Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3188

Marginal notes by Spencer MacCallum and Heath in A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, Method in Social Anthropology.

December 1960

 

Original is missing.

 

 

MacCallum , inserted letter: “Popdaddy – This book seems to represent the remainder of Radcliffe-Brown’s writings left over after the publication of the other two books. As such it is somewhat disappointing. I think what may interest you most are the final two chapters, ‘Social structure’ and ‘Social Evolution,’ and perhaps also pages 76-80. Wish you would send it back when you have made any notes in it that might be of interest to me.  Best wishes, Spencer   December 22, 1960”

 

Inside cover: “Why are we concerned with understanding (1) processes of change and (2) functional requirements of societies? These seem to be the chief professed objectives of modern anthropological research. Yet are they really fundamental or are they only straw issues? Have they been fabricated as goals because of the lack of really substantial directions of inquiry?”

 

The ultimate objective of all life is more life—life more abundant—self-realization.  S.H. 12-28-60

                  

MacCallum, Inside cover: “Is society after all a fruitful unit of study? Might not communities be more so?”

 

I think so, but mergers, even world-wide, might be potential.  S.H.

 

                   R-B page 80 :  “ . . a great obstacle to scientific thinking in anthropology, is the word “primitive . .”

 

                   MacCallum:  “No — I think this word is                         warranted to apply to the kinship level.”

 

 

So do I.  S.H.

                  

 

                   R-B page 170: “A modern army is the best                       example of a highly organized structure; a                     Socialist State would have to be something                     similar.”

 

 

A business enterprise.

 

 

                   R-B page 170: “.. a ‘clan’ .. was a unit of                    fundamental importance in the social                           structure.”

 

 

Familial, limited vs. societal, as contractual, unlimited.

 

                   R-B page 174: “In any of the relationships                     of which the social structure consists there                    is an expectation that a person will conform                   to certain rules or patterns of behavior.                    The term institution is used to refer to                      this, an institution being an established or                  socially recognized system of norms or                         patterns of conduct referring to some aspect                    of social life.”

 

                   MacCallum: “Requires a process of                             abstraction to conceive such systems. Thus a                    uniquely human phenomenon. How about                           defining social relations as those                             interactions among people which are                            formalized by such shared abstractions —                       ‘rules of the game.’ Man’s quest for                           sociality, then, is the quest for common                       grounds of understanding on which to build                     predictable relationships of mutual aid.                       Sovereignty fails by the notable way it                        falls short of expectations. It is based on                     force instead of mutuality of interests and                    so is not amenable to ‘rules of the game.’                        The outcome of force is largely chance.”