Unit I - Introduction

Anthropology:
Anthropology is the study of human kind in all time and space. It is the study of
human kind, especially of Homo sapiens, the biological species to which we human
being belonged. Anthropology is an understanding yourself in relation to others.
Anthropology means 'talking about man', as psychology means 'talking about mind'.
It is sometimes thought of as the study which tells us 'all about man'. Anthropology
literally is the study of human beings. It differs from other disciplines concerned
with people in that it is broader in scope. Anthropological studies can show us why
other people are the way they are, both culturally and physically. It is the study of
how our species evolved from more primitive organism, study of our species/how
cultured evolved and diversified. Anthropology specially studies about culture
which studies about the past and present ages of social life.
Anthropology emerged during colonial era in order to study indigenous, primitive,
traditional, underdeveloped community and their culture through observation
method. It produces ethnography. The major divisions are: physical anthropology
and socio-cultural anthropology. Anthropology by definition is a discipline of
infinite curiosity about human beings. The word ‘anthropology’ is ultimately from
the Greek (anthropos, ‘human’, plus logos, ‘science’). Its first usage to discipline a
scientific discipline is probably around the early sixteenth century in its Latin form
anthropologium. In the seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries, European theologians
also used the term, in this case to refer to the attribution of human-like features to
their deity. The German word Anthropologie, which described cultural attributes of
different ethnic groups, came to be used by a few writers in Russia and Austria in
the late eighteenth century. However, this usage did not become established among
scholars elsewhere until much later.
Anthropologists are also interested in how and why societies in the past and present
have varied in their customary ideas and practices. Defining anthropology as the
study of human beings is not complete, for such a definition would appear to
incorporate a whole catalog of disciplines: sociology, psychology, political science,
economics, history, human biology, and perhaps even the humanistic disciplines of
philosophy and literature. Eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century scholars tended
to use ‘ethnology’ for the study of both the cultural differences and the features which
identify the common humanity of the world’s peoples. This English term, or its
equivalents like ethnologie (French) or Ethnologie (German), is still in use in
continental Europe and the United States. In the United Kingdom and most other
parts of the English-speaking world ‘social anthropology’ is the more usual
designation.

Some authors have given definitions regarding anthropology:

According to Collins Dictionary: Anthropology is the study of people, society and
culture.
According to M Jacobs and B. J. Stern: Anthropology is the scientific study of the
physical, social and cultural development and behavior of human being since their
appearance on earth.
According to A. L. Kroeber: Anthropology is the science of group of men and their
behavior and production.
According to E. N. Hobel: Anthropology is the study of man and all his works, in its
fullest sense, it is the study of race and custom of mankind.
Anthropology is the study of the human species and its immediate ancestors.
Anthropology stands out as the field that provides the cross-cultural test.
Anthropology is a subject in which theory is of great importance. It is also a subject
in which theory is closely bound up with practice. Anthropology is the study of
human kind in all time and space. Anthropology is the study of human kind,
especially of Homo sapiens, the biological species to which we human being
belonged. Anthropology is an understanding yourself in relation to others.
Anthropology literally the study of human being. It differs from other disciplines
concerned with people in that it is broader in scope. Anthropology may help people
to be more tolerant. Anthropological studies can show us why other people are the
way they are, both culturally and physically. Customs or actions that appear
improper or offensive to us may be other people's adaptations to particular
environmental and social condition.
Sociology
The word ‘sociology’ owes its origin to the Latin word ‘socius’ (companion) and the
Greek word ‘logy’ (study of). Sociology incorporates the study of social phenomena,
social life, groups, institutions, associations and societies. It focuses on society from
a scientific point of view. The principles of sociology explain the behaviour of
human beings and their existence with respect to their mutual interaction. In fact,
sociology has always studied societies, both taken separately and together, as
‘human societies’.
Auguste Comte, defined sociology as the science of human association.
Max Weber defined sociology as ‘the science which attempts the interpretative
understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a causal explanation of
its cause and effects’.
• Emile Durkheim, ‘sociology is the study of social facts through social institutions.
• Maclver and Page, ‘sociology is about social relationships, the network of
relationship we call society’.
• American Sociological Association, sociology is a ‘social science involving the
study of the social lives of people, groups, and societies the study of our behaviour
as social beings, covering everything from the analysis of short contacts between
anonymous individuals on the street to the study of global social processes.’

Relationship of Anthropology, Sociology and other Social Sciences

Sociology and Anthropology has it’s different objective but they both have lots of
similarities in their field. Therefore, sociology and anthropology is known as a twin
sister. Anthropology, Sociology and other social sciences focus on certain aspects of
human behaviour. Sociology and Anthropology is the systematic study of society,
culture and its people and their behaviour. Sociology and Anthropology are related
but different fields with dissimilar origins. While sociology has its roots in
philosophy and history, anthropology began as a study of physical measurements of
humans. However, the two subjects have developed hand-in-hand, especially when
it comes to concepts and scientific methods. Anthropologists generally study small
societies that are often considered primitive, such as in the Pacific Islands. They tend
to live in the particular community they are studying, witnessing their daily activities
and almost becoming a part of the community themselves. Sociologists, on the other
hand, study facets of a society, such as family or social mobility, and their
organization and processes. A sociologist uses methods that are loaded with values,
therefore, their conclusions are lined with ethical considerations. Perhaps, the
biggest difference between sociology and anthropology is in their method of
research. A anthropologist uses qualitative methods to collect information, usually
by immersing oneself into the society that is being studied. Relationship of these
disciplines with other social sciences are as follows:

1. Sociology and Anthropology

Sociology and Anthropology are two closely related social sciences that share a
common interest in understanding human society, culture, and behavior. While these
disciplines have many similarities, they also possess distinct characteristics in terms
of their subject matter, methodologies, and objectives. Sociology and anthropology
both dedicate themselves to the study of human society and culture. They examine
the ways in which people interact, communicate, and organize themselves within
various social contexts. These disciplines seek to uncover the underlying patterns
and structures that shape human behavior, as well as explore the diversity of human
experiences across different times and places.
Both fields draw upon a wide range of other disciplines to enhance their
understanding of human society. They frequently incorporate insights from history,
psychology, economics, and political science, among others. This interdisciplinary
approach allows sociologists and anthropologists to develop a more comprehensive
and nuanced understanding of the complexities of human social life. Sociology and
anthropology place a strong emphasis on research and the collection of empirical
data. Both disciplines employ a variety of research methods to gather and analyze
information about human societies and cultures. Both sociology and anthropology
are deeply concerned with understanding and addressing social issues. Sociology
primarily focuses on the study of modern, complex societies and their institutions. It
examines social structures, processes, and interactions within these societies, often
concentrating on family dynamics, educational systems, religious institutions,
political organizations and economic structures.
Anthropology, on the other hand, has a broader scope that encompasses the study of
human societies and cultures across both time and space. It includes the examination
of contemporary societies as well as historical and prehistoric cultures.
The relationship between sociology and anthropology is characterized by both
significant similarities and distinct differences. While both disciplines share a
common interest in understanding human society, culture, and behavior, they
approach these subjects from different angles and with distinct methodologies.
Sociology tends to focus more on modern, complex societies and their institutions,
while anthropology takes a broader view, examining human cultures across time and
space. The continued dialogue and exchange between sociology and anthropology
promise to yield valuable insights into the nature of human society and culture,
informing our understanding of both contemporary social issues and the broader
human experience.

2. Sociology, Anthropology and Psychology

The study of mind and human behaviour is called Psychology. Psychologists focus
upon all aspects of human behaviour and its personal, social and cultural dimensions
which will never be complete without having the knowledge of sociology and
anthropology. Therefore, for understanding the social processes and meanings in the
world around us one has to study anthropology. Both Sociology, Psychology and
Anthropology deals with the manifold relations between individuals and groups,
communities, societies and.
According to Barrett, British social anthropology has historically been quite opposed
to psychology. Another way of stating this is to say that sociology and anthropology
has been anti-reductionist, which means opposed to reducing the explanation of
social life to other disciplinary levels such as psychology. This perspective can be
traced back to Durkheim, who declared that any time a psychological explanation is
provided for a social phenomenon we may be certain that it is wrong. American
cultural anthropology has been much more receptive to psychology, especially the
focus on the individual. Franz Boas was interested in the relationship between the
individual and society, and eventually there was the culture and personality school,
with its emphasis on modal personality. In more recent years a distinct approach
called psychological anthropology has emerged, with a focus on attitudes and values,
and child-rearing practices and adolescence.
Sociology and anthropologists take personality system as constant and look for
variation in the social structure as the basis of their investigations whereas,
psychologists accept the social structure as constant and look for variations in the
personality system as the basis of their analysis. Barrett in his work has stated that
for both psychologists and anthropologists the only real entity is the individual
human being.
Sociology, Anthropology and psychology involves the study of social, culture and
mental processes, and how they act together to determine action. Essentially, it
studies the interaction between psychological and socio-cultural processes. It is the
ground where sociology, anthropology and psychology converge. Psychologists look
at the mental processes and personality characteristics that make people act in a
certain manner. Anthropologists tend to look at not just the social setting and
structure, and the processes that go on within them but the influence they exert upon
individuals. Sociology particularly looks at human connections and
interrelationships. Social psychologists look into the factors to study how an
individual’s behaviour, beliefs, moralities and identity are determined by his/her
position in social space.
3. Sociology, Anthropology and History
Sociology and Anthropology as a discipline owes a lot to history. History has
influenced the way sociology and anthropology views and classifies historical types
of society and culture. These subjects interact and overlap with each other to a great
degree. A large volume of data that sociologists and anthropologists use is provided
by historians. At the same time, historians also draw upon a lot of anthropological
and sociological research. History is concerned with the past and looks at the
changes that take place over time.
Historians are chiefly interested in the past, whether remote or recent, their study is
to find out what happened and why it happened. On the whole, they are more
interested in particular sequences of past events and their conditions, than they are
in the general patterns, principles or laws which these events may exhibit. In both of
these respects their concern is little from that of social anthropologist.
Although the disciplines are different, sociology and anthropology has a very close
relationship with history in two important ways. First; it aims to achieve a complete
understanding as possible of the present condition of the society and culture. A
difficulty has been that many of the societies which sociologists and anthropologists
have studied have no histories, in the sense of documented and verifiable accounts
of the past or at least they had none before the often very recent impact of western
culture. In such societies, the past sometimes is thought of as differing from the
present only in respect of the individuals who occupy the different statuses which
are institutionalised in the society. But history may be important to sociologist and
anthropologists in another sense, that is, not only as an account of past events leading
up to and explaining the present. Different groups of people involved in the same
social situation may have very different ideas about the ‘same’ series of historical
events. Myths and traditional histories may sometimes give important clues about
the past events. History is part of the conscious tradition of a people and is operative
in their social life. It is the collective representation of events as distinct from events
themselves. It is true that some of the early anthropologists such as Radcliffe-Brown
denied that history had any relevance for anthropology, mainly because they thought
history dealt with unique events, and that a scientific study of the past was not
possible. But, Evans–Pritchard (1968) argued that anthropology was not a
generalising discipline, but instead a branch of history. Much earlier Boas (1897),
the founder of American anthropology, had included historical inquiry as a central
feature of anthropological investigation. Both social anthropologists and historians
attempt to represent unfamiliar social situations in terms not just of their own cultural
categories, but, as far as possible, in terms of the categories of the actions
themselves. Historians are interested in the history of particular institutions in
particular places. Although in a very general sense it is true that historians are
concerned with what is individual and unique, social anthropologists, like
sociologists, are concerned with what is general and typical, and this dichotomy is
altogether too simple.
As so often in the social sciences, most anthropologists would probably agree that a
historical perspective enriches one’s ethnography. Unlike historians, however,
sociologists and anthropologists include history not so much in order to document
and explain what happened in the past, but rather to help to understand the present.

4. Sociology, Anthropology and Political Science

Political Science, Anthropology and Sociology lies at the intersection of the
disciplines. If political science is largely focussed on the study of the state,
anthropology is focused on the culture, sociology may be understood as the study of
the society. The latter discipline was the consequence of the enlightenment an
intellectual epoch in the history of Europe that awarded primacy to the critical
application of human reason as opposed to blindly following the dictates of human
and divine authorities. Political anthropology and sociology seeks to understand the
process of interaction between government and society, decision-making authorities.
Sociology and anthropology deals with all the sub-systems of society, it’s culture
and political science focuses on the political system and power. Edmund Leach
(1965), a prominent British social anthropologist, has argued that power is the most
fundamental aspect of all social life, and therefore central to the anthropological
endeavour, and in fact there is an area of specialisation in anthropology called
political anthropology. Social anthropologists do look at something politically. There
is a range of anthropological behaviours depending on the sophistication of the
society being studied and the goals and theoretical awareness of the investigator. The
overlap of political and other activities is greater in simpler societies than in more
complex societies.
To put it in a slightly different manner, there is less functional specificity of different
cultural aspects. Or, in simpler societies activities that social anthropologists regard
as clearly and predominantly political are usually embedded in other kinds of
activities. Political activity is an aspect of all human social action and “interest
articulation” is a universal function of all systems. Social anthropologists represents
a highly diverse set of policies for whom political theory should be applicable if such
ideas lay claim to universality. For a political scientist the presence of
anthropological literature is not only a stimulus to theory testing but forms a basis
for understanding local political situations as well. Research on the local areas and
institutions of the new nation brings the political scientist and the social
anthropologist into the same area treating with the same populations and many of
the same behaviours. In many parts of the non-western world, local political systems
are heavily dependent on forms of socio-political structures that are still strongly
influenced by their traditional cultures. Sociology and anthropology can aid political
science in the analysis of ethnicity and in preparing researchers for the use of
participant observation techniques in the field.

5. Sociology, Anthropology and Mathematics:

Some major anthropological and sociological research streams in which
mathematics is used intensively. Mathematical approach to sociological problems is
that it involves many scholars from outside the sociology and anthropology
discipline. Such examples include John Harsanyi (1976), Anatol Rapoport (1983),
and Herbert Simon (1957), three influential scholars who have conducted research
over an extended period of time in sociology and anthropology.
In sociology, however, theory is not widely associated with any sort of mathematics
or formalization. Therefore, mathematical sociology and anthropology has become
a wide umbrella for a heterogeneous field using mathematics, logic, and computer
simulation to illustrate and solve anthropological and sociological problems. It is
also heterogeneous in the type of mathematics, logic, and computational procedures
applied to the various problems. Sociology avails itself of an exceptionally broad
range of mathematics.
The presentation of mathematical tools is not part of the presentation of theory or
methods in sociological textbooks, and it has been a long time since a textbook on
mathematical anthropological and sociology has appeared. The ideas of a unified
science have inspired some sociologists to use mathematics, but even these efforts
have always been very sensitive to the particularities of sociology and anthropology.
Herbert Simon, commenting on his own work on the theories of Festinger and
Homans, claims “that the mathematical translation is itself a substantive contribution
to the theory,” and that “mathematics has become the dominant language of the
natural sciences not because it is quantitative a common delusion but primarily
because it permits clear and rigorous reasoning about phenomena too complex to be
handled in words.” And Patrick Doreian, long-time editor of the Journal of
Mathematical Sociology, puts it in the following way. “Mathematics is a language,
and all that mathematical anthropology and sociology means that these ideas are
expressed in mathematical terms.
The notion that cultural idea systems can be represented mathematically in order to
clarify their structural implications was first realized through an appendix
commissioned by Lévi-Strauss for his monumental book, The elementary structures
of kinship asked to mathematically consider how the structure of the system of
marriage rules adhered to by the Murngin-speaking group of Australian Aborigines
could be represented and analyzed mathematically. Their system of marriage rules
as worked out by Lévi-Strauss could be represented using the language of abstract
algebras through which the logical structural consequences of their system of
marriage rules could be developed. Subsequently, during the 1960s and 1970s,
several researchers focused on the way mathematical concepts could interface with
cultural theorizing by expressing ethnographic observations regarding the structure
and organization of cultural systems through mathematical concepts. Hoffman 1969
discusses a sequence of mathematical concepts, beginning with the concept of a
relation and then adding additional concepts so as to form a sequence of
mathematical ideas going from simpler to more complex. He then shows, in a
parallel manner, how this sequence of mathematical ideas relates to ethnographic
accounts of cultural systems, also going from simpler to more complex.
Kay 1971 is an edited collection of essays expressing, for a wide range of topics
relating to research work carried out by cultural anthropologists of that time period,
how their theorizing can be represented mathematically (both statistically and
formally) and through this representation the logical implications of cultural systems
can be worked out mathematically. Ballonoff 1974 focus primarily on mathematical
representations of the genealogical and terminological aspects of kinship systems
rather than the marriage rule systems.
 6. Sociology, Anthropology and Economics
Economics focuses on a particular institution, and is concerned about the production,
consumption, and distribution of economic goods, and with economic development,
prices, trade, and finance. In anthropology there is an area of specialisation called
economic anthropology. It is a precious fact that an institutionalised kind of
economics first appears in anthropology in direct relation to the field research among
exotic societies. Anthropology has a substantial overlap with economics, considered
as the production and distribution of goods. While not all societies have a fully
developed monetary economy, all societies do have scarce goods and some means
of exchange. Sociologists and anthropologists are interested in exploring the range
of production and distribution systems in human societies and in understanding the
particular system in the society being studied at a given time. Most social
anthropologists are not scientifically interested in the operation of the economy of
one’s own society; the typical non-anthropological economist, on the other, hand is
extremely interested in the operation of one’s own economy.

7. Social Anthropology and Management

Over the last century, sociologists and anthropologists have created a discipline to
make sense out of human behaviour through the culture concept, a holistic analytical
approach, and empirical research. Although social anthropological concepts have
been defined largely in academia, the discipline has always had ‘applied’
practitioners working in areas like health care, education, business and industry.
These practitioners have demonstrated time and again that an anthropological
perspective has a great deal to offer the wider world. At first glance, the these
professions: sociology, anthropology and management may appear highly dissimilar.
But a closer look reveals many points of common interest. For example, like social
anthropologists, management practitioners attempt to make sense out of human
behaviour as they address the ‘people’ dimensions of doing business. Hence, there
is an opportunity for a valuable exchange between sociologists, anthropologists and
management practitioners. Sociologists and anthropologists are working as
consultants and many consultants are using an anthropological perspective perhaps
without knowing it. The almost exponential rate of change in the contemporary
business world challenges business leaders in many ways. The survival of a business
depends on management’s ability to adjust to change.
Society

The word ‘society’ derived from “socius” that means “companionship”,

“togetherness”, “gregariousness” “group” and association. The concept society,
refers to a vast complex of interrelations differentiated into systems all of which
affect the whole. It is a abstract term. We are all necessarily social creatures, and
therefore depend on society in order to live as humans and to specific groups of
people living together in particular ways, different societies. Society has been the
central theoretical object of much European anthropology, especially British social
anthropology, so that any history of the theoretical use of the term swiftly becomes
a history of anthropological theory. In that history, various tensions and oppositions
appear and reappear: society and the state, society and the individual, society and
culture, society and nature, primitive society and modern society. In recent years, as
the particular use of the term to denote a specific group of people and their way of
life has grown ever more problematic, while some of these tensions have approached
breaking-point, anthropologists have started to suggest abandoning the very idea of
society as a theoretical construct.

Society is the total complex of human relationship in so far as they grow out of the
action in terms of means-ends relationship intrinsic or symbolic.
Talcott Parson
Society is the web of relationship
MacIver
Society is not group of people, it is a system of relationship that exists between the
individuals of the group.
Write
In a general sense, ‘society’ is a universal condition of human life. This can be put
in either biological or symbolic and moral terms. Society can be seen as a basic, but
not exclusive, attribute of human nature: we are genetically predisposed to social
life. Becoming fully human depends on interaction with our fellow creatures; the
phylogenesis of our species runs parallel to the development of language and labour,
social abilities without which the organism’s needs cannot be met. But society can
also be seen as constituting one particular, exclusive dimension of human nature.
The very idea of social agency is revealed in behavior which is not founded in
instincts, selected by evolution, but instead in rules which have their origins in
history rather than in the requirements of the human organism. The notion of ‘rule’
may be taken in different senses: in structural-functionalism it is moral and
prescriptive; in structuralism or in symbolic anthropology it is cognitive and
descriptive. Despite this important difference, in both cases an emphasis on rules
expresses the institutional nature of the principles of social action and organization.
The rules of different human societies vary in time and space, but there are rules of
some sort everywhere.

‘Society’ is also used to refer to more specific entities: different societies. In this
specific sense, the idea of a ‘society’ is applicable to a human group having some of
the following three properties: territoriality; recruitment primarily by sexual
reproduction of its members; an institutional organization that is relatively self-
sufficient and capable of enduring beyond the life-span of an individual; and cultural
distinctiveness. In this sense, society may denote the group’s population, its
institutions and relations, or its culture and ideology. In the first case, society is used
as a synonym for ‘(a) people’, or a particular type of humanity. In the second sense,
in which society is equivalent to ‘social system’ or ‘social organization’, the socio-
political framework of the group is important: its morphology (composition,
distribution and relations between the subgroups of society), its body of moral norms
(ideas of authority and citizenship, conflict regulation, status and role systems), and
its characteristic patterns of social relations (relations of power and exploitation,
forms of co-operation, modes of exchange). In the third case, in which ‘society’ is
interchangeable with ‘culture’, what is emphasized is the affective and cognitive
content of group life: the set of dispositions and abilities inculcated in its members
by various symbolic means, as well as the concepts and practices that confer order,
meaning and value upon reality.

Types of society:
1. Tribal society:
a. Has many clans, nomadic life, lives in the village, distinct language and
common political organization, occupying common territory, and common
religion.
b. Live in the common geographical area
c. Sense of unity and blood relationship
d. Common name and only differ through the clan
e. Same language
f. Worship clans and ancestral deities
g. Society runs through the traditional leaders and chieftainship
h. Economy is based on hunting and gathering
 i. No food storage
j. Integrated social structure
k. Small and homogenous society
2. Agrarian society
a. Domestication of plants and animals and herding them
b. Ownership of land primarily under the control of landlords, cultivators
and supervisors.
c. Live in village, fix habitat, sharing and caring within people
d. Minimum division of labor in the name of age and sex
e. Family plays important role for reproduction, child rearing and
economic management
f. Sense of unity
g. Traditional rules and regulations
h. Main occupation is agriculture

3. Industrial society
a. Modern tools and machines are used for the production
b. Applies new system for the production
c. Largest business plants are stablished for the mass production
d. Sense of private property, division of labor, competition, wage and
credit
e. High social mobility
f. Changes in women’s position
g. Individualistic and self-centered

Culture:

The word ‘culture’ is probably the single most central concept in twentieth-century
anthropology. It has an especially complex history, of which anthropological usage
is only one small part. The word 'culture' was spelt first Cultur in Germany, and then
Kultur, the term was used in works of speculative history from the second half of the
eighteenth century and, crucially, started to be used in the plural in the sense of
humanity being divided into a number of separate, distinct cultures. Similarly, in
anthropology, 'culture' means "knowledge", that is, knowledge about those aspects
of humanity which are not natural, but which are related to that which is acquired.
In other words culture refers to "those abilities, notions and forms of behavior which
are acquired by a person as members of society." Culture is material and non-
material, a vehicle or medium to meet bio-psychological needs of the people in a
systematized way of it is an acted document as a way of life.

Culture is an acted document – Clifford Geertz.

Culture is the collective programing of the mind which distinguishes the members
of one group or category of people from another.
Hofstede(1994)
The realm of styles of values, of emotional attachments and of individual adventures
MacIver and Page

Culture is both public and individual, both in the world and in people’s minds.
Anthropologists are interested not only in public and collective behavior but also in
how individuals think, feel, and act. The individual and culture are linked because
human social life is a process in which individuals internalize the meanings of public
(i.e., cultural) messages. Then, alone and in groups, people influence culture by
converting their private (and often divergent) understandings into public expressions
(D’Andrade 1984). Culture, which is distinctive to humanity, refers to customary
behavior and beliefs that are passed on through enculturation. Culture rests on the
human capacity for cultural learning. Culture encompasses rules for conduct
internalized in human beings, which lead them to think and act in characteristic
ways.

Definitions of Culture are the core concept in cultural anthropology, so it might seem
likely that cultural anthropologists would agree about what it is. British
anthropologist Sir Edward Tylor proposed the first definition in 1871. He stated,
“Culture, or civilization . . . is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief,
art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a
member of society” (Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1952:81). The phrase “that complex
whole” has been the most durable feature of his definition. In contemporary cultural
anthropology, the cultural materialists and the interpretive anthropologists support
two different definitions of culture. Cultural materialist Marvin Harris says, “A
culture is the total socially acquired life way or life-style of a group of people. It
consists of the patterned repetitive ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that are
characteristic of the members of a particular society or segment of society”
(1975:144). In contrast, Clifford Geertz, speaking for the interpretivists, believes that
etymologically it is linked to words like ‘cultivate’ and ‘cultivation’, ‘agriculture’ and
‘horticulture’. In English in the seventeenth century it became common to apply this
meaning metaphorically to human development, and in the eighteenth century this
metaphorical meaning developed into a more general term.

T. Eriksen on the one hand, every human is equally cultural; in this sense, the term
refers to a basic similarity within humanity. On the other hand, people have acquired
different abilities, nations, etc., and are thereby different because of culture. Culture
refers, in other words, both to basic similarity and to systematic differences between
humans."

Bronislow Malinowski: culture is an integral in which the various elements are

interdependent. cultures are functionally integrated in the sense that all their
elements serve as means to the satisfaction of psychological needs and the
institutions of a culture are independent……each culture owes its completeness and
self-sufficiency to the fact that it satisfies the whole range of basic, instrumental and
integrative needs.

‘Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behaviour acquired and
transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups,
including their embodiment in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of
traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached
values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action,
on the other, as conditional elements of future action.’

Aristotle's approach to the study of culture and society was more similar with
modern study and it seems he was full of anthropological insight that culture is
acquired by learning. it has also been found that while analyzing and studying the
different aspects of society Aristotle stressed the use of the empirical methods and
suggested that society can best be studied by observing, analyzing social
relationships which are now the subject matter of structural school of thought.

Nevertheless the development of a notion of culture has from the beginning been
driven hard from behind by the intellectual struggle against attempts to explain
human behavior and human variety using purely natural scientific means. It is
therefore impossible to understand the concept ‘culture’ clearly without reference to
its opposing concept, ‘nature’. In a wider perspective this struggle is but a fragment
of the greater conflict over human nature which has been so pervasive a feature of
intellectual life in the North Atlantic societies of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries.

Characteristics of Culture:
a. it is material and non-material in forms
b. it is gained through social experiences and it is learned behavior
c. culture is dynamic and diverse in factors and forms as requirement
d. it differs from caste to caste and religion to religion
e. it helps to meet socio-cultural requirement of the people