Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:58:34.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L'Occident, miroir brisé. Une évaluation partielle de l'anthropologie sociale assortie de quelques perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2017

Maurice Godelier
Maurice Godelier*
Affiliation:
EHESS, Paris
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

C'est, bien entendu, une tâche impossible que de dresser en quelques pages un bilan de l'anthropologie sociale. C'est plutôt un prétexte pour poser quelques questions sur la pratique et le statut théorique des sciences sociales. Personne ne niera que les sciences sociales sous leur forme actuelle sont nées en Occident à une époque récente et portent nécessairement les marques de cette origine. Mais, nées en Occident, elles ne sont devenues des disciplines à caractère scientifique que lorsqu'elles réussissaient, même partiellement, à décentrer leurs analyses par rapport aux vues de l'Occident qui les avait fait naître. C'est ce caractère contradictoire du développement des sciences sociales que nous tenterons de décrire à travers l'exemple de l'anthropologie.

Summary

Summary

The author questions the theoretical status of social sciences through a partial assessment ofone ofthem, social anthropology. Discipline linked to the colonial expansion of european societies and to their domination over the rest of the world, but associated also with the need ofthe Nation-State of Europe to deal with peasant and ethnical local customs resisting to économie and political transformations, social anthropology is deeply rooted into the history and domination of Europe. However, the discipline achieved its first scientific results only when it could construct its concepts and analysis beyond and against the social représentations and concepts dominating European culture. This contradiction was présent since the beginning as illustrated by the work of Lewis H. Morgan, its founder, who opened the vast field of research on kinship, domain par excellence of the ethnologists. Morgan discovered that ail the kinship Systems known in his time, included the European ones, were variants of seven basic types never identified before him. But soon he used his remarquable discoveries in order to build up an outline of the évolution of mankind in which thèse forms of kinship succeeded each other in an order moving from primitive savagery to Anglo-Saxon modem civilization. The West was again the mirror and the measure of the development of mankind. Anthropology after Morgan was obligea to break with this evolutionism. So, where are we after one century of researches on kinship? Is kinship based mainly on principles of descent, as stated by Meyer Fortes, or on principles of alliance and marriage, as argue Lévi-Strauss and Dumont? Does alliance imply necessarily exchange of women between men and universal maie domination? Are classificatory kinship Systems mère extensions of intrafamily relationships? Has the concept of consanguinity still a universal value? What are the relationships between kinship Systems and économie or political Systems? At the end of this critical assessment it seems clear that anthropology, far from being a discipline in deep crisis and close to disappear, is well alive and still for a long time indispensable.

Type
Histoire et Sciences Sociales
Information
Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales , Volume 48 , Issue 5 , October 1993 , pp. 1183 - 1207
Copyright
Copyright © Les Éditions de l’EHESS 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bibliographie

Allen, Nick, 1989, « The Evolution of Kinship Terminologies », Lingua, 77, pp. 173–185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballonof, Paul A., 1974, Genealogical Mathematics, Paris-La Haye, Mouton CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, J. A., 1980, « Kinship Studies: Some Impressions of the Current State of the Play »,Man (NS.), 15 (1), pp. 293–303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard, Alan, and Good (Anthony), 1984, Research Practices in the Study of Kinship,Londres, Académie Press Google Scholar
Bensa, Alban, 1990, « Des ancêtres et des hommes », in De nacre et de jade. Art kanak, Publications de la Réunion des Musées de France.Google Scholar
Boyd, John Paul, 1969, « The Algebra of Group Kinship », Journal of Mathematical Psychology,6, pp. 139–167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumont, Louis, 1960, « Dravidian Kinship Terminology », Man, 125, pp. 91–92 Google Scholar
Dumont, Louis, 1975, Dravidien et Kariera. L'alliance de mariage dans l'Inde du Sud et enAustralie, La Haye-Paris, Mouton Google Scholar
Evans-Pritchard, E. E., 1951, Kinship and Marriage among the Nuer, Londres-Oxford, Oxford University Press Google Scholar
Fortes, Meyer, 1969, Kinship and the Social Order: The Legacy of L. H. Morgan., Londres, Routledge & Kegan Paul Google Scholar
Fison, L. and Howrrr, A., 1967 (1880), Kamilaroï and Kurnai, Anthropological Publications,Oosterhout NB, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Francillon, Gérard, 1989, « Un profitable échange de frères chez les Tetum du Sud, Timor Central », L'Homme, 29 (1), pp. 26–43 Google Scholar
Godelier, Maurice, 1990, « Inceste, parenté, pouvoir », Psychanalystes, 36 numéro spécial: « Le sexuel aujourd'hui »Google Scholar
Godelier, Maurice, 1982, La production des grands Hommes. Pouvoir et domination masculine chez les Baruya de Nouvelle-Guinée, Paris, Fayard Google Scholar
Goody, Jack, 1976, The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe, Cambridge, CUP Google Scholar
Hauteclocoue-Howe, Anne de, 1985, Les Rhadès. Une société de droit maternel, Paris, Editions du CNRS Google Scholar
HÉRitier, Françoise, 1981, L'exercice de la parenté. Paris, Gallimard-Le Seuil Google Scholar
Hocart, A. M., 1937, « Kinship Systems », Anthropos, 32, pp. 545–551 Google Scholar
Hocart, A. M., 1928, « The Indo-European Kinship System », Ceylon Journal of Science, I, pp. 179–204 Google Scholar
Jorion, Paul, 1980, « Réflexions sur la formalisation dans les études de parenté en anthropologie sociale », Revue européenne des Sciences sociales,n° 51, pp. 21–39 Google Scholar
Jorion, Paul, et D E Meur, G., 1980, « La question Murngin, un artefact de la littérature anthropologique », L'Homme, XX (2), pp. 39–70 Google Scholar
Leach, Edmund R., 1966, «Virgin Birth. The Henry Myers Lecture », 1966, Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute,pp. 39–49 Google Scholar
Leach, Edmund R., 1977, « The Atom of Kinship, Filiation and Descent, error in translation or confusion of ideas » ?, L'Homme, 17 (2-3), pp.127–129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, Edmund R., Rethinking Anthropology, University of London, The Athlon Press Google Scholar
Leach, Edmund R., 1970, Lévi-Strauss, Fontana, Collins Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 1947, Les structures élémentaires de la parenté, La Haye-Paris, Mouton Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 1965, « The Future of Kinship Studies. The Huxley Mémorial Lecture », Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, pp. 13–22 Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 1983, Le regard éloigné, Paris, Pion Google Scholar
Liu, Pin-Hsiung, 1986, Foundations of Kinship Mathematics (vols 1 et 2), Institute of Ethnology, Academica Sinica Google Scholar
Lounsbury, F. G., « The Structural Analysis of Kinship Semantics », Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Linguists, La Haye, Mouton & Co., pp. 1073–1093 Google Scholar
Malinowski, B., 1952 (1926), Crime and Custom in Savage Society, New York, Humanities Press Google Scholar
Morgan, Lewis Henry, 1853, Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family, Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, 218, Washington, DC, Smithsonian Institution Google Scholar
Morgan, Lewis Henry, 1963 (1877), Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization, Leacock, E. B. éd., Reprint, Cleveland-New York, The World Publishing Co Google Scholar
Murdock, George Peter, 1949, Social Structure, New York, The Free Press Londres, Collier-Macmillan LtdGoogle Scholar
Murdock, George Peter, 1968, « Patterns of Sibling Terminology », Ethnology, 1 (1), pp. 1–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NASH, June, 1978, « Women and Power in Nagovisi Society », Journal de la Société des Océanistes, 60 (34), pp. 119–126 Google Scholar
Needham, Rodney, 1977, La parenté en question, Paris, Éditions du Seuil Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., and Forde, Darryl, 1953, Systèmes familiaux et matrimoniaux en Afrique, Paris, PUF Google Scholar
Rivers, W. H. R., 1968, Kinship and Social Organization together with « the Genealogical Method of Anthropological Enquiry », with commentaries by Firth, R. and Schneider, D. M., Londres, Humanities Press Google Scholar
Romney, A. K. and D'Andrade, R. G., 1964, « Cognitive Aspects of English Kin Terms », American Anthropologist, 66 (3), pp. 146–170 Google Scholar
Scheffler, Harold W., 1978, Australian Kin Classification, Cambridge, CUP Google Scholar
Scheffler, Harold W. and Lounsbury, F. G., 1971, A Study in Structural Semantics. The Siriono Kinship System, New Jersey, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall Google Scholar
Schneider, David M.,1984, A Critique of the Study of Kinship, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trautmann, Thomas R., 1981, Dravidian Kinship, Cambridge, CUP Google Scholar
Trautmann, Thomas R., 1987, Lewis Henry Morgan and the Invention of Kinship. Berkeley, University of California Press Google Scholar
Tjon Sie Fat, Franklin E., 1990, Representing Kinship. Simple Models of Elementary Structures, Thèse, Leyde Google Scholar
Weber, Max, 1992, Essais de sociologie des religions, Paris, Éditions A. Die Google Scholar
Weiner, Annette, 1979, « Trobriand Kinship from Another View: The Reproductive Power of Women and Men », Man (NS), 14, pp. 328–348 Google Scholar
White, Douglas R. and Jorion, Paul, 1992, « Representing and Computing Kinship: A New Approach », Current Anthropology, 33 (4), pp.454–463 Google Scholar
White, (H.C), 1963, An Anatomy of Kinship : Mathematical Models for Structures of Cumulated Roles, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice HallGoogle Scholar