Political Anthropology: The Analysis of the Symbolism of Power Relations Author(s): Abner Cohen Reviewed work(s): Source: Man,

New Series, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Jun., 1969), pp. 215-235 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2799569 . Accessed: 14/11/2011 04:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Man.

http://www.jstor.org

POLITICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: THE ANALYSIS SYMBOLISM OF POWER RELATIONS

ABNER COHEN

OF THE

and School Oriental African of London Studies, University of

A decade ago, an eminent scientist political carried a survey political out of studies within socialanthropology assess to their contribution thestudy to of politics generally (Easton and I959). Hisconclusion brief confident: was 'Political anthropology not exist'. does yet Social heargued, interested anthropologists, were inpolitics indirectly, only sofar itaffected institutional only and in as other variables insociety. 'Purely political considerationsincidental the are to emphasis kinship on from some remarks Bailey Apart caustic brief, by (I968: 28i) against Easton's it, verdict remained has Yet of unchallenged. I can think no other comment on social as anthropology hasbeen damaging as academically which and irresponsible as this one.It is damaging, Easton oneoftheleading is because firstly, in figures political science and count in today hisviews widely thesocial sciences. Secondly, hisarticle political on anthropology andhis (I959) with concept preoccupation the of'political system' made popular social him have with anthropologists (Gluckman & EgganI965), someofwhomseemto attach much to judgement. weight his Evenan anthropologist calibre Southall ofthe of seems haveaccepted to Easton's view and,withapologetic remarks forestall to possible Leach-type charges of butterfly collecting, urged has that should we overcome weakness emour by on barking new,moresophisticated, 'unidimensional' classifications ofpolitical systems (Southall I965). Easton's is comment irresponsible because is basedon it what seems havebeen hurried to a of reading a fewmonographs happened that to havebeenpublished before madeit.As I indicate he shortly he below, neglects whole of streams thought within whose anthropology contribution study tothe of politics been have of immense. Worst all,hecompletely misunderstands the nature ofthe central theoretical with social problems which deals. anthropology Easton as as writes ifthere werea consensus to what is political anthropology a about. such consensus not exist. But does yet Indeed, political scientists themselves arenotagreed domain political the of about exact In science. a recent survey his of owndiscipline, Easton (I968) states: 'Political science still is looking its for identity' andinhisbook Aframeworkforpolitical published recently I965, heis analysis, as as still of concerned thequestion what with variables should included be within his is If the 'political system'. this today casewith political science, about which he knows much, certainly nothavebeen sure years about so he could so ten ago what variables theconcern political were of anthropology. Thisis nota matter playing of withwords and definitions,of quibbling or between disciplines. issues far are more rival The for fundamental; they posethe whole of role topical inthe question the ofsocial anthropology study, only not of
and structure itsgeneral socialeffects' (i959:
2I2).

2I6

ABNER

COHEN

and of states Africa Asia,but also of societies thenewlyindependent the changing matterOur subject of countries. traditional societies thedeveloped ofthecomplex political changeand fundamental small-scale society-hasundergone theisolated, but autonomous, mustbe 'as can no longerbe studied if' it were stillrelatively of within institutional the structure the new state.This bringssocial considered worldwar, sincethesecond which, science face anthropology to facewithpolitical bothin terms financial of discipline, developedintoa verypowerful has rapidly and on and of andmanpower resources in terms itsinfluence governments on other political of yearsa largenumber competent What is more,in recent disciplines. in research thepolitics and have scientists invaded'our territory' have undertaken of of thenew states the'thirdworld'.' throughwhich social the These developments highlight stateof transition of is anthropology now passingand call for a re-examination aims, methods They also raise the questionof the natureof the and theoretical orientation. learn Whatcanthey science socialanthropology. and political between relationship can of What kindof division labourand of co-operation be fromone another? is what these them? questions themajorquestion: Underlying between developed is political anthropology? theoretical in Thecentral anthropology problem social in withwhichit deals.A is of A discipline defined termis the majorproblems of between refers theneedfortheanalysis interaction to 'problem'in thiscontext and is The advanceof a discipline as muchin theidentification majorvariables. As interdependence. Homans as of isolation these of variables in theanalysis their is from oldersciences to cutdown, the we oncepointed out,one ofthelessons learn withwhichwe deal. of as faras we dare,thenumber variables in and breakthrough the developThe first majortheoretical methodological and Radcliffe-Brown, whenDurkheim, later occurred ment socialanthropology of and historical from of psychological the isolation socialfrom advocated analytical to by It yearsthishas been subjected criticism some facts. is truethatin recent has But of on anthropologists, a variety grounds. thiscriticism so farbeendirected Even this not underlying separation. the principles, against rigidity, thetheoretical as socialanthropology a kindof historiography who thoseanthropologists regard that data nevertheless, of agree, andcallfortheanalysis historical byanthropologists in of (Evanscannot sociologically be explained terms pastevents socialinstitutions even in the studyof symbolsand of symbolic Pritchard I956: 6o). Similarly, in the involved psychic is whoseoperation closely processes, separation behaviour, maintained (Leach I958; of the social fromthe psychichas been systematically social leads by Durkheimand Radcliffe-Brown, Following the theoretical developedthe so-called'holistic' approachto societyand conanthropologists But, on centrated thestudy whatcameto be knownas 'social structure'. setting of shouldbe the and formulations, question asideexplicit theoretical methodological the done in orderto study social actually asked:whathave socialanthropologists in studies which can structure The holistically? answer be found themonographic theyhaveproduced. the have social anthropologists interpreted 'holism' of the Broadlyspeaking,

Gluckman I964). I963; I968; Turner

THE

ANALYSIS

OF THE

SYMBOLISM

OF POWER

RELATIONS

2I7

in of institutions (BeattieI959). socialstructure terms a limited of number specific concentrated on A survey themonographs show thattheyhave generally of will and economic, political, kinship ritual. thestudy fourbroadinstitutional of fields: On a higher fields two major levelofabstraction, fourinstitutional comprise these variables: political the and thesymbolic. in and thepolitical socio-anthropological The separation between economic the studies often is veryarbitrary. What hascome to be knownas 'economicanthroof of and process economic pology' is in factan admixture descriptions economic belong to two different relationships. These two aspectsof economicactivity Economic by disciplines. conceptual schemes havebeendeveloped twodifferent that scarce resources. processrefers the interaction to betweenman and relatively Economicrelations, theother to between meninvolved on hand,refer interaction in the economicprocess.Social anthropologists been interested have mainlyin and in economic individuals groups theprocesses relations, inrelations i.e. between who of production, and exchangeand distribution, mostsocialanthropologists economic in affected have studied have done so mainly so faras process process of are relations.2 But theseeconomic relations relations power and are thus orderin any society. a essentially political, forming majorpartof thepolitical different are and Thesetwo types power,theeconomic thepolitical, certainly of of in a number respects theyare associated of and withdifferent types sanctions. and inseparable. But theyare intimately interconnected are in many contexts and In bothwe arein fact individuals of dealing withrelationships powerbetween the structurally throughout extent groups, whenthese relationships considered are and of a polity.In both institutions, are technical relationships manipulative, as use as instrumental, menin different situations one another meansto endsand not as endsin themselves. and in havea great deal in comSimilarly, kinship ritual, though distinct form, is arbitrary, sometimes and misleading. mon,andtheseparation between them often on imperatives are rooted that They are bothnormative, depending categorical in thepsychic through continual socialisation. Both structure men in society of in consist symbols ofsymbolic of and are Thesesymbols cognitive, that complexes. the to meanings. Theyareaffective, they direct attention menselectively certain of in thattheyare neveremotionally neutral; theyalwaysagitate feelings sentiand in ments. They are conative, thattheyimpelmento action.Thesecharacteristics determine potency symbols, the of on from the whichcan be ranged a continuum, a least a symbol'(Turner I964; potent, mere'sign', to themostpotent, 'dominant are of within framework dynamic the ideologies, Symbols systematised together in or world-views, whichthesymbols thepoliticalorderare integrated of with thosedealing withtheperennial of the of problems humanexistence: meaning life illness health, and and and and death, fortune misfortune, good misery happiness, and evil. These two symbolic one another withina unified complexessupport symbolic system. of Bothcategories symbols, of those kinship ofritual, and havebeenusedalmost in of groupings ofpowerrelationships and interchangeablythearticulation political and Ritualsymbols between individuals groups. form partofmost kinship systems, and kinship form systems. Kinship symbols saidto are symbols partof mostritual
I968).

2I8

ABNER

COHEN

be particularly suitedto articulate changinginterpersonal relationships, while ritual symbols said to be particularly are suitedto express political relations a of are higher level.But there manycaseswherea kinship ideologyis made to articulate the politicalorganisation large populations both uncentralised of in and centralised societies. The Bedouin of Cyrenaica (PetersI960; I967) and theTallensi(FortesI945; I949), forexample,express their politicalorganisation the in idiomofkinship. samecanbe saidoftheorganisation kingdoms. whole The of The political structure the Swazi is expressed a lineagepattern pervades of in that the whole kingdomfromthe highest the lowest levels (Kuper I947). In other to centralised societies and political kinship symbolsarticulate politicalgroupings relations only some levels. Among the Mambwe (Watson I958) and the on LundaoftheLuapulavalley(Cunnison I959) thestability thepolitical of structure at thetop is symbolised terms 'perpetual in of kinship' relationships. Amongthe is Ashanti, theother on hand,onlythelowerpartofthepolitical structureorganised ona kinship basis (Fortes the 1948). But evenwhenwe consider symbolism interof in personal relationships large-scale, industrial contemporary society, can see we that these symbols an articulate endless array informal of political groupings whose is operation a fundamental of thetotalpolitical part structure thesociety. of neednotbe exclusively ritual involvedin thearticulation Similarly, symbols of therelatively level,large-scale, high political groupings, can be seento express and various of types interpersonal relationships. Thus,as Gluckman (I962) points out, in most tribalsocieties, interpersonal relationships highly'ritualised'. are Also, in manyMediterranean LatinAmerican and countries extensive is madeof the use ritualkinship relationships created the institution 'god-parenthood', by of compadrazgo, theorganisation varioustypes interpersonal in of of relationships of and in groupings, somecasesbetween socially the equal,in others the between socially & unequal (Mintz WOlfI950; I956; Pitt-Rivers Deshon I958; I963; Osborn I968). and Kinshipsymbolsand ritualsymbolsare highlyinterdependent neither can operatewithoutthe other.The distinction category betweenthemis often but based,not on objective sociological analysis, on nativeusagesand ideologies. The same can be said of the broaderdistinction between'sacredsymbols'and 'profanesymbols',or betweenritualand ceremonial generally (Leach I954; are differences This is not to say thatthere no significant between or symbols, shouldnot be categorised. symbols highly thatsymbols But are complexsocioand can be classified to cultural of dephenomena according a variety criteria, In pendingon thepurposeof theclassification. other words,sucha classification of of in on on depends thenature theproblem theanalysis which, turn, depends the in I that variables areconsidered thestudy. am arguing herethatin socialanthrointerest the studyof symbols the analysis theoretical in is of pology the central in of their involvement therelationships power,and that willcallfora typeof this be classification whichmay often at variance withthatprovidedby thecultural are of traditions whichthesymbols part. Form in andfunctionsymbolism that between and It is essential we distinguish symbolicforms symbolicfunctions. a within particular The samesymbolic can function, political context, be achieved

Martin I965; DouglasI966).

THE

ANALYSIS

OF THE

SYMBOLISM

OF POWER

RELATIONS

2I9

For example,everypoliticalgroup musthave of forms. by a variety symbolic But and exclusiveness. this can be i.e. symbolsof distinctiveness, of identity of myths origin, facialmarkings, emblems, forms: symbolic in achieved different with the associated and practices of endogamyor of exogamy,beliefs customs of notions shrines, of styles life, special ceremonials, specific genealogies, ancestors, and symbols Thus,ritual and pollution, so on (Cohen I969: 20I-I4). and purity in in differ formbut not necessarily function. symbols kinship thatthesetwo formsof symbolsdo not to It is also important remember Thereare many in universe a society. themthewhole symbolic between exhaust the either category under subsumed that of other forms symbols arenotordinarily to or of kinship ritual.This is such an obviouspointthatit seemsunnecessary it we how it. mention Yet it is surprising often tendto forget and thuslead ourthe This is particularly casewhenwe and in astray our observation analysis. selves Oftenin such societies. or societies moredeveloped pre-industrial study changing and lose and significance we then of symbols kinship ofritual their casestraditional of to particularly, or, to talkof 'social disintegration' whenwe refer ritual begin thatthe position It 'secularisation'. thenbecomeseasyto slipintothetheoretical becomesmore is as on hold of symbols socialrelationshipsweakening thesociety But,as Duncan organised. and and differentiated moreformally rationally socially of (I962) pointsout, therecan be no social orderwithoutthe 'mystification' but as societies Marxmaintained, also not Thisis true, onlyofcapitalist symbolism. massparades, titles, patriotic banners, slogans, whereemblems, ofsocialist societies, materialismthe musicand songs,and, inevitably, 'world view' of dialectical of partin themaintenance playtheir of symbols these and a hostof all sorts other Martin(i965: I69), 'is lessa scientific writes order.'Secularisation', thepolitical ideologies'. thana tool of counter-religious concept and ritualsymbols may become obsoletein symbols kinship Thus, although old, taketheir placein articulating as well as new, symbols other modemsociety, entaila formdoes not automatically A functions. changeof symbolic symbolic can becausethesamefunction be achievedby new function, changeof symbolic entaila formneed not automatically of a forms. Similarly, continuity symbolic In new functions. for of function, the same formcan fulfil continuity symbolic new functions (Gluckman are old some situations symbols revivedto perform of involvement symbolism, ofthis is dynamic socialanthropology today theanalysis and of relationships power betweenindividuals or of custom,in the changing groups. formsto achievethe same typesof symbolic Societiesoftenadopt different These differences. differences This functions. is whatwe meanby cultural symbolic some of combinations circumstances, of whichcan be of ariseas a result different are forms adoptedfromother and cultural ecological.Some symbolic historical, are historical withthemat different periods;others interaction peoplesthrough a For conditioned specialecologicalfactors. example, peoplelivingin a forest by or in representasymbolic symbols, in general areawill makeuse of trees carving will make use of othermedia and extion,while a people livingin the desert forms. their in Again,becauseIslamis categoriperiences constructing symbolic of dancingand musicin its carving, callyopposedto theemployment painting,
I942;

elsewhere (CohenI969: CohenI965). As I argue

2II-I4),

thechallenge to

220

ABNER

COHEN

symbolism, extensive is madein orthodox use Islamic countries a widerangeof of linguistic forms-rhetoric, proverbs thelike. and forms theproducts creative are of is work.Theirinternal structure a Symbolic in dramatic and is partly study thesociology art.Many a of structure their study symbols thecreation anonymous are of artists. is onlyin moreadvancedand It literate sophisticated societies that special,named, artists commissioned are to create symbols specific for functions-to design flag, a writean anthem, compose musicfora hymn, painta picture a saint, of But stagea ceremonial. we are all creators symbols. of potential Throughour dreams, illusions, spontaneous activities,moments reflection in thegeneral of and flowof our consciousness conwe tinually proliferate and them. symbols manipulate Manymenkeeptheir symbolic creativity themselves. to Others externalise and tryto shareit withothermen. it This symbolic proliferation within each one of us is not entirely autonomous our creation, is theproduct a dialectical but of interaction and between ourselves our socialreality. times change, At of somemen'ssymbolic forms providebetter can solutions thecurrent to and thosemen problems a groupthanothersymbols of who create,mobilise,or articulate them may become leadersand have their symbols adopted thegroup.Thereis thus great a dealofthecreative in by artist the leaderwho, through rhetoric, his and tactics political slogans manipulates existing or is symbols creates new ones.When thiscreativity particularly original, whenit helps to articulate to objectify or new groupings and new relationships, we him describe as 'charismatic'. Socialanthropologists in to analyse symbolic forms order discover their symbolic functions. of themostimportant thesefunctions the objectification One is of of relationships betweenindividuals and groups.We can observeindividuals obbut betweenthemare abstractions jectivelyin concrete reality, the relationships thatcan be observed onlythrough symbols. Social relationships developthrough and aremaintained symbols. their by We 'see' groupsonlythrough symbolism. like honour,prestige, Values,norms,rules,and abstract concepts rank, justice, and are good and evilare made tangible through symbolism, menin society thus themand to relate themto to helpedto be awareof their existence, comprehend their dailylife. a also objectify rolesand givethem reality whichis separate fromthe Symbols individualpersonalities theirincumbents. Men are trainedfor theirroles, of in and helpedto perform in installed them, theirduties thecourseof a series of and activities. objectifying relations roles,symbols stylised symbolic By help to in differentiate between them, a functionparticularly important multiplex relationships (Gluckman I962). By objectifying rolesand relations, achievesa measure stability symbolism of and continuity without whichsociallifecannotexist.Power is an erratic process. A vengeance it itself before finds involvedin a groupmayhave to waitforyears case of homicide thatwill require actionon thepartof all of itsmembers. it But mustbe ready actionall thetime;forsuchan event occurat anymoment. for can Its members cannotafford disbandin the meantime, but must keep their to groupingalive. This continuity the group can be achievedmainlythrough of alnot exerciseof power. Similarly, the group symbolism, through irregular a itself some timepurely for though regime may come to office maintain and by

THE

ANALYSIS

OF THE

SYMBOLISM

OF POWER

RELATIONS

and are force, stability continuity achievedmainlythrough symbolism its the of do authority whichit manipulates. Subjects notstart their livesevery morning by the of to examining dispositions powerin their the society see whether regime is or stillbackedby thesameamountof power as before, whether thatpower has and be diminished theregimecan therefore overthrown. stability conThe and a are tinuity theregime made possible of through complexsystem symbolism of as thatgives it legitimacy representing ultimately a 'natural' part of the it by celestial order. it which creates, Through 'mystification' the makes possible the it symbolism for the created socialorderto survive disruptive within by theinevitable it processes It values and principles. does thisby creating areas of conflicting communion enemies. proverb A states:'I against between potential amongArabpeasants my our cousin;I and my brother my cousin I and brother; and my brother against his A interaction others. against outsider'. mandiscovers identity the through with their cousinhe mustreconcile hostility withhisbrother his To co-operate against withhimin thefight their withtheneedto identify to hisbrother against cousin. and cousinmustachievecommunion containtheir to enHe, his brother, their the are if mities they to co-operate against commonenemy. all for As Smithpointsout (I956), all politics, struggle power,is segmentary. at level.Thus a man This meansthatenemies one levelmustbe alliesat a higher and must an enemy an allywiththesamesetofpeople,anditis mainly be through thatthesecontradictions repetiare the 'mystification' generated symbolism by and temporarily resolved. in faced tively Indeed,Gluckman goesso far elaborating and as thatritual ceremonial notsimply of do function symbolism to state on this the expresscohesionand impress value of societyand its social sentiments on but real people, as in Durkheim'sand Radcliffe-Brown's theories, exaggerate that thereis unitydespitetheseconflicts of conflicts social rules and affirm (Gluckman I963: i8). as mounts thesocialinequalities The degreeof 'mystification' between people This is a pointstressed greatly increase. and in who shouldidentify communion of illuminated Marx in his exposureof the mysteries capitalist by symbols and and discussed Duncan (I962) who points elaborated 'ideologies'.It is further by that involvesrelations out thatall social orderinvolveshierarchy, all hierarchy and inferiors equals,and thatrelationships betweentheseare betweensuperiors, the of of developedand maintained through 'mystification' thesymbolism communion. to to of It is not myintention attempt give herea survey thevarious symbolic that functions have been discovered social anthropologists. by Many suchfuncbut and search them for havebeenidentified analysed; thesystematic and the tions do functions their is stillat itsbeginning. of analysis thewaysin whichthese job have is socialanthropologists beencollectively concerned WhatI wantto stress that two majorvariables: between of withthestudy interdependence power relations action.3 and symbolic in and Power symbolismanthropological analysis is there nothing new hasten saythat to I must theoretically in this. Leadingsocial the have anthropologists expressed sameview, thoughsometimes usingdifferent

222

ABNER

COHEN

that yearsago, Leach maintained themaintaskof Thus morethanfifteen terms. of in and statements actions terms symbolic was anthropology to interpret social I965) has fora long timeheld Gluckman (I942: Similarly, socialrelations (I954). in socialsciences thatit is the from other differs theview thatsocialanthropology Social symbols. whatI am calling whichare essentially withcustoms, concerned of in of withtheanalysis custom thecontext is he states, concerned anthropology, statesthat social anthropology (I965). Again, Evans-Pritchard social relations suchas thefamily, forms, in generally institutionalised ... 'studies socialbehaviour cults,and the religious legal procedures, politicalorganisation, systems, kinship suchinstitutions' (I956: 5). between and therelations like, are that are all This doesnotmeanthat socialanthropologists in agreement they As of of withthestudy thesymbolism powerrelations. we concerned principally in of and interested thestudy symbols shallsee below, a few of themare barely and power struggles betweeninon concentrate the studyof power relations on and groups.Other social anthropologists, the otherhand,are not dividuals on of in of interested thestudy relationships powerand concentrate thestudyof fall of majority social anthropologists symbolsas such. But the overwhelming in work consists the in betweenthesetwo extremes thattheir on thecontinuum they contexts. Often political within essentially of types symbols of analysis various thoughsome do so more betweenthesetwo variables, in analysis alternate their than and explicitly systematically others. consciously, all of As two broadaspects nearly socialbehaviour. are The two variables in fact is all forms haveshown, socialbehaviour couchedin symbolic Nadel and Goffman On the otherhand,as manysocial anthroI959). (Nadel ig5i: 28-9; Goffman of all of pointout,relationships powerare aspects nearly socialrelationpologists and sacred, not do profane ships.In thewordsof Leach: 'Techniqueand ritual, of any of denotetypes actionbutaspects almost kindofaction'(I954: I3). for accountexhaustively all herethatthesetwo aspects Thereis no assumption whichcannotbe for socialbehaviour; thisis a highly complexprocess concrete and Power relationships symbolic of reducedto the operation a few variables. in socialbehaviour, order from concrete to isolated are behaviour onlyanalytically to It them. is also important notethatthe between relations the study sociological Each is qualitatively different one to the other. are two variables not reducible its Each has its own specialcharacteristics, own typeof process fromthe other. or reflections, thatis governedby its own laws. Symbolsare not mechanical of realities. own,in their ofpolitical Theyhave an existence their representations, of in power and power relations a variety ways. Similarly, own right, can affect own andcaninno waybe saidto be determined of have relationships a reality their of were an exactreflection theother, If categories. theone variable by symbolic value.It is would be of little sociological of interdependence thenthestudy their and the that yet only becausetheyare different, interdependent, theirisolation and themcan be fruitful illuminating. between of study therelations is twovariables validornot. of the to It isnotrelevant askwhether isolation these for fromconcrete behaviour, it is an One can isolateforanalysis any variables involvedin thatbehaviour thatall the variables are, to a axiomatic assumption The is or interdependent. question only lesser greater or directly indirectly extent, and interconnected are the whether variablesisolatedfor analysis significantly

THE

ANALYSIS

OF THE

SYMBOLISM

OF POWER

RELATIONS

223

is whether studyof thisinterconnexion likelyto developsystematic the hypoThe work and achievements social of thesesand to lead to further analysis. anthropology have so fardemonstrated value and the analytical the possibilities of of thestudy thetwo variables discussed here. or in in of Analysis socialanthropology consisted thestudy interdependence, has of dialectical rather thanin the studyof interaction, betweenthe two variables of A of either thevariables on separately. concentration onlyone,to theneglect the in This will valuewill be limited. other, result mainly descriptions whosetheoretical is ofcoursea bald statement, eachof thetwo variables contains 'sub-variables' for whose operation interdependence be analysed make our description and must to and of the majorvariablemore refined more accurate. The difference between is and of analysis description a matter degree. There are at present two experimental trends social anthropology, in each of whichis concerned withonlyone of thetwo majorvariables. principally is Theaction the theorists. trend a reaction One against emphasis placedby earlier in Durkheimian studies 'collective on anthropological representations'theclassical This tends sweepthetheoretical tradition. schoolof thought to towards pendulum an orientation from Thistheoretical emanating Weberian 'actiontheory'. approach (see Bailey I968; Barth I966; I967; BoissevainI968; Mayer I966; Nicholas I965) distrusts in of analysis terms groups and of groupsymbols, concentrates and on theactivities 'politicalman' who is everimpelled thepursuit power. of to of Mayerstates in a cautious this as way: 'It maywell be that, socialanthropologists becomemoreinterested complex in and societies as thesimpler societies themselves amountof work will be based on egobecome more complex,an increasing centred entities as action and quasi-groups, such sets rather thanon groups suband groups'(I966: i I9). In a recent article Boissevain pushes position itslimit: this to 'The accentmustshift the fromthegroup towards individual . Individuals, .. and theloosecoalitions form thus are to and they logically prior groups society. view A is the whichpostulates reverse illogical'(I968: 544-5). a of Anthropologists thisschool of thought present picture political in of life of manisseeking maximise power terms a continuing to 'game', inwhichevery his and by perpetually scheming, struggling, makingdecisions. Everyactionhe conin is templates theoutcomeofa transaction whichthereturns at leastequal to, are ifnotin excessof theoutlay. Actiontheory our have anthropologists deepened understanding thedynamic of processes involved thestruggle powerthat in for goeson,notonlywithin changing but societies, also withintraditional societies. They have used a 'microscope'to at showus politics thegrass-roots a level,andhaveintroduced ourvocabulary into numberof valuable termsto label 'non-group' collectivities: 'faction','ego' centric network',action '. In a recent set and book,Bailey(I969) presents discusses a bodyofconcepts terms and to and designed deal,in a very perceptive penetrating at of and way, with the subtleties politicalbehaviour thislevel. These concepts terms direct attention types groupings to processes political our to and of of interactionthathave so farescapedour attention, thusprovideus withimportant and but of tools,not onlyforanalysis also forthecollection fielddata. is to and But whenthis orientation pushed itsextreme is presented, Boissevain as

224

ABNER

COHEN

and thus it for (I968) does,as a substitute the 'old methods', becomesone-sided themicroscope To of givesa distorted picture socialreality. putitmetaphorically, political in the of that schoolholdsis so powerful disclosing details face-to-face this the or interaction it is powerless, out of focus,to reflect wider structural that features society. of is right stating theindividual priorto thegroup, in that Boissevain certainly is to In we butonlyifheis referring thebiological individual. society, however, do not part individuals withsocialpersonalities. greater ofour The but dealwithbiological 'human nature'is acquiredfromsocietythrough As socialisation. Mead (I934) the intershows,self-identity, veryconceptof 'I', is acquiredby man through symbols. manis A through actionwithother men,withwhomhe communicates and a structure whichhe is shaped.This with a culture borninto a society by is him reality an objectivefactwhich confronts fromthe outside. sociocultural Thisdoesnotmeanthat manis the to To that extent groupis prior theindividual. and his and by dwarfed thatreality that nature hiswill are determined it. Man by of on also developsan autonomy his own, his 'self', by whichhe reacts society. one is a between manandsociety thus dialectical (Radcliffe-Brown The relationship the Berger & LuckmanI967). But we mustnot exaggerate extent 1952: I93-4; a manis free from groups whichhe belongs. example, our the to For in to which in thatwe we society believethatwe are freeto choose our partner marriage, do in for But,as manystudies conmarry love. We certainly so to a largeextent. societies have shown,mostof us marry industrial our social equals. temporary classendogamy. as call Endogamy, we all know,is a mechanAnthropologists this membership the of ism formaintaining boundaries groupsand forkeepingtheir into them.In of outsiders exclusiveto preventthe encroachment undesirable as institutionalised, in traditional society, endogamyis formally pre-industrial but it institutionalised is, instead, In Indiansociety. our society is not formally of the in unconscious enforced a subtle, way through operation a body of mostly The status socialisation. groupsto which we symbolsthatwe acquirethrough in and belongimplant special'agents',specialsymbols, our personalities makeus thanto others. of of respondto some categories members the othersex rather in behaviour When we acquirethesymbolic implicit thespecial'styleoflife'of a the the status we automatically acquiring restraints, colgroup, arein factthereby we of lective representations,thatgroup.This meansthatevenwhenwe feelthat be we in our individuals following own motives canin fact acting as areacting free the of members. as members groups.Groupsact through actions their of During and one mediators votersmanipulate an election candidates, brokers, campaign, actionsets, and interests. their own private factions, Theyform another, following or act But theyat the same time,knowingly unknowingly, as loose alliances. members larger of political groups.4 take the rulesof the game,i.e. the symbols governing Some actiontheorists the for as socialbehaviour, givenandas beingoutside 'arena' in whichthestruggle are involvedin the power takesplace,when in factthesesymbols dramatically whole processat everyone of its stages.In otherwords,thisapproachassumes and change.For an ambitious cleverman to be able to manistability it studies as and symbols interpreting by pulateothermen,he mustbe able to manipulate are of them.These symbols thecollective representations groups re-interpreting

THE

ANALYSIS

OF THE

SYMBOLISM

OF POWER

RELATIONS

225

and onlywhen a man himself participates suchgroupsand acceptsthe conin straints their of symbols he succeedin his endeavour. can If we concentrate exclusively thestudy 'political on of man' we shallinevitably deal onlywithhis conscious and private endeavour. But factions, actionsetsand other'non-groups' not 'entities', partial are but sections abstracted from wider a and moreinclusive socialfield. amount study ego-centric No of of networks will revealto our view thepolitical structure society. of The ego-centric network is meaningful whenit is seenwithin context the'totalnetwork' only the of (Barnes The thought structuralists. otherextremetrendin social anthropology The at present concentrates thestudy symbols, ofcollective on of or representations, often quiteout of thecontext, powerrelationships. orientation neatly of Its is described by Douglas (I968: 36I): 'Anthropology moved fromthe simpleanalysis has of socialstructures current the1940's to thestructural in analysis thought of systems'. of R. Anthropologists thisschool-among themT. 0. Beidelman, Needham and P. Rigby-are greatlyinfluenced the 'structuralism' Levi-Strauss. by of As Jacobson Schoepf, translators his Structural and the of anthropology, (I968: state ix): 'His approachis holistic and integrative He conceivesof anthropology ... in the broadest in sense,as the studyof man,past and present, all his aspectsand unconscious He is concerned with physical, linguistic, cultural, conscious ... to to the the the relating synchronic thediachronic, individual thecultural, phyto to the of siological thepsychological, objective analysis institutions thesubjective takesin his stride, of experience individuals'.Levi-Strauss among many other and in both symbolism power relationships his analysis. variables, Thus, in his thatin any particular context studyof mythhe takesit forgranted mythis a is 'charter socialaction'.But,as Leach(I967) points for out,Levi-Strauss interested in further problems. aimsat the discovery the 'languageof myth'.He is He of indeedultimately concerned with discovering nothing thanthe 'language', less the'thought behindall culture. structure', The thought structuralists believethatwe see 'objectivereality', bothnatural and social,not as it 'reallyis', but as 'structured' terms logicallyrelated in of that is Whatever order there in nature thought categories arebuiltintoourpsyche. and in society largely outcomeof theactivities man undertheguidance is the of the of is of his 'programmed' mind.The key to understanding structure society of of between thus,not the analysis the dynamic on-goingpatterns interaction the thatis implicit the in men,but essentially 'code', or thelogic,thegrammar and of them.Thoughtstrucbetween thought categories in thesystems relations the are bent turalists therefore on 'breaking code', forall timeand forall culture. on forms and symbolic To do thistheyconcentrate the studyof symbolic beconcentrate the studyof 'political on haviour.Thus, while the actiontheorists concentrate thestudy 'ritualman'. on of structuralists man', thethought refined understanding thenature our of have and Thoughtstructuralists greatly the workingof symbolism. They have re-emphasised view-recentlyweakened fromsome of the tenets classical of of by the departure manyanthropologists is a the order notjust mechanical Durkheimian sociology-that symbolic reflection, of but of or an epiphenomenon, thepolitical order, is a fact havingan existence its to relations own, in its own right.They have drawnattention the systematic
I968).

226

ABNER

COHEN

in the parts existing between different of thatorder.Like theactiontheorists the with a numberof theyhave providedanthropology fieldof power relations, and important conceptsand termsthatcan be used as tools for both analysis of description thefield symbolism. in that becomeoneto lose direct reference socialinteraction they It is whenthey Most of themare of sidedand stray fromthemain stream socialanthropology. different dissertations begintheir and almostinvariably fully awareof thisdanger witha declaration faith 'social structuralism' a promise bringtheir in to and of intricacies socialorganisaof structure bearuponthedynamic to analysis thought of is the analysis put proceeds, promised tion(e.g.WillisI967). But,as theexposition largely inconsequential. off until end,whenit becomes the of but a of weakness is rather matter This is in no way an indication analytical posesarenotsociological that approach orientation interest. problems this The and Thus, Needbetweensymbols. deal problems, principally withtherelations but ham'slearned classification on article Nyoro symbolic (I967) dealswitha cultural is whileall thatis good and propitious assoc'puzzle'-that amongtheBunyoro, the hand in throwing diviner useshis left hand,5thehelpful iatedwiththe right The problemthusdeals mechanism. cowrie shells, whichhe uses as a divining to with relations withoutmuch reference social betweensymbols, essentially for nature also raised exampleby Beidelman are of interaction. Problems a similar (I968a), Douglas (I968) and Rigby (I968). These are of courseveryimportant analysed but problems social anthropology, only if theyare systematically for within context powerrelationships.6 the of as behaviour such. This is becausethere be no general scienceof symbolic can from whichcan be studied complexphenomena are Symbolic phenomena highly thatare included on of depending thenature theothervariables different angles, in in In we mainly so far in theanalysis. socialanthropology areinterested symbols In by as theyaffect are affected power relations. otherwordswe studythe and in as or not symbolic it is structured, systeniatised, by a speciallogic inherent it, but by the dynamics interaction of betweenmen in society Evans-Pritchard (see A reference to be made to bothvariables. has stagein thestudy, 1937). At every in on of own will inevitably 'undisciplined', the be systems their study symbolic likely it aim of and sensethat will haveno specific or frame reference, is therefore in to wander different with mixing metaphysics logic,art,psychology, directions, like or This whyscholars Langer(I964: theology, linguistics. is indeedthereason in of has 55) and Geertz (I964) complain how little beenachieved thedevelopment of a 'scienceof symbolic behaviour'. too is dilemma that All this well knownto thethought is but structuralists, their of in muchnoticeof theinvolvement symbolism powerrelations inevitably will from neatlogic of thought I lead to a departure the categories. believethatthisis recently (i968b; I969), that twiceexpressed thesourceof Beidelman's complaint, which all of V. W. Turner'lacks appreciation thoselogicaland formal qualities his Beidelman .. himself (i968b: 483) points finger symbolic systems . possess'. of as that'Turneremphasizes on therealissuewhenhe states symbols expressions theirnominalqualities.. .'. The thought strucemphasizes forces;Levi-Strauss the of illuminate formal turalists but, properties symbols, in thewordsof certainly the Fortes (I967: 9) 'at thecostofneutralising actor'.

THE

ANALYSIS

OF THE

SYMBOLISM

OF POWER

RELATIONS

227

All of thepractitioners either theseopposingcamps,theactiontheorists in of and thethought are with structuralists, accomplished anthropologists, a greatdeal ofworkbehind them the'holistic'study theinterdependence in of between power relations symbolic and action.Fullyawareof themethodological theoretical and implications whatthey doing, of are they certainly can afford concentrate the to on studyof one variable, whilebracketing, holdingconstant, othervariable. or the But itis their disciples who arelikely becomeone-sided thus track the to and of lose central problem thediscipline. is noticeable somepost-graduate of This in workof recent years whichtends concentrate one variable theneglect theother. to on to of The mainreasons why thisone-sidedness is appealsto beginners thatit requires little analytical effort. solvesforthemtheirksome It problem havingto find of a 'problem'fortheanalysis ethnographical To concentrate thestudy of data. of on either powerrelationships of symbolism notinvolvea great or does deal ofanalyticaleffort; posesmainly it of problems unidimensional An description. accountof how individuals struggle power,or of how people behavesymbolically, a for is categorical description facts of whichcanbe either or false. is onlybyposing true It problemsinvolving investigation sociologicalrelations, of dialectical the of or interaction, between different offacts, variables, significant sets or that can analysis be undertaken. Theprincipal contribution ofsocial anthropology topolitical science In myview,thegreatest mostvaluablecontribution socialanthropology and of is to thestudy politics notso muchthesimple of of that typologies political systems havebeendeveloped, theanalysis thesymbolism powerrelations as of of generally. The mostpenetrating enduring and to partof the'Introduction' African political systems thatdealingwith the 'mystical is values' associated with politicaloffice (Fortes & Evans-Pritchard I940: I6-22). Easton is rightin stating thatsocial are anthropologists interested mainlyin non-political institutions kinship, like religion forms friendship. and of to is Whathe fails see,however, that specialisathe tionof socialanthropology in thepolitical is of theseformally interpretation noninstitutions. majorinterest not in the one-sided is political Our effect politics of on these as institutions,he maintains (Eastoni959). On thecontrary, generally we seekto explainthese in institutions terms political non-political of relations. Thus the analysis greatpublicsymbolic of like thoseof theTallensiby Fortes dramas (1936; I945), of the Shillukby Evans-Pritchard (I948), of the Swazi by Kuper of village Peters by (I963)-to mention (I947) andGluckman (i954), anArabShi'ite in onlya few-is analysis political terms. arestudies fictitious So of genealogies by
I967)

Even studies such apparently of 'domestic'relationships marriage as by Leach (I96I), Peters(I963) and Cohen (i965), and manyothers, essentially are politicalstudies. of Again, Gluckman's explanation the stability marriage of is in formulated purely terms political (Ig50). Thislineofanalysis ofcrucial is for importance political science. Firstly because, as Mannheim out long ago, thepolitical (I936) pointed scientist studying own his or a similar is society himself caught in thesamesystem symbols up of whichhe is to trying decode.Symbols largely are in rooted theunconscious mindand arethus difficult identify to discuss people who live underthem.The central to and by
(I962).

Bohannan (i952) and Peters (i959;

or ofjokingrelationships Colson by

228

ABNER

COHEN

of science thestudy theeffect informal is of political groupings of concern political and large-scale structure government of other of on thefunctioning theformal of All or groups, largely is whether formal in informal in organisations. behaviour, which and categories thought of couchedin symbolic forms. The veryconcepts scientists part analysis themselves of theverypolitical are political employin their Mannheim's paradoxcan be try It ideology whichthey to understand. is truethat empirical and comparative to some extentovercomeby slow, accumulative, like research. What is more,some greatthinkers Marx, Durkheimand others of of societies. have developedtheanalysis thesymbolism advancedindustrial research But all thisis not enough.Despitemanydecadesof themostintensive of is there as yetverylittle (I967: 280) has on these analysis whatMackenzie lines, ritual'in contemporary is Verylittle yetknownaboutthe called'political polities. cabinetworks(SSRC I968: 25), about how decisions vital of way the British to economyare taken(see Lupton & Wilson I959), and importance theBritish about the natureof political among politicalscientists thereis littleagreement challengeremains industrial societies.Mannheinm's ideology in contemporary valid. can be understood the orderof a society only when it is Secondly, symbolic tradition which it is a part.This tradition of studiedwithinthe total cultural art Becauseoftheir relative isolation theology, andliterature. includes cosmology, the thathave and of their pre-industrial societies simpletechnology, small-scale, have and institutional differbeen studiedby anthropologists littleoccupational are not and to entiation. Theircultures therefore verysophisticated tend uselimited in of symbolic systems Douglas (see themes experiences theconstruction their and on handis very highly complex, witha great society theother I968: I7). Industrial of and of deal of division labour,a multiplicity groupings, a highdegreeof social This complexity, with highlydeveloped and cultural together heterogeneity. of make its for and channels the speedycommunication cultural items, literacy This to very complexand therefore difficult analyse. symbolic system veryhighly of of meanthat studies thesymbolism contemporary no society doesnotof course carried work in thisfieldhas been out. Some important have been successfully of number thinkers, Marx,Carlyle, Weber,Durkheim doneby a larger including of beenthwarted theproblems ideology, workhasalways andK. Burke.Butthis by and One whichI havejustmentioned. ofthe concepts techniques scale,complexity, in most penetrating societyis Duncan's analysesof symbolism contemporary Yet one can see after it and studying thatit is (I962) Communication socialorder. and workwithout based on sheerintuitive any methodical systematic essentially situations. of study empirical the here WhatI wantto emphasise is thatthesocialanthropologist, analysing by in has of societies, gaineda pre-industrial symbols powerrelationships small-scale, of Anthrointo deal ofinsight thesymbolism powerrelationships generally. great and involvedin thedevelopment, of organisation pologicalanalysis thesymbols of of maintenance varioustypesof kinship friendship, relationships, marriage, and of different ritual, relationships, corporate politicalgroupings, patron-client can of workingin industrial systems stratification, give the politicalscientists for and a range concepts hypotheses analysing wvvhole ofinformal society significant and and informal These informal groupings relationships. politicalgroupings

THE ANALYSIS

OF THE SYMBOLISM

OP POWER RELATIONS

229

relationships pervade the whole formalstructure contemporary of industrial society. They are indeedtheveryfabric whichthestructure all societies of of is made,and their analysis thecentral is problemof political science. Apartfrom has these analytical findings, socialanthropology developedtechniques and methods thatcan be of greathelp to at leastsome of thebranches of have political science. recent In years these anthropologists beenadapting methods andtechniques thestudy communities groups complex to of and in societies both in developedand developingcountries. rapidlyincreasing A numberof anthropologistsare now applyingtheir'micro-sociological' to techniques studiesin urban areas,wherethe struggle power betweenindividuals for and groupsis intense. Firth As pointsout (i95i: i8), although anthropological techniques are can formulations be macro-sociological micro-sociological, anthropological and can thusbe adaptedforthestudy state-level of politics. The lesson political of science The smallareasof sociallife, whosestudy in socialanthropology specialises, are now everywhere becoming integral parts large-scale of socialsystems. Micro-sociologicaltechniques cannot themselves withthehigher in deal levelsofthese systems. Socialanthropologists beenwellawareofthis have and problem todealwithithave developedsuch concepts 'social field' and 'plural society'.These are purely as descriptive concepts and the questionis not wvhether are valid or not but they whether in theyare helpful analysis. in They are certainly helpful directing our attention certain to characteristicsthenew societies in myview,they not do of but, facethecentral problem squarely. of The greatest political revolution our timeis theemergence thenewstates the'third of of world'.In boththedeveloping the and developed is societies, state todaythegreatest the holderand arbiter economic of and political power. Social anthropologists have done a great deal of work on relatively smallscale primitive states.7 But, apart from a few exceptions(see for example, Lloyd i955; Bailey I960; I963; Mayer I962; Cohen I965: I46-73) theyhave ignoredtheimportance themodernstatein thestudyof thepoliticsof small of communities, two mainreasons. for The first thatwhentheyinitially is became awareofthis problem, manyof thecommunities whichthey studied werein lands stillundercolonial rule. This was particularly case in Africa, the whereinternational had boundaries been largely creation colonialpowers.In former the of British territories, indirect helped perpetuate exclusiveness autonomy rule to the and oftherelatively smalltribal communities. Underthose circumstances was no there 'state'to consider themostthat anthropologist and an coulddo was to try study to thecolonialadministration. although But someanthropologists beganoverthirty yearsago to advocatethattheEuropeanadministrator missionary and shouldbe studied along withthenativechief and witchdoctor partof thesamepolitical as system (see SchaperaI938), no seriousattempts were made to probe into the domain thecolonial of administration. reason that manycasesitwas the One was in colonialgovernment whichinitiated financed research. and the The secondreasonwhyanthropologists not takenthemodern as have state the context within whichtheanalysis smallcommunities of shouldbe made,is their earlier objections thestudyof political to philosophy whichhad dominated the

230

ABNER

COHEN

study thestate of untilaboutthetimeof thesecondworldwar. The tonewas set thatthey had foundthe systems whentheystated by theeditors African of political value becausetheir to scientific theories political of philosophers be of little con(Fortes& Evansin of clusions werenot formulated terms observedbehaviour Pritchard I940: 4). is Thislastobjection no longer is relevant because state now beingempirically the in in studied political by sciencewhichhas growntremendously stature thelast financial manpower and alone,enormous two decades.In theU.S.A. and Britain politics both in to study state-level of resources have beenallocated theempirical proliferation countries. Therehasbeena spectacular thedeveloped developing and facilities of departments political science theuniversities, corresponding in with of forresearch, (see travel and publication WisemanI967; MackenzieI967; SSRC and on of I968). Some excellent monographs articles thepolitics countries the of 'thirdworld' have been publishedand are being used in coursesin political science theuniversities. in is and it Whileitis truethat science still 'lookingforitsidentity' that is political of that still exploring various approaches have becomethespecialisations different interest the in it, is, an schoolsof thought within there nevertheless, underlying that and study state-level of phenomena, it is in thisrespect socialanthropologists can learna greatdeal. for science thisvery Some anthropologists dismiss findings political may the of They would arguethatit being'macro-political'. reason, forpolitical i.e. science years processing of and and takes anthropologist a yearoffieldwork, many an over community a of of of analysing data,to makea study thesocialsystem a simple his any valueto it absurd attach scientific to fewhundred people; and that is therefore aboutwhole societies who thefindings political of scientists makegeneralisations withmanymillions inhabitants. thisargument But ignorestwo fundamental of issues.The first thatbecausethe stateexistsand plays such a crucialrole in is someonemust and of changing structure theculture our smallcommunities, the of but not study Such a study essential onlyacademically also fora variety it. is It administrative, considerations. is absurdto say thatthestudy practical, mainly this of of thestate, a whole,shouldawaitthedevelopment 'micro-sociology'; as is scientist the development and, in themeantime, political may be a long-term The secondis thatpoliticalsciencehas developednew meetingthe challenge. in and for withstate-level political phenomena an concepts new techniques dealing of vast in of effective Therehasbeena revolution methods indexing amounts way. analysis Mack(see themand employing themin future information, processing enzie I967: 66-74; DeutschI966). and the Politicalsciencetodayapproaches studyof smallcommunities groups the withreference thestate.In thepoliticalscientists' to conceptual framework, communities, whichhave been themajorobjectof our tribes, bandsand isolated withinnew sociocultural studies, now eitherin the processof integration are traditional entities ifforanypolitical reasons identity, theystillclingto their or, is the most thatcan be said about theirdistinctiveness thattheyare 'interest ' the or within state. on Thus,as I show groups exerting pressure thestate on groups in or called'tribalism' 'retribalisation' elsewhere (Cohen I969), thephenomenon is not of ethnicgroupsdisengaging African societies the result, contemporary

THE

ANALYSIS

OF THE

SYMBOLISM

OF POWER

RELATIONS

23 I

after themselves fromone another but interaction independence, of increasing It of situations. is theoutcome, not between them, within context newpolitical the sociocultural whichis brought aboutby ofconservatism, ofa dynamic but change of of new cleavagesand new alignments power withintheframework thenew state. in of A greatdeal of progress thestudy such'interest groups'hasbeenmadein scientists thepolitical see recent years political by scientists. Indeed,manypolitical sense structure the stateas being 'pluralistic'-usingthistermin a different of of from that socialanthropologists-that as consisting innumerable of is, groupings and thestate(see Bentley ofvarious sorts whichmediatebetweentheindividual of I949; FinerI958; Eckstein I960). The development interest groups,and the themand thestate, on of nature therelationships of between depends thestructure disthe state.Some states allow a greatdeal of group 'pluralism';otherstates the of an courageor even prevent development such groupings conducting by betweenstates have been studied them.These differences endless struggle against and by politicalscientists empirically comparatively EhrmannI964; Castles (see these used to describe I967). The term 'politicalculture'has been sometimes The anthropologist studies smallgroups between states. who structural differences state to the within contemporary cannotafford ignoresuchstudies. Indeed,I go mustdeliberately his formulate problems further say thatthe anthropologist and to a in sucha way as to makereference thestate necessary ofhisanalysis. part Conclusion in Political differs from science two respects: and anthropology political theory is scale. Politicalscience essentially unidimensional, beingmainly concerned with thestudy power: itsdistribution, of and for organisation, exercise, thestruggle it. As it dealswithonlyone variable, is science descriptive. thewordsof In political its is one of itspractitioners, effort mainly'to delineate relevant to phenomena, and and to pinpointthe important usefulclassifications breakdowns, generate characteristicspolitical of activities' of is (Young I968: 5). Itsuniverse reference the modern state. Politicalanthropology the otherhand deals with much smallerareas of on for of politicallife,but compensates thislimitation scale by greater depthof It analysis. is, as I have suggested, concerned with the analysis the dialectical of interaction betweentwo majorvariables: relationships power and symbolism. of Thisis essentiallycollective a concern, though individually anthropologists in differ theiremphasis the one variablerather on thanon the other. A greatdeal of workhas been accomplished socialanthropologists these on by lines.A survey thiswork,withan analysis thevarious of of interests schools and of thought within would require full-length a it, It monograph. has notbeenmy in intention thisarticle attempt to evento outline sucha survey. What is more,in orderto highlight some pointsI have had to oversimplify manyissues.8 In myview,itispossible now for political anthropology, thebasisofthework on suchas these:How do symbols already done,to proceedto investigate questions articulate different the of organisational functions politicalgroups?What is the rangeof variation thesymbolic in forms perform samesymbolic that the function in political contexts under different cultural traditions? Whatis commonandwhat

232

ABNER

COHEN

is different between these symbolic forms? thesedifferent Do forms differ their in efficiency effectivenessthedevelopment maintenance specific and in and of power relationships? What are the politicalpotentialities the patterns symbolic of of behaviour associated withvariouskindsof interpersonal relationships? How do and political symbolic activities interact withone another within organisation the oftheindividual biography? What arethemainprocesses involved thedevelopin mentand maintenance a politicalideology?What are the different of typesof symbolictechniques, found under different culturaltraditions, keeping for ideologiesalive?How do symbolic and political processes affect another one in situations rapidchange? of How is artaffected and how doesit affect, by, political relationships? Many socialanthropologists in factbeendealing have withquestions these, like not though alwaysdirectly systematically. and What is needednow is a synthesis ofourfindings far, a moresystematic so and orientation towards analysis the the of involvement symbolicactionin politicalcontexts. of Politicalanthropology is indeednothing otherthansocial anthropology to brought a high level of abmorerigorous moresystematic straction, and through analysis.
NOTES

I want to thank ProfessorMax Gluckman, Mrs A. Hayley and Mr S. Feuchtwang for valuable commentand criticism;they are in no way responsibleforany of my errors. I See forexample Coleman I958; Post I963; Sklar I963; MackintoshI966 on Nigeria alone. See also the papersincluded in Geertz I963; Apter I965; Almond & Coleman I960. 2 Analysis of economic process by anthropologists a contribution is mainly to economics (see Dalton I969). On thesepointsin generalsee also FirthI967. 3 I want to emphasisethatthisis not a reflection my own personalinterest of but is, in my view, the unfoldingof the full implicationsof our concepts and techniques.Social anthropologists stilluphold the view that theirapproach is 'holistic' and that even when they are interested the studyof one social institution, law or marriage, in like theyhave to analyseit in relationto the othermajor institutional variablesin the society.This means thatwhetherthey choose to concentrate specific on symbolicphenomenaor on specific power relations theyhave to carryon theiranalysis withinthe contextof both variables.I also believe thatmost,ifnot all, still uphold the Durkheimian methodological 'rule' that a social fact social anthropologists in should be considered itsmanifestation the throughout extentof a society.When, forexample, the father-son relationis studiedin thisway, it will be seen as a relationexistingbetween two social categories whichincludemostof themales of thesociety.In some societies exercise fathers a great deal of control over theirsons, while in other societiesthey exerciseless. This makes the father-son relationa significant featureof the political order in any society.Thus in some Arab villages which I studied(I965) local governorseffectively contained 'youth power' by the over theirsons. enlisting co-operationof the elderswho exerciseda greatdeal of authority In Britishsocietyon the otherhand, where fathers exercisemuch less power over theirsons, have to deal directlywith youth by mobilisinga greaterpolice force. Social the authorities also say thattheirapproach is comparative,and thisinevitablyleads to a high anthropologists degreeofabstraction. all thesepointsareassumed,thenmy contention If thatsocial anthropology is collectively will follow.Each concernedwiththeanalysisof thesymbolism power relations of in monographicstudyis in factan experiment the analysisof thesetwo variables.As in other sciences,the greaterpart of the work of the social anthropologist consistsin 'preparing the in experiment'.This consists analysingand sifting data in orderto isolate the two variables the fromthose othervariableswhich the anthropologist bracketsas 'other thingsbeing equal'. 4 'We are all, to a greateror lesser degree, mean, selfish, and dishonest,lazy, inefficient, and grasping;and yet we have ideals of generosity, unselfishness, honesty, industry, efficiency, charity.Although we seldom live up to theseideals, our behaviour is affected reaffirming by them' (Devons I956). 5 Beattie,who is the authority on the Bunyoro, questionsthe validityof thisgeneralisation by Needham (Beattie I968).

THE (I966)
7

ANALYSIS

OF THE

SYMBOLISM

OF POWER

RELATIONS

23 3

of with dealing directly thesymbolism powerrelations. arethose in contained Forde& I960; LloydI965 andthestudies Nadel I942; Smith See for example I967. Kaberry is 8 A detailed monograph thesubject in preparation. on
REFERENCES

6 Jbelieve and book Purity danger parts thatthemoststimulating of Douglas'soutstanding

areas. Univ. of G. Almond, A. &J. S. Coleman(eds).I960. Thepolitics developing Princeton: Press. Chicago: Univ. Press. of E. Apter, P. I965. Thepolitics modernisation. Univ. Press. Manchester: caste nation. and Bailey,F. G. I960. Tribe, Press. change. Berkeley: Univ. ofCalifomia and I963. Politics social politics M. Swartz. (ed.) Chicago:Aldine. systems. Locallevel In I968. Parapolitical Oxford:Blackwell. and I969. Stratagems spoils. (ed.) M. Swartz. politics In process. Local level and political J. Barnes, A. I968. Networks Chicago:Aldine. Inst.23). London:Royal (Occ. organisation Pap. R. anthrop. F. of Barth, I966. Models social Institute. Anthropological 69, Am.Anthrop. 66I-9. of I967. On thestudy socialchange. Brit. in and J. Beattie, H. M. I959. Understanding explanation socialanthropology. J. Sociol. 38, and Africa nudity sexuality. of T. Beidelman, 0. I968a. Some Nuer notions nakedness, 38, Africa 483-4. Theforestsymbols. of I968b.ReviewofV. Turner Africa of I969. Review ofV. TumerThedrums affliction. 39, 9I-3. Press Trinity. of Pricipia San of A. Bentley, F. I949. Theprocess government. Antonio: London:AllenLane,The ofreality. construction I967. Thesocial P. Berger, L. & T. Luckman Press. Penguin 22, Africa 30I-I5. charter. Bohannan, I952. A genealogical L. Man(N.S.) 3, 542-56. in Boissevain, I968. The placeofnon-groups thesocialsciences. J. London:Routledge& KeganPaul. culture. groups political and F. Castles, G. I967. Pressure organisation. in and of a inIsrael: study continuity change social border-villages Cohen,A. I965. Arab Manchester: Univ.Press. London:Routledge& KeganPaul. Africa. in and I969. Custom politics urban Univ. of CaliLos Berkeley, Angeles: tonationalism. background Coleman, S. I958. Nigeria: J. fomiaPress. Manchester: studies. and social religious Rhodesia: Tonga Northern of E. Colson, I962. ThePlateau Univ.Press. in and custom history tribal Rhodesia: of Cunnison, G. I959. TheLuapulapeoples Northern I. Manchester: Univ.Press. politics. I0, Curr. anthropology. Anthrop. 63-I02. issues economic in Dalton,G. I969. Theoretical re-evaluation. in hacienda Yucatan:a structural on Deshon, I963. Compadrazgo a henequen S. New of K. Deutsch, W. I966. Thenerves government. York: The FreePress;London:CollierMacmillan. June The in Devons,E. I956. The roleof themyth politics. Listener, 2I. London:Routledge& KeganPaul. and Douglas,M. I966. Purity danger. Man in somefactors joke perception. (N.S.) 3, of I968. The socialcontrol cognition: Univ. Press. London:Oxford order. and Duncan, D. I962. Communicationsocial J. (ed.) of review anthropology B. J. Siegel. In anthropology. Biennial Easton,D. I959. Political Stanford: Univ.Press. Prentice-Hall. analysis. EnglewoodCliffs: for I965. A framework political New sciences. York: ofthe encyclopedia social In science. Theinternational I968. Political Macmillan. London:Allen & Unwin. politics. group H. Eckstein, I960. Pressure Univ.Press. Pittsburgh: continents. onfour groups Ehrmann, W. (ed.) I964. Interest H. of Anglo-Egyptian the among Azande the oracles E. E. Evans-Pritchard, I937. Witchcraft, andmagic Sudan. Press. Oxford:Clarendon Univ. Sudan. of Anglo-Egyptian Cambridge: of Shilluk the kingship the I948. Thedivine Press.
36I-76.
II3-32.

10, 45-60. - I968. Aspects Nyorosymbolism. 38, Africa 4I3-42. of

65, Am. Anthrop. 574-83.

23 4

ABNER

COHEN

London:Cohen & West. E. Evans-Prichard, E. I956. Socialanthropology. Finer, I958. Anonymous S. empire. London:Pall Mall Press. London:Watts. organisation. of Firth, i95i. Elements social R. In in I967. Themes economic in anthropology: general a comment. Themes economic London:Tavistock Publications. anthropology R. Firth. (ed.) century. London: in kingdomsthenineteenth African (eds) I967. West Forde,D. & P. Kaberry Oxford Univ. Press. of in and M. Fortes, I936. Ritualfestivals socialcohesion thehinterland theGold Coast.Am. 38, Anthrop. 59o-604. Univ.Press. London:Oxford I945. Thedynamicsclanship of among Tallensi. the Univ.Press. of I949. Theweb kinship among Tallensi. the London:Oxford Inst. R. I967. Totemandtaboo.Proc. anthrop. I966, 5-22. London:Oxford In systems. political (eds). & E. E. Evans-Pritchard Introduction.African Univ.Press. Ill.: Glencoe, FreePress. and states. C. Geertz, (ed.) I963. Old societies new New York: (ed.) and system. Ideology discontent D. Apter. In as I964. Ideology a cultural FreePress. Manchester: Univ.Press. Zululand. in situation modern of M. Gluckman, I942. Analysis a social Rhodesiaand theZulu of amongtheLozi of Northem and marriage i950. Kinship & and (eds). Natal.In African systemskinship marriage A. R. Radcliffe-Brown D. Forde. of London:Oxford Univ.Press. Univ. Press. Africa. Manchester: in of I954. Rituals rebellion south-east relations M. Gluckman. (ed.) of on ritual social In de I962. Les rites passage. Essays the Manchester: Univ.Press. London:Cohen & West. and in Africa. I963. Order rebellion tribal Oxford:Blackwell. in society. law 1965. Politics, andritual tribal of and explanations witchcraft and sociological anthropological I968. Psychological, Man gossip:a clarification. (N.S.) 3, 20-34. anthropology of for (ed.) & F. Eggan I965. Introduction. The relevance models social In Publications. M. Banton(Ass.socialAnthrop. Monogr.I). London:Tavistock ofself E. life. Goffmann, I969. Thepresentation in everyday London:AllenLane,The Penguin Press. anthropology In preface. Structural I968. Translators' Claire & B. G. Schoepf Jacobson, (by) Press. ClaudeLevi-Strauss. London:AllenLane,The Penguin Univ.Press. the rank aristocracy: among Swazi. London:Oxford H. Kuper, I947. AnAfrican of Library World New York: The New American sketches. Langer,S. I964. Philosophical Literature. Burma. London:Bell. of systemshighland E. Leach, R. I954. Political Inst. R. I958. Magicalhair.J. anthrop. 88, I47-64. Press. London:Athlone anthropology. I96I. Rethinking (ed.) and study In I967. Introduction. Thestructural ofmyth totemism E. R. Leach(Ass. Publications. socialAnthrop. Monogr.5). London: Tavistock Am. in Nigeria. pol. Sci.Rev.49, parties western of Lloyd,P. i955. The development political model.In Political an kingdoms: exploratory of structure African I965. The political Monogr. 2). ofpower (ed.) M. Banton(Ass.socialAnthrop. and systems thedistribution Manchester of and T. Lupton, & S. Wilsoni959. Background connections topdecision-makers. School 1959, 30-51. Penguin. science. Harmondsworth: and W. Mackenzie, J.M. I967. Politics social London:Allen & Unwin. governmentpolitics. and Mackintosh, P. I966. Nigerian J. London:Routledge& KeganPaul. K. and Mannheim, I936. Ideology Utopia. survey the of In of the D. Martin, I965. Towardseliminating concept secularisation. Penguin Penguin. social Gould.Harmondsworth: sciences (ed.)Julius 1965 processes in of to an and Mayer,A. C. I962. System network: approach thestudy political (eds) Dewas. In Indian anthropology T. Madan & G. Sarana.Bombay: Asia Publishing House. In societies. Thesocial of in of 1I966. The significance quasi-groups thestudy complex 4). Monogr. London: Anthrop. (Ass.social (ed.) societies M. Banton anthropology ofcomplex Tavistock Publications. Chicago:Univ.Press. Mead,G. H. I934. Mind, andsociety. self
London: Tavistock Publications. 693-707.

THE

ANALYSIS

OF THE

SYMBOLISM

OF POWER

RELATIONS

23 5

Mintz, W. & E. Wolf S. 1i950. An analysis ritual of coparenthood (compadrazgo). SWest.J. - I956. Canamelar: subculture a rural In the of sugar plantation proletariat. Thepeople ofPuerto (ed.)J. Steward. Rico Urbana:Univ. ofIllinois Press. Nadel,S. F. I942. A black Byzantium: kingdomthe the of Nupeof Nigeria. London:Oxford Univ. Press. I95I. The foundationssocial of anthropology. London: Cohen & West. Needham, I967. Rightandleft Nyorosymbolic R. in classification. 37, 425-52. Africa Nicholas, W. I965. Factions: comparative R. a analysis. Political In systems the and distribution of power (ed.)M. Banton (Ass.socialAnthrop. Monogr. London:Tavistock 2). Publications. Osborn, I968. Compadrazgo patronage: Colombian A. and a case.Man(N.S.) 3, 593-608. Peters, L. I960. The proliferation segments thelineage theBedouinof Cyrenaica. E. of in of J. R. anthrop. 90, 29-53. Inst. In I963. Aspects rank status of and in amongMuslims a Lebanese village. Mediterranean countrymen J.Pitt-Rivers. (ed.) Paris:Mouton. I967. Somestructural aspects thefeudamongthecamel-herding of Bedouinof Cyrenaica. Africa 26I-82. 37, Pitt-Rivers, A. I958. Ritualkinship Spain.Trans. J. in N.Y. Acad.Sci. 20, 424-3I. Post,K. W. J. I963. TheNigerianfederal electionsI959. London:Oxford of Univ.Press. Radcliffe-Brown, R. I952. Structure A. andfunction primitive in society. London: Cohen & West. and Rigby,Peter i968.Joking relationships, categories clanship kin among Gogo.Africa the 38, In Schapera, I938.Essayon field 1. in methods thestudy modern of culture contacts. Methods ofstudy culture of contactsAfrica in (ed.) L. Mair(Mem.int.Inst.Afr.Lang. I5). London: International Institute African for Languages and Cultures. Sklar, L. I963. Nigerian R. political parties. Princeton: Univ. Press. Smith, G. I956. On segmentary M. lineage systems. R. anthrop. 86, 39-80. J. Inst. I960. Government inZazzau. London:Oxford Univ.Press. Southall, I965. A critique thetypology states political A. of of and systems. Political In systems andthedistribution ofpower (ed.) M. Banton(Ass.socialAnthrop. Monogr.2). London: Tavistock Publications. SSRC (The Social ScienceResearchCouncil) I968. Research political in science. London: Heinemann. Turner, W. I964. Symbols Ndemburitual.In Closedsystems open V. in and minds (ed.) M. Gluckman. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. I968. Thedrums affliction. of Oxford:Clarendon Press. Watson, I958. Tribal W. cohesion a money in economy. Manchester: Univ.Press. Willis, R. I967. The head and the loins: Levi-Straussand beyond. Man (N.S.) 2, 5I9-34. H. In Wiseman, V. I967. Introduction: government, politics and political science. Political science. London:Routledge& KeganPaul. Young,0. R. I968. Systemspolitical of science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
I33-5. Anthrop. 34I-68. 6,