the most loving and acceptable theoretical concept
―]ofnol_‖ b[m \_]ig_ [fgimn [ j[nbifias, qbcf_ qlcncha ]ofnol_ nb[n cm
synonymous as ethnography is full of unovercoming problems, so only
fiction could be the feasible modality.
Ih nbcm \[]ealioh^, nb_ [onbil‖m ]ihpc]ncih cm nb[n cn cm inevitably feasible
to induce into anthropology both heart and soul and make it alive as an
independent discipline and inclusive science of human being.
13
Chapter 2
b„weÁvb t ÁvbZË¡xq cÖm‡½ wKQz ch©‡eÿY1

f~wgKv
ejv n‡q _v‡K ÁvbKvÐmg~‡ni g‡a¨ wb‡Ri BwZnvm m¤ú‡K© b„weÁvbB me PvB‡Z
m‡PZb| wb‡R‡ì BwZnvm m¤ú‡K© b„weÁvbx‡ì GB m‡PZbZvi Avevi Awfbœ
†Kvb †Pnviv †bB| wbR ÁvbKv‡Ði BwZnvm‡K †Kvb `„wófw½‡Z †`Lv n‡e †m wb‡q
b„weÁvbx‡ì g‡a¨ e¨vcK gZwfbœZv jÿ¨ Kiv hvq| †Kej BwZnvm wb‡q bq,
gZv‣bK¨ Ges cvi¤úh©nxbZv i‡q‡Q GgbwK †Lv` wbR ÁvbKv‡Ði welqe¯‧,
Av‡jvP¨ wel‡qi mxgvbv, c×wZwe`¨v, `„wófw½ Ges ZvwË¡K Ae¯ vbMZ cÖ‡kœ|
mywbw`©ó K‡i ej‡j Ôb„weÁvb KxÕ †m cÖ‡kœB Avm‡j b„weÁvbxM‡Yi g‡a¨ i‡q‡Q
cÖvq-Aj•Nbxq eëavb| me©mv¤úªwZKKv‡j DËibKvVv‡gvev`x Ges DËiv
aywbKZvev`x `„wófw½i cÖfv‡e b„‣eÁvwbK RM‡Z †h ÔUvbv‡cv‡obÕ m„wó n‡q‡Q †mwU
m¤¢eZ GB gZ‣bKï me †_‡K my¯úó Ges AwaK `„k¨gvb cÖKvk2| wKš‧ Gi
evB‡iI i‡q‡Q eûwea weZK©| Gme weZ‡K©i me¸‡jvB †h AvR‡Ki b„weÁv‡bi
mv‡_ hy³ Zv bq, eû weZK©B P‡j Avm‡Q AZxZ Kvj †_‡K| cÖvq †ò kZK
Ry‡o wek¦e¨vcx ÁvbKvÐ wn‡m‡e b„weÁv‡bi weKwkZ nevi †h cÖwµqv Zvi mv‡_
mv‡_B †e‡o D‡V‡Q GmKj weZ‡K©i A‡bK¸‡jv| b„weÁv‡bi cÖv‡qvwMKZv ebvg
GKv‡WwgKZvi †giæKiY Ges Gi mv‡_ cÖvmw½K weZ‡K©i welqwU mv¤úªwZK
mg‡q mvg‡b P‡j Avmv Ab¨ GKwU ¸iæZ¡c~Y© Bm~¨| ms¯‥…wZ-‡Kw›`ªK
†jLv‡jwLmg~‡ni AšÍwb©wnZ ivRbxwZ D‡b¥vP‡bi cÖwZ ¸iæZ¡v‡ivc Ges B‡Zvc~‡e©
iwPZ G_‡bvMÖvwdmg~n wewbg©v‡Yi (deconstruction) cÖ‡Póv (Marcus & Fischer,
1986; Clifford, 1988); ms¯‥…wZi wec‡ÿ †jLvi AvnŸvb (Abu-Lugod, 1991);
ivRbxwZ Av`wk©KZv I ÁvbPP©vi m¤úK© wb‡q wewPÎ ai‡bi Dcjwäi cÖKvk-
cÖf…wZ ZvwË¡Kfv‡e ¸iæZ¡c~Y© cÖkœ mgmvgwqK b„weÁv‡bi Av‡jvPbvq cÖfvekvjx
RvqMv `Lj K‡i Av‡Q| HwZnvwmKZvi ¸iæZ¡ wb‡q wewfbœ gZ (Cohn, 1987;
14
Fabian, 1983; Sahlins, 1985); Kvj‡Kw›`ªK-KvjµwgK I cÖwµqvMZ

(synchronic-dyachronic and processual) ZvwË¡K `„wófw½i g‡a¨ cÖwZ‡hvwMZv
(Barnard, 2000); †g․j ¸iæZ¡c~Y© Aa¨q‡bi welqe¯‧ wn‡m‡e ÔmgvRÕ Ges
Ôms¯‥…wZÕi cÖvavb¨ wb‡q gZv‣bK¨ cÖf…wZ HwZnvwmKfv‡e b„weÁv‡bi cÖavb ZvwË¡K
weZK©mg~‡ni g‡a¨ D‡jøL‡hvM¨| Jcwb‡ewkKZv Z_v mv¤ªvRëv`x kw³i m‡½
ÁvbKvÐ wn‡m‡e b„weÁv‡bi †hvMv‡hv‡Mi welqwU‡K †Kvb `„wó‡Kvb †_‡K g~j¨vqb
Kiv n‡e †m cÖ‡kœ i‡q‡Q `xN© Ges AgxgvswmZ weZK© (Asad, 1973)| b„weÁv‡bi
wbR¯^ DcÁvbKvÐmg~‡ni ci¯ú‡ii g‡a¨ †hvMv‡hvM I mgš^q mvab cÖ‡kœ Ges
GB mgš^‡qi c_ I cÖwµqv wel‡q i‡q‡Q bvbvwea gZ| b„weÁv‡bi mv‡_ `k©b-
mvwnZ¨-BwZnvm-KvjPvi ÷vwWR cÖf…wZ ÁvbKv‡Ði m¤ú‡K©i cÖK…wZ wK n‡e Ges
GB AvšÍtÁvbKvÐxqZvq b„weÁv‡bi ¯^vZš¿¨ wKfv‡e iÿv n‡e ev ¯^vZš¿¨ iÿv Kivi
Av‡`․ †Kvb cÖ‡qvRb i‡q‡Q wKbv †m cÖ‡kœ b„weÁvbx‡ì g‡a¨ Ae¯ vbMZ w`K
†_‡K i‡q‡Q wfbœZv| GB cÖkœ, weZK© ev Bm~¨mg~n - G¸‡jv‡K b„weÁv‡bi †e‡o
IVvi cÖwµqv †_‡K wew”Qbœ K‡i cvV Kiv m¤¢e e‡j g‡b nq bv| GKfv‡e †`L‡j
b„weÁv‡bi GB AgxgvswmZ cÖkœmg~‡ni Drm Avm‡j wbwnZ i‡q‡Q Gi AvRb¥ e‡q
†eov‡bv mxgve×Zvmg~‡ni ev A¯úóZvmg~‡ni g‡a¨|
G wbe‡Üi we‡eP¨ cÖavb ÁvbZvwË¡K cÖm½

GKwU ÁvbKvÐ wn‡m‡e wb‡Ri Ae¯ vb, cÖK…wZ I `„wófw½, Aa¨q‡bi welqe¯‧ ev
e¨vwß Ges mvgwMÖKfv‡e, ZvwË¡K †d«gIqvK© Ges c×wZwe`¨vi cÖ‡kœ GB weweaZv
Ges eûgvwÎKZv Ab¨ †h †Kvb kv‡¯¿i Zzjbvq b„weÁv‡b A‡bK †ewk cÖKU|
weweaZv, eûgywLZv, avivevwnKZvnxbZv Ges m½wZnxbZvi Giƒc wbiew”Qbœ
cÖva¨v‡bï cÖfve †ek my`yicÖmvix Ges Gi DrmI cÖK…Zc‡ÿ A‡bK Mfx‡i
†cÖvw_Z| AviI ¯úó K‡i ej‡j, mgm¨v¸‡jv Avm‡j GK`gB ÁvbZË¡xq
(epistemological) Ges Abya¨vbwe`¨v-mswkøó (ontological)|
kv¯¿ wn‡m‡e wb‡Ri GKwU †g․wjK Ae¯ v‡bi K_v b„weÁvb `vex K‡i| G‡ÿ‡Î
Ôgvbe cÖRvwZi cwic~Y© Aa¨qbÕB b„weÁv‡bi ÁvbKvÐxq ¯^vZš¿ ev Abb¨Zvi cÖavb
wfwË e‡j we‡ewPZ| b„weÁv‡bi ¯^vZš¿¨m~PK GB cÖavb •ewkówUi K_v gv_vq
15
†i‡LB ejv hvq gvbyl m¤úwK©Z Aa¨vq‡bi GKwU cwic~Y© weÁvb nevi cÖwZkÖæwZ
wb‡q b„weÁv‡bi hvÎv ïiæ n‡qwQj Ges ÔgvbylÕ Z_v Ôgvbe cÖRvwZÕB b„‣eÁvwbK
A‡š^l‡Yi g~j welqe¯‧| A‡š^l‡Yi GB gyL¨ welq‡K †evSvi †ÿ‡Î ev e¨vL¨v-
we‡køl‡Yi †ÿ‡Î DwjøwLZ weweaZv I •ewPÎ¨ wKiƒc f~wgKv cvjb K‡i‡Q †m
welqwUi cÖwZ ÁvbZË¡xq `„wó‡Kvb †_‡K `„KcvZ Kiv Ges GB `„Kcv‡Zi
†cÖÿvc‡U b„‣eÁvwbK ÁvbZË¡ cÖm‡½ wKQz ch©‡eÿY mvg‡b wb‡q AvmvB GB
wbe‡Üi jÿ¨|
cÖkœ n‡jv GZme Uvbv‡cv‡ob I wfbœZv wK b„weÁv‡bi wbR¯^ `„wófw½ Ges ZË¡xq
†g․j-bxwZ (basic theoretical premise) •Zwi‡Z BwZevPK wKsev mnvqK †Kvb
f~wgKv cvjb K‡i‡Q? bvwK, Gi d‡j b„weÁvb Avm‡j GKwU A¯úó, †avuqv‡U,
AwbwðZ Ges my¯úó Aeqenxb ZË¡-c×wZavix ÁvbKvÐ wn‡m‡eB †e‡o D‡V‡Q?
Gfv‡e †e‡o IVv ÁvbKvÐwU wK †g․wjKZ¡, ALÐZv Ges wbR¯^ AvZ¥cwiP‡qi
†Kvb wbw`©ó Aeqe ev ¯îƒc AR©‡b e¨_©B n‡q‡Q? AviI ¯úó K‡i cÖkœwU Gfv‡e
Dc¯ vcb Kiv †h‡Z cv‡i; b„weÁvb wK gvbyl Aa¨qb‡K †K›`ªxq welqe¯‧ wn‡m‡e
wb‡q GKwU •ewk¦K ÁvbKvÐ (universal discipline) wn‡m‡e wb‡Ri ¯^Zš¿,
kw³kvjx Ges ¯úó Ae¯ vb `vuo Kiv‡Z mÿg n‡q‡Q? bvwK, GiKg N‡U‡Q †h
welqe¯‧ I `„wófw½Z A¯úóZv Ges wØav-Ø‡›Øi dvu‡K b„weÁvb Avm‡j wewfbœ
mg‡q, wfbœ wfbœ Ae¯ v I cwi‡e‡k, cwieZ©gvb mvgvwRK-ivR‣bwZK-eyw×e„wËK
†cÖÿvc‡U wewfbœ e¨w³, cÖwZôvb, msMVb, ms¯ v wKsev `j-‡Mvôx KZ…©K A‡bKUv
Lvg‡LqvwjcyY©fv‡e, ¯^wbe©vwPZ ev †¯^”QvPvix Dcv‡q (arbitrarily) eëüZ,
e¨vL¨vZ, Dc¯ vwcZ, cwi‡ewkZ ev we‡køwlZ n‡q‡Q? -Gme cÖ‡kœi †cÖÿvc‡U GB
wbe‡Üi Ae¯ vb n‡jv: mvgwMÖK Gme A¯úó I AwbwðZ Ae¯ vb Ges Aeq‡ei
Kvi‡Y b„weÁvb e¯‧Z wewfbœ ch©v‡q e¨w³-ZvwË¡K, msMVb ev ms¯ v KZ…©K Zv‡ì
wbR¯^ myweavRbK Ae¯ vb cÖKv‡k mnvqK Ges myweavRbK e³e¨ ev g‡Zi aviK
GKwU c` ev cÖZ¨q Z_v GKwU Ôterm of convenienceÕ wn‡m‡eB eëüZ n‡q
G‡m‡Q|
16
wbe‡Üi G Ae¯ vbwU‡K G ch©v‡q mijxK…Z (generalized) e‡j g‡b n‡Z cv‡i|

wKš‧ cieZ©x Av‡jvPbvi ga¨ w`‡q Dc¯ vwcZe¨ ch©‡eÿYmg~‡ni mvims‡ÿc
wn‡m‡eB GB Ae¯ vbwU GLv‡b Zz‡j aiv n‡jv| b„weÁv‡bi ÁvbZvwË¡K †cÖÿvcU,
we`¨vRvMwZK weKvk Ges b„weÁvbxM‡Yi Kv‡Ri •ewPÎ¨ I weweaZv we‡køl‡Yi
ga¨ w`‡q cieZ©x Av‡jvPbvq G Ae¯ vb Z_v G g~j ch©‡eÿYwUi †cQ‡b wµqvkxj
Ab¨vb¨ ch©‡eÿYmg~n ¯úó n‡e e‡j Avkv Kiv hvq|
b„weÁv‡bi BwZnvm I Ab¨vb¨ cÖm½ : we‡ePbvmg~‡ni †cÖÿvcU

b„weÁv‡bi BwZnvm ch©v‡jvPbv Ki‡j †`Lv hv‡e mvgwMÖKfv‡e gvbyl Aa¨q‡bi
cwic~Y© kv¯¿ n‡q DV‡Z cvivi e¨_©Zvi Kvi‡YB b„weÁv‡bi AvR‡Ki †h
ÁvbZvwË¡K I ZË¡we`¨vMZ Uvbv‡cv‡obmg~n †m¸‡jv •Zwi n‡q‡Q| Ôc~Y©v½
Aa¨qbKvix kv¯¿Õ wn‡m‡e mvgwMÖKfv‡e gvbe cÖRvwZ‡K cvV Kivi g‡Zv ZvwË¡K I
c×wZwe`¨vMZ kw³kvjx Ae¯ vb •Zwi bv nevi †cÖÿvc‡U G ÁvbKv‡Ði gyL¨
weZK© I Uvbv‡cv‡ob¸‡jvi KviY †LuvRv †h‡Z cv‡i| cvkvcvwk ZvwË¡K BwZnvm
Ges wewfbœ †`k-gnv‡`‡k GKv‡Wwg‡Z b„weÁvb PP©vi BwZnvm we‡køl‡Y AviI
AbyavweZ n‡e, Ôb„weÁvbÕ c`wU‡K my¯úófv‡e msÁvwqZ bv K‡i eis eûwea fve,
A_© Ges †`¨vZbv cÖKv‡ki D‡Ï‡k¨ eûjvs‡k †¯^”QvPvixfv‡e Ges wbR wbR
Ae¯ vb I `„wófw½ Abyhvqx eënvi Kivi Kvi‡Y GwU kw³kvjx I my¯úó †Kvb
ÁvbZË¡xq Ae¯ vb ev aviv •Zwi‡Z mÿg n‡q I‡Vwb|
b„weÁv‡bi ÁvbZË¡xq weKv‡ki BwZnvm Ges †m weKv‡ki bvbv av‡c D‡V Avmv
c¨vivWvBgmg~n Ges GB c¨vivWvBg¸‡jvi gv‡S wbwnZ ZË¡-c×wZ welqK †K›`ªxq
we‡ePbvw` ÁvbZvwË¡K m¼‡Ui cÖavb aviK Ges wb‡`©kK| †`k I gnv‡`k‡f‡`
b„‣eÁvwbK PP©vi †ÿ‡Î †`Lv w`‡q‡Q bvbvgyLx cÖeYZv Z_v GKv‡WwgK b„weÁvb
PP©vi †ÿ‡Î RvZxq HwZn¨mg~‡ni g‡a¨ i‡q‡Q wecyj wfbœZv| e¨w³ ZvwË¡KMY
KZ…©K b„weÁvb‡K †Kvb avivevwnK ev mymse× Ae¯ vb †_‡K e¨vL¨v I Dc¯ vcb bv
K‡i eis wfbœ wfbœ `„wó‡Kvb †_‡K eyS‡Z PvIqv n‡q‡Q| GB bvbvgywL †evSvcovi
†cÖÿvc‡U ÁvbKvÐwU‡K Zvuiv ¯^ ¯^ `„wófw½ I fvebvi Av‡jv‡K wbw`©ó AvKvi
†`qvi †Póv K‡i‡Qb Ges Avjv`v Avjv`v Ae¯ v‡b wb‡q hvIqvi †Póv K‡i‡Qb|
GQvov ivRbxwZ I ÿgZv m¤ú‡K©i wewfbœ cwi‡cÖwÿ‡Z I HwZnvwmK weKv‡ki
17
ch©vq‡f‡` b„weÁvbx‡ì †K›`ªxq wRÁvmvi cwieZ©b n‡q‡Q| ivR‣bwZKZv I

HwZnvwmKZvi cwieZ©‡bi djkÖæwZ‡Z mvgvwRK weÁv‡bi wRÁvmvi †ÿ‡Î Ges
we‡køl‡Yi †ÿ‡Î cwieZ©b Avmv ¯^vfvweK| wKš‧ wbR¯^ my¯úó †Kvb ÁvbZvwË¡K
aviv cÖwZwôZ bv nevi Kvi‡Y (ev cÖwZôv bv Kivi Kvi‡Y) Ges G‡KK †ÿ‡Î
G‡KKwU welq ev cÖeYZv‡K cÖvavb¨ †`qvi d‡j m„wó n‡q‡Q avivevwnKZvnxbZv
Ges Aw¯ iZv| GQvov, eyw×e„wË-ivRbxwZ-BwZnv‡mi A`j-e`‡ji d‡j m„ó
cwi‡cÖwÿZMZ iƒcvšÍi‡K cv‡Vi h‡_ó Dc‡hvMx ZvwË¡K I c×wZMZ cÖ¯‧wZ bv
_vKvi d‡j HwZnvwmK NUbvbg~‡ni †¯ªv‡Z GKfv‡e wb‡R‡K nvwi‡q †djvi
NUbvI we`¨gvb| Gfv‡e mvgwMÖK welqmg~n‡K we‡ePbv Ki‡j †`Lv hv‡e
b„weÁv‡bi BwZnv‡mi g‡a¨B mvgwMÖKfv‡e m¼Ugq ÁvbZvwË¡K wRÁvmvmg~‡ni
Dcw¯ wZ i‡q‡Q; G¸‡jvi we‡kølY †_‡KB mgm¨vmg~‡ni g~j m~Î ev m~Îmg~n‡K
Lyu‡R cvIqv †h‡Z cv‡i| Gi ga¨ w`‡qB m¤¢eZ b„weÁvb ÁvbKv‡Ði mgmvgwqK
wRÁvmvmg~‡ni cÖK…wZ, gvÎv ev cwiwa‡K mwVKfv‡e cvV Kiv †h‡Z cv‡i Ges wbR
wbR Ae¯ vb‡K ¯úó Kiv †h‡Z cv‡i|
Bs‡iwR Anthropology k‡ãi eyrcwËMZ A_© n‡jv gvbyl, Z_v b„ m¤úwK©Z

Aa¨qb| wKš‧ b„weÁvb wK ev¯ÍweK Ôstudy of human beingsÕ n‡q DV‡Z †c‡i‡Q
Kx bv †m cÖkœwUB, Dc‡i †hgb ejv n‡q‡Q, G ch©v‡q me †_‡K ¸iæZ¡c~Y© cÖkœ
wn‡m‡e we‡ewPZ n‡Z cv‡i| hyMcr Ab¨ †h cÖkœwU mgvb ¸iæ‡Z¡i mv‡_ we‡ewPZ
nIqv Avek¨K Zv n‡jv: b„weÁvb hw` Zvi ÁvbKvÐxq weKvk BwZnv‡m gvby‡li
Aa¨qb wn‡m‡e mwZ¨Kvi A‡_© mdj bv-I n‡q _v‡K Zvn‡j wK G wel‡q
bZzbfv‡e D‡`¨vMx nevi ev bZzb cÖ‡Póv MÖn‡Yi †Kvb my‡hvMI Aewkó †bB? hw`
†_‡K _v‡K Z‡e †m †Póvi ZË¡xq I c×wZMZ iƒc‡iLvwU wK|
b„weÁvb wb‡R‡K `vex K‡i c~Y©v½ weÁvb ev holistic science wn‡m‡e| c~Y©v½
nevi A_© n‡jv gvbe cÖRvwZ‡K mKj w`K †_‡K Ges mKj Ae¯ vq Aa¨qb Kiv:
gvby‡li AZxZ, eZ©gvb I fwel¨‡Zi cwic~Y© Abyaveb Ges Zvi •RweK,
mvgvwRK, mvs¯‥…wZK, AvPiYMZ, g‡bvRvMwZK Ges cÖZxKx-fvlvZvwË¡K
w`Kmg~‡ni mw¤§wjZ I m¤ú~Y© we‡kølY| ¯^vfvweKfv‡eB †m Aa¨qb n‡e
AvšÍ:mvs¯‥…wZK Ges ZzjbvgyjK| Z‡e Zzjbvi ga¨ w`‡q wefvRb ev cv_©K¨B †h
18
†Kej DrmvwnZ n‡e †mwU Awbevh© bq| GB Aa¨qb †Kvb †Kvb †ÿ‡Î gvbe
H‡Kï ev AwfbœZvi welq‡KB D`NvUb Ki‡Z cv‡i| G Kvi‡YB gvbe cÖRvwZi
wfbœZvi cvV ïiæ n‡Z cv‡i GKK I Awfbœ gvbe cÖRvwZi ga¨Kvi •ewPÎ¨
wn‡m‡eB| †m cv_©K¨‡K gvbe cÖRvwZi wbw`©ó †Kvb As‡ki Ae¯ vb †_‡K we‡kl
†Kvb `„wó‡Kv‡bi cÖ‡qv‡M cvV Kiv n‡j †mwU c~Y©v½ cv‡Vi wfwË •Zwi Ki‡Z bv-I
cv‡i| b„weÁvb wK GB ¸iæZ¡c~Y© we‡ePbvwU‡K mvg‡b †i‡L AMÖmi n‡Z †c‡iwQj?
gvby‡li Aa¨qb n‡q IVvi m¤¢vebv wK Ôwe‡kl ai‡bi gvbylÕ ÔA™¢zZ gvbylÕ ev
ÔAb¨ gvby‡lÕi cv‡V iƒcvšÍwiZ n‡qwQj? †mwU †Kvb †cÖÿvc‡U? †Kvb ÁvbZvwË¡K-
e„w×e„wËK cwi‡cÖwÿ‡Z? †mwU wK gvby‡li cyY©v½ cv‡Vi Zzjbvq gvby‡li †Kvb
GKwU we‡kl w`K Z_v Zvi mgvR ev ms¯‥…wZ wKsev HwZn¨-AZx‡Zi cv‡V cwiYZ
n‡qwQj GK ch©v‡q? Ges AvR‡K wK b„weÁvb wb‡R‡K cÖvmw½K I cÖ‡qvRbxq e‡j
cÖgvY Ki‡Z wM‡q Ôgvby‡li c~Y©v½ Aa¨q‡bÕi welqwU‡K cv‡k mwi‡q †i‡L‡Q Ges
A‡bK †ewk eZ©gvb ev mgmvgwqK cÖm½mg~‡ni Aa¨q‡b ch©ewmZ n‡q‡Q?
GmKj mgm¨vwqZ cÖkœmg~‡ni †e‡o IVvi ÁvbZvwË¡K †cÖÿvcU‡K †evSvi Rb¨

b„weÁv‡bi Z‡Ë¡i BwZnvm Z_v ÁvbKvÐ wn‡m‡e b„weÁv‡bi BwZnv‡mi w`‡K
g‡bv‡hvM †`qv †h‡Z cv‡i| b„weÁv‡bi BwZnvm‡K †Kvb `„wófw½‡Z ev †Kvb
†cÖÿvcU †_‡K we‡kølY Kiv n‡e Zv wb‡q ZË¡-BwZnvmwe`‡ì g‡a¨ Aek¨
gZ‡f` i‡q‡Q| Kuklick (1991) Ges Stocking (1987) Zuv‡ì Kv‡R
b„weÁv‡bi BwZnvm‡K eyS‡Z †P‡q‡Qb G‡Ki ci GK N‡U hvIqv wKQz NUbv ev
avivevwnKfv‡e weKwkZ nIqv bZzb bZzb aviYvi Pjgvb cÖwµqv (sequence or
events or new ideas) wn‡m‡e| Avevi A‡b‡K GB BwZnvm‡K †`‡L‡Qb _gvm
Kzb (Kuhn, 1970) Gi •eÁvwbK c¨vivWvB‡gi aviYwU eënvi K‡i-
c¨vivWvBgMZ iƒcvšÍi wn‡m‡e (†hgb: Stocking, 1996)| gviwfb n¨vwim wKsev
A¨vwb †gwi wW Iqvj †g‡jd¨vU (Harris, 1968; Malefijt, 1976) b„‣eÁvwbK
Z‡Ë¡i weKvk‡K †`‡L‡Qb GKUv Awfbœ aviYv eë¯ vi (system of ideas)
†d«gIqv‡K©; A_©vr Zv‡ì we‡kølY Abyhvqx b„weÁv‡bi ZË¡-BwZnvm‡K †evSv †h‡Z
cv‡i GKwU a¨b-aviYvi eë¯ v ev system of ideas wn‡m‡e| cwieZ©bkxj
wRÁvmvmg~‡ni Reve cÖZ¨vkvq bZzb G‡RÛv mvg‡b wb‡q Avmvi Pjgvb cÖwµqv
19
wn‡m‡eI A‡b‡K b„weÁv‡bi ZË¡-BwZnvm‡K eyS‡Z †P‡q‡Qb (†hgb: Kuper,

1996)| GB eë¯ v‡K Zviv MwZkxj I Pjgvb wn‡m‡e ey‡S‡Qb| Ab¨ A‡b‡K
G‡K eyS‡Z †P‡q‡Qb wewfbœ †`‡k mgvšÍiv‡j weKvkgvb wfbœ wfbœ RvZxq HwZ‡nï
(national traditions) we‡køl‡Yi ga¨ w`‡q (‡hgb: Lowie, 1937)|
b„weÁvb PP©vi RvZxq HwZn¨mg~‡ni BwZnvm: •ecixZ¡ I avivevwnKZvnxbZv

wewfbœ †`k I gnv‡`‡k †hfv‡e b„weÁvb PP©v Kiv n‡q‡Q Zvi BwZnvm we‡køl‡Yi
ga¨ w`‡qB ¯úó n‡q I‡V ÁvbKvÐ wn‡m‡e b„weÁv‡bi weKvk cÖwµqvi gv‡S
wKfv‡e avivevwnKZvnxbZv Ges •ecixZ¡ wµqvkxj †_‡K‡Q| †`Lv †h‡Z cv‡i †h,
†mwf‡qZ BDwbqb ev ivwkqvq b„weÁvb PP©vi †h RvZxq HwZn¨ (national
tradition) ‡mwU wK BD‡ivc ev Av‡gwiKvi Ab¨vb¨ †`‡ki mv‡_ m½wZkxj?
A_ev, mgMÖ BD‡iv‡cI wK Awfbœ b„‣eÁvwbK avivi †`Lv cvIqv hvq? weªwUk,
¯‥wUk, divwm wKsev Rvg©vb b„weÁvb wK Ôgvbe Aa¨q‡biÕ cÖK…wZ I aib m¤ú‡K©
†Kvb mywbw`©ó avivµ‡g wRÁvmvmg~n‡K ¯ vcb Ki‡Z †c‡i‡Q? A_ev b„‣eÁvwbK
AbymÜv‡bi wbw`©ó †Kvb Dcvq w¯ i K‡i wK Zviv AMÖmi n‡Z †c‡i‡Q? mKj
†`‡k Awfbœ b„weÁvb PP©v n‡e Ges †mwUB b„weÁv‡bi Rb¨ Kvg¨ - Giƒc †Kvb
cÖZ¨vkv †_‡K G cÖkœ Kiv n‡”Q bv| wKš‧ •ewPÎ¨ Ges wfbœZv †h KZ wekvj Ges
†m wfbœZv †h wKfv‡e g~j b‣eÁvwbK Aa¨qb Z_v gvbe Aa¨qb wel‡q A¯úóZv
I AwbðqZv •Zwi K‡i †mwU Gme wRÁvmvi gvS w`‡q ¯úó n‡Z cv‡i|
1917 mv‡ji ej‡kwfK wecøe Ges †mvwf‡qZ iv‡óªi m„wói †cÖÿvc‡U †mLvbKvi
wewfbœ RvwZ †Mvôx¸‡jv m¤ú‡K© we¯Í…Z Aa¨qb cÖvmw½K n‡q I‡V| we‡kl K‡i
wewfbœ RvwZZvwË¡K-‡f․‡MvwjK GKK¸‡jvi (ethno-territorial units) ga¨Kvi
mxgv‡iLv Uvbvi Rb¨ G Aa¨qb‡K Riæix e‡j g‡b Kiv nq| ÿz`ª Rb‡Mvôx¸‡jvi
fvlvi wjwLZ eY©gvjv `vuo Kiv‡bv Ges Zv‡ì Rb¨ we`¨vjq eë¯ v cÖwZôvq eû
G_‡bvMÖvdvi AZ¨šÍ Nwbôfv‡e KvR K‡ib| 1930 Gi `k‡Ki ci †_‡K
†mvwf‡qZ b„weÁv‡bi mKj cÖKvi ZvwË¡K `„wófw½‡KB gv·©ev`x-‡jwbbev`x
WKUªvBb m¤ú~Y©iƒ‡c cÖfvweZ Ki‡Z _v‡K| mgvR weeZ©‡bi avcmg~n Aa¨qb,
HwZnvwmK cwieZ©‡bi cÖavb kw³ wn‡m‡e †kÖYx msMÖvg‡K †`Lv BZ¨vw` n‡q I‡V
20
¸iæZ¡c~Y© welq| Avw`g mgvRmg~n, weeZ©‡bi cÖv‣MwZnvwmK ¯Íimg~n Ges cÖv_wgK

mgvR msMVb cÖf…wZ wel‡qi cÖwZ †mvwf‡qZ b„weÁvbxiv Zv‡ì g~j g‡bv‡hvM
wbweó K‡ib (Tishkov, 1996)|
G_‡bvwR‡bwmm, e¯‧MZ ms¯‥…wZ, •RweK •ewPÎ¨ Ges G_wbK BwZnvm I

fvlvZvwË¡K wfbœZvi wfwË‡Z m„ó Kv‡U©vMÖvwd-GmeB n‡”Q 1950 Gi `kK n‡Z
ïiæ Ki 1970 Gi `kK ch©šÍ †mwf‡qZ †`‡k b„‣eÁvwbK Aa¨q‡bi g~L¨
welqe¯‧| HwZnvwmK-G_‡bvMÖvwdK GUjvmmg~n Ges eû L‡Ði wmwiR Òthe
Peoples of the WorldÓ G mg‡qi †mvwf‡qZ b„weÁv‡bi D‡jøL‡hvM¨ KvR|
Aek¨ ewnwe©‡k¦i mv‡_ †hvMv‡hvMnxbZv Ges m¤ú‡ì mxgve×Zvi Kvi‡Y
†mwf‡qZ BDwbq‡bi evB‡ii AÂj¸‡jv wb‡q we‡kl D‡jøL‡hvM¨ †Kvb KvR
nqwb|
1970 I 1980 Gi `k‡K G‡m †mvwf‡qZ b„weÁvb AwaK AvMÖnx n‡q I‡V
mgvRZË¡g~jK Rwi‡ci ga¨ w`‡q mgmvgwqK G_wbK Bmy¨mg~n Aa¨q‡bi wel‡q|
ga¨ Gwkqv, evwëK cÖRvZš¿mg~n Ges †fvjMv AÂ‡j G mgq we¯Í…Z M‡elYv KvR
cwiPvwjZ nq| g‡¯‥vi Bbw÷wUDU Ae G_‡bvMÖvwd Gi cwiPvjK Y. Bromely
Ges Zvi mnKg©x‡ì KvR G mgq cÖvavb¨ we¯Ívi K‡i Ges Zviv †h wcÖgwW©qvwj÷
ZË¡wU `vuo Kivb †mwU cwiwPwZ cvq ÔG_&‡bvm w_IixÕ wn‡m‡e (Bromley, 1981)|
†mwf‡qZ RvZxqZvmg~‡ni g‡a¨ †h ivR‣bwZK µ‡gv”PZv †mwUB GB G_‡bvm
w_Iwii ga¨ w`‡q cÖwZdwjZ nq| GQvov G_‡bvm‡K mvgvwRK-‣RweK mËv
wn‡m‡e †KD †KD e¨vL¨v K‡ib Ges GB e¨vL¨vwUI RbwcÖq nq| Aek¨ G_&‡bvm
w_Iwii cvkvcvwk HwZnvwmK G_‡bvMÖvwd Ges G_‡bvwR‡bwmm Aa¨qb G mg‡q
G‡mI M‡elYv G‡RÛvq h‡_ó ¸iæZ¡c~Y© ¯ vb `Lj K‡i _v‡K Ges c„w_exi
BwZnv‡mi Avw`Zg Rb‡Mvôxmg~n (primeval societies) Ges gvbe mgvR¸‡jvi
cÖv_wgK ch©vq (early stages of human societies) m¤ú‡K© kw³kvjx wKQz
M‡elYv G mgqB cÖKvwkZ nq| AviI KvR nq kvgvwbRg I a‡g©i cÖv_wgK
ch©vq, fvlvZvwË¡K cybwbg©vY, wg_, AvB‡Kv‡bvMÖvwd cÖf…wZ wel‡q| `yf©vM¨RbK †h,
ivwkqvb cwÐZ føvw`wgi cÖc, Gg, evLwZb ev G, wf, Pvqbv‡fi LyeB kw³kvjx
21
ZvwË¡K wfwË¸‡jv‡K GwM‡q wb‡q hvIqvi Rb¨ †mvwf‡qZ we`¨vRM‡Z Lye GKUv
D‡`¨vM-Av‡qvRb nqwb| Z_vwc mvgwMÖKfv‡e G mgq †mvwf‡qZ b„weÁvb GKUv
AZ¨šÍ kw³kvjx ZvwË¡K wfwË jvf K‡i, hv †mwf‡qZ iv‡óªi Aemvb I ZrcieZ©x
bvbvwea cwieZ©b I iƒcvšÍ‡ii gv‡SI ivwkqvb b„weÁvb‡K k³ eyw×e„wËK wfwËi
Ici `vuo Kwi‡q ivL‡Z mÿg nq|
1980 Gi `k‡Ki †k‡l Ges 1990 Gi `k‡Ki ïiæ‡Z ivR‣bwZK D`vixKiY

Ges djkÖæwZ‡Z †mvwf‡qZ iv‡óªi cZb nevi ci ivwkqvb b„weÁv‡b Avg~j
cwieZ©b Av‡m| c~‡e©i g‡Zv gv·©ev` Avi GKgvÎ c¨vivWvBg n‡q _v‡Kwb|
ivwkqvi wewfbœ AÂ‡j D™¢~Z RvwZMZ msNvZ ivwkqvb b„weÁvb‡K G_wbK msNvZ
Aa¨q‡b AwaK g‡bv‡hvMx K‡i †Zv‡j|
Ab¨w`‡K Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁv‡bi BwZnvm chv©‡jvPbv Ki‡j wVK †mvwf‡q‡Z

BDwbq‡b g‡Zv †Kvb aviv ev cÖeYZv †mfv‡e †`Lv hvq bv| GLv‡b i‡q‡Q
cÖZœZË¡, ‣RweK b„weÁvb Ges mvs¯‥…wZK b„weÁv‡bi wefvR‡bi ga¨ w`‡q M‡o IVv
ÔPvi-DcKvÐxq PP©vi GKv‡WwgK HwZn¨Õ (four field academic tradition)| GB
we‡klvq‡bi m~Pbv nq Dbwesk kZvãxi †k‡l| GB Ô‡dvi wdì G‡cÖvPÕ Gi
m~Pbvi c~‡e© Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁv‡bi HwZn¨ wQj gyL¨Zt BwÛqvb Rb‡Mvôx m¤ú‡K©
miKvix AvMÖ‡ni wfwË‡Z †e‡o IVv (Malefijt, 1976)| miKvix ey¨‡iv Ae
Av‡gwiKvb G_‡bv‡jvwR, ¯ vbxq G_‡bv‡jvwRK¨vj Ges †dvK‡jvi †mvmvBwUmg~n
Ges wgDwRqvg¸‡jvi ga¨ w`‡q Av‡gwiKv‡Z me©cÖv_wgK b„‣eÁvwbK AvMÖnmg~n
•Zwi nq| †m AvMÖn‡K GKwU RvqMvq cÖvwZôvwbK iƒc †`qvq ZvwMZ †_‡K
Dbwesk kZvãxi †k‡l wek¦we`¨vj‡q cÖwkwÿZ b„weÁvbxiv GB Pvi-DcKvÐxq
avivi m~Pbv K‡ib|
F. Voget Zuvi History of Ethnology bvgK MÖ‡š  AvaywbK Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁv‡bi

BwZnvm‡K wZbwU ch©v‡q wef³ wn‡m‡e wPwýZ K‡ib| G¸‡jv‡K wZwb •ewkóvwqZ
K‡i‡Qb ÔDbœqbev`Õ, ÔKvVv‡gvev`Õ Ges Ôc„_KxKiYev`x we‡klvqbÕ Gi ch©vq
wn‡m‡e| Gi ciB †h Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁv‡b DËivaywbK ch©v‡qi m~Pbv n‡q‡Q
†mUvI ¯^xKvi K‡i †bqvi Ici A‡b‡K †Rvi †`b|
22
1851 mvj †_‡K ïiæ K‡i 1889 mvj ch©šÍ mgqKv‡j gvwK©b hy³iv‡óª b„weÁvb
PP©v n‡q‡Q g~jZt `¨v ey¨‡iv Ae Av‡gwiKvb G_‡bv‡jvwR Gi ZË¡veav‡b ev
mivmwi Gi AvIZvq| ¯ vbxq fvlv eënvi K‡i †bwUf Av‡gwiKvb BÛvqvb‡ì
gv‡S cwiPvjbv Kiv n‡qwQj `xN©Kvjxb gvVKg©, AvwU©d¨v±m †hvMvo K‡i
wgDwRqvg M‡o †Zvjv n‡q‡Q, ¯ vbxq †U·U msMÖn Kiv n‡q‡Q Ges d‡UvMÖv‡di
ga¨ w`‡q BÛqvb‡ì RxebwPÎ‡K a‡i ivLvi †Póv Kiv n‡q‡Q| A‡b‡K †hgb
e‡j‡Qb BD‡ivcxq‡ì Av‡gwiKv Avwe®‥v‡ii ga¨ w`‡qB Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁv‡bi
hvÎv ïiæ n‡q‡Q| m`¨ Avwe®‥…Z GB f~L‡Ûi g~j Awaevmx Z_v Av‡gwiKvb
BwÛqvb‡ì (BD‡ivcxq‡ì ÔAb¨Õ) wel‡q AvMÖn †_‡KB Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁv‡bi
wfwË ¯ vwcZ nq| ¯ vbxq BwÛqvb‡ì RxebhvÎv `ªæZ nvwiq hv‡”Q, e¯‧MZ ms¯‥…wZ
Aejyß cÖvq Ges RbmsL¨v µgkB n«vm cv‡”Q-Giƒc GKwU cwiw¯ wZ‡Z GK
ai‡bi ÔÎvZvÕ ev ÔD×viKvixÕ (―salvage‖ anthropology) b„weÁv‡bi Avwek¨KZv
Abyfe Kiv n‡qwQj| ey¨‡iv‡Z Rgv n‡Z _vKv gvV ch©vq n‡Z msM„nxZ Z_¨-DcvË
web¨v‡mi Kv‡R Ges †bwUf Av‡gwiKvb mgv‡Ri PwiÎ e¨vL¨v Kivi †ÿ‡Î
weeZ©bev`x ZvwË¡KM‡Yi ZË¡¸‡jv eënvi Kiv nw”Qj (Malefift, 1976)|
1840 †_‡K ïiæ K‡i 1950 ch©šÍ we¯Í…Z mgqKv‡j e¯‧Z cÖvwZôvwbK I †ckvMZ
b„weÁvb GLv‡b cÖwZôv cvq| d«vbh †evqvm Ges Zvi QvÎ-QvÎx‡ì KvR G †ÿ‡Î
gyL¨ f~wgKv cvjb K‡i| Aek¨ 1888 mv‡j †evqvm K¬¨vK© wek¦we`¨vj‡q hLb cÖ_g
GKv‡WwgK wb‡qvM jvf K‡ib, Zvi Av‡MB Av‡gwiKvq b„weÁvb Zvi †dvi-wdì
G‡cÖvP wb‡q †ek kw³kvjx GKUv Ae¯ vb •Zwi K‡i wb‡Z †c‡iwQj e‡jB
A‡b‡Ki gZ (Malefifjt, 1976) 1888 mv‡jB Av‡gwiKvb A¨vb‡_ªv‡cv‡jvwR÷
Gi cÖ_g msL¨v cÖKvwkZ nq †hLv‡b fvlvZË¡, cÖZœZË¡, •`wnK b„weÁvb Ges
G_‡bv‡jvwR wel‡q †jLv‡jwL msKwjZ n‡qwQj| Z_vwc wek kZ‡Ki GB ïiæi
ch©v‡q Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁvb Z_v mvgwMÖKfv‡e b„weÁv‡bi me †_‡K cÖfvekvjx
e¨w³Z¡ wn‡m‡e we‡ewPZ nb †evqvm| e¯‧Z 1896 mvj †_‡K ïiæ K‡i 1942 (G
eQiB Zvui g„Zz¨ nq) mvj ch©šÍ Kjw¤^qv wek¦we`¨vj‡q Aa¨vcbvi mg‡q wZwb
wecyj msL¨K b„weÁvbx‡K cÖwkÿY †`b hviv cieZ©x‡Z ¯^ ¯^ †ÿ‡Î D‡jøL‡hvM¨
L¨vwZ AR©b K‡ib Ges b„‣eÁvwbK Aa¨qb I M‡elYvi †ÿ‡Î D‡jøL‡hvM¨fv‡e
23
c~eeZ©x b„weÁvbxMY Z_v weeZ©bvev`xM‡Yi Zzjbvq wfbœ `„wófw½i m~Pbv K‡ib|

Rvgv©bx‡Z Rb¥ †bqv Ges †e‡o IVv GB b„weÁvbx c`v_©we`¨v, MwYZ Ges f~‡Mv‡j
GKv‡WwgK cÖwkÿY cvb| Zvui GB cÖwkÿY Ges Rvg©vbx we`¨vqZb I e„w×e„wËi
mv‡_ Zvui †h Mfxi †hvMv‡hvM †mwU‡K wZwb Av‡gwiKv HwZ‡nï gv‡S m¤úªmviY
K‡ib e‡jB cÖZxqgvb nq|
Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁv‡bi †ÿ‡Î †evqv‡mi Ae¯ vb we‡køl‡Y †h cÖm½wU G ch©v‡q

¸iæZ¡c~Y© Zv n‡jv: weeZ©bev`x‡ì Kv‡Ri c×wZ‡K wZwb Zxeªfv‡e mgv‡jvPbv
K‡ib Ges Zzjbvg~jK c×wZi RvqMvq wZwb HwZnvwmK c×wZi cÖ¯Íve K‡ib|
†Kej Zv bq wZwb Avm‡j cwiYZ ch©v‡q G‡m b„weÁv‡bi Aa¨q‡bi welq¸‡jv
wb‡q Av‡`․ †Kvbiƒc wbqg-bxwZ ev AvBb Lyu‡R cvIqvi AvkvB †Q‡o †`b:
‗The phenomena of our science are so individualized, so
exposed to outer accident, that no set of laws could explain them
’ cn m__gm ni g_ îo\nòf qb_nb_l p[fc^ ]ofnol[f f[qm ][h \_
found‘ (Boas, 1940: 257).
mvgwMÖKfv‡e †evqvm I Zvi cieZ©x b„weÁvbx‡ì Kv‡Ri ga¨ w`‡q Aa¨q‡bi

¸iæZ¡c~Y© welq wn‡m‡e ÔmgvRÕ Gi cwie‡Z© Ôms¯‥…wZÕ mvg‡b Av‡m e‡U wKš‧
†dvi-wdì A¨v‡cÖvP Gi ga¨ w`‡q wejyßcÖvq †bwUf Av‡gwiKvb ms¯‥…wZi
cybwbg©v‡Yi IciB ¸iæZ¡ †`qv nq| cieZ©x ch©v‡q Gm 1940, Õ50 I Õ60 Gi
`k‡K gvwK©b b„weÁvb Zvi c×wZwe`¨vi ‡ÿ‡ÎB e¨vcK e`j NUvq| mgvRZË¡ ev
ivóªweÁv‡bi g‡Zv mvgvwRK weÁvb¸‡jv Av‡gwiKvb mgvR m¤ú‡K© †hme
mvaviYxK…Z e³e¨ cÖ`vb K‡ib G mgq b„weÁvbxiv †m¸‡jvi h_v_©Zv wb‡q cÖkœ
Zzj‡Z ïiæ K‡ib kû‡i I MÖvgxY Av‡gwiKvb Kgy¨wbwU¸‡jvi g‡a¨ ch©‡eÿYwbf©i
Aa¨qb cwiPvjbv Kivi ga¨ w`‡q| HwZn¨, AvaywbKvZ I AvaywbKvqb, AZxZ-
eZ©gv‡bi PjgvbZv I cwieZ©b, bMi-MÖv‡gi m¤úK© BZ¨vKvi welqmg~n G mg‡q
b„weÁv‡bi cÖvavb¨ cvq|
GiI c‡i 1960 I Õ70 Gi `k‡K wf‡qZbvg hy‡×i AwfÁZvi ga¨ w`‡q
hvIqvi ci Ges GKUv `xN© GKv‡WwgK m¼U †gvKv‡ejvi Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁvb
24
BwZnv‡mi cÖwZ Szu‡K c‡o| Ges cieZ©x‡Z µgk DËivaywbK ZvwË¡K‡ì KvR
gvwK©b b„weÁv‡b ¸iæZ¡c~Y© RvqMv `Lj K‡i †bq|
weªwUk b„weÁv‡bi BwZnvm ch©v‡jvPbv Ki‡Z wM‡q †nbwiKv KzKwjK e‡jb

GKfv‡e †`L‡j b„weÁv‡bi GKUv `xN© cÖvKBwZnvm i‡q‡Q| Zvi g‡Z AšÍZt
ZLb †_‡K b„weÁv‡bi hvÎv ïiæ n‡q‡Q e‡j †`Lv †h‡Z cv‡i hLb A-cwðgv
†jvK‡ì mv‡_ BD‡ivcxq mv¤ªvRëv`x‡ì me©cÖ_g mvÿvr N‡U (from the earliest
encounters of European imperialist with non-western peoples) (Kuklick,
1996).
weªwUk b„weÁv‡b cÖ_g wek¦hy× ev Zrc~e©Kvjxb mg‡q cÖvavb¨c~Y© ZvwË¡K aviv n‡jv
e¨vwßev` Ges wµqvev`; Avi G `y‡Uv ZvwË¡K avivB GKwU‡K Ab¨wUi GK`g
wecixZ wn‡m‡e Dc¯ vcb K‡i‡Q| weeZ©bev`x‡ì HwZnvwmK cybtwbg©v‡Yi †h
jÿ¨ †mwU e¨vwßev`x‡ì Kv‡RI wQj, weeZ©bev`x‡ì g‡ZvB Giv †`L‡Z †P‡q‡Q
cÖvwZôvwbK eë¯ vq KvjµwgK cwieZ©‡bi ga¨ w`‡q AvaywbK mf¨Zvi ch©v‡q
gvbeZvi DËiY N‡U‡Q| wKš‧ GB HwZnvwmK cwieZ©b‡K e¨vL¨v Kivi †ÿ‡Î
weeZ©bev`xMY Ges e¨vwßev`xM‡Yi †g․wjK Abygvb Awfbœ bq| cÖ_‡gv³MY
‡hLv‡b g‡b Ki‡Zb mgMÖ gvbe BwZnv‡mi GK Awfbœ MšÍe¨ i‡q‡Q, Ges †m
MšÍ‡e¨ †cu․Qv‡bvi Rb¨ mKj gvbe mgvRB g‡bvMZ H‡Kï (psychic unity)
Kvi‡Y D™¢vebx ÿgZvi ga¨ w`‡q AMÖmi n‡”Q| Gi wecix‡Z wØZx‡qv³MY g‡b
Ki‡Zb cwieZ©‡bi g~j AbyNUK n‡”Q AwfMg‡bi ga¨ w`‡q msNwUZ mvs¯‥…wZK
†hvMv‡hvM-cÖwZwU ms¯‥…wZi Avjv`v Avjv`v D™¢vebx ÿgZv bq|
1920 Gi `kK n‡Z ïiæ K‡i 1960 Gi `kK ch©šÍ weªwUk mvgvwRK b„weÁv‡b
cÖZvckvjx ZË¡ I c×wZMZ aviv n‡jv wµqvev`| wµqvev`x‡ì Ae¯ vb m¤ú‡K©
†nbwiKv KzKwjK †hgb e‡j‡Qb †h Giv mvgvwRK b„weÁv‡b 1920 Gi `kK n‡Z
ïiæ K‡i 1960 Gi `kK ch©šÍ kw³kvjx Ae¯ vb a‡i iv‡L Ges Aa¨q‡bi
welqe¯‧ wn‡m‡e wew”Qbœ Rb‡Mvôxmg~‡ni ¯^Zš¿ ms¯‥…wZi cÖwZB Zviv †Rvi †`b|
we‡k¦i HwZnvwmK cwieZ©b msµvšÍ †Kvbiƒc wbqgbxwZ ev e„nr ZË¡ cÖwZôvi †Póv
†_‡K Giv weiZ _v‡Kb| Gi cwie‡Z© Zviv ¸iæZ¡ †`b w¯ wZkxj mgvR eë¯ vi
25
eZ©gvb‡K›`ªxK •ewkó¨mg~n Lyu‡R †ei Kivi Ici| Zv‡ì `„wó‡Z e¯‧MZ w`K
†_‡K mij mgvRmg~n, †h¸‡jv cwðgv mgvR †¯ªvZ †_‡K wew”Qbœ mgvR¸‡jvB
n‡”Q b„‣eÁvwbK Aa¨q‡bi Rb¨ Av`k© mgvR Ges Gme mgv‡Ri mvgwMÖKfv‡e
mn‡R e¨vL¨v Kiv hvq (Kuklick, 1996)|
Gfv‡e weªwUk b„‣eÁvwbK HwZ‡nï g‡a¨B c~e©eZ©x weeZ©bev`x ZvwË¡K‡ì mv‡_

cieZ©x wµqvev`x‡ì ZvwË¡K `„wófw½MZ we¯Íi eëavb •Zwi n‡q hvq| GQvov,
mvgvwRK b„weÁv‡bi gvVKg©wfwËK Aa¨q‡bi †h •ewkó¨ †mwUI ZvwË¡K weKv‡ki
GB ch©v‡qi mv‡_ Mfxifv‡e mswkøó, b„weÁv‡bi cwiPqÁvcK Mfxi I m~²
gvVK‡g©i †h HwZn¨ Zv g~jZ G mgqKvi wµqvev`x‡ìB ms‡hvRb|
G mg‡qi weªwUk b„weÁv‡bi weKvk we‡køl‡Y Ab¨ GKwU welq we‡klfv‡e

jÿYxq| e¨vwßev` Ges wµqvev`-Dfq avivi Abymvix ZvwË¡KivB ¯úó K‡i GUv
A¯^xKvi K‡ib †h, bieY© (race) Ges ms¯‥…wZi g‡a¨ †Kvb iƒc AvšÍtm¤úK©
i‡q‡Q| ms¯‥…wZi Ici bie‡Y©i cÖfve‡K Giƒc A¯^xKv‡ii djkÖæwZ‡Z wek
kZ‡K G‡m •`wnK b„weÁvbx‡ì KvR Ges mvgvwRK mvs¯‥…wZK b„weÁvbx‡ì KvR
GK`gB ¯^Zš¿ n‡q c‡o| `ywU DcÁvbKv‡Ði mvs¯‥…wZK b„weÁvbx‡ì KvR
GK`gB ¯^Zš¿B n‡q c‡o| `ywU DcÁvbKv‡Ði ci¯úi cwic~iK n‡q _vKvi
e¨vcviUv G ch©v‡q Avi †mfv‡e _v‡K bv| we‡kl K‡i wµqvexìv cÖvq mKj
ai‡bi •RweK AbymÜvb‡K AcÖvmw½K wn‡m‡e we‡ePbv Ki‡Z ïiæ K‡i GB
we‡ePbv †_‡K †h, mKj gvbe mgvRB Kg-‡ewk GKB ai‡bi Awbevh© cÖvK…wZK
Ae¯ vi gv‡S †e‡o I‡V Ges †m Kvi‡Y mvgvwRK •ewPÎ¨ e¨vL¨vq •RweK
KviY¸‡jv wb‡q †ewk g‡bv‡hvMx nIqv †Zgb GKwU Riæix bq|
Ab¨w`‡K cÖZœZvwË¡KMY Ges •RweK b„weÁvbxMY gvbe BwZnv‡mi AMÖMwZ †h Kx

K‡i n‡jv †m wel‡q Dbwesk kZvãxi b„weÁvbx‡ì Ôg~jÕ †h AvMÖ‡ni welq Zvi
cÖwZB cy‡ivcywi g‡bv‡hvMx _vK‡jv| djkÖæwZ‡Z b„weÁv‡bi DcÁvbKvÐ¸‡jv
GK`gB ¯^Zš¿ avivi weKwkZ n‡Z ïiæ K‡i Ges GB DckvL¸‡jv PP©vKvix
GKv‡WwgK e¨w³eM© ev †ckvRxexM‡Yi g‡a¨ †hvMv‡hvM ev gZvg‡Z wewbgq
by¨bZg ch©v‡q †b‡g Av‡m|
26
weªwUk Ges Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁ‡bi wfbœZv cÖm‡½ Ges, GKB mv‡_, weªwUk
b„weÁv‡bi †fZ‡i †h DcÁvbKvÐxq Uvbv‡cv‡ob †m wel‡q †nbwiKv KzKwj‡Ki
we‡kølY G cÖm‡½ D‡jøL Kiv hvq| b„weÁv‡bi weKvk cÖwµqvqB wKfv‡e
Am½wZmg~n Ges wek¦RbxbZvi NvUwZi welqwU Awbe©vhfv‡e Dcw¯ Z †_‡K
wM‡qwQj Zv Zvui G Av‡jvPbv †_‡K †evSv hvq (we¯ÍvwiZ Av‡jvPbvi Rb¨ †`Lyb
Kuklick, 1992)|
‡mvwf‡q‡Z, Av‡gwiKvb Ges weªwUk b„‣eÁv‡bi cvkvcvwk `wÿY Gwkqvi b„weÁvb,

GLvbKvi b„‣eÁvwbK weKvk Ges M‡elYv I AbymÜv‡bi welq¸‡jvi cÖwZ bRi
w`‡jI †`Lv hv‡e GLv‡b wfbœ GKwU Ae¯ v GLv‡b •Zwi n‡q‡Q| `wÿY Gkxq
AvaywbK b„weÁv‡bi wfwË iwPZ nq Jcwb‡ewkK Avg‡ji G_‡bvMÖvwdK
wi‡cvU©¸‡jvi ga¨ w`‡q|3 Aek¨ ¯^vaxbZv cieZ©xKv‡j gvVK‡g©i gva¨‡g b„weÁvb
PP©vKvixivI G AÂ‡ji g~j avivi b„weÁv‡b weKv‡k eo f~wgKv iv‡Lb|
mvgwMÖKfv‡e jyB `y‡gvi Homo Hierarchicus †K †K›`ª K‡iB AwaKvsk KvR
m¤úvw`Z nq| A_©vr RvwZeY© cÖ_v Ges ÁvwZm¤úK© Aa¨qb Ges †m j‡ÿ¨
Ôwf‡jR ÷vwWRÕB n‡”Q `wÿY Gkxq b„weÁv‡bi †ÿ‡Î ¯^vaxb cieZ©x cÖavb aviv|
cieZ©x‡Z Aek¨ wj½, AmgZv, BwZnvm, AvZ¥cwiP‡qi ivRbxwZ cÖf…wZ welqmg~n
cÖvavb¨ †c‡Z _v‡K|
ZvwË¡KM‡Yi Ae¯’vb I `„wófw½: bvbvgyLx wfbœZv I •ewPÎ¨
RvZxq HwZn¨mg~‡ni GB wfbœZv Ges •ecix‡Zi cvkvcvwk gyL¨ ZvwË¡KMY
b„weÁvb‡K †h wKfv‡e ev †Kvb `„wófw½ †_‡K eyS‡Z †P‡q‡Qb †mLv‡bI LyeB
¸iæZ¡c~Y© Ges jÿYxq wfbœZv cvIqv hvq| eª¨vwbm&j g¨vwj‡bvw¯‥ Ges †iWwK¬d
eªvD‡bi `„wófw½MZ wfbœZv ev¯ÍweK KZUv we¯Í…Z †mUv cÖkœmv‡cÿ e‡U, wKš‧
b„weÁv‡bi Av‡jvP¨ welq wn‡m‡e h_vµg Ôms¯‥…wZÕ Ges ÔmgvRÕ †K eyS‡Z wM‡q
Zviv †h weZ‡K© Rwo‡q‡Qb Zv G Av‡jvPbvq we‡klfv‡e cÖvmw½K (we¯ÍvwiZ
Av‡jvPbvi Rb¨ `ªóe¨ Kuper, 1996)| G‡ì `yR‡bi gZwfbœZvi cvkvcvwk K¬`
†jwf-÷ª‡mi ZvwË¡K Ae¯ v‡bi we‡ePbv AviI ¯úó Ki‡e †Kej mvgvwRK-
mvs¯‥…wZK b„weÁv‡bi AaxZe¨ welq wb‡q b„weÁvbx‡ì gv‡S Kx wecyj gZv‣bK¨
27
†`Lv wM‡qwQj ev †`Lv hvq GLbI| †h weeZ©bev`‡K GKUv ch©v‡q b„weÁv‡b

cy‡ivcywi cwiZ¨vM Kiv nq †mB weZ©bev`‡KB Avevi cieZ©x‡Z GKfv‡e cÖvmw½K
wn‡m‡e †`Lv nq| GKUv mgq weeZ©bev`x‡ì mgv‡jvPbv Kiv n‡Zv Zv‡ì
Abygvb-wbf©iZv ev speculation Gi cÖeYZvi Kvi‡Y; A_P wK¬‡dvW© Mxqv‡R©i
ms¯‥…wZi e¨vL¨v msµvšÍ e³e¨ GKfv‡e †mB AbywgwZ‡ZB wd‡i hvevi c_ †`Lvq
(Geertz, 1973)|
we‡ePbvi cÖm½mg~n
GB eûgvwÎKZv, •ewPÎ¨ I •ecix‡Z¡i †cÖÿvc‡U gvbyl Aa¨q‡bi weÁvb n‡q
IVvi †ÿ‡Î b„weÁv‡bi mxgve×Zv ev Am½wZ¸‡jv wPwýZ Kivi j‡ÿ¨ gyL¨ †h
†ÿÎ¸‡jv we‡kl g‡bv‡hvM `vex K‡i †m cÖm½¸‡jv‡K GLv‡b Avjv`vfv‡e D‡jøL
Kiv n‡jvt
Acwðgv gvby‡li weÁvb

ïiæ †_‡KB gvbyl Aa¨q‡bi weÁvb n‡q DV‡Z wM‡q b„weÁvb Zvi wb‡Ri Aa¨qb,
M‡elYv ev we‡køl‡Yi AvIZvq mKj ai‡bi ev mKj ch©v‡qi gvbyl‡K AšÍf~©³
Ki‡Z e¨_© n‡q‡Q| mij, cÖvK-wkívwqZ mgv‡Ri ev cÖvK cyuwRev`x Dcwb‡ewkZ
gvby‡li mgvR-ms¯‥…wZ Aa¨q‡bi weÁvb wn‡m‡e b„weÁv‡bi cÖv_wgK hvÎv I †e‡o
IVv| Gfv‡e gvbyl Aa¨q‡bi c~Y©v½ •eÁvwbK ÁvbKvÐwUi hvÎvB ïiæ nq gvbyl
bvgK cÖRvwZwUi LwÐZ Aa¨q‡bi ga¨ w`‡q|
wbR Rb‡Mvôxi bq ÔAb¨Õ Rb‡Mvôxi Aa¨qb

GKB fv‡e gvby‡li •RweK, mvgvwRK-mvs¯‥…wZK, fvlvZvwË¡K Ges cÖv‣MwZnvwmK
ev cÖZœZvwË¡K Z_v mvgwMÖK w`‡Ki mw¤§wjZ Aa¨q‡bi cÖwZkÖæwZ w`‡q Áv‡bi GB
kvLvwUi hvÎv ïiæ n‡jI Gi †e‡o IVvi BwZnvm we‡kølY Ki‡j †`Lv hvq
BD‡ivc, Av‡gwiKv †Zv e‡UB GgbwK c„w_exi Ab¨vb¨ AÂ‡ji b„weÁvb weKwkZ
n‡q‡Q ÔA™¢yZ-wewPÎÕ ÔAb¨Õ (exotic other) gvby‡li Aa¨qb wn‡m‡e| wbR mgvR
I wbR Rb‡Mvôx †m A‡_© AvRI b„weÁv‡bi welqe¯‧ n‡q DV‡Z cv‡i wb| hwÌ
b„weÁvb GLb Avi c~‡e©i g‡Zv ÔAvw`gÕ, ÔmijÕ, ÔAbMÖmiÕ, ÔAbÿiÕ ev ÔAmf¨Õ
28
mgvR Aa¨q‡b cy‡ivcywi e¨vc„Z _v‡K bv Z_vwc AvRI b„weÁvb GgbwK wkívwqZ
wbR mgv‡R M‡elYv Ki‡Z wM‡q GK ai‡bi ÔAb¨Õ •Zwi K‡i †bq|
gvby‡li cwic~Y© Aa¨qb bvwK cyরুl cক্ষcvZg~jK Aa¨qb

wb‡Ri Ae¯ vb, `„wófw½ I ÁvbZ‡Ë¡i GKB iKg A¯úóZv Ges Uvbv‡cv‡ob
†_‡KB mKj gvby‡li cvV n‡q IVvi g‡Zv Ae¯ v‡b †cu․Qv‡Z b„weÁvb mÿg nq
bv; Ges gvby‡li Aa¨q‡bi cwie‡Z© GwU Awfhy³ nq cyiæl cÿcvwZZ¡c~Y© (male
bias) nevi †`v‡l| b„‣eÁvwbK G_‡bvMÖvwd¸‡jv bvix‡K †Kvb `„wófw½‡Z †`‡L †m
wb‡q Rb¥ nq we¯Íi weZ‡K©i| gvbe cÖRvwZi mvgwMÖK Aa¨qb bv n‡q GwU µgvMZ
†e‡o D‡V‡Q G cÖRvwZi ÿgZvevb As‡ki g‡bvfve I `„wófw½I aviK Ges
cÖKvkK wn‡m‡e|
Zvn‡j wK Acwðgv Ab¨ gvby‡li ÔZzjbvg~jK mgvRweÁvbÕ?

‡iWwK¬d eªvDb b„weÁvb‡K †`L‡Z †P‡qwQ‡jb cÖvK…wZK weÁv‡bi g‡ZvB GKwU
weÁvb wn‡m‡e Z_v mgvR m¤úwK©Z cÖvK…wZK weÁvb ev Ôa natural science of
mi]c_ns‖ wn‡m‡e| Ges Zvui fvebv Abyhvqx b„weÁv‡bi Avm‡j Zzjbvg~jK
mvgvwRK weÁvb (comparative sociology) nevi K_v| GLb BwZnvm
ch©v‡jvPbvq g‡b nq †h b„weÁvb me gvby‡li c~Y©v½ Aa¨qb bv n‡q eis n‡q
D‡V‡Q ÔAcwðgvÕ ÔAb¨Õ gvby‡li Aa¨qb msµvšÍ Zzjbvg~jK mgvR weÁvb|
GgbwK mvgwMÖK •ewk¦K †cÖÿvc‡U gvbyl m¤úwK©Z Aa¨q‡bi Zzjbvg~jK mgvR
weÁvb n‡q IVvI b„weÁv‡bi c‡ÿ m¤¢e nq bv|
gvby‡li c~Yv©½ cvV bq eis Zvi mgvR A_ev ms¯‥…wZi cvV

b„weÁv‡bi †h PviwU cÖavb †ÿÎ (four field) _vK‡e †mwU cÖ_g my¯úó ¸iæ‡Z¡i
mv‡_ mvg‡b wb‡q Av‡mb d«vbh †evqvm| fvlv e›U‡bi gvbwPÎ, •`wnK •ewkó¨mg~n
Ges mvs¯‥…wZ MÖæc-gvbe Aw¯Í‡Z¡i GB wZbwU w`K‡K ¸iæ‡Z¡i mv‡_ Aa¨qb Kiv
cÖ‡qvRb e‡j †evqvm gZ †`b Ges Gme Aa¨q‡b cÖwZwU †ÿ‡Î wfbœ wfbœ c×wZ
eënv‡ii K_v e‡jb| •RweK •ewkó¨mg~n Aa¨q‡bi Rb¨ gvc-‡RvL I
cwimsL¨vb, fvlv †evSvi Rb¨ †U·U I e¨vKiY we‡kølY Ges mvs¯‥…wZK welqvw`
29
Aa¨q‡bi †ÿ‡Î ms¯‥…wZmg~‡ni ev mvs¯‥…wZK Dcv`vbmg~‡ni e›Ub Ges cÖwZwU

ms¯‥…wZ‡K c~Y©v½fv‡e Aa¨q‡bi c×wZ AbmyiY Kivi cÖwZ wZwb †Rvi
w`‡qwQ‡jb| GQvov mvs¯‥…wZK AZxZ Aa¨q‡bi †ÿ‡Î cÖZœZvwË¡K c×wZ
Abymi‡Yi K_vI wZwb ¸iæ‡Z¡i mv‡_ D‡jøL K‡iwQ‡jb| Gfv‡e †h PviwU
DcÁvbKvÐ b„weÁv‡b weKwkZ nq †m¸‡jvi g‡a¨ cieZ©x‡Z mwZ¨Kvi A‡_©
Kvh©Ki †Kvb mgš^q cieZ©x‡Z jÿ¨ Kiv hvq bv| GgbwK GB Pvi †ÿ‡Îi
kv¯¿Kvi‡ì ev PP©vKvix‡ì g‡a¨ cvi¯úwiK gZ wewbgq ev wg_w®…qvI by¨bZg
ch©v‡q †b‡g Av‡m| cÖfvekvjx Ges ¸iæZ¡c~Y© n‡q I‡V mgvR eë¯ v, mgvR
KvVv‡gv, ms¯‥…wZ ev mvs¯‥…wZK cÖwZôvbmg~‡ni we‡klvwqZ Aa¨q‡bi aviYv|
ms¯‥…wZ Aa¨qb Qvwc‡q hvq gvbyl Aa¨q‡bi g~j G‡RÛv‡K

b„weÁv‡bi cÖvq me¸‡jv c¨vivWvBgB ùvwo‡q‡Q Ôms¯‥…wZÕ †K wN‡i| †h ms¯‥…wZ
cv‡Vi ga¨ w`‡q gvbyl‡K cvV Kivi K_v wQj †mB ms¯‥…wZ GZUvB ¸iæZ¡c~Y© Ges
we¯Í„Z g‡bv‡hvM †K‡o †bq †h KL‡bv KL‡bv g‡b nq ms¯‥…wZ †h Aa¨q‡bi P~ovšÍ
jÿ¨ bq eis ms¯‥…wZ ga¨ w`‡q †h gvbe cÖK…wZ‡K Aa¨qb Ki‡Z PvIqv n‡q‡Q
†mwUB b„weÁvbxiv we¯§„Z n‡q‡Qb| GB ms¯‥…wZ Aa¨qb Avevi mywbw`©ó †Kvb
ÁvbZË¡xq †d«gIqv‡K© wfwË K‡i AMÖmi nqwb|
mv¤úªwZK cwieZ©b: `k©b I ivRbxwZi cÖvavb¨, †g․wjK ÁvbZvwË¡K

wRÁvmvmg~‡ni cÖvwšÍK n‡q hvIqv
weMZ `kK¸‡jv‡K b„weÁvb µgk BwZnvm, mvwnZ¨, KvjPvi ÷vwWR Ges
mvgwMÖKfv‡e `k©‡bi mgm¨vmg~‡ni mv‡_ AwaK cwigv‡Y e¨vc„Z n‡q‡Q| Gi
djkÖæwZ‡Z b„weÁvb GLb †g․wjK wKQz cÖ‡kœi gy‡LvgywL n‡q‡Q| `k©b, ivRbxwZ
cÖf…wZi Giƒc cÖvav‡bï d‡j GLb µgk cÖvwšÍK n‡q co‡Q †g․wjK ÁvbZË¡xq
weÁvmvmg~n| mgmvgwqK GB Uvbv‡cv‡ob‡K †`L‡Z n‡e B‡Zvg‡a¨ b„weÁv‡bi
kw³kvjx †Kvb ÁvbZË¡xq wfZ& M‡o bv IVvi †cÖÿvc‡U|
30
AZxZ wegywLZv Ges mv¤úªwZK Bmy¨‡Kw›`ªKZv: ¸ রুZ¡c~Y© †g․j Aa¨q‡bi welq

D‡cwক্ষZ
mvgvwRK-mvs¯‥…wZK b„weÁv‡b mv¤úªwZK `kK¸‡jv‡Z Ab¨ †h GKwU cÖeYZv jÿ¨
Kiv hvq Zv n‡jv AZxZ wegyLZv Ges mgmvgwqK Bmy¨mg~‡ni cÖwZ AwaKZi
g‡bv‡hvM cÖ`vb| Gi d‡j AZxZ, eZ©gvb I fwel¨‡Zi wgwjZ †d«gIqv‡K©
gvbyl‡K c~Y©v½iƒ‡c Aa¨qb Kivi jÿ¨wU ÿwZMÖ¯Í n‡”Q| Gm‡ei d‡j c×wZMZ
mijxKiY N‡U‡Q Ges cÖZœZvwË¡K I RxeweÁvbMZ cÖkœmg~n b„weÁv‡bi
ÁvbRvMwZK cwigÐ‡ji µgk cÖvwšÍK n‡q c‡o‡Q|
cÖv‡qvwMKZv-cÖvmw½KZvi `„k¨gvb ZvwM‡` b„weÁv‡bi g~j PwiÎ-‣ewkó¨ iক্ষvB
GLb eo cÖkœ
Ab¨w`‡K cÖv‡qvwMK I cÖvmw½K weÁvb wn‡m‡e cÖgvY Ki‡Z wM‡q †Kvb †Kvb
†ÿ‡Î b„weÁvbxMY Zv‡ì ÁvbKvÐ‡K µgk †g․wjK I ¯^vZš¿c~Y© Ae¯ vb †_‡K
mwi‡q wb‡q †M‡Q| G ch©v‡q A_©bxwZ, Dbœqb Aa¨qb cÖf…wZ kw³kvjx
ÁvbKvÐmg~‡ni cÖfvekvjx ZË¡xq `„wófw½I gy‡LvgywL n‡q‡Q b„weÁvb Ges wbR¯^
Ae`v‡bi Zzjbvq Gme cÖfvekvjx `„wófw½I Pvwn`vi cÖwZ mvov †`qvi, †m¸‡jvi
mv‡_ wb‡R‡K gvwb‡q †bqvi ev wb‡R‡K Dc‡hvMx K‡i M‡o †Zvjvi NUbvB †ewk
N‡U‡Q| Gi d‡j b„weÁvb Zvi wbR¯^Zv Ges ¯^vZš¿¨m~PK Ae¯ vb †_‡K µgk
m‡i †M‡Q|
mvgwMÖK b„‣eÁvwbK wPšÍvq H‡Kï Zzjbvq •ewP‡Îi cÖvavb¨
mvgwMÖKfv‡e b„‣eÁvwbK wPšÍvq Gfv‡e †Kvb m~Îe× kw³kvjx ÁvbZË¡xq Ae¯ vb
•Zwi n‡Z †`Lv hvq bv; eis GLv‡b ZvwË¡K †d«gIqvK© ev wbR¯^ `„wófw½ wba©vi‡Yi
†ÿ‡Î GK ai‡bi Lvg ‡Lqvwjc~Y© Ae¯ v ev KL‡bv KL‡bv GK cÖKv‡ii
AivRKZv, wek„•Ljv ev weåvwšÍB (chaotic situation) AwaK `„k¨gvb n‡q I‡V|
Dcmsnvi
G Aa¨v‡q GiB g‡a¨ Dc¯ vwcZ cÖkœmg~n ev ch©‡eÿYmg~‡ni ga¨ w`‡q †h †K›`ªxq
cÖm½My‡jv Dc¯ vcb Kiv n‡q‡Q †m¸‡jv g~jZ b„weÁvb‡K ÁvbZË¡xq †cÖÿvcU
†_‡K eyS‡Z PvIqvi djkÖæwZ| gvbyl Aa¨q‡bi c~Y©v½ ÁvbKvÐ wn‡m‡e GKwU
weKwkZ n‡e GUvB cÖZ¨vwkZ _vK‡jI HwZnvwmKfv‡eB b„weÁvb †m jÿ¨ AR©‡b
mÿg nqwb Ges AvR‡Ki †cÖÿvc‡U †h bvbvgyLx m¼U, cÖkœ ev wRÁvmg~‡ni ev
31
weZK© I Uvbv‡cv‡o‡bi gy‡LvgywL b„weÁvb n‡”Q Zv‡Z b„weÁvb †h wewfbœ mgq

GKwU myweavRbKfv‡e eëüZ cÖZ¨q ev ―t_lg i` ]ihp_hc_h]_‖ n‡qB †_‡K‡Q
†mwU ¯úó K‡i †`L‡Z cvIqvUvB ¸iæZ¡c~Y© e‡j g‡b nq| GB Ae¯ vb †_‡K
mvgwMÖKfv‡e DËi‡Yi ga¨ w`‡q gvbe cÖRvwZi cwic~Y© I gvbweK Aa¨q‡bi
ÁvbKvÐ n‡q IVv wK b„weÁv‡bi c‡ÿ Avi m¤¢e bq? hw` †m m¤¢ebv GLbI †_‡K
_v‡K Z‡e Zvi c_ I cÖwµqv wb‡q we¯ÍvwiZ KvR Kivi `vwqZ¡ AvR‡Ki
b„weÁvbx‡ì i‡q‡Q| fwel¨‡Zi b„weÁvb †Kvb LwÐZ ev A¯úó kv¯¿ n‡q hv‡Z bv
_v‡K, ÁvbZË¡xq w`K †_‡K mg„× I cwic~Y© gvbe-Aa¨q‡bi ÁvbKvÐ wn‡m‡e
hv‡Z GwU mdj n‡Z cv‡i †mwUB AvR‡Ki Ges fwel¨‡Zi b„weÁvbxi g~j fvebvi
welq n‡Z cv‡i|
UxKv
1
G Aa¨v‡q b„weÁv‡bi ÁvbZË¡xq cÖm½ wb‡q wbeÜKv‡ii ch©‡eÿYmg~n Dc¯ vcb
Kiv n‡q‡Q| ÁvbZË¡ ej‡Z (philosophy) ‡evSv‡bv nq Ávb m¤úwK©Z ZË¡ ev
Ôtheory of knowledgeÕ Ges Ôsource and process of knowledgeÕ‡K| †h
we‡kl ai‡bi Áv‡bi AbymÜvb †_‡K b„weÁv‡bi hvÎv I weKvk Zvi ZvwË¡K
we‡kølY GLv‡b g~j jÿ¨| GB we‡køl‡Yi ga¨ w`‡q ‡evSvi †Póv Kiv n‡q‡Q
b„‣eÁvwbK Áv‡bi ZvwË¡K m¼U, mxgve×Zv ev Uvbv‡cv‡ob¸‡jv †Kv_vq|
b„‣eÁvwbK Áv‡bi ZvwË¡KZv eyS‡Z wM‡q GLv‡b cÖavbZ g‡bv‡hvM †`qv n‡q‡Q
Gi ÁvbKvÐxq BwZnv‡mi (disciplinary history) cÖwZ| b„weÁv‡bi ÁvbZË¡
(epistemology) we‡køl‡Y Gfv‡e ÁvbKvÐ (discipline) wn‡m‡e b„weÁv‡bi D™¢e
I weKvk we‡kølY GLv‡b cÖvmw½K n‡q D‡V‡Q|
2
DËivaywbKZvev`x ZË¡ b„weÁv‡b Kx ai‡bi cÖfve •Zwi K‡i‡Q Zvi GKwU
mswÿß Av‡jvPbvi Rb¨ †`Lyb Layton, 1997 Gi c„ôv 185 n‡Z 215 ch©šÍ|
3
`wÿY Gkxq b„weÁvb msµvšÍ G Av‡jvPbvwU‡Z g~jZt we‡ePbv Kiv n‡q‡Q
fviZ I kÖxj¼vq b„weÁvb PP©vi †h BwZnvm i‡q‡Q †mwU‡K| mvgwMÖKfv‡e `wÿY
Gwkqv ejv n‡j Zv‡Z evsjv‡`‡ki b„weÁvbI AšÍf~©³ nq| wKš‧ GLv‡b cwimi I
32
welqe¯‧ wePv‡i evsjv‡`‡k b„weÁvb m¤ú‡K© mywbw`©ó we‡kølY Dc¯ vcb †_‡K weiZ
_vKv n‡q‡Q| e¯‧Z G †cÖÿvcU †_‡K Av‡jvPbv Kivi †ÿ‡Î evsjv‡`‡ki b„weÁvb
¯^Zš¿ I we¯Í…Z Av‡jvPbv `vex K‡i| eZ©gvb cwim‡i †mB †Póv bv K‡i GwU
fwel¨‡Z wfbœfv‡e Av‡jvPbvi cÖZ¨vkv _vK‡jv|
MÖš’cwÄ
Abu-Lughod, L. (1991) Writing Against Culture, in R. G. Fox (Ed)
Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present. Santa Fe: School of
American Reserch.
Asad, T. (Ed) (1973) Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. London:

Ithaca Press.
Bromley, Y. V. (1981) Sovremennye Problemy Ethnografii. Moscow:
Nauka.
Clifford, J. (1988) The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century

Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge MA: Harvard University
Press.
Cohn, B. (1987) An Anthropologist among the Historians. Delhi: Oxford

University Press.
Fabian, J. (1983) Tume and the Other, How Anthropology makes Its
Object. New York: Columbia University Press.
Derrida, J. (1974) Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press.
33
Geertz, C. (1973) Interpretation of Culture: Selected Essays. New York:

Basic Books.
Gellner, E. (1988) State and Soceity in Soviet Thought. London: Basil

Blackwell.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revulotions. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Kuklick, H. (1992) The Savage Within: The History of British

Anthropology 1885-1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kiklick, H. (1996) British Anthropology, in J. Spencer & A. Barnard

(Eds) Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology. London:
Routledge.
Kuper, A. (1996) Anthropologists and Anthropology: The Modern British

School. London: Rountledge.
Layton, R. (1997) An Introduction to Theory in Anthropology.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lowie, R. H. (1937) The History of Ethnological Theory. New York:
Halt, Rinehart and Winston.
34
Malefijt, A. de W. (1976) Images of Man: A History of Anthropological

Thought. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Marcus, G. & Fischer, M. (Eds (1986) Anthropology as Cultural
Critique. Durham, N C: Duke University Press.
Ortner, S. B. (1984) Theory in Anthroplogy since the Sixties,
Comparative Studies in Sociey and History, 26: 126-66.
Stocking, G. W., Jr. (1996) After Tylor: British Social Anthropology,

1888-1951. London: The Athlone Press.
Sahlins, M. (1981) Islands of History. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.
Tiskhov, V. (1992) The Crises in Soviet Ethnography, Current

Anthropogy, 33 (4): 371-82.
35
Chapter 3
Conceptualization of Human Being:

Vision of an Anthropologist
Anthropology has emerged as a science to study human beings-presumably
the most complex subject and object of investigation. The history of
anthropology reveals that the foundation of the discipline have been laid by
individual scholars from diverse background and also at the primary stage
adequate materials were gathered by travelers, traders, missionaries,
administrators and explorers. The period in the history of anthropology,
extends from the time of the Greek historians, philosophers, and naturalists
and its rudiments were scattered throughout the writings of natural historians,
physicians, travelers, and social philosophers (Penniman, 1935). Over the
years, the discipline has received its academic ground, developed its vision
about the subject matter and got equipped with theories, methodologies, and
instrumentations. In different parts of the world, emphasis and focus of the
discipline varied significantly. In Europe, particularly, in England, central
issue of the discipline has been societies. Radcliffe-Brown had conceived
[hnblijifias [m ]igj[l[ncp_ mi]cifias. ―Fl[h]_ g[s \_ ]cn_^ [m [h _r[gjf_
of the abnormal situation arising in anthropological work from a rigid
separation between the faculties of science and arts. The University of Paris
grants three diplomas in anthropology- a diploma in ethnology (with arts
optional) awarded by the faculty of arts, the same diploma with sciences
optional, awarded by the two faculties combined, and the lastly, a diploma in
physical anthropology, awarded by the facufns i` m]c_h]_ [fih_‖. Ih Nilnb
America, anthropology is studied as a combination of four sub-fields; physical
36
anthropology, cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology and archeology.

Anthropology has a long history in India with emphasis on physical
ahnblijifias [h^ ih nb_ mno^s i` ―nlc\_m‖. Ih ìlg_l Sipc_n Uhcih [h^ ch
]ihn_gjil[ls Rommc[, [hnblijifias b[m \__h mno^scha ―_nbhim‖ ^cmnch]ncp_fs
categorized nations, nationalities and ethnic groups. In Bangladesh,
[hnblijifias b[m mn[ln_^ cnm‖ diolh_s nqo decades ago and now is gaining its
momentum.
A deeper look in the past clearly indicates that the discipline has uneven and
inconsistent growth over the world while understandings about its subject
matter vary from country to country and the focus has often been on a single
aspect. Levi-Strauss (1986) has expressed his concern about the way
[hnblijifias cm ]ih]_cp_^. H_ pc_q_^ ―nb[n ch m_p_l[f Eolij_[h ]iohnlc_m nb_
term anthropology was left undefined and was, therefore, limited in practice to
physical [hnblijifias‖.
Tbcm ―h[lliq ì]om‖ [jjli[]b ni chm_j[l[\f_ [mj_]nm i` bog[h fc`_ ^c^ hin ai
without implications. This approach constrained the discipline in having a
partial view about human beings. In this regard, Levi-Strauss has observed
nb[n ―cn cm no realize, from the outset, that anthropology is not distinguished
from other humanistic and social sciences by any subject of study peculiar to
cn [fih_‖. Ahnblijifias cm ohcko_ [h^ ^cmnch]n `lig inb_l m]c_h]_m ch cnm [\cfcns
to explain how different aspects of human life are interrelated, interdependent
and fit together to constitute human beings as one. In order to have a more
comprehensive understanding about human being a model is proposed
(diagram 1) below.
This model conceives human beings as a synthesis of body, mind, culture and
society, power and many other contexts which are inextricably linked to each
other and to the given organic and inorganic environment. The inorganic
component which consists of climate, energy and materials has been placed in
37
the outer surface of the model as it envelops all the organic forms of life such
as plants, animals, microorganisms, pathogens and vectors and exists
presumably all over the universe. Existing interrelationship refers to mutual
inter-dependency of elements. It envisages that human being actively
transforms the organic and inorganic environment they live in and the process
is mutually implicated. Further, human beings are seen as a species that is
divided into nation states, nationalities, and ethnic groups that structured in the
system of kinship and family through a gender line.
Language, all forms of non-linguistic symbols, cognitive abilities and contents
behavior, and music are seen as integral part of culture. Food is one of the
central components of culture while organic environment, particularly plants
and animals remains to be the sources of food.
Inseparability of culture and body could be observed in the very fact that
language being a symbolic system is founded on the biological capabilities,
particularly, neural connection between association areas for hearing and
motor coordination of speech, localized in the left hemisphere of the brain
j[lnc]of[lfs ch Bli][‖m [h^ W_lhc]e_‖m [l_[m. Scgcf[lfs, ][j[]cns ìl ]ofnol_
has also a genetic basis.
However, the most fundamental aspect of homo sapience is the brain; see
Gray’s Anatomy (Gray & Carter, 1858) for detail.
38
Kinship Gender
Economy Power
INORGANIC
M]Eflis [h^ Tiqhm_h^ b[p_ i\m_lp_^ nb[n ―nbl__ a_h_nc][ffs based

characteristics underlie the human capacities for culture. First; humans have
evolved extensive and complex neural connections in the cerebral cortex of
the brain, with considerable overlap between specific association areas for
39
vision, hearing, touch, and motor coordination. This overlap allows learning to
occur through transfer and correlation of information between association
areas. Second; evolution of human hands accompanied evolution of the fine
visual motor coordination in the brain. Third; humans are born as altogether
dependent beings, which allows a relatively long time for learning. These
three characteristics-a complex brain, the ability to make tools and social
bonding have allowed humans to generate an impressive diversity in cultural
sysn_g [h^ ni molpcp_ ch nb_ qc^_ l[ha_ i` _]ifiac][f hc]b_m‖.
Further, culture is deeply related and linked to the society, as early as Tylor
has observed that culture is acquired by humans as member of the society.
Human beings constitute complex networks of relationship based on blood,
affinity, descent, gender, economy, and power, and continuously transform it.
Mind, together with body, culture and society constitute human beings.
Individual psyche, personality, mental processes, emotional feelings and
experiences are basic elements of humans.
Therefore, the model emphasizes on interrelationships, interconnectedness and
interdependency of individual elements of human life. Intrinsically, the model
contains a relational basis of anthropology with all its specialized fields shown
in the diagram 2.
In the above diagram, 17 specialized fields are mentioned while there exist
many other sub-fields which could not be included. Though each field appears
ni \_ [h ―ch^_j_h^_hn mj_]c[fct[ncih‖. E[]b i` cn ]ihn[chm mige basic
theoretical orientation in common. In order to have a clear idea about the
individual field a brief discussion may be useful.
The board sub-field of cultural anthropology incorporates such fields as
linguistics anthropology, which focuses on language, ethnography and
ethnology study contemporary cultures (Aitchison, 1995). Archaeology
40
reveals extinct cultures, cognitive anthropology analyzes the processes and

contents of cognition, symbolic anthropology explains the meaning of non-
linguistic symbols and ethnomusicology studies culture through music. Social
anthropology encompasses such specialization as economic anthropology that
deals with economic systems as culture. Political anthropology analyzes
power and authority in all types of societies and political systems, Feminist
anthropology explains gender relationships. Urban anthropology examines
human life in urban settings. Biological or physical anthropology deals with
biological aspects of human life, while psychological anthropology explains
human mind and psyche. Ecological anthropology focuses on relationship of
human beings with other organisms in a given environment while
environmental anthropology analyzes interactions between humans and
natural environment. McElroy & Townsend (1996) have proposed an
ecological model which explains that the environment impinges on people
could be categorized into three parts; the physical or abiotic, biotic or organic
and cultural. Three components constitute a system where the elements are
interrelated, any change in one of the component lead to change in other.
Medical anthropology deals with such aspects as health and disease.
41
Diagram 2:
The interrelationship between specialized sub-fields of Anthropology
However, the very existence of the specialized branches refers to the idea that
not individual field but all of these together constitute anthropology as a
discipline. These fields refer to an underlying interdisciplinary conceptual
framework of anthropology that combines natural sciences, social sciences,
42
biological sciences and humanities. It also offers conceptual means to

understand any phenomena or outcome related to human beings. Which is
based on recognition of the fact that not a partial, but a comprehensive view is
needed.
Conclusion
From the above discussion it can be stated that over the years, the specialized
fields of anthropology have emerged due to the needs of time and context.
However, these developments lack comprehensive vision of anthropology.
Presumably, anthropology is unique and distinct from other sciences in its
ability to explain how different aspects of human life are interrelated,
interdependent and fit together to constitute human beings as one. This
discussion suggests that the comprehensibility in conceptualization of the
human beings provides the basic theoretical foundation of anthropology.
Bibliography
Aitchison, I. (1995) Linguistics: An introduction. Reading: Cox &
Wymen Ltd.
Gray, H. & Carter, H. V. (1858) Gray’s Anatomy: Descriptive and Surgical.
London: John W. Parker and Son.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1963/1986) Structural Anthropology. Middlesex: Penguin
Books.
McElroy, A. & Townsend, P. K. (1996) Medical Anthropology in
Ecological Perspective. New York: Westview Press.
Penniman, T. K. (1935) A Hundred Years of Anthropology. London:
Duckworth.
43
Chapter 4
Formation of Anthropology as a Science of Human Being: A

Theoretical Exploration in Historical Perspective
Abstract
Anthropology is experiencing impasses and thus exigencies are very
much apparent to overcome this state. In the recent phase of its
development (since 1960s) through post-structuralism and post-
modernism in particular, this impasse has reached its climax. To be more
precise, the discipline has taken a belligerent turn to philosophy, raised
unprecedented doubt about ethnography, especially writing culture,
_rjl_mm_^ ch]l_ôfcns niq[l^m ―al[h^‖ nb_ilc_m [h^ nb_ hincih i` jlial_mm
by means of rationalization. Darwin has become almost irrelevant, as
nihilisg b[m _hn_l_^ ^__j [h^ nb_ ―fiaim‖ i` ―[hnblijim‖ b[m \__h
l_ô]_^ ni ―`c]ncih‖ qlcncha. Gcp_h nb_ ]ihn_rn, cn b[m \_]ig_ ch_pcn[\f_
to discern reasons for such a unique fate of a discipline that was destined
to study human beings. A modest attempt has been made in this present
chapter, in order to explore the formation of anthropology. Further, an
examination has been tried as to what theoretical constraints had
contributed to inconsistent and arbitrary formation unlike any other
discipline. Why anthropologists had been turning their blind eye to
tangible lacunae? The article reveals the fact that anthropology has
seriously failed to be developed as a science of human beings. The author
44
puts forward his own theoretical perspectives that may help formation of
anthropology as a science of human being.
Introduction
In 2005, anthropology looks unprecedentedly different from what was in
its formative stage and has undergone changes that are exclusive and
fundamental. An exploration into the reasons for impasse is inevitable,
since only theoretical insight of the formation of its contexts and
epistemological grounding may help understand the present crisis and
construct paradigm of the science of human being.
In the contemporary stage of its development the crisis has reached its
climax. In this phase, it has taken a belligerent turn to philosophy, which
has significantly influenced both theory and ethnography. The very
existence of the discipline has been put into serious question. Culture
being the central concept, around which anthropology aspires to develop,
b[m hiq \__h ]ihn_mn_^. Ih cnm jf[]_ ―jiq_l‖ b[m _g_la_^ jliìoh^fs [m
the key notion.
Ah _rjl_mmcih i` nb_ `__fcham nb[n ―mno^scha‖ bog[h \_cha cm [fgimn
impossible as its complexity has created not an ordinary crisis rather it
has led to an impasse for anthropology as a discipline, This has also
produced profound tension among the anthropologists all over the world.
S[bfchm b[m i\m_lp_^ nb[n [hnblijifias cm oh^_laicha nblioab ―nqcfcabn‖.
For, Geertz, anthrijifias cm ―[^ bi]‖, [h^ ―_r jimn‖ _hn_ljlcm_, [h^
worldview, rather than a discipline. Nihilism is viewed as extensively
embedded.
45
As a student of anthropology, author earnestly feels that the reasons for

disarray of the discipline need to be explored. Given the context and
exigencies, it is examined reasons for such crisis, and has arrived at the
]ih]fomcih nb[n [hnblijifias b[m `[cf_^ f[la_fs ni \_ [ ―m]c_h]_ i` bog[h
\_cha‖. Tbcm chapter b[m [^^l_mm_^ nb_ ―h[nol_‖ i` nb_ ]ihn_gjil[ls ]lcmcm
in anthropology and explored reasons that had contributed to this crisis.
It is understandable that these crises are the outcome of historical flaws
that can be traced back in the very root of the discipline. It is further
appretend that the development of anthropology as a science of human
being has not been possible as to its inconsistent and arbitrary pattern of
growth.
It is needless to prove again that anthropology has been superficially
attractive and as said it has failed to be a science of human beings, and
thus remained as an arbitrary term of convenience. This chapter extends
the view that anthropology is undergoing theoretical and methodological
crises and often nihilism is unanimous. However, author extend own
conception as to how could anthropology be the science of human
beings.
It will be worth mentioning that while the turn of anthropology to
philosophy was associated with post-structuralism, the linguistic bias of
anthropology had been linked to structuralism. The shift from social to
linguistic structures is what has come to be known as the linguistic turn
which dramatically altered the nature of the social sciences (Lash, 1991:
IX). This turn was obviously connected with the works of Ferdinand de
Saussure (1857-1913). The turn of anthropology to philosophy is caused
by the epistemological and ontological differences emerged around the
notion of structure and the idea of progress embedded in modernism. A
46
closer look at the contemporary phase, post-structuralism and post-

modernism in particular, make it tangible that it has almost entirely
encompassed the vision of anthropology. This phase might be considered
as a radical turn of anthropology to philosophy.
First shift towards philosophy: post-structuralism
Rolland Barthes is often referred as a founder of semiotics (Ritzer, 1996:
594) and a precursor of post-structuralism whose central premise was to
deconstruct linguistics (Barthes, 2000). And his two particular essays
―Aonbilm [h^ Wlcn_lm‖ [h^ ―Tb_ D_[nb i` nb_ Aonbil‖ b[p_ f[c^ nb_
foundation of post-structuralism. The other most influential Post-
structuralism is J. Derrida. He has used two concepts, such as the concept
i` ―^_`_l_h]_‖ [h^ ―^_]ihmnlo]ncih‖ nb[n b_fj_^ bcg l_gipcha [onbil
from the centre, in one hand and see reader free of the ideas of all the
intellectual authorities who have created the dominant discourse, on the
inb_l. B_mc^_m, D_llc^[ qcnb nb_ b_fj i` nb_ ]ih]_jn i` ―^_]_hn_lcha‖
removed author from the centre of the traditional theatre (Derrida, 1976;
1977). He deconstructed logocentrism, which search for a universal
system of thought and reveals what is true, right, beautiful and so no
(Ritzer, 1996: 596-7).
The other thinker to be the most influential in post-structuralism is
Michel Foucault who had a very different theoretical orientation from
those of Rolland Barthes and Derrida. Michel Foucault being profoundly
ch`fo_h]_^ \s Nc_ntm]b_‖m hincih i` h_rom \_nq__h jiq_l [h^
knowledge has developed a perspective as to how human beings are
transformed to a subject and be ruled by the power gained through
knowledge. Foucault has explained this process of subjectification, with
a focus on madness, punishment and m_ro[fcns. Fio][ofn‖m mcahc`c][hn
47
[h[fsmcm b[mh‖n f_`n [hs m]ij_ ìl ehiqf_â_ [\ion g_^c]ch_ [h^
psychiatry which could have certain use for human beings.
In addition to that, while Michel Foucault was not at all agreeing with the
existence of human nature (innate), he was rather keener to pursue such
issues as human nature that has appeared in the discourses under any
circumstances (Foucault, 1984).
Hence, ‗nb_ c^_[ i` [ ^cm]cjfch_, ch [hs i` nb_ m_hm_m i` qbim_ clihc_m [h^
cross-actions Michael Foucault built so much of his rhetorical tower, fits
anthropology none too well. At once broad and general, wildly aspiring
(‗Tb_ Sno^s i` M[h‘), [h^ j[lnc]of[l [h^ miscellaneous, strangely
obsessive (puberty rites, gift exchange, kin terminology), it has always
had, both to itself and to outsiders, a blurry ig[a_‘ (G__lnt, 1995: 97).
Since the article does not have a scope for a detailed discussion on post-
structuralism and pos-modernism, only some basic observations on these
two perspectives are presented here. It should be noted that post-
mnlo]nol[fcmg b[m hin s_n ]igjl_b_hmcp_fs ]limm_^ nb_ ‗jb[m_ i`
mnlo]nol_‘ [h^ [mmog_^ nb_ ncnf_ ―jimn‖ nb_il_nc][ffs. I` nbcm cm ni \_
recognized than we have to put over all efforts to the revelation of the
structure of all inorganic bodies composed of not only atom and particles
but also its decaying qualities (uranium, carbon 14) including its
transformation, in case of organic elements DNA is the life process as it
contain gene that carry information about how the protein synthesis is to
be carried out, being a mechanism of its growth, while the structure of
h_olih [h^ h_oliafc[ cm nb_ e_s ni \_ ―bog[h‖. Ih ][m_ i` f[hao[a_,
sound is the exclusive means to attach meaning to be produced and
generate a system of arbitrary sing that can be the principal means of
48
communication, which presumably makes us human beings; in case of

ohcp_lm_, _p_h nb_ ―_gjnch_mm‖ cm nb_ \[mc] mnlo]nol_ [m qcnbch qbc]b [ff
huge bodies not only situate themselves, but also find their way of being,
transforming and emerging.
Therefore, post-structuralism as a perspective has limited focus on
deconstruction of logocentrism, linguistics, decentering of author:
freeing; readers from intellectual authority and the constraints of the
structure.
Second shift toward philosophy: post-modernism
Post-structuralism has prepared the ground for post-modernism to
emerge (Ritzer, 1990). The first element of post-modernism is its
historical location as a counter-reaction to modernism (Rabinow, 1990:
248). Therefore, a brief discussion of modernism will be useful to
comprehend the context of post-modernism. For Habermas (1979) the
modern period begins with the West-European Enlightenment, continued
for one hundred years, from the mid-seventeenth to the mid-eighteenth
century when a new realization developed regarding the power of reason
to improve human society. Such ideas are expressed or embodied in the
philosophy of Kant in Germany, Voltaire and Diderot in France, and
Locke and Hume in Britain (Barry, 1995: 85). The grand theories
developed by the founders of modern social thought also embody such
characteristics. Nietzsche, the German philologists and philosopher stood
in diametrical opposition to these grand narrations. He criticized such
notions of totality and the scientific pretensions that supported them. For
Nietzsche, there was no value in the ideas of totality. He rather proposed
to reject the universalistic pretensions of modern, science, and thought
that not only our knowledge about our reality, but reality itself may be
49
much less certain than nineteenth century science would have us believe
(Appleby, 1996). This theoretical position provoked many other thinkers
who had developed post-modern perspective. How this perspective
differs from modernism may be apparent in its basic understanding.
Gicha \_sih^ nb_ ‗]f[mmc]‘ ^_`chcncih i` Lsin[l^ (1979/1984), ―nb_ _h^
i` g_n[h[ll[ncp_m‖, J[g_mih (1983) ^_fcgcnm nb_ m]ij_ i` nb_ n_lg ―Pimn-
gi^_lhcmg‖ \s i``_lcha nbl__ e_s _f_g_hnm j[lnc]of[lfs, cnm bcmnorical
location which is: 1) a counter-reaction to modernism; 2) its use of
pastiche (a jumbled mixture); and 3) the importance of images (Rabinow,
1986: 248-249).
The above elements of post-modernism are profoundly significant, yet
without the concept of simulation, developed by Baudrillard (1983), the
undrestandign of post-modernism remains to be incomplete. The
conceptions of simulation is usually known as the loss of the real, which
means that in contemporary life the pervasive influence of images from
film, TV, and advertising has led to a loss of the distinction between real
and imagined, reality and illusion, surface and depth.
Here the key question is, whether the modern era or, as of Habermas,
modernism has already ended and the entire concept of rationalization
(q_\_l) il l_[mih b[m ]_[m_, [h^ nb_ ―jimn‖ j_lci^ i` gi^_lhcmg b[m \__h
fully established? Exploration of these questions with exclusiveness can
reveal the fact post-modernism has fundamental constraints as a
theoretical perspective.
The implication of philosophical shifts for ethnography
The major implication of this philosophical shift would be transparent in
its position with regard to ethnography. The post-modernists have urged
50
anthropologists to take on board the central propositions about cultural

studies that culture serves power and that it is (and should be) contested.
There is clearly something in this, even if culture is not quite the same
thing as ideology, there is surely a place for the critical account of the
merchant of culture (Kuper, 1999: 231).
Tb_ ]_hnl[f jl_gcm_ [\ion _nbhial[jbs cm l_`f_]n_^ ch nb_ qile ―Writing
Culture: Poetics and Politics of Ethnography‖ (Cfc`ìl^ & Marcus,
1986), which is an outcome of a seminar held in Santa-Fe, New Mexico.
The overriding concern, the p_ls ―n[me‖ i` nb_ qlcncha ]ofnol_ []]il^cha
ni G_ila_ M[l]om, ‗q[m ni chnliô]_ [ fcn_l[ls ]ihm]ciomh_mm ni
ethnographic practice by showing various ways in which ethnographies
][h \_ l_[^ [h^ qlcnn_h‘.
The collective voice of the seminar highlighted and responded positively
to a crisis in anthropology that was inseparably epistemological and
political. Eschewing the holistic persuasions of traditional
anthropologists and recognizing that these representations are
fundamentally the products of asymmetricaf jiq_l l_f[ncihm, ―Wlcncha
]ofnol_‖ b[m _rjl_mm_^ ―ch]l_ôfcns‖ niq[l^m ]ofnol_, ]ofnol_ cm qlcnn_h
and the writing involves major epistemological an^ jifcnc][f jli\f_gm‖
(James et al., 1997:1).
Clifford further observed that ethnographic writing is determined in at
least six ways 1) contextually; 2) Rhetorically; 3) institutionally; 4)
generically; 5) politically; and 6) historically. He conceives ethnography
as a fiction but not in the conventional sense. For him, fiction is not
something that merely opposes truth. He is prepared to consider
ethnographic truth as inherently partial, committed and incomplete
51
(Clifford, 1986: 6). It may be noted here that James Clifford is attributed
with the interdisciplinary program at University of California, Santa
Clause, who is himself not an anthropologist but rather (in his own
qil^m) [ ‗bcmnilc[h [h^ ]lcnc] i` [hnblijifias‘ (Koj_l, 1999: 210).
Cfc`ìl^‖m l_]iahcncih i` _nbhial[jbc] nlonbm [m ―j[lnc[f‖ b[m jlipc^_^
space to the authors of ―After Writing Culture‖ ìl developing their ideas
and in order to overcome to eschew the antagonisms and pessimisms that
the debate has aroused and respond constructively to the challenge for
ethnography which constitutes the heart of the matter (James et al., 1997:
2).
―Wlcncha Cofnol_‖ ^_\[n_ b[m [fmi g[^_ [hnblijifiacmnm ]ihm]ciom [\ion
the need to pay closer attention to the epistemological basis of their
representations. Moreover, this has made them aware to consider the
practical implications of the process of reflection both for the
anthropological enterprise and the subjects of any anthropological
inquiry (ibid: 3).
Tb_ ^_\[n_ cm ]ihnchocha [m nb_ [onbil i` ‗A`n_l qlcncha ]ofnol_‘
jlijim_m ni ^_[f qcnb nb_ ko_mncihm l[cm_^ \s ‗Wlcncha ]ofnol_‘. Tb_
[onbilm i` ―A`n_l Wlcncha Cofnol_‖ b[p_ c^_hnc`c_^ nb_ g[dil ]ihmnl[chnm
i` ―Wlcncha Cofnol_‖. Tb_s ìoh^ nb[n nb_ [onbilm i` ―Wlcncha Cofnol_‖
have concentrated only on four major issues: 1) subject-matter (other 2),
methodology, (participant observation), 3) form (textuality), 4) intention
(information). It suggests that four discrete epistemological means
particularity. 1) The humanism of representational practices; 2) the
difficulty of uncovering representations which are being presented and
by whom; 3) the problem of the form that the different representational
52
process can make; and 4) the politics and ethics of making

l_jl_m_hn[ncihm. Tbcm jimcncih i` ―Wlcncha Cofnol_‖ cm kocn_ h[lliq, go]b
broader essence is to be taken into consideration which could be traced in
nb_ p_ls ―l_jl_m_hn[ncih‖ cnm_f`. R_jl_m_hn[ncih ch]iljil[n_m [n f_[mn mcr
dimensions: Representation as interpretation, communication,
visualization, information, translation, and advocacy.
However, there are few anthropologists who differ with the
understanding of ―A`n_l qlcncha ]ofnol_‖. Ihmn_[^ nb_s jlijim_ ni qlcn_
[a[chmn ]ofnol_ \_][om_ nb_s nbchem nb[n ―]ofnol_‖ cm nb_ _mm_hnc[f niif ìl
g[echa inb_l, [h^ nb[n ―]ofnol_‖ ij_l[n_m ch [hnblijifiac][f ^cm]iolm_ ni
enforce separations that inevitably carry a sense of hierarchy. Therefore,
anthropologists may use a variety of modes for writing against culture
(Abu-Lughod, 1991).
What auther i\m_lp_ b_l_ nb[n h_cnb_l ―qlcncha ]ofnol_‖ hil ―[fter writing
]ofnol_‖ mb_^ fcabn ih nb_ gil_ òh^[g_hn[f ko_mncih l_f[n_^ ni
ethnography. For me, the fundamental question is: could epistemology
be separated from politics in writing culture? Can an ethnographer be
able to go beyond his own political bias and be consistent in following
epistemology? Or it is expected that every ethnographer must have a
political position and ideological orientation? Is this separation feasible?
In my view, if such separation is unfeasible then the question of
anthropology to be a science is certainly bleak, especially after two
hundred years from Hegel (1807) when a shift from anthropology to
philosophy has taken place to explain social process.
Answer to this question may be searched in the works of George Hegel
(1770-1831). In 1806 Hegel looked into the events of French Revolution
53
of 1789 in his writing, despite their philosophic pronouncement his

works were extremely forward-looking in their focus on society and
history, which led to the development of an autonomous social theory
distinct from philosophy itself. The rapid decline of the French society
prompted Hegel to observe that one form of social and political existence
was replacing another i. e. history itself changes. Therefore it was Hegel,
who was the first to understand that historical change took a social form.
This development made clear that philosophy could only understand
history by adopting social concepts and that history was, in fact, social in
nature (Morrison, 1995:2).
Afnbioab H_a_f‖m pc_q [\ion m_j[l[ncha ―mi]c[f‖ `lig jbcfimijbs (1807)
had been strengthened by Auguste Comte (1798-1857) and other social
scientists, Durkheim (1858-1917) has really founded a science of society
(Si]cifias), ^_]f[lcha nb[n ―cn cm ch^_j_h^_hn i` [ff jbcfimijbs‖
(Durkheim, 1895/1950: 159). Thus it might be again quite appropriately
discerned the circumstances and epistemological necessity for which a
shift from social to philosophy takes place in recent times.
In fact, the contemporary crisis is an outcome to the lapses, arbitrariness
and inconceivable indifferences between founders of anthropology,
extremely limited sources of origin and variety of origin and variety of
subject matter, methodology and theoretical orientations. These could be
traced in the very root of the discipline itself. So, a closer look at the
formative phase will be extremely fruitful.
The historical root of the impasse
The impellent growth of anthropology has been rooted deeply into the
history of its development. E. E. Evans- Pritchard has explored why
54
[hnblijifias b[^ \__h mi go]b ^cmchn_al[n_^. H_ qlcn_m ‗In cm [

remarkable fact that none of the anthropologists who have been most
ch`fo_hnc[f b[^ _p_l \__h h_[l ni jlcgcncp_ j_ijf_‘ (Ep[hm-Pritchard,
1951:1-19), rather it was European explorers, missionaries,
administrators and traders who gathered data for most influential
anthropologists to lay theoretical foundation of the discipline. Given
categories of people had been highly selective; particularly what travelers
liked to put on a paper was what most struck them as curious, crude and
sensational. Events of daily life were almost completely excluded (ibid).
‗Tb_h nb_ m]bif[lm ain ni qile ih nb_ jc_]_m i` chìlg[ncih jlipc^_^ ìl
them haphazardly and from all over the world, and built them into books
with such picturesque titles as The Golden Bough (Frazer) and The
Mystic Rose‘ (cbid., P. 8). Evans-Plcn]b[l^ òlnb_l i\m_lp_m, ‗I î hin
say that it was fabricated, though sometime it was; and even such famous
travelers as Livingstone, Schweinfurth, and Palgrave were given to gross
carelessness. But much of it was false, and almost all of it was unreliable
and, by modern standard of professional research, casual, superficial, out
of perspective, and out of context; and to some extent this was true even
of the earlier jli`_mmcih[f [hnblijifiacmnm‘ (cbid:6).
Based on these materials, scholars of diverse background other than
[hnblijifias q_l_ ‗fi]e_^ oj‘ qcnb ohcfch_[f _pifoncih[ls m]b_g[ nb[n
invariably means progress from lower to higher such as Morgan
(savagery- Barbarism-Civilization), Mclennan (group marriage- pair
marriage— monogamous marriage); Frazer (magic- religion- science);
Tylor (animism- polytheism- monotheism); Marx (Tribal society-
Slavery-feudalism- Capitalism).
55
These unilineal progressive development theories were severely nullified

because of the in feasibility of application of comparative method and
use of materials that are relative in nature and incomparable.
Institutionalization of Anthropology
Anthropology was born in the nineteenth century. In France and Great
Blcn[ch cnm ilcach[f ^_mcah[ncih q[m ―_nbhifias‖, as mentioned in the
society Ethnologique de Paris (founded in 1839) and the Ethnological
society of London (dating from 1843) respectively. Until 1870s
Anthropology has been referred quite narrowly to what is today called
physical anthropology, but with the establishment of the Royal
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland in 1871, Ethnology
was renamed as Anthropology, Consequently, the first formal teaching in
anthropology. Consequently, the first formal teaching in anthropology
began at the University of Oxford in 1884, along with the honorary
British chair of anthropology being created at the University of Liverpool
in 1908 to which Sir James George Frazer was appointed (Cheater, 1989:
17).
Cb[lf_m, D[lqch‖m The Descent of Man (1871) has made an attempt to
discern human beings as a species which, of course, has bad developed
within the conceptual framework of his theory of natural selection
worked out in The Origin of Species (Darwin, 1859). For some peculiar
reasons the theoretical premise of Darwin as developed in his The
Descent of Man had failed to draw adequate attention of academicians
and scholars for which it faced discontinuity in time and space. During
nb_ ìffiqcha nqi ^_][^_m [ m_lc_m i` ―mi]cifiac][f‖ gihial[jbm
appeared dealing with primitive society. These included classic studies
56
by Bachofen, Maine, Fustel de Coulanges, Lubbock, Mclennan, Morgan

[h^ Tsfil. Aff mb[l_^ [ ]iggih ]ih]_lh [\ion nb_ h[nol_ i` ―jlcgcncp_‖
society and religion. Virtually, all assumed a direct progression from
primitive society through various intermediate stages to modern society.
N_p_lnb_f_mm, [ff nb_m_ qlcn_lm qiof^ \_ n[e_h nia_nb_l [m ―_pifoncihcmn‖
\s f[n_l a_h_l[ncihm, \on D[lqch‖m nb_ils q[m hin nb_cl ]iggih
inspiration. There is a paradox here for Darwins triumph stimulated a
very Un-Darwinian anthropology (Kuper, 1988: 2).
It was in this world of upheaval and transition that anthropology first
emerged as an academic discipline. Many museums were founded.
Distinguished anthropologists either belonged to Great Britain (the
fiha_mn ]ifihc[f jiq_l, qcnb jf_hncòf []]_mm ni ―inb_lm‖) il USA (qb_l_
―nb_ inb_lm‖ q_l_ ]fim_ [n b[h^). Theoretical developments in these two
traditions also differed remarkably. The evolutionism typical of
nineteenth century anthropology built on the ideas of development from
the eighteenth century, bolstered by the experience of colonialism
(starting in the 1860s) and also by the influence of Darwin and his
supporters among whom Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) was the
outstanding figure who really founded social Darwinism. All the leading
[hnblijifiacmnm i` nb[n ncg_ mojjiln_^ nb_ jlch]cjf_ i` nb_ ―jms]bc] ohcns
i` g[hech^‖ cn g_[hm nb[n [ff bog[h \_cham q_l_ \ilh _p_lsqb_l_ gil_
of less with the same potentials and thus inherited differences were quite
negligible.
There are four prominent founders of anthropology. They are Franz Boas
(1858-1942), Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942), A. R. Radcliffe-
Brown (1881-1955) and Marcel Mauss (1872-1950). All of them were
57
responsible for a near-total renovation of at least three of the four

national traditions namely the American, the British and the French. In
the fourth, Germanic tradition, diffusionism retained its hegemony.
Terrible things were in store for it, as well as for the Russian diffusionist
nl[^cncih. Liha \_ìl_ Bi[m‖m \iie q[m \olh_^ ch B_lfch, [ a_h_l[ncih i`
Russian ethnographers would die in the Gulag, and after the Second
World War, certain German ethnologists would be found guilty of Nazi
collaboration. Due to these and other reasons, German and Russian
anthropology developed very slowly during most of the period of
twentieth century when they could hardly maintained contact with the
mainstream traditions. However, Boas being German, and Malinowski
Polish brought with them an intimate knowledge of the German tradition
in anthropology when they emigrated to USA and Britain respectively.
German anthropology lived on throughout the twentieth century, albeit in
nl[hmjf[hn_^ [h^ ―bs\lc^‖ ìlgm.
‗Aff i` nb_ ìol jf[s_lm were to so some extent socially marginal in the
environment they inhabited. Mauss was a Jew, Radcliffe-Brown came
from a working-class background, Malinowski was a foreigner and Boas
was both a foreigner and a Jew. Predictably, perhaps the four had no
shared programme. There were significant methodological and
theoretical differences between the schools they founded, which even
today, may be traced in French, British and American anthropology.
There were (and are) no clear-cut boundaries, as the influence of
Durkheim on British anthropology most clearly shows. Finally, all four
of our heroes had the intellectual legacy of the nineteenth century in
]iggih‘ (Elcem_h _n al., 2001: 36-38).
58
In England it has developed and flourished to a large content

independently under the name of social anthropology exclusively.
Hiq_p_l, ‗Si]c[f [hnblijifias b[m [ p_ls fcgcn_^ n_]bhc][f pi][\of[ls,
so that it has to use everyday and these are all known, is not very precise,
mo]b qil^m [m ―mi]c_ns‖, ―]ofnol_‖, ―]omnigm‖, ―l_fcacih‖, ―m[h]ncih‖,
―mnlo]nol_‖, ―òh]ncih‖, ―jifcnc][f‖, [h^ ^_gi]l[nc], î hin [fq[sm ]ihp_s
nb_ g_[hcha ni qil^m ch ]iggih om_‘ (Evans-Pritchard, 1951: 2).
The situation in France was almost similar as Levi-Strauss has observed:
‗Fl[h]_ g[s \_ ]ited as an example of the abnormal situation arising in
anthropology works from a rigid separation between the faculties of
science and arts. The University of Paris introduced three diplomas in
anthropology, a diploma in ethnology with arts optional awarded by the
faculty of arts; the same diploma with sciences optional, awarded by the
two faculties combined; and lastly, a diploma in physical anthropology,
[q[l^_^ \s nb_ `[]ofns i` m]c_h]_ [fih_‘ (L_pc-Strauss, 1967:351).
After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in former Soviet Union, it was
been necessary to know about the large number of ethnic groups who
b[p_ chb[\cn_^ nb_ ]iohnls, A jlcgil^c[f nb_ils i` ―Enbhim‖ [h^
Marxism become dominant in Soviet Union. After the collapse of Soviet
Union in 1989 Marxism was removed from its core position while
anthropology has began to reshape itself.
In England, Radcliffe-Brown bad explicit hopes of transforming
[hnblijifias chni [ ―l_[f‖ m]c_h]_, qbc]b Doleb_cg jli\[\fs ^c^ hin
mb[l_. Ih ―A Natural Science of Society‖, his last book (based on a lecture
series in Chicago in 1937 and posthumously published in 1957), Brown
indicates the tenor of this hope. He says in his book that Social structure
59
exists independently of the individual actors who reproduce it (Eriksen et

al., 2001: 45). He also thought that anthropology should be a
―]igj[l[ncp_ mi]cifias‖ (R[^]fc``_-Brown, 1952/ 1958).
In the United States of America, a four-field approach was adopted by
Franz Boas. The fields were cultural anthropology, archaeology,
linguistic anthropology and physical anthropology. Of four fields, three
cm \[m_^ ih [ ]iggih ]ih]_jn ―]ofnol_‖. Cofnol[f Ahnblijifias mno^c_m
contemporary culture, archaeology extinct culture, linguistic
anthropology is the key to the study cultural anthropology, while
physical anthropology studies biological variation of human. Therefore,
the fields significantly overlap.
Wbcf_ L_mfc_ Wbcn_ b[m _hpcm[a_^ [hnblijifias [m [ m]c_h]_ i` ―]ofnol_‖
(White, 1949: 397- 415), his ambition was to turn anthropology into a
real science of cultural evolution. According to him the effects of
technology on culture was regarded as impertinent and irrelevant
(Eriksen et al., 2001: 80).
Thus in the context of multiplicity, diversity and appositional conceptual
convergence in anthropology, two major observations are made and
discussed below:
a) Anthropology is a science of non-Western population. Since its
inception, anthropology has not yet incorporated all the people of the
world. It has excluded the western population, which turned
[hnblijifias ni \_ [ ―m]c_h]_‖ i` nb_ ih_ j[ln i` bog[h, _r]fo^cha
westerners who have created it. This means that anthropology was
not developed as universal science of human being.
60
\) Ahnblijifias b[^ nolh_^ ni \_ [ ^cm]cjfch_ ni mno^s ―inb_lm‖, moch as

―_rinc]‖ j_ijf_, ―lc^c]ofiom m[p[a_m‖, il jlcgcncp_‖, il ―nlc\[f‖.
Anthropology has not paid adequate attention to both male and female
_ko[ffs [h^ cn cm i`n_h []]om_^ i` \_cha ―g[f_ \c[m‖. Bon cn cm hin_qilnbs
that feminist scholars have significantly contributed to address the
women issues through gender studies, inclusively gender. Instead, it is
i`n_h []]om_^ ìl mno^scha ―jiq_lòf‖ m_]ncih i` bog[h \_cham
j[lnc]of[lfs nb_ ―g[f_‖. Si [hnblijifias b[m ^_p_fij_^ [m [ ―g[f_ \c[m_^‖
subject.
Putting aside human beings, anthropology has almost exclusively
focused on culture and society. Culture has overwhelmed the
fundamental agenda of human beings. These are the ways through which
human beings have been marginalized, lost, and faded away in
anthropology.
Could anthropology be a science
Epistemology and ontology are the foundation of a science where fuller
account of the source and process of knowledge are given with its
outcome in one hand and an understanding about the basic elements that
is theorized about, on the other. Can anthropology study human being
without political bias and can produce ethnography exclusively based on
scientific procedure? If it is unfeasible than anthropology may become
cll_f_p[hn [m [ m]c_h]_ i` bog[h \_cha [h^ nb_ qil^ ―m]c_h]_‖ g[s \_
completely removed from anthropology while ethnographers could only
be co considered as fiction writers or as of S. Tyler the ideology of
―i\m_lp_l-i\m_lp_^‖ mbiof^ \_ ]igjf_n_fs l_òm_^ [h^ gono[ffs
61
production of dialogical discourse should be the only job to do (Tyler,

1986).
In 1895, Durkheim, in his book, The Rules of Sociological Method
addressed the relationship between epistemology and politics. He said,
‗chmn_[^ i` i\m_lpcha, ^_m]lc\cha [h^ ]igj[lcha nbcham, q_ [l_ ]ihn_hn
to reflect upon our ideas, analyzing them and combining them. Instead of
a science, which deals with realities, we carry out no more than an
c^_ifiac][f [h[fsmcm‘ (Doleb_cg, 1895/1950: 60).
Two fundamental theoretical positions of Durkheim are directly relevant
ch nbcm ^cm]ommcih. Egcf_ Doleb_cg ]ih]_cp_^ ‗Hiq_p_l... a science
cannot be considered definitively constituted until it has succeeded in
establishing its own independent status. For it lacks any justification for
existing unless its subject matter is an order of facts which other sciences
do not study, since it is impossible for the same notions to fit identically
nbcham i` [ ^c``_l_hn h[nol_‘ (Doleb_cg, 1895/1995: 162). This
understanding of Durkheim is reflected in his anthropological work on
―jlcgcncp_‖ l_fcacih (Doleb_cg, 1912/1948).
The question is whether this conception of Durkehim is insightful, valid,
rationale and applicable for the all fields of human knowledge? I would
like to consider this conception for the sake of an argument and relate it
to anthropology in the following manner.
a) Doleb_cg‖m `clmn proposition is that any discipline to be considered
as science, must have an independent status. Has anthropology as
yet assumes an independent status to be regarded as science?
62
b) His second Proposition is that whether anthropology has been able

to define its distinctive subject matter? And if it has defined then
what is it?
Tb_m_ jlijimcncihm i` Doleb_cg‖m g_nbiîfias qcff \_ \_nn_l oh^_lmnii^

ch nb_ ]ihn_rn i` Cign_‖m jimcncpcmg. Cign_ b[^ ionfch_^ bcm pc_qm ih
jimcncpcmg ch bcm `[giom ]f[mmc] ][ff_^ ―Ciolm_ ^_ jbcfimijbc] jimcncp_‖
published in 1830. This was mostly developed in response to what he
perceived as the anarchy of philosophic speculation that had prevailed
since Hegel. Comte defined positivism as a scientific movement which
sought to determine the scope of scientific investigation in the study of
society. Auguste Comte aimed at putting all speculative disciplines such
a history, philosophy, and political economy on the same footing as the
natural sciences (ibid: 123). Sch]_ 1830 Cign_‖m _rj_]nation has not
been fulfilled to make anthropology a science, rather its expectation may
b[p_ [fl_[^s jomb_^ nb_ ^cm]cjfch_ ni cll_p_lmc\cfcns [h^ Cign_‖m c^_[m
has turned to be a myth in relation to anthropology as a discipline.
Though anthropology with eam_ `ch^ cnm_f` [nn[]b_^ ni mi]c[f ―m]c_h]_‖,
\on cn `__fm jlc^_ ni \_ [h ―[ln‖.
63
Of all the human sciences, anthropology is perhaps the most given to

questioning itself as to what it is and coming up with answers that sound
gil_ fce_ ―ip_l[ff qilf^ pc_qm‖ il ―^_]f[l[ncihm i` `[cnb‖ nb[h nb_s î
fce_ ^_m]lcjncihm i` ‗[ \l[h]b i` ehiqf_â_‘ (G__lnt, f995).
Lacunae in Ethnography
Since it was been mentioned earlier that anthropology had started its
journey qcnb nb_ n_lg ―_nbhifias‖, _nbhial[jbs b[^ \__h cnm ìoh^[ncih
with a fieldwork tradition which is known to had begun by Malinowski
in I914 but in fact it had originated much earlier, on the one hand, and by
another ethnographer, on the other. This lacunae is courageously
confessed by Angela Cheater (Cheater, 1989: 21) at a time when the
academic communities of the world had turned their blind eye to this
proven fact. She writes in this connection that the Russian naturalist,
Nikolai Niklouho-Maclay (1846) spent some three years between l87l
and 1882, studying the people as well as the natural history of the
―M[]f[s Ci[mn‖ i` nb_ M[^[ha ^cmnlc]n i` N_q Goch_[. D_mjcn_ bcm
political representations to the British government on behalf of those he
studied, and his fame in Australia for some peculiar reason, he is never
l_a[l^_^ [m nb_ ìoh^_l i` nb_ ―`c_f^qile nl[^cncih ch [hnblijifias‖
(Cheater, 1989: 21).
This fact could be further found in the work A History of Anthropology

by Thomas Eriksen and Finn Nielsen who wrote another less known
exception was the Russian ethnographer Nicolai Nicolaievich Niklouho-
Maclay (l846-88), who as early as in 1871, 40 years before Malinowski,
carried out a l5-month long intensive field study on the New Guinea
64
coast, and laid the foundation for a rich ethnographic tradition in Russia
that is virtually unknown in the west (Eriksen et al., 2001: 24).
Thus what the world know is that the founder of fieldwork in

[hnblijifias cm Blihcmf[q M[fchiqmec, ‗qbi q[m [ Pifcmb, \ilh ch
Cracow in 1884, the son of a professor of Slavic Philology. He was
awarded a doctorate degree in physics and mathematics in 1908. He
claims that he first become interested in anthropology through the
wrcncham i` Fl[t_l‖m Golden Bough (Raison, 1979: 242-243).
M[fchiqmec‖m `clmn _rj_^cncih q[m ch 1914 qb_h b_ pcmcn_^ Mino [h^
Papua and the Mailu of New Guinea and spent some years from 1914-15
and 1915-18 in the Trobriand Island (ibid: 243). However, 1 would like
to propose here that the fieldwork tradition in anthropology had actually
begun in 187l by Nikolai Miklouho-M[]f[s [h^ bcm _rnl[il^ch[ls ―`c_f^
hin_m‖, [ pcpc^ _nbhial[jbc] ^_m]lcjncih i` M[]f[s ]i[mn qlcnn_h ch
Russian being translated in English subsequently had entered into the
academia in the USA and other countries. This historical gap needs to be
bridged, as this would take ethnography to its true root.
Can anthropology be considered as the most humanistic science or is

it a Fallacy?
At the formation stage or in its infancy, anthropology had destined to be
―ohcko_‖ \s \_cha m_f_]ncp_ [h^ ]biim_s. Tb_ bcmnilc][f ^_p_fijg_hn i`
anthropology had \__h `[m]ch[n_^ ni mno^s ―]ofnol_‖, m[s, ―\clnb lcno[fm
[h^ l_f[n_^ ]_l_gihc_m‖. Tbcm m_f_]ncih b[^ [onig[nc][ffs _r]fo^_^ ―\clnb
nl[og[‖ - specially, feg[f_ chìlg[hn‖m _rj_lc_h]_m i` gcm][llc[a_,
[\ilncih, mncff \clnb, jiil [hn_h[n[f ][l_ [h^ cnm cgjfc][ncih ih ginb_l ―ni
\_‖ [h^ `_nom‖, jip_lns, mbiln[a_ i` ìi^, g[fhiolcmbg_hn, ^cm_[m_m,
65
jms]bifiac][f nl[og[ i` ginb_l ―ni \_‖, ]ih`fc]n [n nb_ `[gcfs, [nd many
inb_l ]igjfc][ncihm. fh mo]b [ \[]ealioh^ biq [ mno^s ih ―\clnb lcno[f
fiiem fce_ [h^ biq go]b cm cn ―_hôlcha‖ ìl nb_ chìlg[hnm [h^ gimn
cgjiln[hnfs nbcm ―ch]fomcih‖ [h^ ―_r]fomcih‖ g[e_ [hnblijifias
humanistic discipline? Further, what theoretical implication anthropology
had as a result of exclusion of such a universal aspect of human life as
―^cm_[m_‖ [h^ ―b_[fnb‖? A ì]om ih ―]ofnol_‖ qiof^ \_ f_mm bog[hcmnc]
nb[h [ ì]om ih ―^cm_[m_ [h^ mo``_lcham. Tb_l_ìl_, chmn_[^ i` b[pcha [
―h[lliq ì]om‖, [ff iol _`ìlnm beextended to comprehend real life of
human beings in a holistic way. Further, for sure anthropology would be
taken away human being from it humanistic foundation as a species.
Conclusion
The present writing extend assumption that anthropology has not yet
become a science of human being. As such most of the contemporary
crises are associated with how the said discipline can really grow up as
nb_ ―fiaim‖ i` ―[hnblijim‖. Ah [nn_gjn b[m \__h g[^_ ni _rjfil_ l_[mons
responsible for this failure. What constraints have made anthropology so
fragile, tentative, often arbitrary and vulnerable. How has anthropology
been historically exposed to so many changes, shifts, divergences and
discontinuities. And finally, under what circumstances anthropology
could not succeeded to be an universal science of human beings. Rather,
it has divided human beings into different categories, such as, the exotic,
native, savage, tribals, and those who are undergoing humanization,
process, in particular as subject matter of anthropology, while the
―^_p_fij_^ W_mn_lh_lm‖ b[^ \__h _r]fo^_^, `lig nb_ jolpc_q i`
anthropology.
66
However, the discipline has strictly confined its focus primarily into
―]ofnol_‖ [h^ ―mi]c_ns‖, [h^ ni [h insignificant extent the biological aspect
i` j[lnc]of[l bog[h \_cham. Tbcm ―h[lliq ì]om‖ b[m hin ihfs _r]fo^_^
many of the universal aspects of humans, but creates constraints upon the
discipline to be parochial in character.
On the basis of arguments given above, the author has identified some
aspects of human life that are universal and intrinsic for every human.
being. Which are to be indispensable subject matter of anthropology as
noted below:
a) A particular anatomy (structure) and physiology (function) of the body

qcnb \l[ch nb[n g[^_ bog[h ―m[jc_h‖.
b) The structure and function of the body are susceptible to pathology

that may cause by pathogen, injury or aging process.
c) Mch^, nb[n cm [\mnl[]n, b[pcha ―oh]ihm]ciom‖ [h^ ]ihm]ciom j[ln, qbc]b

are, according to, Sigmund Freud, Id, Ego and Super ego respectively.
Mind is also susceptible to alternation. Psyche has an inextricable link
with the mind.
d) A system of consanguinity, affinity, descent, kinship and other social

relations constituted by assuming different roles by individual organisms
creating a complex network of social structure for human to live in.
e) A system of values, attitudes, beliefs, customs, traditions, religion are

learned, shared and transmitted that create an external environment to
67
cope with for the continuation of life. But these are indeed certain
individual exceptions.
f) Language is learned not only for communication but also for all
cognitive activities that continue throughout life.
g) Brocas and Wirnick areas of brain provide capacities for symbolic

activities that are the biological foundation for culture and language.
h) An organic or biotic environment (plants, animals, micro-organism

including pathogen, predators, vectors, organic materials), and an
inorganic system (climate, energy and materials) constitute ecosystem to
cope with the transformation of and life.
i) Not passive, rather active pursuance of individual and social life is the
basic trends.
Tb_m_ ohcp_lm[f [mj_]nm i` bog[h fc`_ [m g_hncih_^ [\ip_ ch ―A‖ ni ―I‖,

are not isolated from one another rather these are inextricably linked to
each other. All these aspects have undergone synthesis in such a way that
they are inseparable and only this amazing outcome of synthesis
constitutes human beings.
Therefore, anthropology has to be conceptually, theoretically,

methodologically equipped in order to describe and analyse this highly
complex subject of investigation.
68
For this purpose, anthropology has to share itself with biological, social,
physical sciences as well as humanities. A narrow focus would only
jlipc^_ cffomcp_ ―mb[îq‖ i` [ ]igjf_r \ocfn.
Im [hnblijifias [ mi]c[f ―m]c_h]_‖ il [h [ln. or is it synonymous with

sociology (which deals with society), culturology (whose focus is
culture), economics (which deals with economic systems), political
science (whose focus of interest is power and authority) biology (that
deals with the structure and function of human body), medicine (that
deals with pathology and normalizing process), psychology (whose main
concern is psychic disorders of individuals) and feminism (that deals
with gender issues). If the mentioned sciences deal with almost all
aspects of human beings then what anthropology would do, or have the
subject matters of anthropology already been incorporated in those
disciplines reducing it to be a mere term of convenience. And whether its
survival would depend on its ability to cope with the need of the
development agencies or on the pious wishes of academics to provide
some scope for anthropology. In answering to these basic questions, a
broad based approach may be necessary.
Therefore, anthropology is yet to be formed, two hundred years of its

growth seems to show that it has not succeeded to comprehend all these
aspects. What anthropologists have done so far is the reduction of this
mammoth task into a single aspect of human studies, excluding those that
are inseparable.
Thus it is the firm conviction of the author that a science of human being
could definitely be formed, the treasury of knowledge, theories and
69
paradigms that already had been gathered and formulated could be fully
utilized, adding new ideas to it. Finally, a rigorous process to reorganize
anthropology, as a science of human being is a call of the time. And
probably it is not too late to begin the great work with.
Bibliography
Abu-Lughod, L. (1991) Writing Against Culture, in R. Fox (Ed.)
Recapturing Anthropology. Working in the present. Santa Fe, N. M.:
School of American Research Press.
Appleby, J. et al. (Eds) (1996) Knowledge and Post Modernism in

Historical Perspective. New York: Routledge.
Barthes, R. (2000) Inaugural lecture, College de France, in S. Sontag

(Ed) A Barthes Reader. New York: Vintage.
Barry, P. (1995) Beginning theory: An introduction to literary and

cultural theory. New York: Manchester University Press.
Baudrillard, J . (1983b) Simulations. New York: Semiotext (e).
Baudrillard, J. (1984a) Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor, Michigan:

University of Michigan Press.
Cheater, A. (1989) Social Anthropology: An Alternative Introduction.

London: Unwin Hyman.
70
Clifford, J. (1986) Introduction: Partial Truths, in J. Clifford & G. E.

Marcus (Eds) Writing Culture, The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography.
Berkeley: University of Califomia Press.
Clifford, J. & Marcus, G. E. (Eds) (1986) Writing Culture: The Poetics

and Politics of Ethnography. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Darwin, C. (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural

Selection. London: John Murray.
Darwin, C. (1871) The Descent of Man. London: John Murray.
Derrida, J. (1967/1976) Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press.
Derrida, J. (1967/1977) Writing with Difference. London: Routledge &

Kegan Paul.
Durkheim, E. (1895/1950) The Rules of Sociological Method edited by,

E. G. Catlin. Chicago.
Durkheim, E. (191/1948) The Elementary Forms of Religious Life,

translated by Joseph, W. Swain: Free press.
Eriksen, T., et al. (2001) A History of Anthropology. London: Pluto

Press.
71
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1987) Theories of Primitive Religion. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1951) Social Anthropology. London: Cohen and

West.
Foucault, M. (1984) The Foucault Reader, edited by Paul Rabinow. New

York: Pantheon.
Geertz, C. (1995) After the Fact, Two countries, Four Decades, One
Anthropologist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Habermas, J. (1979/1995) Modernity an Incomplete Project, in P. Barry

(Ed) Beginning Theory: An introduction to lliterary and cultural theory.
New York: Manchester University Press.
Habermas, J. (1981) Modernity versus Post-modernity, New German

Critique, 22 (winter): 3-44.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1806/1977) Phenomenology of Spirit. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1807/1977) Phenomenology of Mind. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
James, A. et al. (Eds) (1997) After Writing Culture: Epistemology and

Praxis in Contemporary Anthropology. London: Routledge.
72
Jameson, J. (1983) Postmodernism and consumer society, in H. Foster

(Ed) The anti-aesthetic essays in post modern Culture. Port Townsend:
Bay Press.
Kuper, A. (1988) The Invention of Primitive Transformations of an

Illusion. New York: Routledge.
Kuper, A. (1999) Culture: The Anthropologists’ Account. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.
Lash, S., (1991) Introduction, in Post-Structuralist and Post-Modernist

Sociology. England: Aldershot.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1967) Structural Anthropology. England: Penguin

Books Ltd.
Lyotard, F. (1979/1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on

Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Morrison, K. (1995) Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formation of Modern

Social Thoughts. London: Sage.
Rabinow, P. (1986) Representations are Social Facts: Modernity and

Post Modernity in Anthropology, in J. Clifford & G. E. Marcus (Eds)
Writing Culture, the Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
73
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1937/1957) A Natural Science of Society.

Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1952/1958) The comparative method in social

anthropology, in M. N. Srinivas (Ed) Method in Social Anthropology.
Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Raison, T. (1979) The Founding Fathers of Social Science. London:

Scholar Press.
Ritzer, G. (1996) Sociological Theory. New York: The McGraw Hill.
Tyler, S. (1986) Post-Modern Ethnography: From Document of the

Occult to Occult Document, in J. Clifford & G. E. Marcus (Eds) Writing
Culture, The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
White L. A. (1949) The Science of Culture: A Study of Man and

Civilization. New York: Grove Press.
74
Chapter 5
Nikolai Nikaliavich Miklouho-Maclay, the Founder of

Empiricism in Anthropology: The Lacunae in
Anthropology
‗The Russian Naturalist, Nikolai Miklouho-Maclay (1846) spent
some three years, between 1871 and 1882, studying the people
as well as the natural history of the ‘Maclay Coast’ of the
Madang district of New Guinea. Despite his political
representations to the British government on behalf of those he
studied, and his fame in Australia, for some peculiar reason he is
never regarded as the founder of the fieldwork tradition in
anthropology. For a while, the expedition in 1898-9 of
Cambridge academics to the Torres Straits (separating Australia
from Papua-New Guinea) became the model for such
investigations‘ (Angela P. Cheater, 1989: 21).
‗The Russian ethnographer Nicolai Nicolaievich Niklouho-

Maclay (1846-88), who as early as in l871, 40 years before
Malinowski, carried out intensive field study on the New Guinea
coast, and laid the foundation for a rich ethnographic tradition‘
(Eriksen & Finn, 2001:24).
75
Introduction
Malinowski has been recognized as the founder of fieldwork tradition in
anthropology in almost entire world academia and anthropology is
considered as a child of colonialism. Malinowski's first expedition was in
1914 when he visited Motu and Papua and the Mailu of New Guinea and
spent some years from 1914-15 and 1915-18 in the Trobriand Island
(Eriksen & Finn, 2001: 243).
In this background, author in this chapter, being a student of

anthropology of present Petersburg University and having obtained a Ph.
D. degree form N. N. Miklouho-Maclay Institute of Ethnography felt to
bring at sight the lacunea of the discipline. Ihnliô]cha M[]f[s‖m fc`_ [h^
work would help Anthropology reach to its very root, which is
immensely significant to reveal the conceptual and empirical foundation
of the discipline. This writing has outlined in brief the life and work of
Maclay. It is needless to note that the exploration of work of Maclay
would provide fresh insight of the origin of the discipline. However, as
within the scope of this writing it is infeasible to enter into the entire
a[gon i` M[]f[s‖m nbioabnm [h^ qilem, nb_ ]ihmnl[chnm l_g[ch i\pciom.
Nevertheless, this content would shed light on Maclay's work to not only
those who are undergoing training in anthropology or anthropologists but
general readers.
Facts for Life

Mikluho-Maklai, Nicholai Nicholaievich (1846-1888), scientist and
explorer usually known as Nicholas Maclay, was born on 17 July 1846 at
Rozhdestvenskoye, Russia, second son of Nicholaivijtch Mikluho-
Maklai, hereditary nobleman, and his wife Ekaterina Semenovna, née
76
Bekker. Educated in St Petersburg at a secondary school, he briefly

studied law and philosophy at the university and in 1864 moved to
Heidelberg. He studied medicine at Leipzig in 1866 and paleontology,
zoology and comparative anatomy at Jena. On vacation travels he
became a competent linguist, and in the Canary Islands examined
sponges and shark brains, on which he published important papers.
Marine biology drew him to the Red Sea and after a bout of malaria to
the Volga. His attention was drawn to New Guinea as a promising field
for anthropological and ethnological studies. Aided by the Imperial
Russian Geographical Society he visited European museums and met
leading scientists. In October 1870 he sailed in the Russian corvette
Vitiaz and by way of South America and the Pacific Islands reached
Astrolabe Bay in September 1871 (Butinov, 1953; Tumarkin, 1988).
The Expedition
In 1871 he settled on the northeastern coast of New Guinea (now Papua
New Guinea) where no white person had been before. While his primary
objective in going to New Guinea was to make a comparative study of
the racial types of the Pacific region, he is known more for his efforts in
defending the rights of indigenous people to their land against the spread
of colonialism than he is for his ethnographic work. Miklouho-Maclay
spent more than 3 years living and travelling in New Guinea pursuing his
ethnographic studies. His work focused mainly on recording the physical
characteristics of people and their material culture and paid little
attention to social relationships and religious matters.
77
Although Miklouho-Maclay continued his scientific studies in New

Guinea and Australia, the last ten years of his life was mainly devoted to
defending the rights of indigenous peoples.
Conception of Maclay
A theory was widespread according to which primitive societies were
formed of people of a lower type who were incapable of raising
themselves to the level of modern civilization. This argument was used
in justifying the seizure of land as colonies, the slave trade, and the
poverty-stricken existence of huge masses of people. Such views were
quite alien to Miklouho Maclay. He was firmly convinced that naturally
[ff j_ijf_ [l_ \ilh nb_ m[g_ [h^ _ko[f, nb[n nb_l_ q_l_ hi ‗bcab_l‘ [h^
‗fiq_l‘ \_cham, nb[n nb_ jlcgcncp_ mn[n_ q[m [ bcmnilc][f ih_, qbc]b q[m
fading in the face of the modern world and that it was the duty of the
scientist to describe and understand this state better and more fully
(Butinov, 1953; Tumarkin, 1988).
Maclay viewed civilization as a corrupting force. He depicted returning

Papuan laborers from European plantations as violent agitators who
disrupted an otherwise peaceful and pristine lifestyle (Miklouho-Maclay,
1982/1874). Maclay had several ideas for saving the Papuans from what
he saw as the evils of colonialism; one was to establish a utopian Papuan
community in a zone free of colonial control and exploitation.
Underlying Maclay's liberal concern for the people he studied was the
idea that simple Papuan societies would be destroyed by more
sophisticated European societies or by the "contaminating influence" of
Indonesian civilization.
78
In 1874 Russian explorer Miklouho-Maclay selected the Kowiai Coast as

the site for one of the first anthropological studies in West Papua. He
chose this site because he imagined the Kowiai to be pure savages: lt was
told that the natives savagely.
Methodology
He was convinced that his only hope of overcoming distrust was to gain
a command of the language, just as it was the only way for him to
understand the customs, and traditions, and mode of life of the natives.
The main impediment to learning the language consisted in the fact that
it was incredibly dificult to identify the words for notions, actions, and
states that one could not point out. Only after four months, for example,
did Miklouho-M[]f[s f_[g qb[n ‗gilhcha‘ [h^ ‗_p_hcha‘ q_l_ ][ff_^,
but he did not know the qil^ ìl ‗hcabn‘. H_ b[^ ^cm]ip_l_^ biq ni m[s
‗\[^‘ \on ^c^ hin ehiq nb_ qil^ ìl ‗aii^‘. H_ ain chni mig_ òhhs
situations and sometimes simply awkward ones with the language.
Maclay knows that for the anthropologist and the ethnographer there is
no such thing as minor items everything is important, and one must know
everything. But genuine knowledge can only be obtained in the course of
lengthy, repeated, direct observations. An outsider cursory views or data
from unreliable sources frequently mislead scientific research.
It took 130 days for Maclay to built needed relationship with the Papuan
villagers. In those hours Maclay keenly watched, all that was going on,
attempting to remember every little, detail to imprint on his memory
every single feature, storing up the observations as an ethnographer and
_hdischa qb[n b_ m[q nblioab [h [lncmn‖m _s_.
79
Papuans believed that Maclay Besides the fact that he could heal various
cffh_mm_m fcn `cl_, jl_p_hn l[ch c` b_ qcmb_^―, cn cm ch nb_ ^[cls nb[n b_
poured a few drops of water into a dish containing alcohol and set fire to
the alcohol.
Focus of Observations
Miklouho-Maclay also attached great importance to the long article
‗Enbhifiac][f Nin_m ih nb_ P[jo[hm‘. In cm mo``c]c_hn ni fcmn nb_ ^c``_l_hn
subjectm ^_[fn qcnb ni [jjl_]c[n_ nb_ m]ij_ i` nb_ [lnc]f_: ‗Fii^‘ (qcnb [
detailed description of the fruits, their properties, harvesting season, and
ways of preparing them; with a list of the animals, birds, insects, and
shellfish used as food; everything that concerns the cooking of food);
‗Pinm [h^ Un_hmcfm‘; Igjf_g_hnm [h^ Algm‘; ‗Cfinbcha [h^ Olh[g_hnm‘;
‗Oh nb_ pcff[a_m [h^ nb_ Dq_ffcham‘; ‗Pf[hn[ncihm [h^ nb_ Wilecha i` nb_
Sicf‘; ‗D_[fcham [h^ B[ln_lcha Agiha nb_ Vcff[a_m‘; ‗Tb_ Ep_ls^[s
Life of the Papu[hm‘ (ch]fo^cha g[llc[a_, `[gcfs l_f[ncihm, ]bcf^l_h, nb_
P[jo[h‖m ^[s, j[chncha i` nb_cl `[]_m [h^ \i^c_m, al__ncham, [h^ òh_l[f
lcn_m); ‗Nin_m ih nb_ Sno^s i` nb_ L[hao[a_ [h^ ih Dc[f_]nm‘; ‗Aln‘
(ilh[g_hncha); ‗Oh \_fc_`m [h^ nb_ Comnigm Cihh_]n_^ 'Wcnb Tb_g‘;
‗Momc] [h^ Schacha‘; ‗F_mncpcnc_m [h^ F_[mnm‘.
An abundance of facts is given systematically. There is nothing

superfluous or doubtful, no hasty generalizations; everything is set down
in concise form and precisely, but in the necessary detail. Every object is
given its local name. The numerous drawings show one what things
really looked like. The entire work bears the imprint of the tight
restrictions the author imposed on himself.
80
Fieldwork
Miklouho-Maclay wrote several anthropological and ethnographic essays
on the islands of Vuap (Yap), Hermit, Palau, and others. He was
particularly interested in the purpose of objects, their function in society.
He tried to approach this subject unbiased by European ideas and
prejudices stemming from the concepts of power, the state, property, and
so forth.
Miklouho-Maclay found any attempts to justify theories based on racial

discrimination and the practices stemming from them quite intolerable.
Complete equality of rights for all the human races was for him an
indisputable scientific and humanist principle: the existence of different
races in completely in agreement with the laws of nature, and it should
be recognised that these races have the rights common to all people.
He had made an absolutely golden rule to avoid any kind of speculative

constructions, poorly founded hypotheses and theories.
Miklouho-Maclay was witness to the consequences of the harmful

influence of Europeans on the Melanesians.
Miklouho-Maclay writes an open letter on April 8, 1881, to Commodore

Wilson, the head of the Australian naval station. Written five days before
his second letter to Sir Arthur Gordon, which was printed in the
M_f\iolh_ h_qmj[j_l Alaom oh^_l nb_ b_[^cha ‗Kc^h[jjcha [h^ Sf[p_ls
ch nb_ Sionb S_[ Imf[h^m‘.
81
Miklouho-M[]f[s‖ j[nb pcmcn_^ B_lfch, Tb_ H[ao_, P[lcm, [h^ Lihîh.

Among the scientists he met in are Henry Moseley and George
Schweinfurth. The former was an explorer who voyaged on the
Challenger around the islands of Melanesia.
Miklouho-Maclay has visited a number of European capitals not only

attending to practical matters, but also building up his contacts with the
academic world, and thereby gained popularity and respect which was
firmly established in the scientific world after 1882-1883.
Within the time period between 1886 and 1888 Peter the Great
Anthropology and Ethnography Museum in Leningrad were Australia
and Oceania and New Guinea had been well represented.
Besides his diaries, Miklouho-Maclay also had notebooks in which he

entered various scientific observations during his travels: characteristics
and drawings of objects, descriptions of customs, rites, festivities, dances
he had seen, native words and names, geographical names, the routes of
the excursions, various ideas and observations, and others. A sound and
consistent positivism formed the basis of his scientific methodology.
He received a letter from Tolstoy which greatly helped him reconsidered

nature of his work.
West Papua has been described as "an earthly paradise for

anthropological research" where indigenous societies are "untouched by
82
Western culture". Colonialism has often been considered a force that can
corrupt indigenous societies.
From his hut at Garagassi Point, Maclay visited many villages, collected
specimens, drew faces and scenery and named mountain peaks. With
patience, courage and medical Skill he won the confidence and co-
operation of the inhabitants. He found them far from long-headed as
earlier reported and studied their languages and characteristics. His
necessities were running out when the corvette Isumrud arrived in
December 1872. He named the Maclay Coast from Isumrud to Vitiaz
Straits and in the corvette went to the Halmaheras and Philippines where
he found primitive tribes similar to those he had seen in New Guinea. In
1873 at Batavia he published his anthropological observations, sent
specimens and comments to his European teachers and recuperated for
six months at Buitenzorg in the mountains. He then visited the Celebes
and Moluccas, and at Papua-Koviai in west New Guinea found
ethnological traits similar to those on the Philippines and Maclay Coast.
After local exploration he returned to Papua-Koviai and found that
raiders had smashed his hut, stolen his equipment and killed some local
supporters. With skill he captured the chief offender and brought him to
JUSTICE, but the experience contrasted so strongly with the goodwill of
the more isolated natives of the Maclay Coast that he determined to
preserve their cultures.
Key Works
The works of Miklouho-Maclay were published in 1873 in Russian,
German, Dutch, and English editions. Miklouho-Maclay published some
83
of the results of his research in articles in journals, printed in German in

Batavia, and in English in Singapore.
In 1878, in Sydney he met William John Macleay with whom he wrote

three scientific papers. In April 1874 Maclay went to Amboina, where in
June he was found seriously ill by Captain John Moresby who had been
sent to look for him. By July Maclay was at Buitenzorg resting and
preparing publications. In November he went to Singapore and for 176
days traveled in Malaya where he found more primitive tribes whose
ethnological characteristics were akin to those in the Philippines and
New Guinea. In December he returned to Buitenzorg and published four
papers suggesting a relation between the natives of the regions he had
investigated.
In January 1876 Maclay sailed to the Halmaheras and Carolines, and on

nb_ A^gcl[fns Imf[h^m _mn[\fcmb_^ nb[n nb_ h[ncp_m ―_hf[la_^ n__nb q_l_
not a racial tl[cn \on l_mofn_^ `lig ]b_qcha‖ \_n_f hon qcnb fcg_. H_
returned to Astrolabe Bay in June and with material from Singapore built
a new home at Bugarlom near Bougu village. Renewed friendships and
greater facility with dialects enabled him to visit many villages in the
mountains and on the coast and islands. He prevented violence which
threatened to erupt from superstition and warned his native friends
against slave traders. He also made drawings and collections of local
animals but confined his diaries to anthropological matters. In November
1877 he sailed north among the islands and reached Singapore in January
1878. He went to Hong Kong in June and in July arrived at Sydney with
large collections.
84
Visit to Australia
On 26 August Maclay addressed the local Linnean Society on the need
for a laboratory of marine studies on Sydney Harbour. The lecture was
one of his thirty-four research papers and notes published by the society;
he was made an honorary member in l879. In November 1878 the Dutch
government informed him that on his recommendations it was checking
the slave traffic at Ternate and Tidore. In January 1879 he wrote to Sir
Arthur Gordon, high commissioner for the Western Pacific, on protecting
the land rights of his friends on the Maclay Coast, and ending the traffic
in arms and intoxicants in the South Pacific. In March, after continuing
his campaign for the laboratory, Maclay sailed in the Sadie F. Caller for
the islands northeast of Queensland. In April 1880 he went to Somerset,
Queensland, and thence to Brisbane, where he resumed his studies on the
comparative anatomy of the brains of Aboriginal, Malayan, Chinese and
Polynesian origin.
Maclay returned to Sydney in January 1881. With the help from the
government and scientific societies in Sydney and Melbourne his
ambition for a marine laboratory was at last realized. While it was being
built at Watsons Bay he worked in Sydney museums and collected
evidence for his campaign against the exploitation of natives. In August
he went to New Guinea in hope of providing guidance at the trial of the
murderers of native missionaries and their families at Kalo. He returned
in October and found the laboratory almost complete. When the Russian
Pacific fleet visited Melbourne in February 1882 Maclay joined the
Vestnik and arrived at Kronshtadt, Russia, in September.
85
Maclay lectured to the Russian Geographical Society and each morning

explained his collections and drawings to enthusiastic visitors. He was
awarded a gold medal by the society and a certificate of honour by the
Czar but failed to raise funds.
Maclay wrote to Bismarck in October seeking protection of pacific

islanders from white exploitation and later protested against the German
annexation. Early in 1886 he returned to Russia with his family and
twenty-two boxes of specimens. He arranged some publications, lectured
in St Petersburg and on his travels visited the family estates and
scientists. At Vienna he and his wife were married by rites of the Russian
Orthodox Church. He intended to return to Sydney but his health
deteriorated and he died on 2 April 1888.
Conclusion
It is widely established that anthropology, especially the field work
tradition has been founded by Malinowski who was a polish by origin
and a mathematics and Physics by training and son of a Professor of
Philology of Slavic Language who has published his first Ethnographic
text the Argonauts of the Western Pacific published in 1922. At least 40
years before in 1871 in one of the Oceanic Island Papua New Guinea and
led the foundation of empiricism in anthropology. Further, it is
recognized that Colonialism has given -the birth of anthropology. These
to pivotal questions appears to be different if a look at the very root is
evident regards the founder instead of Malinowski it is seems to be N. N.
Miklouho-Maclay who struggle against Colonialism through out his life.
Therefore, a detail, both extensive and intensive exploration would be of
great academic value. Basic constrains of this writing is nonavailability
86
works of Maclay in English language and the limited scope of this

article.
Bibliography
Beregu, N. (1975) Maklaiya etnograficheskiye ocherki (On the Maclay
Coast, ethnographic essays). Moscow: Nauka Publishers.
Butinov N. A. (1953) N. N. Miklouho-Maclay (A biographical essay in
Russian), in N.N. Miklouho-Maclay Sobraniye Sochinenii (Collected
Works). Moscow-Leningrad: USSR Academy of Sciences Publishers.
Butinov, N. A. (1992) Miklouho-Maclay in Australia, in J. McNair & T.

Poole Russia and the Fifth Continent: Aspects of Russian-Australian
Relations. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.
Cheater, A. P. (1989) Social Anthropology. London: Academic Division,

Unwin Hyman Ltd.
de Bruijn, J. V. (1959) Anthropological Research in Netherlands New

Guinea Since 1950, Oceanic, 29:123-163.
Eriksen, T. H. & Finn, S. N. (2001) A History of Anthropology. London :

Pluto Press.
Fischer, D. (1956) Unter Su'dsee-lnsulanern: das Leben des Forschers

Mikloucho-Maclay (Among South Sea Islanders: The Life of tlie
Scientist Miklouho-Maclay). Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang.
87
Greenop, F. S. (1944) Who travels Alone. Sydney: K. G. Murray

Publishing Company.
Jackman, H. (1976) A Russian Scientist in 19th century New Guinea,

book review of Mikloucho-Maclay: New Guinea diaries 1871-1883,
transleted by C. L. Sentinella, South Pacific Bulletin, 26(1): 44.
Lack, C. (1965-66) Russian Ambitions in the Pacific: Australian War

Scares of the Nineteenth Century, Royal Historical Society of
Queensland Journal, 8(3): 432-59.
Miklouho-Maclay, N. N. (1882) Cranial Deformation of Newborn

Children at the lsland Mabiak, and Other Islands of Torres Straits, and of
Women of the S. E. Peninsula of New Guinea, Proceedings of the
Linnaean Society of New South Wales, 6: 627-29.
Miklouho-Maclay, N. N. (1885) Note on the Brain of Halicore Australia

Owen, Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of New South Wales, 10(2):
193-96.
Miklouho-Maclay, N. N. (1950-1954) Sobraniye sochinenii (Collected

Works). Moscow & Leningrad: USSR Academy of Sciences Publishers.
Miklouho-Maclay, N. N. (1975) New Guinea Diaries 1871 - 1883.

Madang, Papua New Guinea: Kristen Pres.
Miklouho-Maclay, N. N. (1977) Grolier, Sydney, vol. 4, 183.
88
Miklouho-Maclay, N. N. (1982) Travels to New Guinea: Diaries,

Letters, and Documents. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Miklouho-Maclay, N. N. (1982) Travels to New Guinea: Diaries,

Letters, Documents. Moscow: Progress.
Miklouho-Maclay, N. N. (1993) Miklouho-Maclay and the Perception of

the Peoples of New Guinea in Russia, Pacific Studies, 16(1):33-42.
Miklouho-Maclay, N. N. (nd) Tamo Russ: Reisetagebu'cher Von N.N.

Miklucho-Maklaj (Tamo Russ: travel diaries of N. N. Miklouho-Maclay).
Berlin: SWA-Verlag.
Mikluho-Maclay, R. W. de (1974) Mikluho-Maklai, Nicholai

Nicholaievich (1846 -1888), in Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol.
5. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Ogloblin, A. K. (1997) Commemorating N. N. Miklukho-Maclay, in

Perspectives on the Bird’s Head of Irian Joya. Indonesia.
Putilov, B. N. (1978) Lev Tolstoy and Miklouho-Maclay, Soviet

Literature, 8.
Putilov, B. N. (1981) Nikolai Nikolaievich Miklouho-Maclay. Stranitsy

biografii (Nikolai Nikolaievich Miklouho-Maclay, pages from His
Biography), Moscow.
89
Putilov, B. N. (1982) Nikolai Miklouho-Maclay: Traveler, Scientist and

Humanist, translated by G. N. Koslov. Moscow: Progress.
Roginski, Y. Y. & Tokarev, S. A. (1950) N. N. Miklouho-Maclay as an

Ethnographer and Anthropologist (in Russian), in N. N. Miklouho-
Maclay Sobraniye sochinenii Collected Works, Vol. 2, Moscow-
Leningrad: USSR Academy of Sciences Publishers.
Sentinella, C. L. (1975) Mikloucho-Maclay: New Guinea Diaries 1871-

1883, transleted by C. L. Sentinella. Madang: Kristen Press.
Shnukal, A. (1985) The Spread of Torres Strait Creole to the Central

Islands of Torres Strait, Aboriginal History, 9(2): 220-34.
Shnukal, A. (1998) N. N. Miklouho-Maclay in Torres Strait (Nikolai

Nikolaevich Miklouho-Maclay, 19th Century Russian Natural Scientist).
Australian lnstitute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait lslander Studies.
Thomassen, E. S. (1882) Biographical Sketch of Nicholas de Miklouho-

Maclay. Brisbane: Royal Geographical Society.
Tudor, J. (1975) A Shadowy Russian in Unknown New Guinea (review

i` S_hnch_ff[‖m \iie), Pacific Islands Monthly, December: 53-55.
Tumarkin, D. D. (1977) The Papuan Union (from the history of the

struggle of Miklouho-Maclay for the right of the Papuans to New
Guinea), in Rasy i narody (Races and Peoples). Moscow: Nauka
Publishers.
90
Tumarkin, D. D. (1982) Miklouho-Maclay and New Guinea, in Travels

to New Guinea: Diaries, Letters, Documents, Miklouho-Maclay, S-56.
Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Tumarkin, D. D. (1988) Miklouho-Maclay: A Great Russian Scholar and

Humanist, Social Sciences, 2:175-89.
Valskaya, B. A. (1959) The Struggle of Miklouho-Maclay for the Right

of the Papuans on the Maclay Coast, in Strany i narody Vostoka (Lands
and Peoples of the East). Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura Publishers.
Webster, E. M. (1984) The Moon Man: A Biography of Nikolai

Miklouho-Maclay. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Zuckerman, E. S. (1993) Book review of Russia and the Fifth Continent:

Aspects of Russian-Australian Relations, Australian Historical Studies,
25(101): 652-53.
91
Chapter 6
Soviet Anthropology:
An Outline of Theoretical Approach
Anthropological scholarship what used to be the Soviet Union found its
own theoretical and methodological rationale, in Ethnos theory. Soviet
anthropology focuses on building knowledge on human being through
integrated as well as intensive investigation of a particular group of
people or ethnos in their historical perspectives Soviet anthropologists
have defined such human groups, classified them using devices based on
ecological condition of life, social system and physical traits. Emphasis
has been given in cultural, social and psychological aspect than that of
physical traits. Human history is seen in the light of an evolutionary
scheme of different types of ethnos, while the core focus of anthropology
is biological aspects of human being and to reveal its evolutionary
transition.
I. Introduction
The development of Anthropology in former Soviet Union as scientific
discipline for the study of human being is not very old. The process of
development began only in the mid-nineteenth century. However, since
then it developed tremendously and attained a distinguished status in the
theoretical and conceptual development of anthropology.
There is no denying the fact that Soviet anthropological development

owes much to Euro-American societies of Ethnography and
92
Anthropology, the formations of which dates back to 1839 with the

ìlg[ncih i` Si]c_ns ^―_nbhifia ^_ P[lcm. Agiha inb_l mo]b _[lfc_mn
societies were: American Ethnological Society founded in New York in
1842; Ethnological Society and Anthropological Society founded in
Britain in 1843 and 1863 respectively. Later, in 1871 Royal
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland was established. At
about the same time the same kind of societies also sprang up in
Germany, ltaly and other western countries. The formation of such
societies implies that a methodical and scientific study of people's life
had become a social demand by then. In course of development, scholars
of Western Europe America and France came up with the meaning of
Ethnography as a study of mankind as a group only upto a descriptive
level and Ethnology as a study of man with analysis and synthesis. On
the contrary, in the Soviet Union, the term Ethnography came to embrace
the whole dornain of the study of man with description, analysis and
synthesis.
In the western world the term Ethnography is synonomously used as

Cultural and Social Anthropology, while in the Soviet Union,
Anthropology is a discipline which studies human uptill its group divisions
i.e., origin of human beings, man's relationship with other animals, modem
races physical pecularities and traits. Practically these are studied in
physical Anthropology in the western world. However, Ethnography in the
Soviet Union did not develop in isolation from western developments.
Soviet scholars closely watched the development that was taking place in
this regard in the western world. They scrutinized their writings and
translated those in their own languages to make the development
accessible to home scholars. Thus the Soviet scholars, taking full
93
advantage of western developments, developed their own strategy for the

study of mankind. With such developments they only during 1960-1970s
could theoretically establish the objective, methodology, range,
categories etc., of the study. This finally gave rise to Soviet Ethnography
as a specialised discipline.
Ethnography in the Soviet Union became a major and dominant

discipline among the social sciences. All the major universities in former
USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) have departments of
Ethnography which offer a five year Masters Degree Course. Besides,
Soviet Academy of Sciences, which is the appex of all academic
institutions, has established a special institute of Ethnography. This is
basically a research institute having exclusive museum and specialised
library of ethnography. The institute has been divided into sectors based
on the geographical divisions of world population, like Asia, Africa,
Australia, America, Europe etc. These sectors are again subdivided into
subsectors, viz, South, West, South East and Central Asia.
II. Theoretical Concepts of Modern Ethnography in Soviet Union

Ethnography is a science, which studies the people of the World as
groups from the early stage of their formation, historical development
and also their contemporary life.
Therefore, to avoid confusion ethnography in the Soviet Union uses the

term Ethnos to mean a particular human group. Ethnos is a stable social
grouping of people originated in a natural process within a common
territory, having a common language, specific cultural and psychological
features, inner unity and bonds, which are usually unconsciously
94
accepted by the members of the group. Such group expresses its

difference with others by using the words ―we‖ and ―they‖. Again a
specific group can be identified by its group name (Bromley, 1983: 15-
20).
Origin and formation of each group or community is conditioned by

some factors. This is possible only if the people live in a neighbourhood,
i.e. within common territory. Therefore commonness of territory is the
basic condition for the formation of ethnos. This is also a factor for the
development of economy and linkage among different pans of the ethnos.
The natural environment have impact on the life of the people, which is
reflected in the traits of their economic activities, culture, psychological
make up and finally mode of life. This also facilitates reproduction of
ethnos through intermarriage among the members.
One of the most important factors of ethnic self- consciousness is the

belief in their common origin, historical fate of their ancestors all
through their existence. Ethnos has survived for many centuries by
transferring experience, knowledge, culture and language orally and
through tradition and teaching.
Functions of Ethnic Culture

Like common territory, common language is also one of the vital
conditions for the formation of ethnos. This is an integrative device of
culture and the principal media of communication.
Besides language, some other elements of culture also play a substantial

role in the stable functioning of an ethnos. Exclusive components of
95
culture, which are stable and traditional in character, appear in everyday

life of the masses. These components are categorised as a material
culture e.g. traditional houses by type and usage, economic tools and
household utensils, dresses, food, ornaments, craft and others, spiritual
culture e.g. beliefs and practices, religion, oral tradition and finally basic
functioning components such as customs, rites, rituals and ceremonies
connected with life cycle and calendaric cycle, behavioural norms and
patterns. This cultural unity is closely associated with the psychological
pecularities of the members, which appear commonly in nuances of
character, specification of value orientation and also tastes. Totality of all
these pecularities forms the so called ethnic character, which varies
among peoples.
III. Typology of Ethnos

In the natural course of the history of Homo sapiens, the ancestors of
modern man have been divided into different human groups, i.e.
communities and racial clusters. There are a few thousand such
communities in the present day world. These communities present
remarkable differences with regard to their degree of social
advancement, cultural and racial pecularities and finally their size. This
happened because they had to undergo a long process of independent
development, existence in different socio-ecnonomic and environmental
conditions. At the same time there had never been any strong
demarcating line, between the communities, which had hindered their
mutual exchanges. Therefore there had always been contacts among
themselves.
96
The first social groups in the human history were the herds of
archaeoanthropoids, which were essentially flexible bio-social groups
with ignorable stability. Most of the ethnographers do not consider this
early type as ethnos proper. The specialists relate the origin of the first
human community -- the ethnos --to the developed primitive society with
the appearance of exogomous kin organisations known as clan and
lineage the human communities- the ethnos- never developed outside a
definite socio-economic formation and a power structure.
On the basis of the above factors and from the historical point of view
the ethnos in primitive society are categorised as lineage clan, phratry,
tribe and tribal unions. Then they developed the nationalities in slave
owning and feudal societies with political state power, and nations in
capitalist and socialist society (Bromley, 1975: 47-57).
In between the early and later palaeolithic age the primitive herd
transformed into primitive kin, where main social centre was societies
based on kinship and affinity to good relationship-the basis of kinship.
The recognition of this relationship may be culturally conditioned. Often
in such societies kinship relations play the role of mode of production.
The kins were divided into two groups- Lineage and Clan.
Lineage is a consanguinal kin group resulting from unilinear descent,

either patrilineal or matrilineal. It consists of members with common
relationship in the prevalent line of descent as the result of a specific
group of geneological ties, and in which descent must be demonstrated,
97
thus differing from the clan. Lineage may be unilocal or multilocal, and
it extends through a number of generations. It is usually exogamous.
Clan is matrilineal or a unilateral kin group which is often exogamous.

Membership in a clan hinges on kinship through parents. In most
contexts, a clan is a unilineal group of relatives often living in one
locality through sometimes multilocal and with common property. The
members of the clan trace stipulated descent from their original ancestor,
who exist only in the mythological past and is perhaps neither animal nor
human but a spirit or a landscape feature. lt differs from a lineage, which
traces descent by demonstration from human ancestors and it often tends
to be an overgrowh lineage. Usually a patrilineal clan is called gens.
Generally a union of two or several clans constitutes a phratry.
A phratry is generally exogamous. It may be matrilineal or patrilineal.

The phratry stems from an expansion of the clan. In the classical form,
several phratries constitute a tribe. In many cases, the middle link, the
phratry, is missing among greatly weakened tribes.
Tribe is a social group, usually with a definite area, dialect, cultural

homogeneity and unifying social organisation. It may include several
subgroups. A tribe ordinarily has a leader and may have a common
ancestor, as well as a patron deity. The families or small communities
making up the tribe are linked through economic, social, religious, family
or blood ties. Therefore, the tribe has some distinctive features such as
the possession of its own territory and its own name, a special dialect,
war chiefs elected by the tribe, common religious ideas, rites of worship,
tribal council for common affairs, tribal head.
98
The entire system of gentes, phratries and tribes developed with almost
compelling necessity. All these three are groups of various degrees of
consanguinity, each complete in itself and managing its own affairs, but
each also supplementing the rest; therefore we discover the gens as the
social unit of a people.
Nationality
Tribal communities were replaced by nationality in slave- owning
society. Society was divided by classes and antagonistic classes as well.
Blood-based kinship organisation was replaced by the territorial state
with political power. Nationalities were formed out of tribal components
and have been developing throughout the slave- owning and feudal
socio- economic formation. Today the term nationality is being used for
coding the sense of belonging to a particular ethnos.
Nations arise in the epoch of the formation of capitalism form tribes,

nationalities and different races. Capitalism eliminates the feudal
economy, political and cultural apartness of the population speaking one
and the same language by promoting the growth of industry and trade.
That leads to the formation of centralised national states, which, for their
part, accelerate that consolidation. The economic and political
consolidation of a nation helps to form a common national language. The
specifics of a nation's historical development, its economic system,
culture in everyday life, customs and traditions, and geography are
important factors in shaping the national character. Main features of
nation are economic community, common territory, common language,
99
Common national character, which manifests itself in the peculiarities of

culture and mode of life.
IV. Historical Perspective of the Development of a Nation
Ethnic Processes
In course of the historical development, the human groups were
conditioned by their socio-economic and political factors, environmental
pecularities and finally interactions with each other. These factors always
leave some impact on the overall development of ethnic groups. This
process is called ethnic process.
Socio-economic process is related with the development of productive

forces of the people, changes in production relationship, transformation
of class structure and finally changes in the socio-economic formation.
This change definitely has a substantial impact on the ethnic community
but not on the basic characteristics of ethnos. Cultural changes always
undergo a gradual and slow process. Therefore, one ethnos may continue
its existence through two, three or even four socio-economic formation,
such as the Persians.
Ethnic process is of two types; ethnic division and ethnic unification.

Ethnic division is the process which divides one unified ethnic
community into a few others and creates a few other independent ethnos.
This process was typical in the primitive society. The tribes used to be
divided mainly when the size of the tribes increased or natural resources
within the tribal territory fell short. In developed societies, the division of
ethnos happened due to political reasons, for example, Germans and
Austrians, Bengalies in Bangladesh and in lndia. Sometimes migration of
100
a major portion of an ethnic community also caused division of ethnos.

Process of unification of ethnos: this process unites different
communities in order to create a greater one. This process could be
subdivided into consolidation, assimilation and integration (Bromley,
1987: 40-50). The progressive tendency of unification was mainly
followed during the period of transition of primitive society to slave-
owning society.
Consolidation is the process of amalgamation of few closely related

groups linked by language and culture to form a new and larger one.
Assimilation takes place when a small ethnic group lives in the

environment of other larger community and slowly merges with them. In
this process the small group consciously accepts the language and culture
of the larger group.
Integration is the result of interaction, remarkably different ethnic groups

unify into one. But each group preserves their main ethnic trait.
During this unification process adaptation and acculturation take place

gradually.
V. Classification of the People of the World

Ethnography in the former Soviet Union classifies the total population of
the world by some basic criteria. The classification criteria are
geographical distribution of the people, racial traits, their linguistic
belongingness, and economic cultural pecularities.
101
Geographical Classification
This classification considers only the distribution of ethnos in accordance
with their place of living and is mainly used in describing the people.
The peoples of the world are broadly divided as follows:
People of Asia: West Asia, South Asia, South East Asia, East and
Central Asia,
People of Africa: east, West, North and South,
People of Australia and Oceania: Australia and Tasmania, Polyneasia,

Micronesia and Melanesia,
People of America: North America, Central America and South America.
People of Europe.
People of USSR: Europian part of USSR, Siberia and Far East,

Causasious, Central Asia.
Racial Classification
Though race is a social phenomenon, Soviet anthropology has classified
race phenotypically. Race is a historically formed group of people,
having a common origin, which presents common hereditary,
morphological and psychological traits that vary within certain limits.
Modern races were formed during later palaeolithic age and from that
very time a continuous process of intermixing was going on which
resulted in elimination of racial differences. On the other hand, racial
102
characteristics never played an important role in the historical

development of the people. Nevertheless, the information about racial
characteristics provides insights into anthropogenesis.
Anthropologists recognize four major races; Europeoids, Mongoloids,

Negroids and Australoids. As a result of intermixing, the transitional and
races have been developed (Gorman, 1974: 124-130).
Europeoids are living in all the continents. They are subdivided into a
few smaller races such as fair haired blond, dark haired brunette, and
other.
Mongoloids are distributed mainly in Siberia and Asia. American Indians
are also referred to as Mongoloids. Mongoloid race is subdivided into
continantal pacific oceanians and polar Eskimos. Polynesians and
mongoloids of South Asia.
Negroids are concentrated mainly in Africa. The race has subdivisions
Negroes, Bushman, Hottentots and Pigmies.
Australoids are mainly the aboriginal population of Australia, Negritos of

Papua New Guinea, Melanesia, Veddoid population of Andaman Islands
and Veddas in Sri Lanka.
Transitional racial group among Australoids and Europoids are the

Dravidians of South lndia.
The Ainu population of Japan is an example of contact race formed

between Mongoloids and Australoids (Alekceev, 1985: 75-85).
103
Linguistic Classification
Comparative linguistic study is crucially important in ethnography as an
establishment of genetical relations between the languages revealing the
relationship between the human communities.
Two or more languages are considered relatives only if both originate

from one common language. Therefore, linguistic classification helps us
to understand not only the culture of the people but also to identify
genetical relationship between communities (Bromely, 1987: 50-60).
Main language families

Indo- European
Hamito- Semitic
Ural-Altai with Finno-Ugric, Turko-Tartar, Mongolic, Tungus-Munchu
branches
Caucasic- Cartvel
Kongo Kardafan
Sino-Tibetan with Tibeto- Burmese, Shan- Siamese, Annamese, Sinitic
branches
Austro- Asian with Viet, Mon-Khmerian, Munda branches
Austronesian, Malayo- Polynesian family
Dravidian
Thai
Papuan
Japanes
Korean
104
Economic Cultural Classification

Ethnographic information shows that people belonging to absolutely
different ethnic communities but having similar natural environment and,
socio- economic conditions has developed common material culture.
Ethnography in Soviet Union distinguishes mainly three types of

economy in early stage of ethnic development. These are:
Food gathering, hunting and fishing,
Domesticating animal and cultivation with the use of hand
Agriculture, ploughing of land with the help of oxen (Bromley, 1973: 60-
67).
These three types of economic activities have been able to develop

distinct material culture with regard to agricultural tools, utensil types,
food practices, house, crafts and etc.
VI. Methodology
Ethnographic research in USSR is basically qualitative, while
quantitative approaches are also used to support qualitative information.
The exercise could be divided into two broad phases. The first phase is
collection of material, mainly based on field work. The second phase is
interpretation of material. Of course in between these two phases lies the
compilation or data processing stage.
105
Different methods are employed in these two broad phases of

ethnographic research.
Collection of the Material

Collection of data and other materials are made from different sources,
for example, consulting secondary sources of information, museum
collection, archive materials. Still the main source is the people.
Therefore only field work can provide basic data.
Usually in the field work one uses classical methodology, i.e., participant
observation. Soviet ethnographers called this method- direct
participation. In field work, beside mapping, observation and recording, a
few other effective methods are also used. These include unstructured
open ended interviews which are often called indepth-interview and
informal discussions are also conducted in order to know the Knowledge,
attitudes and practices of a special group on particular issue.
Field work also is of two types. One is stationary, which provides

indepth Knowledge but within a limited territory. The other is
expedition, which allows collecting material in wider geographical
territory (Cherepnin, 1981: 128-141)
In the second phase,- the collected materials are interpreted. For

interpretation many methods are used. Among them the most effective
ones are comparative historical method, structural method and historic
geographical method and method of quantitative analysis.
106
VII. Conclusion
In this chapter the theoretical, methodological and conceptual aspects of
soviet anthropology have been outlined, as they show, Soviet
Ethnography attempted to attain a systemetic rigour as a modern
academic discipline at par with other sciences.
Bibliography
Alekceev, V. P. (1985) "Chelavick" Evalutsia i Taksanomia human,
evolution and Taksanom ("Man" Evolution and Taxonomy human,
evolution and Taxonomy), p. 75-140. Moscow.
Bromley, V. Yu. (1973) Ethnos i Ethnograpia 19, Fthnos and

Ethnography (Ethnos and Ethnography 19, Ftos and Ethnography), p. 47-
77. Moscow.
Brornley, V. Yu. (1979) Problemi istori i Ethnographi Americ

(Problem of History and Ethnography in America), p. 133-145.
Moscow.
Bromley, V. Yu. (1981) Ethnographia (Ethnography), editted by

G. E. Markova, p. 4 -25. Moscow.
Bromley, V. Yu. (1983) Ocherki Theori Ethnosa (An outline of

Ethnos Theory). Moscow.
Bromley, V. Yu. (1987) Ethnosocial nea Prosessi, Theori, Usiori,

Sovremennosty (Ethnosocial Process, Theories, History and
Mordernily), p. 40-73. Moscow.
107
Bromley, V. Yu. (1987) Ethnicheskea processi v sovremennom Mire

(Ethnic processes in modern world), p. 5-20. Moscow.
Chebaksarov, N. N. (1981) Tipi Tragitsionnova Selskovo Gilisha
Narodov iyogo-gapadnoe ejnou Aji (Type of Tradition Rural Housing in
South and South East Asia), p. 160-175. Moscow.
Cherepnin, L. V. (1981) Boproci methodologi isorcheskova lsledovania
(Qestions of Methodology of historical research), p. 128-141. Moscow.
Gerasimov, K. M. (1986) Traditsionnya Kultura Narodov Centralnoi

Asia (Traditional Culture of the People of Central Asia Novosivirsk), p.
76-86.
Gorman, E. E. (1974) Problemi Ethnicheskoi Anthropologie e
Morphologi Chelavieka (Problem of Ethnic Anthroplogi and
Morphology of Man), p. 124-130. Leningrad.
Vutunov, S. A. (1981) Ethnographia Pitania Narodov Stran Yagabasnoi
Asi (Ethnography of Food of the People of Soth East Asia), p. 86-95.
Moscow.
108
Chapter 7
Culture: Theoretical Exploration

Abstract
Culture has undertaken a long journey through evolutionism,
diffusionsim, historical particularism, cultural relativism, cultural
ecology school, cultural materialism, culture and personality school,
symbolism, functionalism, structural functionalism, structuralism, post-
structuralism and postmodernism. As for Kroeber and Klukhohn the
journey of the concept of culture began from Tylor and had gradually
emerged as a key theoretical concept, received epistemological
grounding, acquired distinctive meanings and application. The greater
the attention the concept of culture has received from anthropologist, the
gil_ cn b[m \__h _gjiq_l_^ ni ip_lqb_fg nb_ ]ih]_jn i` ―bog[h
\_cha‖. Am nb_ diolh_s oh^_ln[e_h \s nb_ ]ih]_jn i` ]ofnol_ cm nii fiha ni
follow, particularly, within the scope of this article, an attempt to go
through its central course is made. It could be observed that major
theoretical schools have been deeply involved in defining, formulating
and theorizing the concept. Shifts in paradigm were often resulted by the
epistemological and ontological differences emerged around the notion
of culture. The idea of progress appeared to be intrinsic to culture that
was rooted in the enlightenment, positivism and utilitarianism, and was
extended to the theory of modernization and globalization. In the recent
phase, culture has lost its meaning as a theoretical concept of the term. It
now rather refers to a process of constructing others. The publication of
109
‘Writing Culture: the Poetics and Politics of Ethnography’ has expressed

―ch]l_ôfcns' niq[l^m ]ofnol_: ―]ofnol_ cm qlcnn_h‖ [h^ nb_ qlcncha chpifp_m
major epistemological and political problems. Further, Abu-Lughod has
jlijim_^ gi^_m ìl qlcncha [a[chmn ]ofnol_, qbcf_ ―A`n_l qlcncha ]ofnol_‖
jlijim_m nb[n ]ofnol[f ―nl[hmf[ncih‖ cm pc[\fe. In this context, an account
of the journey of culture through anthropological thoughts may be useful.
Introduction
Ahnblijifias b[m _g_la_^ [m [ m]c_h]_ ni mno^s ―[hnblijim‖ c._., bog[h
beings, but a closer look into the history of the discipline shows that its
focus has significantly varied all over the globe (Jalal, 2003:47).
Radcliffe-Brown (1952) has conceived anthropology as a natural science
i` mi]c_ns, qbcf_ Wbcn_ (1942) _hpcm[a_^ [hnblijifias [m [ ―m]c_h]_ i`
]ofnol_‖.
This chapter makes an attempt to outline how selected anthropologists

have conceived culture. It will be useful to see how this concept is used
ch cnm a_h_l[f n_lgm. Ensgifiac][ffs, cn cm fche_^ ni qil^m fce_ ―]ofncp[n_‖,
―]ofncp[ncih‖ ―[alc]ofnol_‖ [h^ ―bilnc]ofnol_‖. In the seventeenth century,
it became common to apply this term metaphorically to human
development, and, in the eighteenth century, it developed into a more
general term (Williams, 1983). In German, the word was spelt first
Culture, and then, Kultur. Nep_lnb_f_mm, ―Cofnol_‖ b[m mn_gg_^ `lig nbcm
orbit of German usage. The term was originally processual being drawn
from cultivation or agriculture and then was applied as cultura animie -
the cultivating of young minds in order to aspire them to adult ideals. In
this latter sense, it came into German in the seventeenth century; its
meaning was extended from the development of individuals to include
110
cultivation of the moral and intellectual capacities of nations and

humankind (Kroeber & Klukhohn, l952:18). This shift in emphasis from
culture as cultivation to culture as the basic assumption and guiding
aspiration of an entire collectivity-a whole people, a folk, a nation-
probably occurred in the course of the nineteenth century, on the
promptings of an intensifying nationalism. Then each people with its
characteristic culture came to be understood as possessing a mode of
perceiving and conceptualizing the world all of its own (Wolf, 1999: 29).
The term was used in works of speculative history from the second half
of the eighteenth century and crucially started to be used in the plural in
the sense of humanity being divided into a number of separate distinct
cultures (Barnard, I996: 136).
Selected anthropologists’ basic understanding on the notion of

culture
In 1952 Kroeber and Kluckhohn published an extraordinary survey on
the conception of culture (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, I952). This book has
contained not only definitions, but also non-anthropological usage of the
qil^ ―]ofnol_‖ ch Ehafcmb, G_lg[h [h^ Fl_h]b. N_[rly 300 definitions of
the term were published (Smith, 1986: 65).
According to Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952), the anthropological sense

i` nb_ qil^ q[m `clmn _mn[\fcmb_^ \s Tsfil (1871). Ih ―Plcgcncp_ Cofnol_‖,
Tsfil qlcn_m nb[n ―]ofnol_ il Ccpcfct[ncih, taken in its widest ethnographic
sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art,
morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by
g[h [m [ g_g\_l i` mi]c_ns‖ (Tsfil, 1871: 26).
111
Perhaps, the most intriguing aspect of this statement is whether culture is

relevant only to the modern world, which was understood at the time to
be the apex of civilization, or it could be applied to all forms of society.
Extensive work on animism and the origin of religion indicates the

prominence of ideological realm in the understanding of Tylor (1871).
H_ l_`_lm ni ]ofnol_ [m \_cha ―[]kocl_^‖ \s bog[h \_cha: cn cm [h
essential, inevitable aspect of human life, ^_n_lgch[ncp_ i` ih_‖m nbioabn
and behavior. Culture is a shared characteristic, existing only when
individuals have assembled into a defined group, i.e. society. In his view
culture is hierarchical, non-relativistic and synonymous to civilization.
Culture takes the social group from lower to the higher stage. This
]ih]_jncih i` ―jlial_mm‖ q[m _pc^_hn ch _pifoncih[ls nbioabnm.
White (1949) has viewed culture as a vehicle to universal progress.

Cofnol_ cm [h ―ila[hct_^ chn_al[n_^ msmn_g‖, qbc]b ]ihmcmnm i` mo\-
systems, particularly technological, sociological and ideological
organized hierarchically- ideological on the top, technological at the
bottom, and sociological in the middle, creating a means of carrying on
the life process of Homo Sapiens. As human culture is dynamic it
consumes energy. This consumption of energy became the core of his
evolutionary approach: the greater the amount of energy harnessed per
capita per year, the greater the degree of cultural development (White,
1949: 369).
The idea of progress is also embedded in multilineal evolutionism of

Steward (1955). Cufnol_ cm ]ih]_cp_^ [m ―f_[lh_^ gi^_m i` \_b[pcil
qbc]b [l_ mi]c[ffs nl[hmgcnn_^ `lig ih_ a_h_l[ncih ni nb_ h_rn‖ (Sn_q[l^,
112
1955: 98). Sn_q[l^ ch]iljil[n_m nb_ ―f_[lh_^‖ [h^ ―nl[hmgcnn_^‖ _f_g_hnm

into the conception of culture. For him, culture is a collective effort and a
bcmnilc][f ih_. Tb_ bcmnilc][f jli]_mm g_[hm j[mmcha mig_nbcha `lig ―ih_
a_h_l[ncih ni [hinb_l‖- a position between culture and history.
Inheritance of cultural forms does not occur at random or over
continuous lengths of time, instead, it happens systematically with the
onset of every new age group. This conception suggests that there is a
―ohcp_lm[f jli]_mm_m i` ]ofnol[f ]b[ha_‖ (Sn_q[l^, I955). An nb_ p_ls
]_hn_l i` nb_ ]ih]_jncih q[m ―nb_ ]ihmn_ff[ncih i` `_[nol_m qbc]b [l_
'most closely related to subsistence activities and economic
[ll[ha_g_hnm‖ (Sn_q[l^, 1955:327). This refers so to the notion that
culture is rooted in the practices and material conditions inherent in a
given society.
In relating culture to the ecology, Steward (1955) has developed the

concept of culture-type. Cultural features are derived from synchronic,
functional and ecological factors and are represented by a particular
diachronic or developmental level, while the concept of cultural core has
similar functional interrelationships resulting from local ecological
adaptations and similar levels of socio-cultural integration (Steward,
1955: 3-6). Cultural evolution may be regarded either as a special type of
historical reconstruction or as a particular methodology or approach.
D[lqch‖m nb_ils i` bog[h _pifoncih [m ionfch_^ ch nb_ D_m]_hn i` M[h ch

1871 had an enormous impact on the conception of culture as the theory
provided possibilities for explaining human differences in biological
terms and in this sense culture might follow natural laws (Kuper, 2002).
113
The idea of diffusion has provided a very different perspective on

culture. Every culture draws on diverse sources depending on borrowings
and is in flux. Human beings are very much alike, and every culture is
rooted in a universal human mentality. Cultural differences are caused by
the challenges presented by the local natural environment and by the
contacts between human populations. Borrowings were the primary
mechanism for cultural change.
Franz Boas (1982/1898) viewed culture from relativistic and pluralistic

[mj_]nm. Ih ]ihnl[mn ni nb_ Vc]nilc[h hincih nb[n ―Cofnol_‖ q[m [ mchaf_
evolving from-[ jlininsj_ ìl nb_ [^p[h]_g_hnm i` ―]cpcfct[ncih‖- Boas
was seen to have pluralized and decentralized cultures, to have made
them as valid as they were diverse (Knauft, 1996: 21). Boas (1982/1898)
emphasized that race, language and cultures were not linked to each
other. With his understanding of culture, Boas opposed the dominant
evolutionist paradigm of Victorian anthropology. He insisted that
positioning individual cultures on the savage and barbaric civilization
ladder not only discounted their particularity and integrity, but
sidestepped the important task of reconstructing unwritten histories for
non-Western peoples (Barnard & Spencer, 1998: 73). However, it is to
be noted that the concept of pluralism is associated with the name of
H_l^_l, [m b_ m[sm. ―We cannot and should not judge members of one
people of culture by the standards of another, nor should we require
people of one culture to adopt to the demands of another alien ]ofnol_‖
(Barnard & Spencer, 1998: 137).
Tb_ c^_[ i` ―f_[lh_^‖ [h^ ―mb[l_^‖ cm l_chìl]_^ \s B_h_^c]n, qbi

describes culture as a learned behaviour, which is not given at birth, but
114
must be learned (Benedict, 1943: 9-10). Cultures were ways of living,

pclno[ffs jms]bifiac][f nsj_m, qbc]b mb_ ][ff_^ ―]ofnol[f ]ihfiaol[ncihm‖,
which were said to be best, perceived as integral and patn_lh_^ ―qbif_m‖
(Benedict, 1932:24). Sapir (1932) puts more emphasis on the problem of
nb_ ch^cpcô[f j_lmih[fcns. Fil S[jcl, nb_ ―nlo_ fi]om‖ i` ]ofnol_ f[s hin ch
mi]c_ns, \on ch nb_ ―chn_l[]ncihm i` mj_]cfi] ch^cpcô[fm [h^ ch nb_ ―qilf^
of meanings; whc]b aoc^_ nbim_ chn_l[]ncihm: ―Ep_ls ch^cpcô[f cm, nb_h,
in a very real sense, a representative of at least one subculture, which
may be abstracted from the generalized culture of the group of which he
cm [ g_g\_l‖ (S[jcl, 1932; 1949: 151).
―Cofnol[f g[n_lc[fcmg‖ omo[ffs l_`_lm ni nb_ mj_]c`c] ech^ i` g[n_lc[fcmn

approach advocated by Harris (1979). Harris (1979) maintains that the
material world appears deterministic. Thus, to him, culture is a product
of relations between things. According to the cultural materialist view,
environmental conditions and subsistence techniques together either
determine or severely limit the development of many other aspects of
culture. Harris and his followers regard observed behaviour as logically
and chronologically prior to cultural categories. Thus, cognitive and
ideological aspects of culture must necessarily take second place to
technological superorgan ones (Barnard & Spencer, 1998:137).
Kli_\_l (1948) b[m [nn[]b_^ nb_ c^_[ i` ―moj_lila[hc]' ni ]ofnol_. Nincih

of the superorganic refers to viewing culture as an entity, not separate
from individuals, persists outside the control of human and is being
acquired by conscious awareness (Kroeber, 1948). Culture is sui generic
and culture could only be explained in terms of itself and not reduced to
racial, psychological or (other) non-]ofnol[f `[]nilm. In q[m [fmi ―moj_l-
115
ila[hc]‖ ([ n_lg qbc]b b_ \illiq_^ `lig H_l\_ln Sj_h]_l) ch nb_ Sense

that it had to be explained with reference to a level of understanding
above individual organism. Culture is less a product of individual human
beings. And it develops independently of individual thoughts.
―Tb_ g[mm i` f_[lh_^, nl[hmgcnn_^ ginil l_[]ncihm, b[\cnm, n_]bhcko_m,

c^_[m, p[fo_m [h^ \_b[pcil‖ cm ]ofnol_ (Kli_\_l, 1948: 148). Hoganistic
features, such as ideas and values, are incorporated into conception of
culture. Culture is determinative, relatively autonomous, and less
connected to the inner complexities. Instead of on the individual it
focuses on institutions and organizationm. ―Ahnblijifias i\pciomfs cm
concerned not with particular men as such, but with men in groups, with
l[]_m [h^ j_ijf_m [h^ nb_cl b[jj_hcham [h^ îcham‖ (Kli_\_l, 1948:141).
Behavior is a product of ideological and psychic conditions. Culture is
both learned and shared. McElroy & Townsend (1989) have thought that
this learning is based on a biological foundation, particularly the three
genetically based characteristics underlying the human capacities for
culture: a complex brain, the ability to make tools and a social bonding.
Radcliffe-Brown (1952) has conceived culture as a process of social life.

Culture refers to a process by which a person acquires from contact with
other persons or from such things as books or works of art, knowledge,
skill, ideas, beliefs, tastes, sentiments. The transmission of learnt ways of
thinking, feeling and acting constitutes the cultural process, which is a
specific feature of human social life (Brown, 1952)
Levi-Strauss (1963) viewed culture as something based on universal

principles and sought a special recognition for the details, which
116
distinguish one culture from another. Cultures in particular are

illustrations of the logical possibilities of panhuman capacity for culture
in general. Although Levi-Strauss has written at length on the issue of
cultural differences, his own analyses have rarely been confined to the
study of a particular culture.
If materialist conception of culture is rooted in Marx, symbolic

understanding rests on Max Weber. Weber held to investigate the
―g_[hcham‖ nb[n []ncih b_f^ ìl nb_ []ncha ch^cpcô[f, [h^ hin ni
understand people simple as products of social forces (Wolf, 1999: 41).
Tb_ ]ih]_jn i` ―p_lmn_b_h‖ g_[hm oh^_lmn[h^cha b[^ jf[s_^ [ g[dil lif_
in the study of culture. Further, Weber viewed culture as a value concept
(Weber, 1958).
Clifford Geertz being greatly resourced by Weber, explains culture as a

―bcmnilc][ffs nl[hmgcnn_^ j[nn_lh i` g_[hchgs embodied in symbols, a
system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means
i` qbc]b g_h ]iggohc][n_, j_lj_no[n_, [h^ ^_p_fij nb_cl ―ehiqf_â_
[\ion [h^ [nncno^_m niq[l^ fc`_‖ (G__lnt, 1973:89). Ti bcg, nb_ ]ih]_jn i`
culture was essenti[ffs [ m_gcinc] ih_. A]]il^cha ni bcg, ―B_fc_pcha,
with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of
significance he has himself spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the
analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law
\on [h chn_ljl_ncp_ ih_ ch m_[l]b i` g_[hcha‖ (G__lnt, 1973: 5).
The initial use of the concept stressed a supposed inner unity, marked by
continuity nblioab ncg_ `lig jlcgil^c[f \_achhcham. A ―]ofnol_‖ q[m nbom
conceived as the expression of the inner spiritual force animating people
117
or nation. This understanding was carried to anthropological usage,

together with the implicit or explicit expectation, that a culture
constituted a whole, and it centered on certain fundamentals that
distinguished it from others. It was also seen as capable of reproducing
and regenerating itself and as being able to repair any tears in its fabric
through internal processes (Foucault, 1980). This stationary notion of
culture as a fixed entity or stable system is being questioned by post-
gi^_lhcmn. ―Cofnol_ cm hiq \_mn m__h hin [m [h chn_al[n_^ _hncns nc_^ ni [
fixed group of people, but as a shifting and contested process of
constructing colf_]ncp_ c^_hncns‖ (Kh[o`n, 1996: 44).
Tb_ jo\fc][ncih i` Cfc`ìl^ [h^ M[l]om _^cn_^ ]iff_]ncih, ―Wlcncha

Cofnol_: nb_ Pi_nc]m [h^ Pifcnc]m i` Enbhial[jbs‖, b[m [f_ln_^
anthropologists to the need to pay closer attention to the epistemological
grounds of their representations. It has also made them consider the
practical import of that process of reflection, both for the anthropological
endeavour and for those who are the subjects of any anthropological
inquiry. If culture is not an object to be described, neither is it a unified
corpus of symbols and meanings that can be definitively interpreted.
Culture is contested, temporal, and emergent (Clifford & Marcus, 1986).
Abu-Lughod (1991) has conceived that culture is the essential tool for
g[echa inb_l, [h^ nb[n ―]ofnol_‖ ij_l[n_m ch [hnblijifiac][f ^cm]iolm_ ni
_hìl]_ m_j[l[ncihm nb[n ch_pcn[\fs ][lls [ m_hm_ i` bc_l[l]bs. Tb_l_ìl_‖,
[hnblijifiacmnm g[s om_ ―[ p[lc_ns i` mnl[n_ac_m ‗ìl qlcncha [a[chmn
]ofnol_‖ (A\o-Loabi^, 1991). ―A`n_l qlcncha ]ofnol_‖ (J[g_m, Hockey &
D[qmih, 1997) _rn_h^m bij_ nb[n ]ofnol[f ―nl[hmf[ncih‖ cm pc[\f_ [h^ cn
proposes epistemologies for it.
118
Conclusion
The brief exploration of the concept of culture through anthropological
thoughts illustrates that in the entire evolutionary course culture was
understood in terms of abstract concept of progress, and it was often used
synonymously to civilization, which was rooted in enlightenment,
positivism, utilitarianism, and extended to the theory of modernization
and globalization. Counter enlightenment had provided a rebellion
against such conception of culture. If value and belief are considered as
culture, then mol_fs cn g[s hin \_ ―m]c_hnc`c][ffs‖ \[m_^. Tb_ nb_ils i`
biological evolution by Darwin had an enormous influence on the
concept of culture as it had reinforced a biological theory of human
progress. Diffussionism has conceived the concept of culture in
opposition to that connected with biology, and it rested on the universal
human mentality. Franz Boas has provided a new meaning and
momentum to the concept of culture. He conceived it as particular and
relative. Geertz (1973) has focused on the questions of meaning of
culture. He has defined culture semiotically. Kroeber and Kluckhohn
(1952) have conceived culture as a collective symbolic discourse.
Poststructuralists have taken culture is a fabricated text of a fiction
written by ethndgraphers. Culture is now seen as a process of
constructing collective identity. Abu-Lughod (1991) has proposed modes
for writing against culture while James, Hockey and Dawson (1997)
b[p_ i``_l_^ _jcmn_gifiac][f g_[hm ìl ]ofnol[f ―nl[hmf[ncih‖. Tbcm b[m
been a very brief journey and scanty as well. However, the journey
reveals that culture has been pivotal to all anthropological paradigms.
Therefore, culture has got particular theoretical and methodological
significance in anthropology.
119
Bibliography
Abu-Lughod, L. (1991) Writing against Culture, in R. Fox (Ed)
Recapturing AnthropoIogy: Working in the Present, p. 37-62. Santa Fe:
School of American Research Press.
Allison, J., Jenny, H. & Dawson, A. (1997) After Writing Culture.
Epistemology and Praxis in Contemporary Anthropology. London and
New York: Routledge.
Barnard, A. & Spencer, J. (Eds) (1998) Encyclopedia of Social and
Cultural Anthropology. London: Routledge.
Benedict, R. F. (1934) Patterns of Culture. New York: The New
American Library.
Boas, F. (1982/1898) Summary of the work of the committee in British
Columbia, in G. Stocking (Ed) A Franz Boas Reader: The Shaping of
American Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other
Writings, 1972-I977. Brighton: Harvester Press.
Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretations of Culture: Selected Issues. New
York: Basic Books.
Harris, M. (1979) Cultural Materialism: The struggle for a science of
Culture. New York: Random House.
Inglis, F. (2000) Cliflord Geertz Culture, Custom and Ethics. England:
Polity Press.
120
Jalal, S. M. (2002) Conceptualizing of human being: anthropological

approach, Asian Studies, 21: 43-48.
Knauft, B. M. (1996) Genealogies for the Present in Cultural

Anthropoloy. London: Routledge.
Kuper, A. (2000) Culture: The Anthropologists Accounts. Harvard:
Harvard University Press.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1963) Structural Anthropology. New York: Doubleday.
McElroy, A. & Townsend, P. K. (1996/1989) Medical Anthropology, in
Ecological Perspectives. London: West view Press.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. R. (1952) On Social Structure, in A.R. Radcliffe-
Brown (Ed) Structure and Function in Primitive Society. London: Cohen
and West.
Sapir, E. (1949/1932) Cultural anthropology and psychiatry, in E. Sapir
(Ed) Culture, Language and Personality: Selected Essays. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Sapir, E. (1985/1949) Selected Writings in Language, Culture and

Personality. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Saussure, F. D. (1959/1916) Course in General Linguistics. London:
Collins.
Smith, C. S. (1986) Macmillan Dictionary of Anthropology. London:
Macmillan.
121
Smith, M. J. (2000) Culture Reinventing the Social Sciences.

Buckingham: Open University Press.
Steward, J. H. (1955) Theory of Culture Change. Illinois: University of

Illinois Press.
Stocking, G. (1968) Matthew Arnold, E. B. Tylor, and the uses of
invention, in G. Stocking (Ed) Race, Culture and Evolution: Essays in
the History of Anthropology. London: Free Press.
Strauss-Levi, C. (1963) Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic
Books.
Tylor, E. B. (1871) Primitive Culture. London: John Murray.
Weber, M. (1958) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (Edited by H.
N. Gerth & C. W. Mylls). New York: Oxford University Press.
White, L. A. (1949) The science of culture: a study of man and
civilization. New York: Grove Press.
Williams, (1983) Key words: A vocabulary of Culture and Society.

London: Fontana.
Wolf, E. R. (1999) Envisioning Power Ideologies of Dominance and

Crisis. California: University of California Press.
122
Chapter 8
G_&wbK cÖwµqv b„weÁv‡bi †K›`ªxq cÖZ¨q: Bg&wcwiK¨vj I

ÁvbZË¡xq we‡kølY
f~wgKv
evsjv‡`k f~L‡Ði †cÖÿvc‡U cÖZ¨qxKiY ïiæ Kiv †h‡Z cv‡i| GLv‡b GLb
†hmKj fvlv‡Mvôx emevm Ki‡Q Zv‡ì GKwU eY©bv (account) †Ìqv nqZ
KwVb KvR n‡e bv| †mUvi Rb¨ Mfxi AbymÜv‡bi cÖ‡qvRb †bB| wKš‧ GB mKj
fvlv‡Mvôx †Kvb mg‡q, Kxfv‡e GB f~L‡Ð emevm ïiæ K‡i; Ges Kx ai‡bi
G_wbK cÖwµqv GLv‡b N‡UwQj, I Kxfv‡e eZ©gvb iƒc aviY K‡i‡Q, †mwU Mfxi
AbymÜvb Ges we‡kølY K‡i ÁvbZË¡xq (epistemological) Ges Abya¨vbMZ
(ontological) we‡kølY Awbevh©| GB KvRwU †h ïiæ n‡q‡Q, Zv bq| Z‡e Gi
Dci wPšÍv I M‡elYv n‡”Q| mKj HwZnvwmK †cÖÿvc‡U evsjv‡`k f~L‡Ð gvby‡li
c`hvÎv Ges emev‡mi welq¸wj we¯ÍvwiZ ch©v‡jvPbvi `vex iv‡L|
Avwèvmx wi‡UvwiK1
wbe‡Ü Bs‡iwR Ôwi‡UvwiK (rhetoric)Õ c`wU‡K fvlvšÍwiZ bv K‡i eënv‡ii GKwU
†cÖÿvcU i‡q‡Q| evsjvq Gi `ywU cÖwZkã nj, ÔAj¼vieûjÕ, ÔevMvo¤îÕ
(Siddiqui, 1993)| Avevi GB `yBwU evsjv kã‡K †hfv‡e †evSv nq, Zv
wi‡Uvwi‡Ki A_©‡K h_vh_ wb‡`©k K‡i bv| Bs‡iwR‡Z Gi GKwU AvwfavwbK msÁv
nj: Ôgvbyl‡K cÖfvweZ Kivi wbwg‡Ë e³…Zv ev †jLv‡jwL, wKš‧ †m¸‡jv cy‡ivcywi
mZ¨ ev AK…wÎg bqÕ (Hornby, 2005)| hvB †nvK, cÖvPxb MÖxK mgqKvj †_‡K
123
we`¨gvb GKv‡WwgK cwigÐ‡ji GKwU cÖZ¨q wnmv‡e wi‡UvwiK mPivPi eëüZ

nq Ôev¯ÍeZvi (reality)Õ wecixZ‡K †evSv‡Z| ÔmZ¨Õ DÑvUb Gi jÿ¨ bq, hwÌ
GwU ÔmZ¨Õ wn‡m‡e wb‡R‡K Dc¯ vcb K‡i| bx‡k ‡hgbwU e‡j‡Qb, Ôwi‡UvwiK Pvq
Ávb (epistêmê) bq eis GKgvÎ AwfgZ‡K Zz‡j ai‡ZÕ (Nietzsche, 2001)|
GwU GKv‡WwgK cwigÐ‡ji GKwU cÖZ¨q| GB cwiPq msµvšÍ wi‡UvwiK wbg©v‡Y
†hgb Avwèvmx‡ì wb‡Riv hy³, †Zgwb Zv‡ì evB‡ii gvbyl‡ìI GB e¨vcv‡i
f~wgKv i‡q‡Q| ¯ vbxq †jLK I eyw×Rxex †_‡K ïiæ K‡i AvšÍR©vwZK ch©v‡qi
wewfbœ e¨w³ I cÖwZôvb GB cÖwµqvq m¤ú„³|
Avwèvmx Rb‡Mvôx‡ì †`Lvi `„wóf½x nj, hv Zv‡ì‡K ¯ vwcZ K‡i mf¨Zvi

wb¤œZg ch©v‡q Ges Zv‡ì ms¯‥…wZ‡K fvev nq Ôg~javivÕ ms¯‥…wZi g~j¨‡ev‡ai
gvcKvwV‡Z| Zv‡ì‡K Aa¨qb Kivi †ÿ‡Î Kv‡ì ¯^v_© I AvMÖn‡K we‡ePbvq
†bIqv nq? wb‡R‡ì m¤ú‡K© wPšÍv Kivi Avwèvmx m`m¨‡ì mÿgZv‡K ¯^xK…wZ
†Ìqv nq? Zv‡ì cÖwZ `„wófw½ Zv‡ì G·K¬zmvb‡K Kxfv‡e DrmvwnZ K‡i|
‗Ih^ca_hiom aliojm – there are more than fifty distinct groups in
Bangladesh – are identified by putting them in the upajaati/jaati
binary relationship with Bengali. Though the Bengali word
upajaati is wi^_fs om_^ ni nl[hmf[n_ ―nlc\[f‖, cnm _nsgifiac][f
g_[hcha cm ―mo\-h[ncih‖, qbcf_ d[[nc l_`_lm ni ―h[ncih‖ ch
indicating Bengali community. Besides upajaati, the paper
unveils many terms that are brought to denote these groups with
negative and debilitan_^ cg[a_m: ―[^c\[mbc‖, ―_nbhc] gchilcns‖,
124
―\ihs[‖, ―dihafc‖ [h^ ―m[p[a_‖. Ih^ca_hiom aliojm [l_

bigia_hct_^ chni [ ]iff_]ncp_ ―nb_s‖ [h^ jimcncih_^ [n ^cmn[h]_
from the centre. Their social systems and cultures are portrayed
as primitive, exotic, inferior and backward. Thus, a lens emerges
and operates in viewing indigenous children. The paper urges
that the underpinning values that support this view in
development field are a legacy of colonization. Practices of
participation rights in the indigenous communities are imposed
\s chn_lh[ncih[f ila[hct[ncihm l[nb_l nb[h \[m_^ ih ]bcf^l_h‖m
chn_l_mnm‘ (Imf[g, 2015).
Avwèvmx Rb‡Mvôx Ñ Giv Kviv, cwiPq Kx, DrcwË Kxfv‡e, G‡ì ms¯‥…wZ I
RxebvPvi †Kgb? Gme welq m¤úwK©Z wi‡Uvwi‡Ki D™¢e I weKv‡k ÔA-AvwèvmxÕ
e¨w³MY †hgb hy³, †Zgwb Zv‡ì wb‡R‡ì ga¨ †_‡KI D‡jøL‡hvM¨ f~wgKv
i‡q‡Q| ¯ vbxq †_‡K AvšÍR©vwZK ch©vq ch©šÍ wewfbœ eyw×Rxex, †jLK, cÖwZôvb
Ges cÖkvmwbK e¨w³eM©, Avwèvmx‡ì e¨vcv‡i IqvwKenvj Ggb e¨w³ we‡kl
(Ges mgKvjxb `vk©wbK gZev`) GB cÖwµqvq Ae`vb ‡i‡L‡Qb| Z‡e, Zvrch©c~Y©
e¨vcvi nj, Avwèvmx‡ì wb‡q wPšÍvfvebv I †jLv‡jwL Avwèvmx bq, eis ÔA-
Avwèvmx‡ìÕ cwi‡cÖwÿZ †_‡K †ewk n‡q‡Q| cÖvK& weªwUk mgqKv‡j Avwèvmx
†Mvôxmg~n wb‡R‡ì ev Ab¨‡ì wbKU †Kvb mvaviY bv‡g cwiwPZ wQj bv|
Kv‡RB, wewfbœ m~‡Î (†hgb, Tripura, 1992; †m‡›`j I ej, 1998; Bmjvg,
2005) cÖvß Z‡_ï wfwË‡Z ejv hvq, Aóv`k kZ‡Ki ‡k‡li w`‡K evsjv
weªwUk‡ì Kivq‡Ë Avmvi mg‡q Zv‡ì eZ©gvb cwiP‡qi wbg©vY ïiæ nq| weªwUk,
cvwK¯Ívb, evsjv‡`k Ñ wZb kvmbvg‡ji g‡a¨ weªwUk Avgj nj Avwèvmx
125
wi‡Uvwi‡Ki eywbqvw` mgqKvj| †`Lv †M‡Q, GB AÂ‡ji RvwZ‡Mvôxmg~‡ni wb‡q

‡jLv‡jwL, wPšÍv I aviYvi cw_K…r n‡jb BD‡ivcxqMY| GB mg‡q ¯ vbxq
Rb‡Mvôx‡ì wb‡q Zv‡ì KvR GZ e¨vcK gvÎvq n‡qwQj ‡h, †Kvb ¯ vbxq Rb‡Mvôx
Ges mswkøó RxebvPvi Avi †jLv‡jwL Ges wPšÍvfvebvi evB‡i _v‡Kwb| weªwUk
Jcwb‡ewkK Avg‡jB RvwZ‡Mvôx msµvšÍ ¸iæZ¡c~Y© ivóªxq c`‡ÿcmg~‡ni
AwaKvsk M„nxZ n‡qwQj| weªwUk kvmKMY GB AÂ‡j Zuv‡ì cÖ‡qvR‡b wewfbœ
Rwic cwiPvjbv I `vßwiK bw_cÎ ‣Zwi K‡ib| BD‡ivcxq †jLK I
wPšÍvwe`‡ì, hviv ¯ vbxq Rb‡Mvôx‡ì wb‡q ÁvbMf© KvR K‡i‡Qb, Zv‡ì GKwU
`xN© ZvwjKv evbv‡bv hvq| Zv‡ì g‡a¨ D‡jøL‡hvM¨ K‡qKRb n‡jb: d«vwÝm
eyLvbb, Rb IqvUmb, Rb K¨vB, K¨v‡Þb †jDBb, WvjUb, ‡Rgm IqvBR, nvievU©
wiR&wj, RR© wMÖqvimb, Rb ndg¨vb, Gjvb †cø‡dqvi, ‡nbwi †evgcvm I cj
ewWs| d«vwÝm eyLvbb cÖYxZ 1798 mv‡ji `wÿYc~e© evsjv ågYcÄx Ges Zuvi
Øviv cwiPvwjZ 1805 mv‡ji DËie½ I wenvi Rwic‡K G AÂjmg~‡ni Rb¨
cÖ_g Ges AZ¨šÍ Zvrch©c~Y© wnmv‡e we‡ePbv Kiv nq (†m‡›`j, 1994)| cve©Z¨
PÆMÖv‡gi cÖ_g †Rjv cÖkvmK K¨v‡Þb †jDBb GB AÂ‡ji Rb‡Mvôxi Dci
GKRb we‡klÁ wnmv‡e L¨vZ (Bmjvg, 2005)| weªwU‡kvËi Kv‡jI GKwU
D‡jøL‡hvM¨ msL¨K KvR m¤úbœ n‡q‡Q (†hgb, ‡Nvl, 1355; Levi-Strauss,
1952; Bernot & Bernot, 1957; Bessaignet, 1958; Pakistan Government,
1963; mvËvi, 1966; Dalton, 1973; Sattar, 1971, 1975, 1978; Qureshi,
1984; ingvb, 1988; PvKgv, 2000; `ªs, 2001; Rafi & Chowdhury, 2001;
Bleie, 2005), †h¸‡jv Avwèvmx wi‡UvwiK mg„×Ki‡Y Ae`vb iv‡L| G¸‡jv‡Z
Avwèvmx‡ì m¤úwK©Z weªwUk Jcwb‡ewkK‡ì A‡bK a¨vbaviYv I e³e¨
cyb‡ivrcvw`Z n‡Z †`Lv hvq| wewUk I weªwU‡kvËi, DfqKv‡jB cÖfvekvjx
mvwnZ¨mg~n Avwèvmx‡ì cÖwZ bRi w`‡Z wM‡q weeZ©bev`x `„wófw½ Øviv cÖfvweZ|
126
GB `vk©wbK wPšÍv KvVv‡gv wewfbœ gvbe‡Mvôx‡K cÖMwZi GKvwaK avivevwnK

¯Íiwewkó GKwU wmwi‡R ¯ vcb K‡i| gvwK©b b„weÁvbx jyBm †nbix giMv‡bi g‡Z,
cÖavb wZbwU ¯Íi nj, eb¨ Ae¯ v (savagery), ee©i Ae¯ v (barbarism) I mf¨
Ae¯ v (civilization) (giMvb, 1975 ; Peoples & Bailey, 2000, c„t 52-53)|
mij, wb®‥j¼ Ges wb‡e©va •ewkó¨ m¤úbœ eb¨ Ae¯ v cÖMwZi me© wb¤œ Z_v Avw`g
¯Íi| Gi wecix‡Z mf¨ Ae¯ v nj cÖMwZi m‡e©vrK…ó Z_v kxl© ¯Íi| GB ¯Í‡i
mvd‡jï mv‡_ †cu․Qvi †ÿ‡Î, aviYv Kiv nq, cvðvZ¨ mgvR Abb¨ (Lyotard,
1984)| mf¨Zvi wb‡¤œ wewfbœ ¯Í‡i _vKv mgvRmg~‡ni Avek¨Kxq MšÍe¨ nj mf¨
nIqv
cwiPq msµvšÍ wi‡UvwiK wKfv‡e D™¢e n‡q‡Q?| cwiPq wbg©vY g~jZ n‡q‡Q, A-
Avwèvmx (evOvwj I weªwUk‡ì) `„wó‡KvY †_‡K| wewfbœ weÁRb, cÖkvmK,
†jLK‡ì †jLv I `vk©wbK gZev` Gi D™¢‡e f~wgKv †i‡L‡Q| weªwUk, evOvwj‡ì
KvR †hgb, Avãym mvËvi, W±i gynv¤§` knx`yjøvn, gM©v‡bi Avw`g mgvR eB‡qi
Abyev`, miKvwi bw_cÎ GB cÖm‡½ wb‡q Avmv hvq| ÔAviY¨ Rbc‡`Õ MÖ‡š i
Avkxe©vYx‡Z W±i gyn¤§` knx`yjøvn wj‡L‡Qb, GB MÖ‡š  Ô...wewfbœ †Rjvi
DcRvwZ‡ì m¤^‡Ü A‡bK PgKcÖ` weeiY msM„nxZ nBqv‡QÕ (knx`yjøvn, 1966)|
Ges MÖš vKvi Ô...c~e©cvwK¯Ív‡bi GK AÁvZ ev Aí cwiwPZ wel‡qi Dci
Av‡jvKcvZ Kwiqv‡QbÕ| gšÍe¨¸‡jv GLv‡b Zz‡j aiv n‡q‡Q GB Kvi‡Y †h, W±i
gyn¤§` knx`yjøvni gZ GKRb L¨vZgvb fvlvwe‡ì e³e¨ Avwèvmx‡ì m¤ú‡K©
mvaviY gvbyl‡ì gv‡S aviYv •Zwi‡Z Ae`vb iv‡L| G¸‡jv Avwèvmx‡ì ‡evSvi
†ÿ‡Î weeZ©bev`x `„wófw½ Øviv cÖfvweZ| Dbwesk kZ‡K weKvk jvf Kiv GB
`vk©wbK `„wó‡KvY †_‡K gvbe‡Mvôxmg~n‡K cÖMwZi GKvwaK avivevwnK ¯Íi wewkó
GKwU wmwi‡R ¯ vwcZ K‡i †`Lv nq| G¸‡jv nj, eb¨ Ae¯ v (savagery), ee©i
Ae¯ v (barbarism) I mf¨ Ae¯ v (civilization) (Peoples & Bailey, 2000:
52-53)| Rwniæj Bmjv‡gi GKwU mv¤úªwZK wbe‡Ü ‡h ch©‡eÿYwU G‡m‡Q
(Islam, 2015):
127
‗’Tb_ chn_f[]no[f `c_f^ chb_lcn_^ ―nb_ mfin i` inb_lh_mm‖ `lig

Western scholarship of approaching human beings. Here,
―W_mn_lh‖ cm om_^ ni l_`_l ni c^_ifiac_m jlcg[lcfs jliô]_^ ch
Europe and the New World: North America, Australia and New
Zealand (Islam, 2010, p. 35). Western thought is not necessarily
confined to these geographic areas alone. However, cultures,
from evolutionary perspective, are classified into a series of
mn[a_m i` jlial_mm, ìl _r[gjf_, ―m[p[a_ls‖, ―\[l\[lcmg‖ [h^
―]cpcfct[ncih‖ (P_ijf_m & B[cf_s, 2000, j. 52-53). Savagery
refers to the lowest – simplistic, innocence and non-reasoning as
well as primitive stage, while civilization is the highest and
complex level of progress. Western society is unique in its
success attaining civilization form (Lyotard, 1984). The savage
is necessarily later in time than civilized. The evolutionary
argument is continued in narrative about indigenous
j_ijf_’‘
wewfbœ GKv‡WwgK ÁvbKv‡Ði myev‡` GB ‡`‡k weeZ©bev`x gZev` PP©v nq|

ÔDcRvwZÕ, ÔAvwèvmxÕ, Ôÿz`ª b„-‡MvôxÕ, ÔcvnvwoÕ Ñ Avwèvmx Rb‡Mvôxi cwiP‡q
GB c`mg~n eûj cÖPwjZ| GB c`mg~n, mKj A_© Ges gvÎvB †Kej wfbœ bq,
c`mg~‡ni †Kvb m¤úK©I †bB| Z‡e GB meKwU AwfavB (titles) Avwèvmx‡ì‡K
GKwU cÖvwšÍK RvqMvq ¯ vwcZ K‡i: Giv Ômf¨Zvq wb¤œ¯Í‡iÕ Ae¯ vb K‡i, ÔA™¢yZÕ
Ges GKwU Ôwew”Qbœ RM‡ZiÕ Awaevmx| ÔDcRvwZÕ Awfavi ga¨ w`‡q
128
Avwèvmx‡ì Ggb gvbe‡Mvôx wnmv‡e Dc¯ vcb K‡i, hviv Ômf¨Zvq wb¤œ¯Í‡iÕ

Ae¯ vb K‡i| GB welqwU wewfbœ mg‡qi miKvwi bw_cÎ, mswkøó‡ì †jLv‡jwL I
e³e¨ ‡_‡K ¯úó n‡q I‡V| Mft Ae †e½j, RywWwmqvj wWcvU©‡g›U Awaf~³
cwjwUK¨vj eªvÂ Gi †cÖvwmwWsm 22-23 (†m‡Þ¤î 1876) GLv‡b D‡jøL Kiv
hvq, †hLv‡b DcRvwZ‡ì‡K ÔAa©-Amf¨Õ wnmv‡e AwfwnZ Kiv n‡q‡Q| GB
bw_‡Z cveZ©¨ PÆMÖv‡gi Avwèvmx‡ì Rwgi gvwjKvbv cÖm‡½ GKwU jvBb nj:
ÔGB ce©‡Z emevmiZ Aa©-Amf¨ DcRvwZ‡ì ‡evSv‡bv nq †h, Zviv †h Rwg‡Z
evm Ki‡Q Zv nj (Bsj¨v‡Ûi) ivbxi AaxbÕ| GQvov GB gvbyl‡ì AviI ‣ewkó¨
nj, cve©Z¨ PÆMÖv‡gi cÖ_g †Rjv cÖkvmK K¨v‡Þb jy¨B‡bi g‡Z, Zv‡ì gv‡S
Ô†Kvb iKg B”Qv ev e¨vKzjZv †bBÕ (Lewin, 1869: 28)| Ggb gvbe‡Mvôx
wnmv‡e Dc¯ vcb K‡i, hviv mf¨Zvq wcQ‡b _vKv wcwQ‡q _vKv Ges wew”Qbœ GKwU
RM‡Zi Awaevmx| ÔDcRvwZÕ Awfav Avwèvmx‡ì, h_vh_ bq, Ggb GKwU
RvqMvq ¯ vwcZ K‡i| Gi ga¨ w`‡q Zv‡ì‡K Ggb gvbe‡Mvôx wnmv‡e Dc¯ vcb
Kiv nq, hviv mf¨Zvq wcwQ‡q _vKv Ges wew”Qbœ GKwU RM‡Zi Awaevmx|
ÁvbZË¡xq cÖm½
GB welqwU b„„weÁvb we¯ÍvwiZ Aa¨qb K‡i‡Q| cÖvmw½K c`mg~‡ni (†hgb, tribe)
eyrcwË Ges A‡_©i µgweKvk (etymology), GB welq¸‡jv DrmvwiZ nq cÖviw¤¢K
G_&‡bvMÖvdvi‡ì Øviv| hviv g~jZ PviwU K¨vUvMwi‡Z wef³: ch©UK, ewYK,
wgkbvix Ges Jcwb‡ewkK kvmKe„›` (Dcwb‡ewkK †`‡k wb‡qvwRZ)| Giv †hme
¯ v‡b ågY K‡i‡Qb, ag©cÖPvi K‡i‡Qb ev kvmbKvh© cwiPvjbv K‡i‡Qb, †mLvbKvi
Rb‡Mvôxi Rxeb Wv‡qwi‡Z wj‡L‡Qb| ‡h¸‡jv Wvqwi‡Z wj‡L‡Qb, †mLv‡b A‡bK
c` (terms) eënvi K‡i‡Qb| Zv‡ì †jLvi †g․wjKZ¡mg~‡ni GKwU wQj
G_‡bv‡mbwUªRg (ethnocentrism), evsjvq hv‡K ejv nq ¯^RvZ¨‡eva| GwU
129
GKwU ZË¡, hv Rvg©vb `vk©wbK ‡Rvnvb nvW©vi (1744-1803) cÖYqb K‡ib| wZwb
e‡jb, mvaviYZ GKwU Rb‡Mvôx Av‡iKwU Rb‡Mvôxi RxebhvÎv‡K wb‡Ri
g~j¨‡eva ev gvcKvwV (standard) w`‡q, Z_v wb‡Ri fvjg‡›ì †evSvi †eva,
MÖnY‡hvM¨Zv I AMÖnY‡hvM¨Zv‡eva w`‡q gv‡cb| hv mwVK bq| KviY `yBwU
Rb‡Mvôxi Rxebeë¯ v Av‡cwÿK| GB welqwU d«vb&R †evqvm Zvi mvs¯‥…wZK
Av‡cwÿKZv (cultural relativism ) Z‡Ë¡ we¯ÍvwiZ wj‡L‡Qb|
Zviv †Kb G_&‡bv‡mw›UªK wQ‡jb? Avgiv a‡i wbw”Q, GwU wQj MÖxK ch©UK g‡›U¯‥z
(wLªt c~t) Gi mgq †_‡K| wZwb ïiæ K‡ib GK`g b„weÁv‡bi Abykxjb, hvÎvïiæ
I weKvk †_‡K| cÖK…Z G_‡bvMÖvdvi wb‡KvjvB wgK‡jvn-g¨vK‡j| kZvwãi ci
kZvwã a‡i cÖPzi †jLv R‡gwQj mviv wek¦e¨vcx| GB †h cÖPzi DcvË Wv‡qwi‡Z
msM„nxZ n‡qwQj, G¸‡jv we‡køl‡Yi gva¨‡g b„weÁv‡bi ZË¡ I wPšÍv ïiæ I weKvk
N‡U| †mUvI cÖ_g w`‡K G_‡bv‡mw›UªR‡gi evB‡i wQjbv| wK wK c` cÖviw¤¢K
G_‡bvMÖvdvi I ZvwË¡Kiv eënvi K‡iwQ‡jb| †m¸‡jvi cÖavb K‡qKwU nj,
Ôsavage (eb¨)Õ, Ô barber (ee©i)Õ Ges Ôtribe (DcRvwZ)Õ| ÔtribeÕ Kviv ?
b„weÁvbx‡ì g‡Z, ÔtribeÕ Av‡MI wQj, GLbI Av‡Q| `yBwU gvbe‡Mvôx (human
group), hviv msL¨vq Kg, 200 †_‡K 250| Z_v nq gvZ…m~Îxq (matrilineal),
wKsev wcZ…m~Îxq (patrilineal) esk‡Mvôx (descent)| Gi A_©, GKB MÖæ‡c i‡³i
I es‡ki m¤úK© Øviv cÖ‡Z¨K m`m¨ †Mvôx‡Z _v‡K| GB MÖæç‡jv wcZ…Zvwš¿K
(patriarchal) wKsev gvZ…Zvwš¿K (matriarchal) n‡Z cv‡i| GB `y‡Uv MÖæc
eskm~Îxq bq, eis ÿgZv Kvi, cyiæl bv bvixi ? GB ai‡bi MÖæc‡K g~jZ clan
A_ev lineage e‡j| cv_©K¨ GLv‡b †h, lineage Gi †ÿ‡Î cÖ‡Z¨K m`m¨
originator ‡K bv‡g Ges e¨w³MZfv‡e (physically) †P‡b| clan Gi †ÿ‡Î GUv
130
n‡e †h, c~e©cyiæl (ancestor) KvíwbK| ÔtribeÕ nq, hLb K‡qKwU gvZ…m~Îxq
wKsev wcZ…m~Îxq clan A_ev lineage GKwU †Mvôx ev Rb‡Mvôx •Zwi K‡i|
ivR‣bwZK eë¯ vi Aaxb GB ÔtribeÕ aviYv ÁvwZm¤úK© ZË¡ Øviv •Zwi, hvi ïiæ
gM©v‡bi mgqKvj †_‡K| †m Abykxjb GLb †bB, GUv BwZnv‡m wQj| ev¯Í‡e †bB
, wKš‧ c`wU Av‡Q| GUv‡K eënvi Kiv nq, B‡”Q gZ (arbitrarily)| tribe Gi
evsjv‡`‡ki cwifvlv nj DcRvwZ| †hUv lexicologically constitute Ki‡Q
`yBwU k‡ãi mgš^‡q: GKwU nj Dc (sub) Ges Av‡iKwU nj RvwZ (nation)|
Gi A_© ùvovq, DcRvwZ nj †Kvb GKwU RvwZi DckvLv| Zvn‡j, Gi ¯^vaxb
Aw¯ÍZ¡‡K wb‡`©k K‡i bv|
b„‡MvôxÑ Ôb„Õ Gi A_© gvbyl Avi Ô‡MvôxÕ nj GKxf~Z gvbyl| GUv †h ‡Kvb
†ckvRxex †MvôxI n‡Z cv‡i| Gi A_©, †h ‡Kvb gvby‡li †MvôxB b„‡Mvôx Z_v
human community| GQvov Av‡Q, Avwèvmx, indigenous Gi evsjv wnmv‡e
GwU eëüZ nq| lexicologically `yBwU k‡ãi mgš^‡q ÔAvw`Õ Ges ÔevmxÕ| Avw`
mgq wbw`©ó bq, ‡Kvb mgq Kvj‡K wb‡`©k K‡i bv| ÔAvw`Õ welqwU‡K b„weÁvb
wKfv‡e wPwýZ K‡i, Zv ¯úó Kiv cÖ‡qvRb|
GK, RxweZ gvbyl Ges Hominoids (great apes) (Stringer, 1994)| Hominoid
Gi gv‡b Rxevk¥ hv‡ì ape †ì bq, A_P AvaywbK gvbyl‡ì mv‡_I wgj ‡bB|
Z‡e, brain mKj living organisms Gi †P‡q eo| Zv‡ì‡K ejv nq Homo
habilis| Gi gv‡b, handyman, hv‡ì nv‡Zi eënvi Av‡Q, nvwZqvi cÖYq‡bi
mÿgZv Av‡Q| cÖ_g GB ai‡bi gvby‡li b„‣eÁvwbK KvR nj A÷ª‡jvwc‡_mvBbm
(australopithecines), ZvÄvwbqv I Ab¨vb¨ ¯ v‡b cvIqv †M‡Q| G‡ì AbymÜvb
nq cvnv‡oi Lv‡Z (gorge)| G‡ì mgqKvj wba©viY Kiv nq 2.1 wgwjqb eQi|
131
Giv wQj wØc`x (bipedal) Ges G‡ì `šÍ gvby‡li mv‡_ wgj Av‡Q| G‡ì
gw¯Í‡®‥i AvqZb (brain size), AvaywbK hy‡Mi GcÕi ‡P‡q †ewk bq, 650 wmwm
(†µwbqvj †KcvwmwU)| Gi cieZ©x‡Z †h Rxevk¥ cvIqv hvq, AvaywbK gvby‡li
mv‡_ Gbv‡UvwgK¨vwjø wgj cvIqv hvq| Ges G‡Kev‡i †mvRv (upright) ùvwo‡q
_vK‡Zv| Zv‡ì wØc`x PjvPj (bipedal loco motion) wQj| Zv‡ì nv‡Zi
ch©vß eënvi wQj| wewfbœ ai‡bi aviv‡jv A¯¿ cvIqv †M‡Q| GUv nj,
bvB‡Rwiqvq 1.7 wgwjqb eQi Av‡M AviI Aw¯ÍZ¡ cvIqv †M‡Q| GKB mgqKv‡j
wQj B‡›`v‡bwkqvi Rvfv gvbyl| Giv GKB ai‡bi gvbyl| wcwKs gvbyl, G‡ì‡K
ejv nq upright man (†mvRv n‡q `vwo‡q _vKv gvbyl)| G‡ì gw¯Í‡®‥i AvqZb
850-1100 wmwm|
Rvg©vbxi eid (glacial) hy‡Mi wbqbWvi_vj‡bwmm bvgK Rxevk¥ cvIqv hvq

(Park, 1999)| hv‡ì gw¯Í‡®‥i AvqZb wQj AvaywbK gvby‡li †P‡q eo 1800
wmwm| Giv 5 jÿ eQi Av‡M BD‡iv‡c evm KiZ| Zv‡ì‡KB cÖ_g ejv nq
Homo sapiens| G‡ì Ke‡i g„Z gvby‡li mv‡_ Zvi eënvh© AjsKvi, cQ‡›ì
wRwbmcÎ Ges Ava¨vwZ¥K wewfbœ Dcv`vb cvIqv hvq| Zviv wkKvi KiZ| wKš‧
G‡ì †KD AvR‡K †eu‡P †bB| GB Neanderthal MÖæc Ñ wejyß n‡q †M‡Q|
G‡ì †kl e¨w³ †hLv‡b gviv hvb †mwU nj eZ©gvb emwbqv| wejywßi KviY,
Lv‡`ï Afve, kxZ Ges h‡_vchy³ wkKvi nvwZqvi cÖ¯‧‡Zi e¨_©Zv wecwËi KviY
wn‡m‡e aiv nq| I‡ìB Av‡iKwU MÖæc d«v‡Ý hv‡ì Rxevk¥ cvIqv hvq| hv‡ì‡K
ejv nq Cro-Magnon| G‡ì GbvUwg I gw¯Í®‥ resemble K‡i AvaywbK gvby‡li
mv‡_| Zv‡ì Rxev‡k¥i eqm aiv nq 45,000 eQi| Zviv Lye DbœZ gv‡bi
nvwZqvi evbv‡Zv| gw¯Í‡®‥i AvqZb wQj byb¨Zg 1500 wmwm| b„weÁv‡b G‡ì
132
bvg †Ìqv nq Homo sapiens sapiens| Giv wkKv‡ii Rb¨ hv •Zwi KiZ, Zv
nj d¬¨v·, cv_‡ii •Zwi| Cro-Magnon Gi ci nj AvaywbK gvbyl|
gvby‡li mf¨Zvi BwZnvm †_‡K †`Lv hvq, cÖZœZË¡ hv cÖgvY Ki‡Z †c‡i‡Q, 4wU
mf¨Zv Av‡Q cyi‡bv: †g‡mvc‡Uwgqv (BivK), BwRc&U ( wgki), g‡n‡Äv`v‡iv-niàv
(cvwK¯Ívb) Ges mvs Pvqbv (Pxb)| G¸‡jv wLªóc~e© 3 †_‡K 5 nvRvi eQi Av‡Mi|
cieZ©xKv‡j be¨ mf¨Zv cvIqv hvq- AvR‡UK I Bb&Kv| Zvn‡j a‡i †bIqv hvq,
45 nvRvi eQi Av‡Mi †µv-‡gMbvb Ges 5 nvRvi eQi Av‡Mi mf¨Zv,
gvSLv‡bi 40 nvRvi eQi wQj gvbyl wQj wkKvix I msMÖvnK (hunter and
gatherer)| mf¨Zv I emwZwfwËK Rxeb (settled life) GB HwZnvwmK mgqKv‡j
LyeB Aí w`‡bi e¨vcvi| AvaywbK gvby‡li Ae¯ vb †hLv‡bB _vKyK, Zviv wkKvix
I msMÖvn‡Ki Gi Ae¯ vi ga¨ w`‡q †M‡Q| GRb¨ PjvPj (mobility) wQj
cÖv_wgK e¨vcvi| gvbyl ZLb ¯ vqx emwZ ¯ vcbKvix bq| GB ‡h PjvPj f~L‡Ði
Dci, †mUv we‡ePbvq Avb‡Z nq| b„weÁvbxiv cÖgvY K‡i‡Qb †h, AvaywbK gvby‡li
†R‡bwUK MVb wbD‡jw_K wkKvix I msMÖvnK‡ì mv‡_ ûeû wg‡j hvq| GLv‡b
cÖvmw½K †h, wRb I Rxeb eë¯ vi g‡a¨ GKvšÍ mnve¯ vb ¯úó| GB mg‡qi
cÖmv‡i Avw` Kviv, emwZ ¯ vcbKvix Kviv, Kv‡ì‡K Avwèvmx eje? GUv LyeB
RwUj GKwU welq| Anthropogenisis Gi †g․wjK cÖkœ| •RweK b„weÁvb GLbI
KvR K‡i P‡j‡Q| wUg †nvqvBU 2002 mv‡j ‡mvgvwjqvq 3wU Rxevk¥ †c‡q‡Qb -
bvix, cyiæl I wkïi| Rxev‡k¥i eqm 1 jÿ 60 nvRvi eQi| Giv AvaywbK
gvby‡li mv‡_ mv`„k¨c~Y©| GB Pjgvb M‡elYv¸‡jv GB cÖ‡kœi DËi †LuvRvi bZzb
w`MšÍ D‡b¥vPb Ki‡e| d‡j entomologically fvevi my‡hvM Av‡Q|
133
ÁvbZË¡xq cÖm‡½ Av‡iKwU welq nj fvlvi iƒcvšÍi| we‡k¦i me‡P‡q cÖL¨vZ

Rvg©vb fvlvwe` Pennwitch| wZwb e‡jb, Avgiv iƒcvšÍ‡ii ïiæ‡ZB fyj Kwi|
KviY, we‡k¦i DbœZ †`‡ki fvlvmg~‡ni †hgb, Rvg©vb, divwm, Bs‡iwR fvlv¸‡jvi
Øvi Ly‡j †`B bv Ab¨ fvlv XzKvi Rb¨| eis Ab¨ fvlv‡K Rvg©vb fvlvq wb‡q
Avmvi †Póv Kwi| GB Ae¯ vq wKfv‡e Rvg©vb fvlv Ab¨ GKwU fvlv †_‡K Abyev`
Ki‡e| wKš‧ welqLvwb A‡bKUvB wecixZ| †hgb Aviwe fvlv wb‡R‡K Øvi Ly‡j
w`‡q‡Q Bs‡iwRi mv‡_| d‡j bZzb kã fvÐvi mg„× K‡i‡Q| GB fvlv GLb
‡d«R, c¨viv PP©v K‡i| GLvb †_‡K †hUv e³e¨, Zv nj, ÿgZvai fvlvmg~n
preserve K‡i wb‡R‡K| b„weÁvbx I fvlvZË¡we` Linheardt e‡jb, †Kvb fvlvi
cÖZ¨q Av‡iKwU fvlvi Rb¨ m¤ú~Y© •Zwi Ae¯ vq _v‡K bv| d‡j fvlv iƒcvšÍi m¤¢e
bq| Z‡e Ab¨ GKwU fvlvi semantics †_‡K A_© wjLv m¤¢e| Zvjvj Avmv`
Amg fvlvi K_v e‡j‡Qb Jcwb‡ewkK ÿgZvai †`k¸‡jv A_©‣bwZK I
ivR‣bwZKfv‡e Jcwb‡ewkZ †`k¸‡jv‡K kvmb Kivi d‡j fvlvi dominance
Kivi †Póv Kiv n‡q‡Q, Zv `„k¨gvb| Kv‡RB indigenous Gi evsjv Avwèvmx
Kiv hvq bv| tribal Gi evsjv DcRvwZ Kiv hvq bv| b„‡Mvôxi evsjv bi‡Mvôx hvi
A_© race ( eY©), caste bq| ZvB b„‡Mvôx gv‡bI race n‡Z cv‡i wK?
G_wbK cÖwµqv
GB cÖm‡½ Rnijvj †bniæi ch©‡eÿYwU mwe‡kl ¸iæZ¡c~Y© (Nehru, 1961)|
fviZe‡l© GKwU AZ¨šÍ DbœZ mf¨Zv wQj Ñ BÛvm AeevwnKvq iƒcjvfKvix
g‡n‡Äv`v‡iv, niàv| RbmsL¨v a‡i ivLvi Rb¨ wQj K…wl| Ab¨vb¨ †`‡ki †hv×viv
†Póv K‡i‡Q Rq Kivi Rb¨| Zviv `Lj Kivi Rb¨ wfZ‡i Xz‡K wVKB, G‡m †`‡L
Zv‡ì †P‡q A‡bK DbœZ mf¨Zvi †jvKRb GLv‡b emevm K‡i| Conquerors
134
have been conquered by higher culture of India | GLv‡b, Buddhist

civilization Gi weKvk N‡U‡Q| GKK bq, eis a number of conquerors Gi
Rb¨ GUv N‡U‡Q| cÖ‡Z¨‡Ki †ÿ‡ÎB GKB NUbv N‡U‡Q Ñ Zviv †_‡K †M‡Q ¯ vqx
evwm›`v wnmv‡e| wbR †`‡k wd‡i hvq wb ev m¤ú` wb‡q cvwj‡q hvq wb| •Zgyi
js, †Pw½m Lvb Avi AvdMvbiv G‡m‡Q, Zviv †_‡K †M‡Q| GB ‡h higher
culture G †_‡K hvIqv, Zv GB A_©‡K wb‡`©k K‡i †h, eû eQi a‡i A‡b‡K evm
Kivi d‡j GKwU msKi RvwZ •Zwi n‡q‡Q| meKqwU G_&wbK cÖwµqv GKmv‡_
N‡U‡Q: (1) Ethnic assimilation, hLb †Kvb RbM‡vôx Zv‡ì mv‡_ cÖvq
KvQvKvwQ emevmKvix e„nr Rb‡Mvôxi g‡a¨ wbR¯^Zv m¤ú~Y© nvwi‡q A‡bï fvlv
ms¯‥…wZ Rxeb cÖYvjx I mg¯Í wKQz wbR¯^ g‡b K‡i GKxf~Z n‡q hvq- GwU
assimilation bv‡g cwiwPZ| cÖvM BwZnvm Zvi mvÿx| †hgb, ‡fÇ‡qW
(veddoid) mvD_ BwÛqvb †im| (2) Ethnic unification, GKvwaK G_wbK MÖæc
wgwjZ n‡q GKxf~Z nq| (3) Ethnic diversification, GKwU G_wbK MÖæc
wefvwRZ n‡q GKvwaK ¯^Kxq MÖæ‡c iƒcvšÍwiZ nq| (4) bZzb G_wbK MÖæ‡ci D™¢e
(emergence)|
Intermarriage, reproduction ‡_‡K ejv hvq bv †h, GKwU MÖæc cÖavb ï× Ôi³Õ
†_‡K •Zwi n‡q‡Q, Zv bq| weªwUk Jcwb‡ewkKiv †_‡K †M‡Q| fviZ we‡k¦i mKj
G_wbK MÖæc‡K cÖwZwbwaZ¡ K‡i fviZe‡l© emevmiZ eZ©gvb Awaevmxe„›` n‡jb
living relics, living evidence of ethno genesis (Thurston & Rangachari,
1909; Robb, 1995)| a‡i †bIqv nq, A÷ª-GwkqvwUK fvlv‡Mvôxi w`K †_‡K
mevi Av‡M A÷ªvj‡qWiv GLv‡b emevm KiZ| Zviv msL¨vMwiô wQj| wLªó c~e© cÖvq
3-4 nvRvi eQi Av‡M G‡ì †P‡q cÖvMÖmi GKwU `j cÖ‡ek K‡i, hv‡ì‡K
135
Avgiv ewj `ªvwewWqvb| Zv‡ì g~j fvlv wQj cvwj Ges Giv g~jZ `wÿY fvi‡Z
evm K‡i| Giv cieZ©x‡Z RvwZ ivóª MVb K‡i| Giv 4wU g~j fvlv‡Mvôx‡Z
wef³: (1) Zvwgj (2) †Z‡j¸ (3) gvjvqvjg (4) K¨vbviv| GQvov AviI †QvU
MÖæc GLv‡b evm K‡i| GbvUwgK, Gb‡_ªv‡cv‡gwUªK Ges †iwmqvj •ewkó¨
we‡ePbvq `ªvwewWqvbiv ¯úóZB ¯^Zš¿| GB cÖgvY msiwÿZ Av‡Q KvjPvivj
wgDwRqv‡g| g‡n‡Äv`v‡iv niàvi Awaevmx‡ì GbvUwgK •ewkó¨ nj
`ªvwewWqvb‡ì|
wLªóc~e© 1500 mv‡ji Av‡M GLv‡b Av‡iKwU MÖæc cÖ‡ek K‡i| Giv nj,
B‡›`vGwiqvb fvlv‡Mvôx| Giv K…wl‡Z DbœZ Ges `ªvwewWqvb‡ì †_‡K wfbœ| GB
cÖvMÖmi Rb‡Mvôx µgvMZ `ªvwewWqvb‡ì `wÿ‡Y wb‡q hvq| DË‡ii Gwiqvbiv
`wÿ‡Yi mxgv ( †hgb, cvÄve ) ch©šÍ we¯Ívi jvf K‡i| G‡ì fvlv ms¯‥…Z| GB
fvlv †_‡K A‡bK¸‡jv kvLv ivóªxq fvlvI (language branches) m„wó n‡q‡Q,
†hgb, wnw›`, evsjv, wenvwi, cvÄvwe| Gwiqvb‡ì e¨vcK Rb‡Mvôx cy‡iv fviZ
Ry‡o evm Ki‡Q| G‡ì †jvKmsL¨v kÖxjsKvqI AMÖmi nq| wmsnjx fvlv G‡ì
†_‡K Drcbœ| Zvwgj I wmsnjx wg‡j kÖxjsKvi RbMY| fviZxq kÖxjsKvb| wKQz Avie
gymjgvb i‡q‡Q| kÖxjsKv‡Z GB cÖwµqv‡Z †`Lv hvq A÷ªvj‡qW‡ì mv‡_ Gwiqvb‡ì
mswgkÖY| hvB †nvK, `ªvweo, A÷ªvj‡qW I Gwiqvb, GB wZb cÖavb wZbwU MÖæc `xN© mgq
GKmv‡_ _vKvi Kvi‡Y A÷ªvj‡qW‡ì `ªvweo, c‡i Gwiqvb‡ì mv‡_ `ªvweo I
A÷ªvj‡qW‡ì wgkÖb n‡q‡Q| `wÿ‡Y we¯Ívi jvf K‡i `ªvweoiv Ges DËi `Lj K‡i
Gwiqvbiv| A÷ªvj‡qWiv Gwmwg‡j‡UW I WvBfviwmdvBW n‡q hvq| GB Ômswgk&ªYÕ
(assembling ) Gi d‡j mvD_ Gwkqvb †im e‡j GKwU bZzb †im D™¢~Z nq|
†R‡bvUvBc I †d‡bvUvBc we‡ePbvq g‡n‡Äv`v‡ivi mv‡_ Zvwgj‡ì GKwU cv_©K¨ †`Lv

hvq| Avgiv †R‡bvUvB‡ci †ÿ‡Î †`‡LwQ, `wÿ‡Y `ªvweo I A÷ªvj‡qW‡ì
wgkÖ‡Y †h †im Zv nj Vedda (Veddoid)| Giv `ªvweo wKš‧ DrcwË `ªvweo I
136
A÷ªvj‡qW| GLb A÷ªvj‡qW ccy‡jk‡bi nvB‡cvw_wmm AviI cÖgvY K‡i, `y‡Uv

living evidence Ñ hv nj, living relics| GK, kÖxjsKvi DuPz AÂ‡j Mahingana
†ì 17wU †e‡ëi g‡a¨ 17k †eë-G emevm K‡i| GLv‡b hviv emevm K‡i, Zviv
Vedda (kvn Rvjvj Gi ch©‡eÿY)| Giv nj A‡÷ªv-GwkqvwUK fvlv‡Mvôxi
A÷ªvj‡qW ccy‡jkb| G‡ì cÖavb n‡jb kÖxjsKvb cvj©v‡g‡›Ui Abvivwi †g¤î|
`yB, Av›`vgvb Øxccy‡Ä evm K‡i A÷ªvj‡qW Rb‡Mvôx| Zv‡ì GbvUwg I fvlv
we‡ePbvq Zviv A÷ªvj‡qW|
H mg‡q AvdMvb, †gvMj, •Zgyi js, BD‡ivcxq I Avie gymjgvb, mK‡j wg‡j it
has became a synthesis of all religions| e¨vcK msL¨K tribes _vKvi Kvi‡Y
GLv‡b GwbwgRg, GwbgvwURg, gvbv, †Uv‡Ug, cwjw_Rg I g‡bvw_wRg meB Av‡Q|
gyÛv‡ì cvkvcvwk GKwU g½j‡qW aviv GLv‡b Av‡Q| wU‡e‡Uv-PvBwbR fvlv‡Mvôx
fvi‡Zi wngvjq ch©šÍ we¯Í…Z| H †e‡ë g‡½vj‡qWiv wQj| Zviv we¯Ívi jvf K‡i
fviZe‡l©| GB f~L‡Ð †im I ccy‡jk‡bi weKvk (G_&‡bv‡R‡bwmm), Zv `xN©
mg‡qi e¨vcvi, cÖv‣MwZnvwmK| Ab¨w`‡K iv‡óªi weKvk nj Aí mg‡qi e¨vcvi|
BwZnvm I cÖvMBwZnvm Avjv`v Ki‡Z n‡e| evOvwj‡ì GbvUwgK •ewkó¨
Gwiqvb‡ì mv‡_ wg‡j| Lvwmqviv gb‡Lwgwiqvb fvlv‡Mvôx| Giv K‡¤^vwWqvb|
gyÛviv nj Blackish Mongoloid| Yellowed Mongoloid iv cve©Z¨ PÆMÖv‡g|
evsjv‡`k f~L‡Ð wewfbœ fvlv I †iwmqvj ‡Mvôxi †h we¯Ívi jvf K‡i‡Q, Zvi g‡a¨
cÖavb nj, evOvwj| A÷ªvj‡qW, g‡½vj‡qW, Gwiqvb fvlv‡Mvôx (BD‡ivcxq),
wb‡MÖv‡qW (Avwd«Kvb) Ges †fÇ‡qW (mvD_ BwÛqvb) Ñ G‡ì mK‡ji m¤ú‡K©
†jLv GB wbe‡Ü m¤¢e bq| GLv‡b mKj †im, ag© I ms¯‥…wZ we`¨gvb| GB RwUj
Ges `xN© G_wbK cÖwµqvi g‡a¨ evsjv‡`‡k emevmKvix ¯^Kxq Rb‡Mvôx‡ì
Kxfv‡e wPwýZ Kiv †h‡Z cv‡i, †Kvb †g․wjK M‡elYv bv K‡i? GwU GKgvÎ
137
GKv‡WwgK cÖkœ| GB iKg GKwU †d«gIqv‡K© ejv hvq, G¸‡jv m¤ú‡K© we¯ÍvwiZ
Dc¯ vcbv GKwU gvÎ wbe‡Ü2 G‡Kev‡iB Am¤¢e| GB M‡elYvwU n‡e b„‣eÁvwbK|
UxKv
1
wbe‡Ü wi‡UvwiK (rhetoric) c`wU‡K Bs‡iwR‡Z ivLvi KviY nj, †h A‡_©
Bs‡iwR‡Z GwU eëüZ nq, Gi evsjv cÖwZkã †m A_©‡K h_vh_ wb‡`©k K‡i bv|
wi‡Uvwi‡Ki `yBwU evsjv cÖwZkã nj, ÔAj¼vieûjÕ, ÔevMvo¤îÕ (Siddiqui,
1993)| A_P Bs‡iwR‡Z GwU‡K msÁvwqZ Kiv n‡q‡Q GB fv‡e: Ôgvbyl‡K cÖfvweZ
Kivi wbwg‡Ë e³…Zv ev †jLv‡jwL, wKš‧ †m¸‡jv cy‡ivcywi mZ¨ ev AK…wÎg bqÕ
(Hornby, 2005)| Speech or writing that is intended to influence people,
but that is not completely honest or sincere It – though it does not aim to
reveal truth – ij_l[n_m [m nlonb. Rb_nilc] ―^_mcl_m ni ]ihp_s ihfs [ doxa
(opinion) not an epistêmê (knowledge)‖, says Nietzsche (2001).
2
eZ©gvb wbe‡ÜI wjwLZ Dr‡mi Am¤ú~Y©Zv wbwðZfv‡e i‡q †M‡Q|
MÖšc’ wÄ
Bmjvg, Rwniæj (2005) cve©Z¨ PÆMÖv‡gi Avwèvmx bvixi Dci iv‡óªi cÖfve|
XvKv: evsjv‡`k d«xWg dvD‡Ûkb|
‡Nvl, my‡eva (1355) fvi‡Zi Avwèvmx| KwjKvZv|
PvKgv, myMZ (2000) evsjv‡`‡ki DcRvwZ Ges Avwèvmx‡ì mgvR, ms¯‹…wZ
AvPvi eënvi| XvKv: bI‡ivR wKZvwe¯Ívb|
`ªs, mÄxe (2001) evsjv‡`‡ki wecbœ Avwèvmx| XvKv: bI‡ivR wKZvwe¯Ívb|
giMvb, jy. †nbwi (1975) Avw`g mgvR (eyjeb Imgvb KZ©„K Ancient
138
Society Gi Abyev`)| XvKv: evsjv GKv‡Wgx [cÖ_g cÖKvk 1877]|

ingvb, gynv¤§` nvweeyi (1988) cve©Z¨ evsjv‡`‡ki RygPvl| XvKv wek¦we`¨vjq
cwÎKv, GKwÎsk msL¨v: 60-78|
knx`yjøvn&, gyn¤§` (1966) Avwke©vYx, Ave`ym& mvËvi cÖYxZ AviY¨ Rbc‡`| XvKv:
Rwj eyK&m|
†m‡›`j, †fjvg fvb (m¤úvt) (1994) `w¶Yc~e© evsjvq d«vwÝm eyLvbb (1798):
Kzwgjv, †bvqvLvwj, PÆMÖvg, cve©Z¨ PÆMÖv‡g Zuvi ågY| Abyev`: mvjvnDÏxb
AvBqye| XvKv: B›Uvib¨vkbvj †m›Uvi di †e½j óvwWR|
†m‡›`j, †fjvg fvb I ej, G‡jb (m¤úvt) (1998) evsjvi eûRvwZ: evOvwj
Qvov Ab¨vb¨ RvwZi cÖm½| w`wjø: B›Uvib¨vkbvj †m›Uvi di †e½j ÷vwWR|
mvËvi, Ave`ym& (1966) AviY¨ Rbc‡`| XvKv: Rwj eyK&m|
Bessaignet, P. (1958). Tribesmen of the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Dacca:
Asiatic Society of Pakistan.
Bal, E. A. (2007) They Ask If We eat Frogs: Garo Ethnicity in
Bangladesh. The Neitherland: International institute for Asian studies.
Bernot, D. and Bernot, L. (1957) 'Chittagong Hill Tribes', in Stanley

Maron (Ed), Pakistan: Society and Culture, (New Haven: Human
Relations Area Files).
Bleie, T. (2005) Tribal Peoples, Nationalism, and the Human Rights
Challenge: The Adivasis of Bangladesh. Dhaka: University Press Ltd.
Bompas, C. H. & Bodding, P. O. (1909) Folklore of the Santal
Parganas. London: D. Nutt.
139
Clifford, J. & Marcus, G. E. (Eds) (1986) Writing Culture: The Poetics

and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Dalton, E. T. (1872) Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal. Calcutta: Council
of the Asiatic Society of Bengal/Indian Studies.
Greirson, G. A. (1891-1930) Linguistic Survey of India. Calcutta:

Superntident of Government Printing.
Hoffmann, J. (1907) Mundari Poetry, Music and Dances, Memoires of
the Asiatic Society of Bengal, II (5): 85-120.
Hornby, A. S. (2005) Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current
English. New York: Oxford University Press.
Imf[g, Z. (2011) ―E[lfs Cbcf^bii^‖ ch D_p_fijg_hn Dcm]iolm_: Wbim_
knowledge?, in Early Childhood Development: A key to child rights.
Dhaka: Early Concern, Manusher Jonno Foundation.
Islam, Z. (2015) Involving Development and Promoting
(De)participation: A postcolonial lens on the rights of indigenous
children in Bangladesh, Bangladesh Child Studies Journal, 1(2): 3-13.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1952) Kinship Systems of Three Chittagong Hill
Tribes, South-Western Journal of Anthropology, 8 (1): 40-50.
Lewin, T. H. (1869) The Hill Tracts of Chittagong and the
Dwellers Therein. Calcutta: Bengal Printing Co. Ltd.
Lewin, T. H. (1870) Wild Races of the Eastern Frontier of India.
Delhi: Mittal Publications.
140
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition. Manchester:

Manchester University Press.
Nehru, J. (1961) The Discovery of India. Bombay: Asia Publishing

House.
Nietzsche, F. (2001) On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense, in P.
Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds) The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from
Classical Times to the present. Bimnih/N_q Yile: B_^ìl^/Sn. M[lnch‖m.
Pakistan Government (1963) Pakistaner Upajati. Dhaka: Pakistan
Publications.
Park, M. A. (1999) Biological Anthropology. California: Mayfield
Publishing.
Peoples, J. & Bailey, G. (2000) Humanity: an introduction to cultural
anthropology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Playfair, A. (1909) The Garos. Michigan: University of Michigan
Library.
Qureshi, M. S. (Ed) (1984) Tribal Culture in Bangladesh. Rajshahi:
Institute of Bangladesh Studies (IBS), Rajshahi University.
Rafi, M. & Chowdhury, A. M. R. (Eds) (2001) Counting the Hills:

Assessing Development in Chittagong Hill Tracts. Dhaka: University
Press Limited.
Risley, H. H. (1891) The Tribes and Castes of Bengal. Calcutta: Bengal
Secretariat Press.
141
Risley, H. H. (1908) The People of India. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink &

Co.; London: W. Thacker & Co.
Robb, P. (1995) The Concept of Race in South Asia. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Sattar, A. (1971) In the sylvan shadows. Dhaka: Saquib Bros.
Sattar, A. (1975) Tribal culture in Bangladesh. Dhaka: Muktadhara.
Sattar, A. (1978) The sowing of seeds: the sociology of primitive sex.
Dhaka: Adeylebros.
Siddiqui, Z. R. (Ed) (1993) Bangla Academy English-Bengali
Dictionary. Dhaka: Bangla Academy.
Stringer, C. B. (1994) Evolution of early humans. In S. Jones, R. Martin
& D. Pilbeam (Eds) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 242.
Thurston, E. & Rangachari, K. (1909) Castes and Tribes of Southern
India, Volume I. Madras: Government Press.
Tripura, P. (1992) The Colonial Foundation of Pahari Identity, Journal of
Social Studies, 58.
Watson, J. F. & Kaye, J. W. (Eds) (1868) The people of India: a series
of photographic illustrations, with descriptive letterpress, of the races
and tribes of Hindustan. London: W. H. Allen & Co.
142
Chapter 9
Health and Disease of Human Beings: Issue of

Survival or Living
Abstract
This chapter has focused on the initial theoretical orientations that have
contributed to shaping of medical anthropology as a modern sub field of
anthropology. It has tried to provide some understandings about the
central concepts such as sickness, illness, disease and health, in brief, key
approaches, theoretical perspectives of the specialized field have also
been discussed. Though emergence of medical anthropology is derived
from its need to prevent and cure diseases and promote health, this
writing conclude that the essence of inclusion of health and disease do
not lie in its applied need but in the contribution these aspects of human
life could make in the paradigms of anthropology. It also focuses of
pathology associated to pregnancy before a human girl child body is not
prepared for child birth.
Introduction
Medical anthropology is the specialized field of anthropology, which
studies human health and disease. While medical sciences provide a
thorough bio-medical (anatomy, physiology, pathology) understandings
of health and disease, medical anthropology explains these phenomena
143
from a more comprehensive theoretical perspectives and broader

conceptual framework.
It conceives that a fuller understanding about health and disease is not

feasible at physiological and pathological level as fundamentally human
beings are a synthesis of body, mind, culture and society which are
further deeply connected to the organic and inorganic environment while
health and diseases are inseparable parts of human life. Therefore, an
anthropological viewing would essentially be looking at health and
disease in the particular cultural, social, political and economic processes
within the given organic and inorganic environment in which health is
maintained and diseases occurred.
The roots of medical anthropology lie deep within medicine and other
natural sciences as it is concern with biological phenomena related to
health and disease (Helman, 1994). Medical anthropology is a bio-
cultural discipline concerned with both the biological and socio-cultural
aspects of human behavior, and particularly with the ways in which the
two interacted throughout human history to influence health and disease
(Foster & Anderson, l978). Medical Sciences has moved human
knowledge about health and disease much further than it could have been
thought of, but it has kept these aspects of life attached exclusively to the
body, which necessarily has taken it away from human foundation.
It engages in basic research on issues of health and healing and healing

system as well as applied research aimed at improving therapeutic care at
clinical setting or public health programs in rural and urban settings. The
purpose of basic research is to expand knowledge while the purpose of
144
applied research is to solve specific human problem. There is a great deal

i` nb[n q_ îh‖n ehiq [\ion nb_ ][om_m i` mc]eh_mm [h^ nbe process of
healing. The health problems are overwhelming and complex and so
building knowledge about social construction of illness and the social
production of health would add to the basic need of the programs aiming
at promoting these problems (Brown, 1998)
Conceptualization of health and disease has undergone intellectual

grounding over the years. In order to lay theoretical foundation of
anthropological viewing of health and disease, medical anthropology has
developed its central concepts, particularly sickness, illness, disease and
health. As is the concept of culture, the notion of health is difficult to
define. According to the charter of the World Health Organization, health
refers not merely to the absence of disease but to a state of physical,
social and psychological well being (Dubos, I959). The problem is that
what constitutes well being in one society may be quite different and
often opposite in another (Brown, 1998). This situation creates need for
developing theoretical concepts intrinsic to anthropology.
Concept of Sickness
Sickness is an inclusive term that includes all unwanted variations in the
physical, social, and psychological dimensions of health. Robert Hahn
defih_m mc]eh_mm [m ―ohq[hn_^ ]ih^cncihm i` self or substantial threats of
ohq[hn_^ ]ih^cncih i` m_f`‖ (H[bh, 1995: 22). Tb_m_ ]ih^cncihm g[s
ch]fo^_ mn[n_m i` [hs j[ln i` [ j_lmih‖m \i^s, gch^, _rj_lc_h]_, il
relationship (Hahn, 1995: 22).
145
Sickness can be further divided into two basic categories: illness and
disease. Disease refers to the outward, clinical manifestations of altered
physical function or infection. It is a clinical phenomenon, defined by the
pathophysiology of certain tissues within the human organisms. Illness,
on the other hand, encompasses the human experience and perceptions of
alterations in health as informed by their broader social and cultural
meanings. The distinction between disease and illness is useful because it
helps to explain the phenomenon of patients who seek medical attention
in the absence of clinically identifiable symptoms (illness without
disease) and those who do not seek medical attention even though they
_rbc\cn mcahm i`‖ j[nbijbsmcifias (^cm_[m_ qcnbion cffh_mm) (Bliqh,
1998). Given the significance, these concepts are discussed in more
detail.
What is Disease?
In the enormous literature of the biomedicine, there is no universally
accepted definition of disease. Like many theoretically important
]ih]_jnm, ‗^cm_[m_‘ cm _mm_hnc[ffs f_`n ohìoh^_^ [h^ cm om_^ ch
ambiguous ways. For example, it is often defined by what it is not. It is
generally seen as a failure of normal physiological activities and a
departure from a state of health. But such a definition is informative
because within it is hidden the problematic concept of normal. Yet it is
]f_[l nb[n ―hilg[f‖ gomn \_ ]ihmc^_l_^ [m ]ofnol[ffs ]ihmnlo]n_^ [h^
hence variable (Sargent & Johnson, 1996).
Ih cg_^c][f m]c_h]_m ―Nilg[f‖ il ―H_[fnbs‖ cm ^_fined by reference to

certain physical and biochemical parameters, such as weight, height,
circumference, blood count, hemoglobin level, blood pressure, heart rate,
146
respiratory rate, heart size, levels of electrolytes or hormones, or visual

[]ocns. Fil _[]b g_[mol_g_hn nb_l_ cm [ hog_lc][f l[ha_ nb_ ―hilg[f
p[fo_‖- withih qbc]b nb_ ch^cpcô[f cm hilg[f [h^ ―b_[fnbs‖. A\ip_ il
\_fiq nbcm l[ha_ cm [\hilg[f, [h^ ch^c][n_ nb_ jl_m_h]_ i` ―^cm_[m_‖.
Disease then is seen as a deviation from these normal values,
accompanied by abnormalities in the structure or function of body organs
or systems. The medical definition of ill health, therefore, is largely
\[m_^ ih i\d_]ncp_fs ^_gihmnl[\f_ jbsmc][f ]b[ha_m ch nb_ \i^s‖m
structure or function, which can be quantifi_^ \s l_`_l_h]_ ni ―hilg[f‖
physiological measurements (Helman, 1994).
Modern medicine is mainly directed towards discovering, and qualifying,

physico-chemical information about the patient, all assumptions and
hypothesis must be capable of being tested, and verified, under objective,
empirical and controlled conditions. This approach reduces human being
to organic level. Medical sociology refers to a set of objective, clinically
identifiable symptoms. This perception motivates the individual to seek
medical care to assume the sick role (Mechanic, 1978). A persistent
paradox in modern medical systems in fact that many patients seeking
medical care (those who have an illness) do not have any Identifiable
disease, while at the same time, many people with disease do not define
themselves as ill and thus do not seek medical help (Zola, 1972).
Although the distinction between disease and illness is useful, it is based
on a questionable assumption that the biomedical definition of disease is
objective and culture free.
A physician using a disease model may consider the patients symptoms

as the expression of clinical pathology, a mechanical alterations in bodily
147
jli]_mm_m nb[n ][h \_ ‗]ol_^‘ \s [ jl_m]lc\_^ \ci-medical treatment.

Tb_l_ìl_, ^cm_[m_ l_`_lm ni nb_ î]nil‖m j_lmj_]ncp_ ih cff b_[fnb. Tbcm
view is based on scientific rationality and assumes that diseases are
universal in form, progress and content. This perspective does not
include the social and psychological dimensions of disease, the context in
which it appears, or it's culturally defined meaning.
When defining disease, it is useful to compare the conceptions of the lay

persons, the bio-medical specialist and the disease ecologist. Most people
_p_h ch ]igjf_r mi]c_nc_m ]ih]_cp_ i` ^cm_[m_m [m chpcmc\f_ _hncnc_m ―ion
nb_l_―, qbc]b [nn[]e pc]ncgm [h^ ][om_ ^cm]igìln, loss of vitality and
even death.
Further, for the practitioner of biomedicine disease is the expression of

pathology alone. Disease can be identified by discrete sets of signs and
symptoms or by domestic tests. Disease can be categorized within the
taxonomy of biomedical, primarily in terms of the biological
characteristics of the etiological agents. Both the taxonomic and
diagnostic system of biomedicine, however are based on certain cultural
assumptions about causality and the nature of reality. For example, in the
clinical setting the disease often takes on an existence (from the view
point of practitioner) quite apart from the patient, the disease is treated
rather than the person. The idea that medicine is itself a cultural
construction of reality is a basic insight of critical medical anthropology
(Baer et al., 1997).
In contrast from etiological perspective, disease does not exist as a thing

in and of itself. Disease is a process triggered by an interaction between a
148
host and an environmental insult, most often a pathogenic organism or

―a_lg‖. Dcm_[m_ cm ih_ jimmc\f_ iutcome of the relationship between the
host and the potential pathogen. Since the advancement of bacteriology
and germ theory, it has been recognized that infection is necessary but
not sufficient condition for disease to occur. Normal healthy individuals
typically harbor many different colonies of bacteria and viruses that are
not pathogenic (disease producing) primarily because these agents are
held in check by the human immune system. Indeed individuals are
constantly being challenged by micro-organisms in their environment
(Burnet & White, 1978) ^cm_[m_ i]]olm ihfs qb_h nb_ bimn‖m
immunological system is unable to keep place with the reproduction of
the pathogen, a process that can be accelerated through malnutrition or
immuno-suppression (Scrimshaw, 1968).
According to Jacques (1958: 1) ^cm_[m_ cm ―[fn_l[ncih i` fcpcha ncmmo_m nb[n

d_ij[l^ct_m nb_cl molpcp[f ch nb_cl _hpclihg_hn‖. Tbcm g_[hm nb[n ^cm_[m_
is the temporary expression of maladjustment of an individual trying to
cope with the challenges of his/her environment. In this model the
eventual outcome of this maladjustment is on the level of the population,
a mutual accommodation between host and pathogen.
From emic perspective there is little difference between a disease caused

\s [ ―a_lg‖ [h^ ine caused by supernatural agents. In either cases the
sick person may be innocent victim of the disease (as in most pediatric
cases) or may have partly encouraged it to attack by way of irresponsible
behavior (such as breaking of postpartum taboos or smoking of
]ca[l_nn_m). Fil gimn j_ijf_ nb_ f[la_ hog\_l i` ohehiqh ^cm_[m_m ―ion
nb_l_‖ g[e_m nb_ qilf^ [ ^[ha_liom jf[]_. Ih nbcm l_a[l^, ^cm_[m_ ][h
149
function as a symbolic metaphor for social and cultural issues (Sontag,

1978).
Concept of Illness
Alan Radley (1993) explains that over the past twenty years the study of
illness as experienced by the patients has emerged as an approach to
understanding sickness and health in general. This approach stresses the
cultural context in which illness arises and is borne by patients and those
who care for them. It emphasizes the need to understand illness in term
i` j[nc_hn‖m iqh chn_ljl_n[ncih i` cnm ihm_n, nb_ ]iolm_ i` cnm jlial_mm [h^
the potential of the treatment for the condition. How people make sense
of and respond to their disease or disability is a function of the everyday
beliefs and practices. To suffer from a chronic illness is to be faced with
a situation in which, depending upon the nature of the disease, people
continue to live a more or less normal existence. Therefore, it is
necessary to address the question of the basic strategies people use in
order that they might live as normal life as possible.
Flig nb_ j[nc_hn‖m j_lmj_]ncp_, biq_p_l, [h cffh_mm _rj_lc_h]_ g[s

include social as well as physiological processes. An evil spirit, a germ,
il \inb g[s domn _[mcfs ][om_ nb_ j[nc_hn‖m jli\f_g. Tb_ jbsmc]c[h‖m
^c[ahimcm g[s hin g[e_ m_hm_ ch n_lgm i` nb_ j[nc_hn‖m nb_ils i` cffh_mm,
[h^ nb_ ―]ol_‖ g[s hin n[e_ chni ]ihmc^_l[ncih nb_ j[nc_hn‖m `[gcfs
dynamics, the social stigma, or the lack of resources needed for
treatment.
The influential concept of explanatory models of illness also recognizes

the importance of context. Explanatory models are sets of beliefs, or
150
understandings that specify for an illness episodes its causes, time and
mode of onset of symptoms, patho-physiology, course of sickness and
nl_[ng_hn. Erjf[h[nils gi^_fm [l_ ―ìlg_^ [h^ _gjfis_^ ni ]ij_ qcnb [
specific health problem and consequently they need to be analyzed in
that concrete settings (Klieinman, 1978: 106). Although others have
invoked the concept of explanatory model of illness as a cultural
construct (Fried, 1982), Arthur Kleinman makes it clear that in his
explanatory model attributes of individuals, drawing upon general
cultural knowledge but remaining at least partially idiosyncratic and
mcno[ncih[f. Kf_chg[h‖m qile [h^ nb[n i` g[hs inb_lm chfluenced by his
approach, however, fail to specify in any detail the extent to which
individual explanatory models are shaped by cultural and the extent to
which they are idiosyncratic formulations (Sargent & Johnson, 1996).
The explanatory approach is that the model do not inform about the links
\_nq__h cffh_mm [h^ mi]c[f ]ihn_rn. Iffh_mm l_`f_]nm nb_ j[nc_hn‖m
perspective, which is influenced by the cultural, social and emotional
]ihn_rn ch qbc]b cn i]]olm [h^ \s [h ch^cpcô[f‖m \[]ealioh^ [h^
personality.
Concept of Health
Ih nb_ 1970'm [h^ f980‖m nb_l_ q[m [ l_pifoncih niie jf[]_ ch nb_ q[s
many people thought about health. As indicated in the unanimous of the
Afg[ An[ D_]f[l[ncih i` ―H_[fnb ìl Aff \s nb_ Y_[l 2000‖ of World
Health Organization (WHO) [h^ ch nb_ ―Onn[q[ Cb[ln_l‖ (World Health
Organization, 1988). In b[m \__h mbc`n_^ [q[s `lig ―]olcha ^cm_[m_‖ ni
the prevention of disease (through public health measures such as
jlcg[ls b_[fnb ][l_) [h^ _p_h gil_ òh^[g_hn[ffs ni nb_ ―jligincih i`
151
b_[fnb‖ (nblioab mo]b `[]nilm [m [jjlijlc[n_ ^c_n [h^ _r_l]cm_ [h^

avoidance of unhealthy substances).
With this shift in goals, there came a shift in approach away from high
technology and equipment oriented strategy to one that recognizes the
potential role of social and behavioral sciences in the health area. In
public education, there was seen a possibility of guiding the development
of health behaviors or changing unhealthy ones. In the analysis,
improvement, and control of social and environmental conditions (such
as poverty, crowding, technological change and forced migration) there
has been a way to prevent some major health problems.
Of course, medical technology has remained as an important element of

health both in prevention and cure, but it is now more a matter of
―[jjlijlc[n_ n_]bhifias‖, qb_l_ nb_ fi][f j_ijf_ ][h oh^_lmn[h^, om_ [h^
sustain the technology provided to them. For example safe water and
sanitation can prevent diarrheal diseases, oral re-hydration can reduce the
effects of it, and the control of parasites.
During this period not only the approach to attending health redefined,
the actual definition of health had been extended. In the Alma Ata
Declaration (WHO, 1978) b_[fnb q[m ^_`ch_^ [m ―[ mn[n_ i` ]igjf_n_
physical, mental, social well-\_cha‖. Tbcm cm hin g_l_fs [\m_h]_ i`
disease or infirmity. It goes beyond the physical into the realms of
psychological and social life. At the same time health was viewed as a
prerequisite for human development, both for individuals and for the
nation and it considered as the responsibility of everyone not just the
professional duty of medical specialists.
152
Approaches in Medical Anthropology

There are two basic approaches in medical anthropology. The bio-
]ofnol[f [jjli[]b qb_l_ j_ijf_‖m [^[jn[ncih ni nb_cl mollioh^cha cm nb_
jichn i` ì]om [h^ nb_ ]ofnol[f [jjli[]b qb_l_ j_ijf_‖m p[fo_m [h^
cultural factors are emphasized. According to Brown (1998), the bio-
cultural approach cihmcmn_^ i` ―([) _pifoncih i` b_[fnb [h^ g_^c]ch_, (\)
human biological variation, (c) bio-archaeology and the history of health
and (d) cultural and political ecologies of diseases. Cultural approach
consisted of (a) belief and ethnomedical system, (b) the social
construction of illness and production of health, (c) healers in cross-
cultural perspectives, (d) culture, illness and mental health and (e) critical
medical anthropology (Brown, 1998:2).
Medical anthropology presents the treatment system in different societies

and the relationship between medical and social system from different
approaches bio-cultural, functionalist, postmodern and post-structural,
etc. It accepts social explanations from different dimensions of the health
problem and treatment patterns.
Besides, biological approach, medical anthropology focuses on

hereditary diseases and problems. It emphasizes on the prehistory of
human beings, the trends of the Homa sapiens, their health problem,
genetic transmitted diseases, food habit, the chronic diseases, the impact
of parasites, etc. Human evolution is considered as a prime factor for
b_[fnb. Tb_ ^cm_[m_m nl[hmgcn `lig j[l_hn‖m a_h_l[ncih ni ^_m]_h^_hn
generation genetically. Diabetes, hypertension, heart disease are the
examples of such case.
153
Theoretical Perspectives of Medical Anthropology

The Roots
Along with the concepts, medical anthropology has gradually developed
its .theoretical perspectives. One can identify a limited number of
commonalities that served and had served as points of consensus around
which medical anthropology for all its varied facts has developed. Those
commonalities that consist of three empirical generalizations, formulated
in various ways by Ackerknecht (1942), Caudill (1953) Scotch (1963),
Polgar (1963) and Hughes (1963) may be stated as follows:
a) Disease in some form is a universal fact of human life.

b) All known human groups develop methods and allocate roles
congruent with their resources and structures, for coping with or
responding to disease.
c) All known human groups develop some set of beliefs
cognition and perception, consistent with their cultural matrix for
defining or cognizing disease (Landy, 1978).
William H. Rivers though known for his contribution in ethnography and

social organization had his legacy to medical anthropology, which
consists of Medicine, Magic and Religion (1924) and Notions of
Psychology and Ethnology (1926) both published posthumously. He was
pioneer in attempting systematically to relate native medicine to other
aspects of culture and social organization. His enduring theoretical
contribution to medical anthropology lies in a two-part proposition that
animates his work. First, those primitive medical practices follow form
154
and sense in terms of underlying medical beliefs and secondly, both are
best conceived not as quaint folklorists but as integral part of culture.
Fill_mn Cf_g_hnm gihial[jb ―Plcgcncp_ Cih]_jn i` Dcm_[m_‖ (1932)

inpifp_m qb[n cm mig_nbcha ][ff_^ [ ―]ofnol[f nl[cnm‖ [jjli[]b. Mil_
precisely, its conceptual framework is that of an atomistic historical
particularism. He classifies disease causation concepts among primitive
people into five categories; sorcery, breach of taboo, intrusion of a
disease object, intrusion by a spirit and soul loss.
The first shaping of medical anthropology as a modern sub field of the

discipline is the result of the work of Erwin H. Ackerknecht. His
considerable contribution to medical anthropology is embodied in a
series of publication extending over three decades begin in 1942. During
the same span he has also written extensively on a variety of topics in the
history of medicine. His live generalizations are as followed:
a) The significant unit of study in medical anthropology is not single

trait but the total configuration of the society.
b) There was not one primitive medicine but many primitive
medicines perhaps as many as there were primitive cultures.
The parts of medical pattern like those entire cultures are functionally
interrelated though the degree of functional integration of elements at
both level, varies from one society to another. Primitive medicines are
best understood largely in terms of cultural beliefs and definition.
155
Finally, he insisted that primitive medicine constitute magic elements.

He attempts to explain or account for it in terms of single global
ch^_j_h^_hn p[lc[\f_ nb_ mi]c_ns‖m ip_l[ff ]ofnol[f ]ihfiguration.
Essentially, his orientation represented an explicit effort to integrate the
two primary theoretical currents in social and cultural anthropology of
that time. These were American historical particularism and cultural
l_f[ncpcmg _mj_]c[ffs B_h_^c]n‖m ]ihfigurational approach and British
functionalism.
The formulations of Rivers, Clements, Ackerknecht address essentially

―\[mc]‖ l[nb_l nb[h [jjfc_^ cmmo_m. Ih ]ihnl[mn ―H_[fnb, Cofnol_ [h^
Ciggohcns‖ _^cn_^ \s B_hd[gch D. P[of (1955), cm ^_mcah_^ jlcg[lcfs [m
a contribution to applied anthropology and public health. Two
propositions are fundamental to his approach.
The response of given socio-cultural (and medical) system to the

introduction of new elements is to be explained not solely by the nature
of the system nor alone by the mode of introduction of new elements but
by the complex interaction of the both. That is the introduction of new
health related elements could be expected to affect the host socio-cultural
(and medical) system which in tern will affect the new elements (Landy,
1978).
The Contemporary Trends

Ecological theory influential in anthropology in the late 1960s and early
1970s, was brought into medical anthropology by Alexander Alland, Jr.
(1966, 1970). This theory views the human species as part of
environmental systems, interacting with other animal and plant species in
156
energy exchange cycles. Health is seen as a by product or function of

these interactions.
In the 1960s, the ecological approach emerged which cannot readily be

delineated by reference to the single author. Its most explicit and
vigorous theoretical statements have been offered by Livingstone (1958),
Wisenfield (1967), Dunn (1965), McCraken (I971) and others. This
approach differs strikingly from the previous models in that it
comprehend biological variables and expression of dynamic relationship
between the population, their cultures and their environments. Thus the
scope of ecological model includes societies and populations, the
behavior of human groups, tb_ ―gc]li-\cin[‖, j_l]_jncihm i` nb_
environment and primary environmental features, definitions of diseases
ethnomedicine (and traditional medical system) and modern medicine.
McElroy and Townsend (1980) have proposed a working model of

ecology and health. As of the model, the environment that impinges on
people can be broken down into three parts, the physical or abiotic
environment, the biotic environment and the cultural environment. The
parts are interdependent and continually in interaction, a change in one
variable frequently leads to a change in another (this is what a system
means). It is also possible to imagine all individual spheres and variables
functioning as a single unit as an ecosystem, a set of relationship among
organisms and their environments.
The question may arise how does health and disease fit into this model.
A change in any one of the variables can lead to certain ecological and
physical change. Too severe an imbalance will contribute to disease or
157
stress. For instance changes in climate may lead to a sharp decrease in

human food supplies and this change may increase in disease,
malnutrition, conflict, or other problems. The model, therefore, propose
that there are no single causes of disease. The immediate, clinically
detectable stimulus disease may be a virus, vitamin deficiency or an
intestinal parasite and the ultimate cause due to a chain of factors related
to ecosystemic variable. Health and disease develop within a set of
physical, biological and cultural subsystems that continually affect one
another (McElroy & Townsend, 1989).
In its early days, medical anthropology was not known for theory
building. Most anthropologists consulting in health care settings used a
practical structural functional theory, concentrating on fieldwork
methods that provided descriptions that were useable and readable by
non-specialists. By the 1990s, there was much more debate about theory
in medical anthropology (e.g., Singer, 1992; Wiley, 1992; Good, 1994).
Ih^__^, ^cm]ommcihm i` nb_ ―\i^s‖ [h^ ―_g\i^cg_hn‖ nb[n \_a[h ch
medical anthropology (Scheper, Hughes & Lock, 1987) set the pace for
theory building in the rest of cultural anthropology. With the growth,
medical anthropology is adding relevant theoretical perspectives to
facilitate grasping of health and disease. Major theories are mentioned.
Interpretive theory labels a group of theories that give precedence to the

study of meaning rather than to scientific explanation. Interpretive
theories explore metaphors of health and illness and the symbolic uses of
the human body in various cultures. The cultural production of modern
biomedicine is not exempt from this analysis (McElroy et al., l996: 64)
lnterpretive work in medical anthropology often consists of micro studies
158
of the interaction between patients and practitioners. These studies ignore

the asymmetry in power in these relationships that gives the doctor
]ihnlif ip_l nb_ j[nc_hn―m \i^s (P[jj[m, 1990).
Political economy in medical anthropology brings into focus the health

consequences of global power relations. This perspective is materialist,
historically specific and dialectical (Morsy, 1996: 28). Its central
concepts are social class and a social relation one of the strengths of the
political economy theory is that it crosscuts the disciplinary boundaries
of anthropology history, political science, and economics (Townsend and
McElroy, 1996). The proponents of political economy have often been
especially blunt, outspoken critics of the theories in medical
anthropology. Analyzed in Marxist terms, the other anthropological
theories, as well as biomedicine itself, despite their claim to objectively
[l_ [ff ―c^_ifiac_m‖ qbc]b ―gsmnc`s' nb_ l_[f miol]_m i` cff b_alth in
imperialism, racism and exploitation (Townsend & McElroy, l996: 65).
The critical medical anthropology that Scheper-Hughes (1992: 157)
advocates places more emphasis on phenomenology and on conveying
ch^cpcô[fm‖ _rj_lc_h]_m i` mo``_lcha nb[h ih ]iunting calories or
measuring family incomes.
Political ecology is one of the theoretical models used by anthropologists

studying the effects of disease on prehistoric populations. The term
‗jifcnc][f _]ifias‘ q[m om_^ ch [hnblijifias [m _[lfs [m 1972 \s Eric
Wolf in a comment that the varying economics of villages in the Alps
could not be understood without taking into account both ecological
variables such as altitude, slope, soil and precipitation and the history of
social and political linkages to Rome and Austria.
159
Human Early Marriage and Its Implications

Prevalence of pregnancy before a female body or mind is prepared to
undertake such a biological process, in the world and Bangladesh, it is
mightly tangible. It was assumed that there is a link between early
marriage and before the age of 18 and below. Has early marriage been
institutionalizing child pregnancy in the society. The chapter has raised
this question. Reproductive physiology of child pregnancy is the key to
understand why relationship between child and pregnancy is problematic.
Pregnancy occurs within social and cultural context and so it deserved
special attention. Finally, anthropological perspective would refer to a
comprehensive grasp of interrelationship of physiological, medical,
social and cultural aspects of child pregnancy. This writing is limited to
outlining these aspects.
Child pregnancy prevails worldwide. Children comprise a large

population (UN demographic yearbook 2014). About 8 in every 10 of
these babies are born in the developing countries of Asia, Africa and
Latin America.
Child fertility rate is one of the highest in Bangladesh with 171 birth per
1000 women aged 15-19 years (Barkat et al., 1997:45). 96% of the ever
married women are married when they were teenagers (Islam & Islam,
1998: 32-33).
Child pregnancy is closely linked to early marriage which is common in

Asia and Africa. In Bangladesh Mali and Niger 75% of girls under 18 are
married. It is also high in Nepal (40%), Ghana, Kenya and Zimbiwe
(33%), North America and Middle East (30%) and relatively lower in
160
Botswana, Namibia, Rwanda (15%), Philippines and in Srilanka (14%).

This statistics indicate that adolescent pregnancy prevails widely.
The question is what is the relationship between child and pregnancy?

Anthropological perspective would provide a comprehensive and in-
depth grasp of adolescent pregnancy in its social and cultural context.
Otherwise separation of cultural construction and social production of
pregnancy from adolescent physiology and pregnancy pathology would
be too mechanical.
To have a comprehensive understanding, these aspects of child

pregnancy are discussed below:
The concept of child has been inconsistently used in literature, and its
meanings often conflated. WHO, UNFPA and UNICEF. However, the
onset of adolescence is usually associated with the commencement of
puberty and the appearance of secondary sexual characteristics, which
vary between individuals.
It represents the development stages between childhood and adulthood

and considered to be a period of uneven transition, characterized by a
biological development from the onset of puberty to full sexual and
reproductive maturity and a psychological development from the
cognitive & emotional pattern of childhood to adulthood.
The passage from childhood to adulthood is often turbulent with

emotion, and risk behavior (Gardner, 1995).
161
Reproductive Physiology of Child

There are two bodies of literature pertaining to the anthropology of
reproduction that have enhanced the study of teenage female
reproductive physiology and pregnancy related pathology and obstetric.
Puberty is fundamentally a biological definition, which encompasses the
stage of development during which individual acquires the capacity for
reproduction. Physical changes of puberty often begin around the age of
10 (Blum, 1991). Developmental issues related to sexuality and self
identity can be complex and confusing to the early adolescent as the
myriad of physical changes evolve through puberty. The cognitive ability
to think abstractly is usually achieved by the age of l5-16 years
(Strassberger, 1991). Maturation of the hypothalamus and pituitary gland
in the brain result in adrenal and ovarian hormone production leading to
pubertal changes and ultimately to menarche, the first menstrual cycle
(Kessel, 1995). At this time various menstrual disorders such as painful
menses (dysmenorrhoea), absence of menstruation (amenorrhoea) and
abnormal bleeding may be apparent. The hormonal changes during child
phase confirm the gender identify and prepare the person for
reproduction and parenthood. Changes in mood during children are
related to the hormonal changes they usually experience. During
childhood and the transition to adulthood the reproductive system of girls
is particularly vulnerable to infection. The cells and secretions of the
physiologically immature reproductive tract are much less able than in
adults to resist invasion and damage by sexually transmitted
microorganisms. The physiologic immaturity is characterized by
particular cellular characteristic of columnar and metaplastic cells. These
cells provide a poor barrie to invasion by a number of microorganisms,
including those associated with pelvic inflammatory disease and cervical
162
cancer, namely C. Trachomatis and human papilloma virus (HPV), two

of the most sexually transmitted disease globally. The risks of these
infections is associated with the proportion of the surface the cetocervix
covered by these cells (Besley, 1988).
Pathology of Child Pregnancy

Child pregnancy has been associated with the increase incidence of
obstetric complications. There are increased risks of anemia; pregnancy
induced hypertensive disorders, prenatal deaths, sexually transmitted
diseases, human immuno-deficiency virus infection and premature
delivery. There is an increased incidence of cephalo-pelvic disproportion
in women younger that 15 years of age which is related to the relative
immaturity of the skeleton of the pelvis, as uterine muscles are not well
developed, neither the pelvis is sufficiently developed that can facilitate
delivery of the baby, often cesarean section is employed.
Cesarean section requires general anesthesia that leads to iatrogenic

problems, congenital limb defects following the administration of the
tranquilizer thalidomide. They also experience more postpartum
infection and hemorrhage. Child pregnancies are more likely to be
associated with low birth weight, birth injuries, still births and infant
mortality. The baby is not only born too soon, but also too small as well.
The low birth weight baby may have immature brain, heart, lunge or
other organs, it can experience difficulty in controlling its body
temperature and blood sugar levels, it may suffer mental retardation
manifested in speech problems or slow learning due to poor nutrition and
anaemia during pregnancy. There is also a risk of dying in early infancy.
163
Pathology of child pregnancy imparts serious health hazards for the

mother and child both in developed and developing regions (Clarke,
1992). Though it is true that teenage pregnancy is not a new occurrence
in history and that many young women have survived early child
bearing, but not all young mothers are this fortunate. Worldwide
pregnancy related complications are the main cause of death among 15-
19 year old females. A major problem of child pregnancy is that young
women are not fully-grown at the age between l2 and 15. Their pelvises
develop fully only when they have attained their full status. This means
that there is a danger of obstructed labour, which without appropriate
health intervention, can be fatal. If intervention is delayed, other serious
health problems arise, most notably obstetric fistulas.
Pregnancy adds an undue burden to a child‖m g[nolcha \i^s. Afnbioab [

child is able to reproduce her uterus is still too young to withstand the
biological demands of pregnancy. Her body is not yet ready for the
nature and delivery of a baby. Pregnancy without nutritional supplements
and before completion of the child growth spurt will slow or stop further
growth. Obstructed labour is more common because of immature skeletal
development and smaller pelvic diameters (Moerman, 1982). Teenage
pregnancies are more likely to obstructed labour, reptures in the birth
canal and associated death of mother, infant or both. Risks are greater if
prenatal care is inadequate (Philpott, 1995). The obstetric causes of
maternal deaths are similar in all countries of the developing world,
although their proportions may vary. Hemorrhage is the leading cause
followed by illicit abortion, hypertension (including eclampsia), sepsis,
obstructed labour and ruptured uterus. The pregnant adolescent is likely
to be anemic, she can suffer pre-eclampsia or eclampsia (a condition
164
occurring in young people having their first pregnancy) and is

characterized by high blood pressure, edema or swelling in the hands,
feet and face. Severe fits, may occur during pregnancy, labour or after
delivery, (Clarke 1992; Rahman et al. 1989). A majority of adolescent
experience significant morbidity associated with pregnancy and delivery
e. g., uterine prolapse, vesico-vaginal fistula (Rahman et al., 19891).
Abortion related complications such as hemorrhage and sepsis can

account of the majority of pregnancy related deaths, especially in
developing countries where abortion are illegal or not medically
supervised. The group most vulnerable to complication form pregnancy
and child birth, termination of pregnancy may be unobtainable or
unaffordable, performed at more advanced gestational stage than for
adults (Clarke, 1992). Medical experts believe that the ages of 20-24 are
the safest for child bearing, while risk at 10-14 years is much greater than
15-19 years. Besley (1988) stressed that child pregnancy has impact on
the future child bearing. Lee et al. (1988) have thought that female child
is at greater risk for giving birth to low and very low birth weight infants.
Clarke (1992) has observed that adolescents tend to have premature
babies. Pressures, personal worries and severe emotional stress also
affect ]bcf^‖m physical and mental well being placing their own health
and that of their babies at stake (Camiwet et al., 1992).
Social and Cultural Context of Early (Premature) Pregnancy

Biomedical aspects have dominated the study on reproduction
particularly nature of normal and abnormal gestational processes.
Gradually social, cultural and psychological aspects of human
reproduction have received attention (Philipps Yonas, 1980; Jones et al.,
165
1980; Ooms, 1981). Cultural context of pregnancy not only show the
myriad of ways women are pressured to become mothers but also the
broader contexts within which women perform the maternal role. Ann
Oakley's extensive writings (1972, 1980) on the ways motherhood is
socialy and culturally shaped have significantly contributed to
understanding of human reproduction. An universal oppression is rooted
ch qig_h―m g[n_lh[f [h^ ]bcf^ l[lcha lif_ (Olnh_l, 1974). Tbcm [laog_hn
is best manifested in early marriage.
Early pregnancy is considered a credible proof of reproductive capacity

nb[n ch]l_[m_ qig_h‖m mi]c[f []]_jn[h]_ ch nb_ ]iggohcns. Bclnb i` nb_
first child to a young married women's confers status (Camiwet et al.,
1992 and Senanayake, 1992). Construction of motherhood is the highest
ideal for women. Political systems promote this ideal to reinforce
patriarchy that look at women's reproductive capacity as a function and
responsibility. Adolescent pregnancy is often not seen as a problem.
According to Muslim family laws ordinance 1961, the minimum legal

age of marriage for female in East Pakistan was 16. A Government order
in 1984 has fixed the minimum legal age of marriage in Bangladesh at18
for females.
Early marriage was practiced in Mediaeval Bengal. It is evident in

records such as Bhavadeva, Jimutavahana and Kulluka that girls had to
be married before they reached the age of puberty (Hussain, 1985). In the
18th century, the mean female age of marriage was less than l0,
marriageable age ranged `lig 5 ni 11, ―B[ffs[-bibaha' or childhood
g[llc[a_ q[m ]iggihfs jl[]nc]_^ (B_aog, 2001). Ih ―E[mn J[p[, cn q[m
166
considered a disgrace to have a daughter experience her first menstrual

j_lci^ \_ìl_ \_cha \_nlinb_^‖.
Many societies protect a girl from unsanctioned sexual activity. It was

believed in India that early marriage could guard against the promisive
l_mola_h]_ ch [îf_m]_hn aclf‖m jf[sòff ]bcf^bii^ m_ro[fcns (K[e[l,
1978).
The anxiety of Greek parents regarding the early marriage of daughters is

derived from the view that if a timely marriage is not contracted the girl
may fall victim to the natural urges of her youthfull condition. Female
sexuality preserved by father by ensuring the chastity of daughters.
Sbimbn[e ch ―eoha qig_h‖ ^_m]lc\_m nb[n ―sioha aclfm [l_ hin ]ihmc^_l_^
truly adult or expected to assume full responsibility for themselves until
they reach their late teens, have menstruated, married, and are likely to
become mother. Marriage is occurred with puberty. Early marriage is a
common practice in polygynous societies such as Uganda, Cameron,
Tango and Liberia.
However WHO, has defined that a child means every human being
below the age of 18 years. In Latin America and Caribbean countries
nb_l_ cm [ bcmnils i` ―ohi``c]c[f‖ g[llc[a_, known as consensual or
―]ihp_hc_hn‖. Yionb j_ijf_ fcp_ nia_nb_l [h^ b[p_ ]bcf^l_h qcnbion being
formally married. Consensual union among the Ghsii of westem Kenya
and Malawi are widely prevail. In some societies, adolescent sexual
activity has traditionally been tolerated or even encouraged.
167
The chapter has drawn a broad outline of the anthropological perspective

on adolescent pregnancy. It has provided some understandings about its
physiology, pathology and social-cultural context. However, from the
outline the following conclusions could be drawn.
Child pregnancy prevails widely, especially in Asia, Africa and Latin

America. Prevalence rate in South Asia and in Bangladesh is high. Early
marriage among girls is also widely practiced in Asia and Africa.
Maternal role is emphasized by the society and often child girls are
pressured to get married at an early age to become mother. Therefore, a
close relationship between early marriage and adolescent pregnancy is
apparent,
Child pregnancy has been associated with the increase incidence of

obstetric complications. There are increased risks of anemia; pregnancy
induced hypertensive disorders, prenatal deaths, sexually transmitted
diseases, human immune-deficiency virus infection and premature
delivery. Adolescent pregnancies are more likely to be associated with
low birth weight, birth injuries, still births and infant mortality.
Characteristics of child physiology and the pathology of pregnancy make

it apparent that it is fatal for both the mother and the child. Hence, child
pregnancy deserves recognition as a key health problem of girls. In order
to address this issue effectively an anthropological insight on child
pregnancy would help to prevent early marriage and its implication.
168
Conclusion
Anthropology conceptualize health and disease to the specific cultural,
social economic, political, ecological, environmental or any other
relevant context and put it into the perspectives of those who is analyzed
and also those who carry out these analysis. It is envisaged that with
medical sciences anthropology will be able to shed light on the deep root
of the health and diseases of human beings.
Further, the essence of inclusion of health and disease in anthropology do

not necessarily lie in its applied need, particularly prevention, cure of
diseases and promotion of health, but in the contribution these aspects of
human life could make to the paradigms of anthropology as disease is a
universal phenomenon and is as inescapable as death. Therefore, there
exists every reason for assumption that human health and disease
constitute the very being and is inclusive in the formation of
anthropology as a discipline.
Bibliography
Ackerknecht, E. H. (1942) Problems of Primitive Medicine, Bulletin of
the history of Medicine, 11:503-21.
Ackerknecht, E. H. (1942) Primitive medicine and Cultural Pattern,

Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 12: 545-74.
Ackerknecht, E. H. (1944) Primitive Surgery, American Anthropologist,

49:25-45.
169
Alland, A. (1966) Medical anthropology and the Study of Biological and

Cultural Adaptation, American Anthropologist, 68: 40-50.
Alland, A. (1970) Adaptation in Cultural Evolution: An approach to

Medical Anthropology. New York: Columbia University Press.
Aziz, K. M. A. & Maloney, C. (1985) Life Stages, Gender and Fertility

in Bangladesh. Dhaka: ICDDR-B.
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) (1996) Status of Adolescent Girls
of Bangladesh, Edited by Md. Shahadat Hossain, Statistics Division,
Ministry of Planning, Government of the Peoples Republic of
Bangladesh.
Begum, M. (2001) Ami Nari (I am woman). Dhaka: Muktadhara.
Besley, M. A. (1998) The Health and Development of the Girl Child:
The Special Role of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
International Child Health, 9(1).
Blanchet, T. (1996) Lost Innocence: Stolen Childhood. University Press
Ltd. Dhaka.
Blum, R. (1991) Global trends in Adolescent Health, Journal of the
American Medical Association, 265: 2711-19.
Baer H. A., Singer M. & Susser, I. (1997) Medical anthropology and the
World System. A Critical Perspective. Westport (USA), London: Bergin
& Garvey.
170
Boas, F. (1911) The Primitive Mind of Man. Chicago: Chicago

Univiversity Press.
Brown, P. J. (1998) Understanding and Applying Medical Anthropology.

London: Mayfield Pub.
Burnet, M. & White, D. O. (1978) The Natural History of Infectious

Disease. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Camiwet, D. & Esguerra-Melencio, G. (1992) When Children Beget

Children, Teenage Pregnancy in the South Information Package of the
Resource Center, lSlS International, 2nd series, November 3.
Carole, H. B. & Sargent, C. F. (1990) Anthropology and Studies of
Human Reproduction, in T. M. Johnson & C. F. Sergeant (Ed) Medical
Anthropology: Contemporary Theory and Method. London: Praeger.
Caudill, W. (1953) Applied Anthropology in Medicine, in A. L. Kroeber
(Ed) Anthropology Today. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chowdhury, T. A. (1996) Adolescent Reproductive Health, Paper

presented at the First Grid Workshop on Situation Analysis on
Adolescent Reproductive Health, NIPSOM, Dhaka.
Clarke, M. F. (1992) Adolescent Fertility: An Adult Problem, Teenage
Pregnancy in the South, Information Package of the Resource Center,
ISIS lntemational, 2nd Series, November 16-19.
171
Clements, F. E. (1932) Primitive Concepts of Disease, University of

California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 32 (2):
185-252.
Douglas, M. (1966) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of
Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge & K. Paul.
Dubos, R. (1959) Mirage of Health. New York: Harper & Row
Publishers Inc.
Dunn, F. L. (1965) Ecology, Acculturation and Parasitism in the Orang

Aasli of Malaysia, Seminar paper presented at the meeting of South
Western Anthropological Association, Los Angles.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1937) Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the
Azande. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Edholm, H. & Young, K. (1977) Conceptualizing Women, Critique of

Anthropology, 3:101-30.
Ember, C. R. & Ember, M. (1984) Anthropology. Upper Saddle River:
Princeton-Hall.
Fabrega, H. (1972) Medical Anthropology, Biennial Review of
Anthropology, 1971: 167-229.
Foster, G. M. & Anderson, B. G. (1972) Medical Anthropology. New
York: John Wiley.
Gardner, R. (1995) Female Adolescent Health Care: International
Perspective, in B. P. Sachs, R. Board, E.Papiernik & C. Russel (Eds)
172
Reproductive Health Care for Women and Babies, Oxford: Oxford

University Press: 46.
Good, B. (1994) Medicine, Rationality and Experience: An
Anthropological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hahn, R. A. (1995) Sickness and Healing: An Anthropological
Perspective. New Haven: Yale Univiersity Press.
Helman, C. G. (1994/1990) Culture, Health and Illness. Oxford:

Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hughes, C. (1963) Public Health in Non-literate Societies, in I. Galdston
(Ed) Man’s Image in Medicine and Anthropology. New York:
International University Press.
Hunt, W. B. (1988) Adolescent Fertility: Risks and Consequences,
Population Reports, Series 1.
Hussain, M. A. (2001) Social dynamics in an Immigrant Village in
Dhalchar Island, Bangladesh, Ph. D.Thesis, University of Tsukuba,
Japan.
Hussain, S. (1985) The Social Life of Women in Early Medieval Bengal.
Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.
Islam, M. M. & Islam M. N. (1998) Contraceptive use Among Married
Adolescent Girls in Rural Bangladesh, The Journal of Family Welfare,
44 (1): 32-33.
173
Islam, M. M. (1985) Women, Health and Culture: A Study of Beliefs and

Practices Connected with Female Diseases in a Bangladesh Village.
Dhaka: Women for Women, Research and Study Group.
Jones, E. F., et al (1986) Teenage Pregnancy in Industrialized Countries.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kakar, S. (1976) The Inner World: A Psychologicas Study of Childhood
and Society in India. Delhi: The Oxford University Press.
Kamal, N., Streatfield, K. & Noor, S. A. (1995) Marital Adolescent
Reproductive Health in Bangladesh, in Bangladesh demographic and
health survey 1993-1994, extended analysis. Dhaka: National Institute of
Population Research and Training.
Kessel, B. (1995) Reproductive Cycle in Women: Quality of Life
Impact, in B. P. Sachs, R. Beard., E. Papiernik & C. Russel (Eds)
Reproductive Health Care for Women and Babies. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kleinman, A. (1978) What Kind of Model for the Anthropology of
Medical Systems?, American Anthropologist, 80: 661-665.
Kickbusch, I. (1999) Good Planets are Difficult to Find, in M. Honari &
T. Boleyn (Eds) Health Ecology. Oxford: Routledge.
Landy, D. (Ed) (1977) Culture, Disease and Healing: Studies in Medical
Anthropology. New York: Macmillan.
Lavenham, S. (1986) The Captured Womb: A History of the Medical

Care of Pregnant Women. Oxford: Basil Bernstein.
174
Lee, K. & Corpuz, M. (1988) Teenage Pregnancy: Trend and lmpact on

Rates of Low Birth Weight and Fetal, Maternal and Neonatal Mortality
in the United States, Clinics in Perinatology, 15: 929-42.
Lieban, R. (1978) Medical Anthropology, III Handbook of Social and
Cultural Anthropology, in J. Honigmarm (Ed) Health and the Human
Condition. North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury Press.
Livingstone, F. B. (1958) Anthropological Implications of Sickle-cell

gene Distribution, West American Anthropologist, 6: 532-62.
Maloney, C., Aziz, K. M. A. & Sarker, P. C. (1981) Belief and Fertility
in Bangladesh. Dhaka: lCDDR-B.
McDevitt, T. M. (1996) Trends in Adolescdnt Fertility & Contraception
Use in the Developing World. Washington DC: U. S. Government
Printing Office.
McElroy, A. & Townsend, P. K. (1996 /1989) Medical Anthropology in
Ecological Perspective. Boultler, San Francisco, and London: Westview
Press.
McKeown, T. (1976) The Modern Rise of Population. London: Edward
Arnold.
McKeown, T. (1980) The role of Medicine: Dream, Mirage or Nemesis.
Princeton: Princeton Univiversity Press.
Moerman, M. L. (1982) Growth of the Birth Canal in Adolescent Girls,
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology,143: 1528 - 32.
175
Morsy, S. A. (1996) Political Ecology of Medical Anthropology, in C. F.

Sargentand & T. M. Johnson Medical Anthropology: Contemporary
Theory and Method. Westport: Praeger.
Ooms, T. (Ed) (1981) Teenage Pregnancy in Family Context.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Oakley, A. (1972) Sex, Gender and Society. London: Maurice Temple
Smith.
Oakley, A. (1977) Cross-cultural Practices, in T. Chard & Richards (Eds)
Benefits and Hazards of the New Obstetrics. London: William
Heinemann Medical Books, Philadelphia: Lavenham Press Ltd.
Ortner, S. (1974) ―The Virgin and the State‖, Michigan Discussions in
Anthropology.
Philipps-Yonas, S. (1980) Teenage Pregnancy and Motherhood: A
Review of the Literature, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 50 (3):
403-31.
Philpot, R. H. (1995) Maternal Health Care in the Developing World, in
B. P. Sachs, R. Beard, E. Papiernik & C. Russell (Eds) Reproductive
Health Care for Women and Babies. New York: Oxford University
Press, Oxford Medical Publications.
Paul, B. J. (1955) Health, Culture and Community. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Papas, G. (1990) Some Implication for the Study of Patient-Doctor
Interaction, Social Science and Medicine, 30:199-204.
176
Polgar, S. (1964) Evolution and the Ills of Mankind, in S. Tax (Ed)

Horizons of Anthropology. Chicago: Aldine.
Rahman, S., Nesa, F., Rahma, S., Ali, R. & Ali, H. A. (1989)
Reproductive Health of Adolescent in Bangladesh, International Journal
of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 29: 329.
Rivers, W. H. R. (1924) Medicine, Magic, and Religion. London: Kegan.
Paul, T. & Rivers, W. H. R. (1924) Notions of Psychology and

Ethnology.
Sargent, C. F. & Johnson, T. M. (1996) Medical Anthropology:
Contemporary Theory and Method. Westport CT: Praeger.
Senanayake, P. (1992) Young Women and Reproduction: Offering
Options and Choices, in Teenage Pregnancy in the South. lnformauon
Package of the Resource Center, lSlS International, 2nd series,
November: 24, 1992.
Scheper-Hughes, N. & Lock, M. M. (1987) The Mindful Body, Medical
Anthropology Quarterly, l(l): 6-4l.
Scotch, N. A. (1963) Medical Anthropology, in B. Siegel (Ed) Biennial
Review of Anthropology, 30-68.
Singer, M. (1986) Developing a Critical Perspective in Medical

anthropology, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 17(5):128-9.
Singer, M. (1989) The Coming of Age of Critical Medical Anthropology,
Social Science and Medicine, 28: 1193-1204.
177
Singer, M. (1990) Reinventing Medical Anthropology, Social Science

and Medicine, 30(2):179-88.
Singer, M. (1990) Postmodernism and Medical anthropology: Words of
Caution, Medical Anthropology,12: 289-304.
Sontag, S. (1978) Illness as Metaphor. New York: Farrer, Strauss &
Giroux.
Strassberger, V. & Brown, R. (Eds) (1991) Adolescent Health. A
praetical Guido Little Brown. Boston.
Turner, V. (1967) The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Turner, V. (1968) The Drums of Affliction: A Study of Religions
Processes among the Ndembu of Zambia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
United Nations (UN) (1989a) Demographic Year book. New York:
United Nations.
United Nations (UN) (1989b) Adolescent Reproductive Behavior;
Evidence' from Developing Countries. New York: United Nations.
United Nations (UN) (1991) World’s Women (1970-1990), Trends and
Statistics. New York: United Nations Publications.
United Nations (UN) (1991) Women and Health, Women and World
Development Service. United Nations Non Government Liaison Service:
14-15.
178
UNESCO (1951) Women and Health, Women and World Development

Service. Paris: UNESCO
Virehow, R. (1879) Gesammelte abhandunglen aus dem gebeit der
oeffentlichen medizin under seuchenlhere. Berlin: Hirschwald.
World Health Organization (WHO) (1978) Report of an International
Commission, Bull WHO.
WHO (1981) Global strategy for Health for all by the Year 2000, WHO
health for all Series 3, Geneva.
WHO (1989) The Reproductive, Health of Adolescent, A Strategy for

Action, A Joint WHO / UNFPA / UNICEF Statement, Geneva: WHO, 5 -
12.
WHO (1989) The Health of Youth. Geneva: WHO.
WHO (1986) Young People’s: Health: A Challenge for Society,
Technical Report 731, Geneva: WHO.
Wiley, A. (1992) Adaptation and the Bicultural Paradigm of medical
Anthropology: A Critical Review, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 6:
216-36.
Wisenfield, S. L. (1967) Sickle-cell Trait in Human Biological and
Cultural Evolution, Science, 157: 1134-38.
Worseley P. (1982) Non-western medical systems, Annual Review of
Anthropology, 11: 315-48.
179
Young, A. (1982) The Anthropologies of Illness and Sickness, Annual

Review of Anthropology, 11: 257-85.
Zola, I. K. (1972) Medicine as an Institution of Social Control,
Sociological Review, 20(4): 487-504.
Zola, I. K. (1973) Pathways to the Doctor: from Person to Patient, Social
Science and Medicine, 7: 677-89.
180
Chapter 10
Birth and Growth of Human Beings

Introduction
A process of construction of reality has begun since ancient Greek
philosophy. Classical idealism may be considered as the initial step in
constructing human being and, society and the universe. Socrates may be
or should be the initiator of classical idealism. Socrates had thought that
the essence of huge bodies and thought as the eternity, essence and
ultimate meaning do not lie with the big material body which can be
perceived through the sense organs, but beyond that. However, Plato in
his writing of the Republic and Aristotle with his concept of Teleology
had addressed development process with not only the universe but the
human being as well. Since then (before Christ age count) human beings
have tried to know who they are, what the universe is, how it structurally
and functionally operates and how is it moving. Every human being, as
each and every living organism does, has to reproduce to be today.
Darwin (1809-1882) in his writings, The Origin of Species by means of
natural selection (1859) and Descent of Man (1887), has analysed the
process of evolution of the ancestors of human beings, based on data of
fossils. He inferred his theoretical positions, and had found that the
missing link is the key constraint to understand the process. Religion,
particularly theology, has given the system of belief about origin and
destiny of human being. It is not prudent to enter into these issues today.
However, as every human being has to be born and it seems that there
has been a long prehistory that has begun from Homo Habilis (2.5
181
million years) (handy man), Austrolopithecyne, homo erectus (1.5

million years) (upright man), Neondarthalensis- homo sapience, all of
which are extinct (500000 thousands years). Decent line could be drawn
only from Cro-Magnon man (France) who lived 45000 years ago.
Anthropology is dealing with a universal process of human birth, growth
[h^ [acha jli]_mm. Bclnb l_`_lm ni [hn_h[n[f ][l_, ―ion]ig_‖, jimnh[n[f
care (first six months after birth), growth and passing through the
passage of life to naturaf ^_[nb. Im ―nb_ ]bcf^‖ [ ]ih]_jn, il [ l_[fcns, il [
construction of reality or what is it? The fundamental question is how the
human brain is able to construct the reality of human - the construction of
birth, infancy, early childhood, childhood, adolescence, adulthood,
maturation, reproduction, continuity and death. The focus of this chapter
is the beginning from inception of human life.
Human Beings to reproduce to be today
Fil D[lqch‖m qile cm hin ihfs ih_ i` nb_ gimn l_pifoncih[ls [h^ b_[pcfs
documented pieces of scientific theorizing ever published, a relation of a
new and to many an appalling way of looking at the natural world. The
Origin gives a sense of nature in the open air rather than in the museum
or on the dissection table; it has a sensitivity to the relations of animals
and plants to their environment and to each other. The impact of
D[lqch‖m [laog_hnm, [m Mcff hin_^, q[m ]ogof[ncp_ l[nb_l nb[h
immediate. He was trying to show that it was possible that transmutation
of species had occurred and tha5t natural selection, the preservation by
the environment of specially well adapted variations, was a possible
explanation, and that these explanations fitted the facts better than any
others.
182
In his book, The Descent of Man (1871) even so, the implication of the
argument of The Origin was plain enough, and it was quickly seized
upon by his critics. Avoiding unnecessary coat-trailing was not
something which cost Darwin much effort, however, he was one of the
least combative of men and was forced into the position of challenging
orthodoxy by intellectual honesty and the desire to substantiate a
scientific theory; he did not, as T. H. Huxley undoubtedly did, actively
enjoy thumbing his nose at the theologians. Nevertheless, there is
perhaps a hint of tension release in his note to Sir Charles Lyell, the
greatest of English geologists, who was wavering and equivocal in his
attitude to evolution: Our ancestor was an animal which breathed water,
had a swim bladder, a great swimming tail, an imperfect skull, and
undoubtedly was a hermaphrodite. Here is a pleasant genealogy for
mankind.
Religion seemed guaranteed by Natural Theology, the demonstration of
the existence and goodness of God by the contemplation of nature and
the benevolent artifice which it seemed everywhere to demonstrate.
Charles Darwin was born in 1809 was a far rougher and more dangerous
society than the one in which he died in 1882. The Origin being the
accumulation of mutations useful in the struggle for existence and hence
selected for preservation. Thus it became vital to Darwin to show that no
organ or arrangement could have been preserved simply to please the
aesthetic sense of mankind, except, of course, in domestic species where
the selection was done by human beings.
According to Darwin, no organism would develop an organ harmful to
itself but useful to others, as the rattlesnakes rattle was taken to be. There
183
must be some utility to the organism itself. Although The Origin is

inevitably a polemical work it was not, of course, written out of any
specifically anti-religious animus or any religious preoccupation at all.
Geology and palaeontology – the reconstruction and dating of fossils –
were vital to the evolutionary argument. Without them the theory of
evolution could not have been established. Darwin was not concerned
qcnb jlial_mm ch Sj_h]_l‖m m_hm_; b_ ihfs f[n_l l[nb_l ohqcm_fs [îjn_^
Sj_h]_l‖m jbl[m_ ―nb_ molpcp[f i` nb_ `cnn_mn‖ ch jf[]_ i` bcm iqh h[nol[f
m_f_]ncih‖, [h^ ``cn‖ ch bcm m_hm_ [fq[sm l_f[n_^ ni [ acp_h _hpclihg_ht,
not to an absolute scale of perfection.
No one before Darwin had seriously worked it out in relation to the
formation of species. Darwin only completed this aspect of his theory in
later books, The Descent of Man (1872), and The Expression of the
Emotions in Man and Animals (1872), but the public seized on it at once
– probably because the issue had already been fully aired at the time of
the publication of The Vestiges of Creation. D[lqchcmg \_][g_ ―nb_
gihe_s nb_ils‖, _ven though monkeys are not particularly singled out in
the Origin.
D[lqch‖m nb_ils ^c^ hin cgg_^c[n_fs ^_mnlis nb_ n_h^_h]s ni ^_lcp_
moral prescriptions from nature, however. On the contrary, in the latter
part of the nineteenth century it helped to create a particularly vehement
version of it. Those who accepted it found the prescription they were
fiiecha ìl ch nb_ molpcp[f i` nb_ `cnn_mn‖. Tb_s [îjn_^ h[nol[f m_f_]ncih
[m nb_ e_s ni ―jlial_mm‖, nbioab D[lqch b[^ hin mjie_h i` jlial_mm ihfs
of adaptation.
184
Physiology and Anatomy of Growth

Prenatal Development: It is the period from conception until
birth, and can be divided into three parts: (1) the germinal period
approximately the first 2 weeks of development during which the
primitive germ layers are formed; (2) the embryonic period form
about the second to the end of the eighth week of development,
during which the major organ systems come into existence; and
(3) the fetal period the last 30 weeks of the prenatal period,
during which the organ systems grow and become more mature
(Seeley, Stephens & Tate, 2000).
Tb_ g_^c][f ]iggohcns ch a_h_l[f om_m nb_ ginb_l‖m f[mn g_hmnlo[f

period (LMP) to calculate the clinical age of the unborn child, most
embryologists, on the other hand, use postovulatory age to describe the
timing of developmental events. Postovulatory age is used in this
chapter, because ovulation occurs about 14 days after LMP and
fertilization occurs near the time of ovulation, it is assumed that
postovulatory age is 14 days less than clinical age.
Fertilization: Dozens of sperm cells reach the oocyte and help digest a
path through the cumulus mass cells and zona pellucida, but several
mechanisms provide that normally only one sperm cell penetrates the
oocyte cell membrane and enters the cytoplasm in the oocyte stimulates
the female nucleus to undergo the second meiotic division, and the
second polar body is formed. The nucleus that remains after the second
meiotic division, called the female pronucleur, moves to the center of the
00cyte, where it meets the enlarged head of the sperm clei are haploid,
each having one-half of each chromosome pair. Fusion of the pronuclei
185
completes the process of fertilization and restores the diploid number of

chromosomes. The product of fertilization is the zygote (zigot).
Early cell Division: About 18-39 h after fertilization the zygote divides
to form two cells. Those two cells divide to form four cells, which divide
to form eight cells, and so on. The cells of this dividing embryonic mass
are referred to am jfolcj‖i n_hn (jfolcj‖i-ten, meaning multiple-powered),
which means that any cell of the mass has the ability to develop into a
wide range of tissues. As a result, the total number of embryonic cellcs
can be decreased, increased, or reorganized without affecting the normal
development of the embryo.
Formation of the Germ Layers: After Implantation, a new cavity called
the amniotic (am-ne-in‖ce) ][pcns ìlgm chmc^_ nb_ chh_l ]_ff g[mm & cm
surrounded by a layer of cells called the amnion (amne-on), or amniotic
sac. Formation of the amniotic cavity causes part of the inner cell mass
nearest the blastocele to separate as a flat disk of tissue called the
embryonic disk. This embryonic disk is composed of two layers of cells:
[h _]ni^_lg (_e‖ni-derm, meaning outside layer) adjacent to the amniotic
][pcns [h^ [h _hî^_lg (_h‖î-derm, meaning inside layer) on the side
of the disk opposite the amnion. A third cavity, the yolk sac, forms inside
the blastocele from the endoderm. The amniotic sac, yolk sac, and
intervening double-layered embryonic disk can be thought of as
resembling two balloons pushed together. One balloon represents the
amniotic sac, and the other represents the yolk sac. The circular double
layer of the balloon where the two balloons are passed together
represents the embryonic disk. The Amniotic sac eventually surrounds
the developing embryo, providing it with a protective fluid environment,
nb_ ‗\[a i` q[n_lm,‘ qb_l_ nb_ _g\lsi ][h ìlg.
186
About 13 or 14 days after fertilization, the embryonic disk becomes a

slightly elongated oval structure. Proliferating cells of the ectoderm
migrate toward the center and caudal end of the disk, forming a
thickened line called the primitive streak. Some ectoderm cells leave the
ectoderm, migrate through the primitive steak, and emerge between the
_]ni^_lg [h^ _hî^_lg [m [ h_q a_lg f[s_l, nb_ g_mi^_lg (g_t‖i-
derm, meaning middle layer). These three germ layers, the ectoderm,
mesoderm, and endoderm, are the beginning of the embryo. All tissues of
the adult can be traced to them. A cordlike structure called the notochord
extends from the cephalic end of the primitive streak.
Some information: As the neural tube forms, the mesoderm immediately
[^d[]_hn ni nb_ no\_ ìlgm ^cmnch]n m_ag_hnm ][ff_^ migcn_m (mi‖gcnt). Ih
the head the first few somites never become clearly divided but develop
into indistinct segmented structures called somitomeres. The somites and
somitomeres eventually give rise to a part of the skull, the vertebral
column, and skeletal muscle. Most of the head muscles are derived from
the somitomeres.
Limb Bud Development: Arms and legs first appear as limb buds. The
apical ectodermal ridge, a specialized thickening of the ectoderm,
develops on the lateral margin of the each limb bud and stimulates its
outgrowth. As the buds elongate, limb tissues are laid down in a
proximal-to-distal sequence. For example, in the upper limb arm is
formed before the forearm, which is formed before the hand.
Development of the Face: The face develops by fusion of five embryonic
structures; the frontonasal process, which forms the forehead, nose and
midportion of the upper jaw and lips; two maxillary processes, which
187
form the lateral parts of the upper jaw and lip; and two mandibular
processes, which form the lower jaw and lip. N[m[f jf[]i^_m (jf[e‖i^t),
develops at the lateral margins of the frontonasal.
Development of the Organ Systems: The major organ systems appear
and begin to develop during the embryonic period. The period between
14 and 60 days is therefore called the period of organogenesis.
Skin: The epidermis of the skin is derived from ectoderm, and the dermis
is derived from mesoderm, or form neural crest cells in the case of the
face. Nails, hair and glands develop from the epidermis. Melanocytes and
sensory receptors in the skin are derived from neural crest cells.
Skeleton: The skeleton develops from either mesoderm or the neural
crest cells by intramembranous or endochondral bone fromation. The
bones of the face develop from neural crest cells, whereas the rest of the
skull, the vertebral column, and ribs develop from somite-or somitomere-
derived mesoderm. The appendicular skeleton develops from limb bud
mesoderm.
Mom]f_: Msi\f[mnm (gc‖i-blastz) are the early, embryonic cells that give
rise to skeletal muscle fibers. Myoblasts migrate from somities or
somitomeres to sites of future muscle development, where they began to
fuse and form multinuclear cells called myotubes. Shortly after myotubes
form, nerves grow into the area and innervate the developing muscle
fibers. After the basic form of each muscle is established, continued
growth of the muscle occurs by an increase in the number of muscle
fibers. The total number of muscle fibers is established before birth and
remains relatively constant thereafter. Muscle enlargement after birth
results from an increase in the size of individual fibers.
188
Nervous System: The nervous system is derived from the neural tube and
neural crest cells. Neural tube closure begins in the upper cervical region
and proceeds into the head and down the spinal cord. Soon after the
neural tube has closed, the part of the neural tube that will become the
brain begins to expand and develops a series of pouches. The central
cavity of the neural tube becomes the ventricles of the brain and the
central canal of the spinal cord.
Special Senses: The olfactory bulb and nerve develop as an evagination
from the telencephalon. The eyes develop as evaginations from the
diencephalon. Each evagination elongates to form an optic stalk, and a
bulb called the optic vesicle develops at its terminal end. The optic
vesicle reaches the side of the head and stimulates the overlying
ectoderm to thicken into a lens. The sensory part of the ear appers as an
ectodermal thickening or placode that invaginates and pinches off from
the overlying ectoderm.
Endocrine System: The posterlor pituitary gland is formed by an
evagination from the floor of the diencephalon. The anterior pituitary
gland develops from an evagination of ectoderm in the roof of the
embryonic oral cavity and grows toward the floor of the brain. It
eventually loses its connection with the oral cavity.
Circulatory System: The heart develops from two endothelial tubes
which fuse into a single, middle heart tube. Blood vessels form from
blood islands on the surface of the yolk sac and inside the embryo. Blood
islands are small masses of mesoderm that become blood vessels on the
outside and blood cells on the inside. These islands expand and fuse to
from the circulatory system. A series of dilations appears along the
189
length of the primitive heart tube, and four major regions can be
identified; the sinus venosus, the site where blood enters the heart; a
single atrium; a single ventricle; and the bulbus cordis, where blood exits
the heart.
The elongating heart, confined within the pericardium, becomes bent into
a loop, the apex of which is the ventricle. The major chambers of the
heart, the atrium and the ventricle, expand rapidly. The right part of the
sinus venosus becomes absorbed into the atrium, and the bulbus cordis is
absorbed into the ventricle. The embryonic sinus venosus initiates
contraction at tone end of the tubular heart. Later in development, part of
the sinus venosus becomes the sinoatrial node, which is the adult
pacemaker.
Respiratory System: The lungs begin to develop as a single midline
evagination from the foregut in the region of the future esophagus. This
evagination branches to form two lung buds. The lung buds elongate and
branch, first forming the bronchi that project to the lobes of the lungs and
then the bronchi that project to the bronchopulmonary segments of the
lungs. This branching continues until, by the end of the sixth month,
about 17 generations of branching have occurred. Even after birth some
branching continues as the lungs grow larger, and in the adult about 24
generations of branches have been established.
Urinary System: The kidneys develop from mesoderm located between
the somites and the lateral part of the embryo. About 21 days after
fertilization the mesoderm in the cervical region differentiates into a
structure called the pronephros (meaning the most forward or earliest
kidney), which consists of a duct and simple tubules connecting the duct
190
to the open celomic cavity. This type of kidney is the functional adult
kidney in some lower chordates, but it is probably not functional in the
human embryo and soon disappears.
The mesonephors (meaning middle kidney) is a functional organ in the
embryo. It consists of a duct, which is a caudal extension of the
pronephric duct, and a number of minute tubules, which are smaller and
more complex than those of the pronephros. One end of each tubule
opens into the mesonephric duct, and the other end forms a glomerulus.
As the mesonephros is developing, the cadual end of the hindgut begins
to enlarge to form the cloaca (klo-[‖e[, g_[hcha m_q_l), nb_ ]iggih
junction of the digestive, urinary, and genital systems. The cloaca
becomes divided by a urorectal septum into two parts; a disestive part
called the rectum and a urogential part called the urethra. The cloaca has
two tubes associates with it; the hindgut and the allantois (a-f[h‖ni-is,
(meaning sausage).
Reproductive System: The male and female gonads apper as gonadal
ridges along the ventral border of each mesonephros. Primordial germs
cells, destined to became oocytes or sperm cells, form on the surface of
the yolk sac, migrate into the embryo, and enter the gonadal ridge.
In the female the ovaries descend from their original position high in the
abdomen to a position within the pelvis. In the male the testes descend
even farther. As the testes reach the anteroinferior abdominal wall, a pair
of tunnels called the inguinal canals from through the abdominal
musculature. The testes pass through these canals, leaving the abdominal
cavity and coming to lie within the scrotum. Decent of the testes through
191
the canals begins about 7 months after conception, and the testes enter
the scrotum about 1 month before the infant is born.
Growth of the Fetus: The embryo becomes a fetus approximately 60 days
after fertilization (a 50-day-old embryo). The major difference between
the embryo and the fetus is that in the embryo most of the organ systems
are developing, whereas in the fetus the organs are present. Most
morphologic changes occur in the embryonic phase of the development,
qb_l_[m nb_ `_n[f j_lci^ cm jlcg[lcfs [ ――aliqcha jb[m_‖‖.
The fetus grows from about 3 cm and 2.5 g at 60days to 50cm and 3300g
at term- more than a 15-fold increase in length and a 1300-fold increase
in weight. Although growth is certainly a major feature of the fetal
period, it is not the only feature. The major organ systems still continue
to develop during the fetal period.
Fine, soft hair called Lanugo (la-ho‖ai) ]ip_lm nb_ `_nom, [h^ [ q[rs ]i[n
of sloughed epithelial cells c[ff_^ p_lhcr ][m_im[ (p_l‖hcem e[-se-i‖m[)
protects the fetus from the somewhat toxic nature of the amniotic fluid
formed by the accumulation of waste products from the fetus.
Subcutaneous fat that accumulates in the older fetus and newborn
provides a nutrient reserve, helps insulate the baby, and aids the baby in
sucking by strengthening and supporting the cheeks so that negative
pressure can be developed in the oral cavity.
Peak body growth occurs late in gestation, but, as placental size and
blood supply limits are approached, the growth rate shows. Growth of
the placenta essentially stops at about 35 weeks, restricting further
intrauterine growth.
192
Epestimological Questions
However, some basic epistemological questions are relevant that have
been reaised here. Human birth, growth, continuity of growth, passage
through the entire life span and discontinuity (to be deceesed or pass
away from this world) are the reality, while this reality is intellectually
constructed. Therefore the key queston is how had and has it been
constructed. This is knowledge and academia. It is obvious that these
issues are considered as discourse that is derived from a modern
scientific paradigm. It claims to be a transcendent form of knowledge,
and to reveal discourse and knowledge, see Archeology of Knowledge of
M. Foucault (1969: 107-8). This knowledge presents itself as narrative.
Meaning of something is made through a binary relationship with
something else that it is not. This writing argues that the understanding in
this discourse about the given issues is not indisputable and objective
truth. A colonial trend continues to dominate the discourse.
European scholars started, at least in the eighteenth century, to pay
attention to the first years with the belief that they determine the entire
life (Singer, 1998). This could be marked as the beginning of the
narrative. Later, the expansion of modern sciences and modern education
played a role in perpetuating this. Most of them were religiously inspired
and dreamed of improving society by freeing the child from the bad
influences. The young child, as Hobbes believes, is naturally wild and
unregulated – ―^_p_fijg_hn cm [\ion mi]c[fctcha ]bcf^l_h ni n[e_ their
jf[]_ qcnbch mi]c_ns‖ (Wii^b_[^, 2005: 5). Tabula rasa of Locke and
noble savage of Rousseau (Baird & Kaufmann, 2008) are two theses
[\ion ]bcf^l_h‖m h[nol_ nb[n q_l_ mcahc`c][hn ch g[echa [h
epistemological base for the narrative. Locke viewed the newborn as a
193
―\f[he mf[n_‖: ^_p_fijg_hn cm hin ch\ilh l[nb_l cn ]ig_m `lig _rj_lc_h]_

and perception. Individuals, as Rouss_[o ]ihn_h^m, [l_ \ilh [m ―little
[ha_fm‖ with an inherent drive toward goodness. Darwin pioneered
scientific approach to child study, while Freud, Piaget and Erikson
contributed to the narrative by formulating scientific theories (Gonzalez-
Mena, 2000). Sep_l[f nl_h^m i` ]bcf^l_h‖m _ô][ncih ilcach[n_^ `lig nb_
ideas and works of Froebel, Dewey, Montessori, Malaguzzi, and others
(Morgan, 1999). Cultural studies of anthropologists and other researchers
– for instance, Boas, Mead, Fortes, Whiting, C. M. Super, J. S. Tobin, R.
LeVine and A. Göncü – describe the situation of children in various
societies (LeVine & New, 2008). In promoting the rights perspective, the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is one of the
catalysts that have played significant roles. Every child, from this
perspective, has the inherent right to life and to be developed (Flekkøy &
Kaufman, 1997).
Cultural studies bring an important contribution to expand the knowledge

about birth and growth. Culture – referring to Derrida (Layton, 1998), it
is seen as opposed to nature – cm ―nb_ ohcp_lm[f, mj_]c_m-specific
characteristic of Homo sapiens‖ (Cif_, 1998: 11). It claims to be essential
for real knowledge. Culture, thus, is legitimized as an approach. But, I
found a lot of evidence from the literature (see, for example, Kidd, 1906;
Mead, 1928; Malinowski, 1929/2008; Fortes, 1938/2008; Whiting, 1941;
DuBois, 1944; Kluckhohn, 1954; Nydegger & Nydegger, 1963;
Harkness & Super, 1977/2008; La Fontaine, 1985; Kotalova, 1993;
LeVine et al., 1994/2008; Kakar, 1999; Pattnaik, 2004; Behera, 2007)
that cultural descriptions about Non-Western children provide partial and
194
nqcmn_^ oh^_lmn[h^cham. Tb_m_ ]bcf^l_h \_]ig_ 'Onb_lm‖ nb[h W_mn_lh

children through being portrayed as exotic and exceptional, treated as
homogenous inhabitants of an isolated world, and placed at the very
\innig i` ]cpcfct[ncih. ―W_ ][hhin oh^_lmn[h^ nbe life of the savage until
q_ mno^s nb_ ]bcf^bii^ i` nb_ m[p[a_‖: ]bcf^l_h [l_ mi mbs, mnl[ha_ [h^
`[m]ch[ncha, [h^ ―cn cm j_]ofc[lfs ^c``c]ofn ni _hn_l chni nb_ vieintime of the
]bcf^l_h‖ (Kc^^, 1906: pcc, cr). ―Tb_ ]bcf^l_h chcnc[n_ _[]b inb_l chni nb_
msmn_lc_m i` m_ro[f fc`_ ch [ ^cl_]n jl[]nc][f g[hh_l [n [ p_ls _[lfs [a_‖
(Malinowski, 1929/2008: 31). They have no knowledge of things and
m_hm_ i` lcabn [h^ qliha, [h^ [l_ ―[ffiq_^ ni ^_`_][n_ `l__fs‖ [h^ î hin
―q_[l j[hnm i` [hs ech^‖ (B_mm[cah_n, 1958: 49). ―Bism [h^ aclfm [fce_
li[g nblioab nb_ pcff[a_ `l__fs‖ (Kin[fip[, 1993: 70). Tb_s ―î hin î
qb[n W_mn_lh ]bcf^l_h î‖ (G[mechm, 1999: 56). Indeed, this research
tradition remains in the Western epistemological regime. Western
concepts and models are applied to test for universality. Such researches,
as Viruru (2001) shows, do not dismantle the colonial trend rather
supplement it. Prevailing cultural knowledge of young children,
therefore, is a discursive construct. As Clifford (1986: 109) explained:
Much of our knowledge about other cultures must now be seen as
contingent, the problematic outcome of intersubjective dialogue,
translation, and projection.
Conclusion
This book addressed all these questions and arrived at the conclusion that
human life is shaped by broader social, economic, cultural and political
processes, while human thinking process is attributed with
inconsistencies, discontinuity, disjunctions, descriptive and most
importantly not enough of expertise, rather practical, applied and
195
practices that provide understanding to be in a position to address issues

at conscious level of mind, while the unconscious mind is externalized in
conscious expression. Therefore, human being should be dealt with
gaining insight and epistemological and ontological understanding.
Therefore, if epistemiology which is synonimous to science and refers to
sources and process of knwoledge, while ontology refers to an
understanding about the basic elements theorized about it is inevitable to
study human being as a subject and object of anthropology as a
specialized, exclusive, inclusive and independent discipline to gain
knowledge about human being. And only by fullfilling these conditions
Anthropology would be the science of human being.
Bibliography
Behera, D. K. (Ed) (2007) Childhoods in South Asia. New Delhi:
Pearson Education.
Bessaignet, P. (1958) Tribesmen of the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Dacca:

Asiatic Society of Pakistan.
Clifford, J. (1986) On ethnographic allegory, in J. Clifford & G. Murcus

(Eds) Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography.
Berkley: University of California.
Cole, M. (1998) Culture in development, in M. Woodhead, D. Faulkner

& K. Littleton (Eds) Cultural Worlds of Early Childhood. London:
Routledge.
196
Darwin, C. (1987/1859) The Origin of Species: By Means of

Natural Selection. Middlexes: Penguin Books.
Darwin, C. (1987/1887) Descent of Man. Princeton, New Jersey:

Princeton University Press.
DuBois, C. A. (1944) The people of Alor; a social-psychological

study of an East Indian island. With analyses by Abram Kardiner
and Emil Oberholzer. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Flekkøy, M. G. & Kaufman, N. H. (1997) The Participation

Rights of the Child: rights and responsibilities in family and
society. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Fortes, M. (2008/1938) Tallensi Childhood in Ghana, in R. A.

LeVine & R. New (Eds) Anthropology and Child Development: A
Cross-cultural Reader. Malden: Blackwell.
Foucault, M. (1969) Archeology of Knowledge. Paris: Éditions

Gallimard.
Gardner, K. & Lewis, D. (1996) Anthropology, Development and the

Post-modern Challenge. London: Pluto Press.
G[mechm, S. (1999) Cbcf^l_h‖m D[cfs Lcp_m ch [ M[s[h Vcff[a_: A C[m_

Study of Culturally Constructed Roles and Activities, in A. Göncü (Ed)
197
Children’s Engagement in the World: Socio-cultural Perspectives.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Göncü, A. (1999) Cbcf^l_h‖m [h^ R_m_[l]b_lm‖ Eha[a_g_hn ch nb_ Wilf^,

in A. Göncü (Ed) Children’s Engagement in the World: Socio-cultural
Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gonzalez-Mena, J. (2001) Foundation: Early childhood Education in a

Diverse Society. California: Mayfield Publishing.
Harkness, S. & Super, C. M. (2008/1977) Why African Children Are So

Hard to Test, in R. A. LeVine & R. New (Eds) Anthropology and Child
Development: A Cross-cultural Reader. Malden: Blackwell.
Kakar, S. (1999) The Inner World: A Psycho-analytic Study of Childhood

and Society in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Kidd, D. (1906) Savage Childhood: A Study of Kafir Children. London:

Black.
Kluckhohn, C. (1954) Some Aspects of Navaho Infancy and Early

Childhood, in W. E. Martin & C. B. Stendler (Eds) Readings in Child
Development. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.
Kotalova, J. (1993) Belonging to others: Cultural construction of

womanhood among Muslims in a village in Bangladesh (Uppsala Studies
in Cultural Anthropology No. 19). Uppsala: Acta Universitatis
Upsaliensis.
198
La Fontaine, J. S. (1985) Person and individual: some anthropological

reflections, in M. Carrithers, S. Collins & S. Lukes (Eds) The Category
of the Persons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Layton, R. (1998) An introduction to theory in anthropology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
LeVine, R. A. & New, R. (2008) Introduction, in R. A. LeVine & R.
New (Eds) Anthropology and Child Development: A Cross-cultural
Reader. Malden: Blackwell.
LeVine, R. A., Dixon, S., LeVine, S. E. & et al. (2008/1994) The
Comparative Study of Parenting, in R. A. LeVine & R. New (Eds)
Anthropology and Child Development: A Cross-cultural Reader.
Malden: Blackwell.
Malinowski, B. (2008/1929) Childhood in the Trobriand Islands,
Melanesia, in R. A. LeVine & R. New (Eds) Anthropology and Child
Development: A Cross-cultural Reader. Malden: Blackwell.
Mead, M. (1928) Coming of Age in Samoa. New York: Harper Collins.

Mead, M. (1930) Growing Up in New Guinea. New York: William
Morrow.
Morgan, H. (1999) The Imagination of Early Childhood Education.
Westport: Bergin & Garvey.
199
Nydegger, W. F. & Nydegger, C. (1963) Tarong: An Ilocos Barrio in the

Philippines, in B. B. Whiting (Ed) Six Cultures: Studies of Child
Rearing. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Pattnaik, J. (Ed) (2004) Childhood in South Asia: a critical look
at issues, policies, and programs. Charlotte: Information Age
Publishing.
Seeley, R. R., Stephens, T. D. & Tate, P. (2000) Anatomy & Physiology.
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Singer, E. (1998) Shared Care for Children, in M. Woodhead, D.
Faulkner & K. Littleton (Eds) Cultural Worlds of Early Childhood.
London: Routledge.
Viruru, R. (2001) Early Childhood Education: Postcolonial Perspectives
from India. New Delhi: Sage.
Whiting, J. W. M. (1941) Becoming a Kwoma: Teaching and learning in
a New Guinea Tribe. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Woodhead, M., Faulkner, D. & Littleton, K. (Eds) (1998) Cultural

Worlds of Early Childhood. London: Routledge.
Woodhead, M. (2005) Early Childhood Development: a question of

rights, International Journal of Early Childhood, November.
Young, M. E. (Ed) (2002) From Early Child Development to Human

Development: Investing in Our Children's Future. Washington, DC: The
World Bank.
200
Endnote
Part of the contents of this book has been published earlier. Particularly:
Nrvijnana Patrika, Vols. 8, 9, 10, 12;
The Jahangirnagar Review, Part II: Social Science, Vols. XIII & XIV, XXV-
XXVI, XXVII;
Asian Studies, No. 21.
201

Anthropology Science of Human Being-Professor Mohammad Shahjalal

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Anthropology Science of Human Being-Professor Mohammad Shahjalal

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ANTHROPOLOGY

Science of Human Being

MOHAMMAD SHAH JALAL

Cover designed by Hazrat Ali

Murshida Khanom, my daughter

5 Nikolai Nikaliavich Miklouho-Maclay, the Founder of Empiricism

10 Birth and Growth of Human Beings 181

Dr. Farzana Islam April 4, 2017

Mohammad Shah Jalal

Brief Notes on Author

[m ―nbcham‖. In this regard, the author conceives that as of Lienhardt,

India almost made anthropology synonymous to caste study and or

b„weÁvb t ÁvbZË¡xq cÖm‡½ wKQz ch©‡eÿY1

Fabian, 1983; Sahlins, 1985); Kvj‡Kw›`ªK-KvjµwgK I cÖwµqvMZ

G wbe‡Üi we‡eP¨ cÖavb ÁvbZvwË¡K cÖm½

wbe‡Üi G Ae¯ vbwU‡K G ch©v‡q mijxK…Z (generalized) e‡j g‡b n‡Z cv‡i|

b„weÁv‡bi BwZnvm I Ab¨vb¨ cÖm½ : we‡ePbvmg~‡ni †cÖÿvcU

ch©vq‡f‡` b„weÁvbx‡`i †K›`ªxq wRÁvmvi cwieZ©b n‡q‡Q| ivR‣bwZKZv I

Bs‡iwR Anthropology k‡ãi eyrcwËMZ A_© n‡jv gvbyl, Z_v b„ m¤úwK©Z

GmKj mgm¨vwqZ cÖkœmg~‡ni †e‡o IVvi ÁvbZvwË¡K †cÖÿvcU‡K †evSvi Rb¨

wn‡m‡eI A‡b‡K b„weÁv‡bi ZË¡-BwZnvm‡K eyS‡Z †P‡q‡Qb (†hgb: Kuper,

b„weÁvb PP©vi RvZxq HwZn¨mg~‡ni BwZnvm: •ecixZ¡ I avivevwnKZvnxbZv

¸iæZ¡c~Y© welq| Avw`g mgvRmg~n, weeZ©‡bi cÖv‣MwZnvwmK ¯Íimg~n Ges cÖv_wgK

G_‡bvwR‡bwmm, e¯‧MZ ms¯‥…wZ, •RweK •ewPÎ¨ Ges G_wbK BwZnvm I

1980 Gi `k‡Ki †k‡l Ges 1990 Gi `k‡Ki ïiæ‡Z ivR‣bwZK D`vixKiY

Ab¨w`‡K Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁv‡bi BwZnvm chv©‡jvPbv Ki‡j wVK †mvwf‡q‡Z

F. Voget Zuvi History of Ethnology bvgK MÖ‡š AvaywbK Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁv‡bi

c~eeZ©x b„weÁvbxMY Z_v weeZ©bvev`xM‡Yi Zzjbvq wfbœ `„wófw½i m~Pbv K‡ib|

Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁv‡bi †ÿ‡Î †evqv‡mi Ae¯ vb we‡køl‡Y †h cÖm½wU G ch©v‡q

mvgwMÖKfv‡e †evqvm I Zvi cieZ©x b„weÁvbx‡`i Kv‡Ri ga¨ w`‡q Aa¨q‡bi

weªwUk b„weÁv‡bi BwZnvm ch©v‡jvPbv Ki‡Z wM‡q †nbwiKv KzKwjK e‡jb

Gfv‡e weªwUk b„‣eÁvwbK HwZ‡n¨i g‡a¨B c~e©eZ©x weeZ©bev`x ZvwË¡K‡`i mv‡_

G mg‡qi weªwUk b„weÁv‡bi weKvk we‡køl‡Y Ab¨ GKwU welq we‡klfv‡e

Ab¨w`‡K cÖZœZvwË¡KMY Ges •RweK b„weÁvbxMY gvbe BwZnv‡mi AMÖMwZ †h Kx

‡mvwf‡q‡Z, Av‡gwiKvb Ges weªwUk b„‣eÁv‡bi cvkvcvwk `wÿY Gwkqvi b„weÁvb,

†`Lv wM‡qwQj ev †`Lv hvq GLbI| †h weeZ©bev`‡K GKUv ch©v‡q b„weÁv‡b

Acwðgv gvby‡li weÁvb

wbR Rb‡Mvôxi bq ÔAb¨Õ Rb‡Mvôxi Aa¨qb

gvby‡li cwic~Y© Aa¨qb bvwK cyরুl cক্ষcvZg~jK Aa¨qb

Zvn‡j wK Acwðgv Ab¨ gvby‡li ÔZzjbvg~jK mgvRweÁvbÕ?

gvby‡li c~Yv©½ cvV bq eis Zvi mgvR A_ev ms¯‥…wZi cvV

Aa¨q‡bi †ÿ‡Î ms¯‥…wZmg~‡ni ev mvs¯‥…wZK Dcv`vbmg~‡ni e›Ub Ges cÖwZwU

ms¯‥…wZ Aa¨qb Qvwc‡q hvq gvbyl Aa¨q‡bi g~j G‡RÛv‡K

mv¤úªwZK cwieZ©b: `k©b I ivRbxwZi cÖvavb¨, †g․wjK ÁvbZvwË¡K

AZxZ wegywLZv Ges mv¤úªwZK Bmy¨‡Kw›`ªKZv: ¸ রুZ¡c~Y© †g․j Aa¨q‡bi welq

weZK© I Uvbv‡cv‡o‡bi gy‡LvgywL b„weÁvb n‡”Q Zv‡Z b„weÁvb †h wewfbœ mgq

Asad, T. (Ed) (1973) Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. London:

Clifford, J. (1988) The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century

Cohn, B. (1987) An Anthropologist among the Historians. Delhi: Oxford

Derrida, J. (1974) Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

Geertz, C. (1973) Interpretation of Culture: Selected Essays. New York:

Gellner, E. (1988) State and Soceity in Soviet Thought. London: Basil

Kuklick, H. (1992) The Savage Within: The History of British

Kiklick, H. (1996) British Anthropology, in J. Spencer & A. Barnard

Kuper, A. (1996) Anthropologists and Anthropology: The Modern British

Layton, R. (1997) An Introduction to Theory in Anthropology.

Malefijt, A. de W. (1976) Images of Man: A History of Anthropological

Stocking, G. W., Jr. (1996) After Tylor: British Social Anthropology,

Sahlins, M. (1981) Islands of History. Chicago: University of Chicago

Tiskhov, V. (1992) The Crises in Soviet Ethnography, Current

Conceptualization of Human Being:

anthropology, cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology and archeology.

M]Eflis [h^ Tiqhm_h^ b[p_ i\m_lp_^ nb[n ―nbl__ a_h_nc][ffs based

reveals extinct cultures, cognitive anthropology analyzes the processes and

wbe‡Üi G Ae¯ vbwU‡K G ch©v‡q mijxK…Z (generalized) e‡j g‡b n‡Z cv‡i|

F. Voget Zuvi History of Ethnology bvgK MÖ‡š  AvaywbK Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁv‡bi

Av‡gwiKvb b„weÁv‡bi †ÿ‡Î †evqv‡mi Ae¯ vb we‡køl‡Y †h cÖm½wU G ch©v‡q