Two variants of Psychology and Social Anthropology

Psychology has two variants-general or individual psychology and social psychology. Both are related to social anthropology. The American anthropologists were greatly influenced by this relationship.

However, Franz Boas, a noted American cultural anthropologist, liter­ally dominated the field of the relationship of social anthropology and psychology. Boas had undoubtedly stressed the importance of the rela­tionship of these two fields of study.

In his monumental book, The Mind of Primitive Man, he set forth his conviction that there is no fun­damental difference between the mind of primitive man and that of civilized man, and that whatever differences exist between the achieve­ments of different races could be accounted for on historical and cultural grounds rather than in terms of innate biological differences.

Lewis has also established the role of psychology in understanding the ethnology of primitive peoples. Social psychology, however, is the closest kin of social anthropology.

Image Source: clare.cam.ac.uk

It deals with the mass behaviour of the primitive peoples. If, for example, the tribals are influenced by the Devi movement in south Gujarat, it is a clear case of the relationship of social psychology and social anthropology. However, general psy­chology interprets the behaviour of man as his individual manifestation.

Regarding the relationship of psychology with social anthropol­ogy, it can be said that there are two different realms dealt with by the two disciplines. Psychology is concerned with the behaviour of man and social anthropology focuses on interrelationship among different institutions of the society.

There is a basic contradiction regarding the approach adopted by the two disciplines. Psychologists begin by tak­ing the tribal culture for granted, as if it were uniform and universal. With this assumption they study psychic behaviour in a tribe. On the other hand, the same approach is taken by social anthropology.

It tends to take human nature for granted, as if it were uniform and stud­ies the diverse cultures of the tribe. In reality, in technical language, we have two variables, viz., mind and culture, and each science, that is, psychology and social anthropology, assumes that it can go ahead by treating the other variable as if it were constant.

But researches now undertaken in both the fields have made it clear that such con­stancy is not actual. But, to deal with two highly complex variables is difficult; and as for specific findings, only beginnings have as yet been made.

W.H.R. Rivers, who conducted his studies among the Todas of South India, has dealt with the relationship of psychology and ethnol­ogy or social anthropology. He has argued for the independent science of social anthropology, though ultimately the discipline is related to human behaviour because, as he observes:

The final aim of the study of society is the explanation of social be­haviour in terms psychology.

To simplify the relations between psychology and social anthro­pology, it could be stated, that the study of interrelationship in a primitive society owes much to the psychological conditioning of the people in that society.

This can be illustrated by referring to the situ­ation of Indian tribals. The tribals, historically, have been exploited by the moneylenders and traders. I.P. Desai notes that when there is a meeting of the tribals of Bardoli taluka, they simply prohibit the entry of non-tribals.

They consider caste Hindus as their enemies. This psy­chological mindset determines their behaviour. Therefore, in any study of primitive society, the psychology of the primitives consti­tutes a relevant point.

This also explains the relationship between social anthropology and psychology; the former is concerned with a variable of culture and the latter with the mind.