Role of Bronislaw Malinowski in the Development of British Social Anthropology Essay

Introduction

Ethnography refers to the “branch of anthropology that deals with the scientific description of specific human cultures” (Okely, 2011). It has four elements, namely; participant observation, natural setting, holism, and use of subjects own language. The field of ethnography usually focuses on human societies through a branch of cultural anthropology.

Ethnography involves extensive travelling due to its aspects of fieldwork. Ethnographers study their subjects objectively. This process involves living an ordinary life among the population of study. The study period is usually long, but depends on the area of interest. This essay critically looks at the role of Bronislaw Malinowski in the development of British Social Anthropology and his influence in the contemporary ethnography.

Contemporary ethnographers consider Malinowski as one of the most experienced ethnographer. They consider Malinowski’s works as highly systematic with clear theoretical approaches in studying social systems. Other scholars have often referred to Malinowski as the first anthropologist to bring anthropology “off the veranda” (Kuper, 1973). This means that Malinowski had firsthand experiences of lives of his study population.

This gave rise to the idea of participant observation in social research. According to Malinowski, it is necessary for an anthropologist to establish a contact with the study population in order to understand and record experiences of subjects objectively. This is crucial for understanding cultural aspects of the study population. He also brought the idea of functionalism and reciprocity, and the relationship between culture and people.

Proponents of Malinowski look at anthropologists of the past centuries against the works of Malinowski. They note that Tylor and Frazer were the armchair anthropologists who relied on reports of missionaries, colonialists, travellers, and other people who could give them information for their studies (Kuper, 1973).

JG Frazer was famous for studying social anthropology and showing the link between rituals and myths. He provided detailed accounts of religious and magical beliefs in his work, The Golden Bough of 1890. Frazer identified three stages of human belief as primitive magic, religious stage, and science stage.

On the other hand, EB Tylor remains the scholar behind the idea of cultural evolutionism. Tylor looked at scientific study and anthropology as “a functional basis for the development of society and religion” (Kuper, 1973). Tylor believed that the British society could transform itself by understanding history and prehistory of man. Tylor and Frazer remain the founding fathers of modern anthropology.

The next generation moved closer to fieldwork but remained in the armchair as they worked from the verandas. This category included Rivers, Seligman and others. These scholars moved to various countries but did not go to the subjects.

Instead, they would stay in verandas and subjects would come to them for interviews. However, Malinowski’s approach changed subsequent studies in anthropology. According to Malinowski, “true and intensive fieldwork could only take place by living at the centre of the natives’ village” (Malinowski, 1922).

The British Social Anthropology

Malinowski was among the founding anthropologists of the British Social Anthropology. Malinowski advocated for a change in the British Social Anthropology from “the speculative and historical to the ahistorical study of social institutions” (Young, 2004). Ahistorical study does not take into account historical contexts when examining cultural phenomena that change with time.

This paradigm shift marked the introduction of functionalism and fieldwork as ideals of studying social anthropology. Functionalism gained influence around 1920s. It worked as a form of applied methodology in social science. However, it did meet certain conditions in studying social or cultural changes.

Functionalism regards society as a complex system. This complexity results from various parts, which work as a unit for establishing stability and solidarity. Malinowski applied functionalism to understand a society using its macro-level structures. In this context, Malinowski focused on social structures of society.

These structures are responsible for shaping a society. Functionalism also focuses on social functions of a society. According to Malinowski, it was necessary to study social behaviours and relations in a society within their cultural contexts. This led to the theory of participant observation. Malinowski argued that it was important to take into account the observable variations in actions and norms of the people. This captures what society does and what it claims to do.

Participant observation is a form of data collection method, which is common in qualitative research paradigms. It has spread to other areas of research studies such as social psychology, sociology, and studies in communication. Malinowski applied participant observation in order to achieve close relationships with the society and informants under study. This approach also enabled him actively take part in the daily life of the subjects under study over a long period in their cultural environments.

Malinowski was able to provide a detailed account of Trobriand social life due to an application of the participant observation approach. As a result, Argonauts of the Western Pacific of 1922 became one of the most popular works of the anthropologist.

Malinowski studied marriage, religious, and trade activities of the Trobriand extensively. This study and others developed the field of the British Social Anthropology from a mere discipline of evolution to a psychological and social field of scientific enquiry with both theoretical and methodological approaches.

Malinowski challenged the Freudian approach of Oedipal Complex and the idea of primitivism among the natives. He showed that such primitive people had same levels and types of mental abilities like other advanced societies. He observed and substantiated such claims that primitive societies were not different from advanced societies.

He observed that societies had different viewpoints about motives, beliefs, and emotional responses. However, human beings had similar manners of perceiving and processing information irrespective of culture or race. This also extended to use of creativity and intelligence when adapting to situations. He made these assertions after studying Trobriand social life for many years.

Malinowski’s ideas also spread beyond Britain. For instance, his methodologies also found their ways in Boasian methods among the American anthropologists. This established Malinowski as one of the most influential anthropologists of his time.

Malinowski also developed the theory of reciprocity for understanding cultural anthropology. He aimed to define lives of Trobriand’s informal exchange of goods and explain how informal economic system worked. He identified that reciprocity was in “savage societies” as well as civilised societies. Malinowski extensively applied reciprocity in his study of the Kula ring (Stocking, 1983).

The influence of Malinowski also reached in Africa through Rockefeller funding. He was in charge of field research in Africa in the 1930s. This showed the influence of British Social Anthropology beyond Europe. This explains how the British Social Anthropology found its ways in former colonies.

In fact, Peter Forster looked at anthropology in Africa and noted its influences and changes (Forster, 1994). As an effort to credit and adopt Malinowski’s approach to studying local social systems, he notes that cultural factors have not “received due attention since peasants’ knowledge and culture remain misunderstood” (Forster, 1994).

Malinowski approaches to Fieldwork and its application in modern social research

Scholars had already started fieldwork before Malinowski. However, Malinowski studies popularised and revolutionised fieldwork in anthropology. Malinowski believed in association with the native language. The works of Franz Boas also reflect this approach to social science.

Malinowski believed in understanding mundane aspects of daily life of the society. In this context, Malinowski believed in going beyond the informant’s account in order to find true practices as they occurred in reality (Sanjek, 1990). Participant observation enabled the researcher to collect data about cultural aspects of the society. In this way, Malinowski was able to understand the psychology of his subjects.

Establishment of Fieldwork

Wax noted, “In the final analysis, the major credit for discovering the technique of intensive personal fieldwork among a single people must go to Bronislaw Malinowski (Wax, 1972, p. 2).

Malinowski established three conditions for effective fieldwork. First, the research must have scientific goals, apply the values and approaches of contemporary ethnography. Second, the ethnographer must be in a better position when conducting the study. This implies that the ethnographer must live among the natives when gathering information.

Third, the ethnographer must use several scientific methods of collecting, analysing, and fixing data. These three aspects should lead to three specific types of evidence from the fieldwork. First, ethnographer must understand the natives, their organisation, and anatomy of their culture. Second, the researcher must understand the actual life and behaviours of the natives. Finally, the researcher must present all materials from the field for analysis. According to Malinowski, this was the ideal fieldwork.

Malinowski puts emphasis on the second principle as a root for successful fieldwork in ethnography. Living among the natives enabled the ethnographer to consider them as companions. This was an opportunity to learn about customs and beliefs of the native from a natural intercourse.

Therefore, it was necessary to create proper conditions for fieldwork first (Wax, 1972). Malinowski then applied the first principle for effective fieldwork. This requires the ethnographer to pursue evidence using scientific principles. The scientific approaches enable the researcher to develop a conceptual framework of the problem under investigation. This is the appropriate way to achieve reliable results for contemporary studies.

Thus, the researcher has to foreshadow the problem when developing a scientific approach. In this context, Malinowski insisted on three fundamental types of evidence the ethnographer must separate from one another. First, the ethnographer must focus on the organisation of the natives and elements of its culture.

In this area, the researcher must apply a proper technique of statistic in documenting data. Second, the research must focus on actual life of the natives and their behaviours. The research must document details gathered. This is only possible by establishing a close contact with the natives. Third, the researcher must review a corpus of ethnographic statements, utterances, narratives, traditional beliefs, magical approaches, and mentality of the natives. This observation is similar to the approach in “Collection” of Franz Boas.

Malinowski presented a concrete approach used in fieldwork. This provides clear evidence on how scientific methods should work. In this sense, the method reflects final aims of the ethnographer, which are to capture ideas from the subjects’ point of view, aspects of life, and views about the world.

Such detailed account of fieldwork led Malinowski to debunk observations of the Social Darwinist. This idea claims that all societies pass through “the same distinct and predictable stages, in the same predictable order, along a single linear trajectory” (Kuper, 1973). According to Malinowski, societies are different and difficult to predict due to their great variations. These various are diverse and not linear as the linear model indicates.

Malinowski brings out three elements of effective fieldwork in comparison to his contemporary, River. He shows that ethnographer must show specific details of data collection, how to implement the method, and establish awareness of participation.

Urry observes that Malinowski’s fieldwork approach classifies “the types of information for collection under concrete evidence, imponderability of social life, and native statements taken in vernacular” (Urry, 1993).

From this point, Malinowski concludes that these are “the main three realms of ethnographic data the researcher should collect” (Urry, 1993). In this manner, Malinowski provides a detailed approach to fieldwork, which is applicable in modern social science.

River’s approach concentrated on interviewing the subjects. On the other hand, Malinowski stressed the importance of participation by taking part in the village life. Thus, he notes, “it is good for the Ethnographer sometimes to leave camera, notebook, and pencil, and join what is going on. He can take part in the natives’ games. He can follow them on their visits, walks, sit, listen, and share in their conversations” (Malinowski, 1922, p. 22).

The application of functionalism enables us to understand the place of magic rituals in modern societies. For instance, people who cannot bear challenges of modern, professional life or tragic trauma usually resort to tribal of positive visualization. This acts as a form of therapy and healing process to such individuals as they imagine of positive outcomes in their roles. Therefore, the studies of Malinowski enable us to understand how traditional rituals can facilitate productivity in society.

We can see contributions and scientific influences of studies of Malinowski in scientific research. Scholars have accredited Malinowski as the father of functionalism. As a result, there are attempts to contrast structural-functionalism of Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski, and structuralism of Émile Durkheim. These approaches view society as a whole as they recognise contributions of its various institutions. Malinowski approached the society with the focus on actions of an individual. In this context, he argues that society exists to serve individual’s needs. He also focuses on “customary practices, and beliefs and how the psychology of those individuals might lead them to generate change” (Stocking, 1983).

Malinowski also achieved influence through his lectures, writings, and mentorship. Still, most of Malinowski’s contributions to the British Social Anthropology also emanated from his contact with Radcliffe-Brown. These two scholars had differences but aimed to change past theories of social science. They aspired to create a new form of British Social Anthropology favoured with new ideas and practical, scientific methods.

Malinowski insisted that ethnographers who wanted to experience life of the native had to adopt a fieldwork approach. This led to the development of a “scientific theory of culture” after his death (Kuper, 1973). This theory posits that it is “the function of an institution and the purpose of its existence that contribution to the biological survival of individuals within an interlocking matrix of such institutions” (Ellen, 1984).

Fieldwork today

Today, many ethnographers believe that conducting fieldwork using Malinowski’s approach is the best approach to understanding anthropological research as it is the only way of distinguishing the research (Watson, 1999). However, fieldwork has evolved since the time of Malinowski and now has several practices and methods, which modern social scientists use for gaining intimate knowledge of a society.

Ethnographers of today conduct fieldwork in highly contemporary environments as well as remote villages. Still, they used several techniques to collect data. First, researchers collect data using quantitative approaches through surveys or existing records on the subject. Second, some researchers apply quantitative techniques to gather information.

However, this is mainly common among biological anthropologists who study demographic aspects of communities. Unlike in the past where researchers worked independently, studies involving quantitative techniques may require cooperation among researchers as they take an interdisciplinary approach (Antonius and Sulka, 2006).

However, social studies of today prefer qualitative information. They also use various approaches such as “individual or group interviews, undertaking oral histories, online discussion forums and, most importantly, through the Malinowskian tradition of participant observation” (Okely, 2011).

Participant observation still plays the role it did during the time of Malinowski. It enables the researcher to “undertake detailed, lengthy, and often complex observations of social life in fine details” (Okely, 2011). Such approaches may target various sources of information such as virtual network communities, a native society, and social groups of the modern society.

Modern fieldwork also has moved to the museums, institutions, archives and other places of keeping information. In these cases, the anthropologist seeks to understand “the underlying symbolic and cultural meanings of a text or a collection of objects” (Okely, 2011).

Susanne Wessendorf shows challenges modern social ethnographers face during the course of their fieldwork (Wessendorf, 2009). The researcher observes that modern social research is quite different in urban settings. There are challenges involving practicality of applying participant observation in urban contexts as it raises ethical concerns too. Wessendorf highlights that such issues can change the course of participant observation.

The researchers can fail to establish the relationship that Malinowski created with his informants and the natives. For instance, Wessendorf noted that her “everyday social relations with her informants consisted of casual encounters and participant observation in cafés, at Salsa classes and at Italian club nights” (Wessendorf, 2009).

Similarly, modern researchers have also based their studies on human subjects as the use of fieldwork expands to other fields such as medicine. Such researchers come closer to their subjects for exchange of information. Consequently, there are ethical problems earlier researchers such as Malinowski, Rivers, and Radcliffe-Brown did not experience.

As a result, modern researchers face ethical dilemmas with human subjects during fieldwork. This is because they have to invade privacy of their informants. Therefore, researchers have to address the need to “extend the ethical decision-making paradigm to address ethical dilemmas arising during the course of fieldwork” (Qudsiya, 2008).

Despite these observations, fieldwork remains the cornerstone of ethnography. Moreover, the idea of spending time with participants is the only way for ethnographers to collect reliable data from the participants.

Conclusion

The paper has highlighted contributions of Malinowski in developing the British Social Anthropology. Malinowski established ideals of fieldwork in ethnography by declaring clear stages of fieldwork, and what researchers should do while interacting with the natives. We have noted four principles Malinowski emphasised in social research. First, the ethnographer had to spend considerably extended time with the subjects.

This is where Malinowski applied participant observation in order to understand cultures of the natives. Second, Malinowski applied functionalism to understand structures of the society through its members by analysing data collected. Third, the study used holistic approach. Fourth, Malinowski focused on the “savage societies” rather than civilised societies.

Reference List

Antonius, R and Sulka, J 2006, Ethnographic Fieldwork: An Anthropological Reader, Wiley-Blackwell, London.

Ellen, R 1984, Ethnographic Research: A Guide to General Conduct, Academic Press, London.

Forster, P 1994, ‘Has Anthropology a Future in Africa After Colonialism?’, UTAFITI: News Series, vol.1, no.1, pp. 48-69.

Kuper, A 1973, Anthropologists and Anthropology: The British School, 1922-1972, Allen Lane, London.

Malinowski, B 1922, ‘Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea’, Studies in Economics and Political Science, vol. 65, p. 22.

Okely, J 2011, Anthropological Practice: Fieldwork and the Ethnographic Method, Berg Publishers, London.

Qudsiya, C 2008, ‘Fieldwork and social science research ethics’, Indian J Med Ethics, vol. 5 no. 1, pp. 22-3.

Sanjek, R 1990, Fieldnotes: the makings of anthropology, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Stocking, G 1983, The Ethnographer’s Magic: Fieldwork in British Anthropology From Tylor to Malinowski, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Urry, J 1993, Before Social Anthropology: Essays on the History of British Anthropology, Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur, Switzerland.

Watson, C 1999, Being There: Fieldwork in Anthropology: Anthropology, Culture and Society, Pluto Press, London.

Wax, M 1972, ‘Tenting with Malinowski’, American Sociological Review, vol, 37, no. 1, pp. 1-13.

Wessendorf, S 2009, Doing fieldwork with busy people. Web.

Young, M 2004, Malinowski: Odyssey of an Anthropologist, 1884-1920, Yale University Press, New Haven.