as-if system of idea

cooking

culture

equilibrium

family

gumlao

gumlao - gumsa

individual

magic

model

myth

relational structures

representation

ritual

sign

social structure

social system

sociology

structure

thought

truth

nationality

British

occupation / innovator as

anthropologist

structural anthropologist

structuralist

innovator in the field of

kinship

legal anthropology

political anthropology

structural anthropology

structuralism

scientific organization

British Academy

social anthropology

American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Political Systems of Highland Burma

Pul Eliya

Culture and Communication

is a methodological approach that treats things 'as if' they were more solidly a certain way than they actually are in order to gain genuine insight.

In brief, my argument is that although historical facts are never, in any sense, in equilibrium, we can gain genuine insights if, for the purpose of analysis, we force these facts within the constraining mould of an as if system of ideas, composed of concepts which are treated as if they were part of an equilibrium system. Furthermore I claim to demonstrate that this fictional procedure is not merely an analytical device of the social anthropologist, it also corresponds to the way the Kachins themselves apprehend their own system through the medium of the verbal categories of their own language' (Leach 1964:ix).

is not necessary, but rather is done for symbolic reasons by men to show they are men and not beasts.

Men do not have to cook their food... they do so for symbolic reasons to show they are men and not beasts. Edmund Leach

is never, in any sense, actually to be found within historical facts, and yet it proves a useful fiction to methodologically assume a system of ideas forming an equilibrium system in order to gain genuine insight.

when the anthropologist insist that his concern is with 'sociology' rather than with 'history', he at once imposes upon the evidence an assumption that systemic order may be discerned among the confusions of empirical fact. Such systemic order cannot be described without introducing notions of equilibrium and to that extent the argument of this book is itself an equilibrium analysis' (Leach 1964:xi). 'In brief, my argument is that although historical facts are never, in any sense, in equilibrium, we can gain genuine insights if, for the purpose of analysis, we force these facts within the constraining mould of an as if system of ideas, composed of concepts which are treated as if they were part of an equilibrium system. Furthermore I claim to demonstrate that this fictional procedure is not merely an analytical device of the social anthropologist, it also corresponds to the way the Kachins themselves apprehend their own system through the medium of the verbal categories of their own language' (Leach 1964:ix).

is far from being the basis of the good society. With its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets, it is the source of all our discontents.

Far from being the basis of the good society, the family, with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets, is the source of all our discontents. Edmund Leach

is essentially anarchistic, equalitarian notions which do not appeal to social stratification by lineage, chiefdom, etc. . . Gumsa: A 'compromise between gumlao (democratic) and shan (autocratic) ideals.

Gumlao: essentially anarchistic, equalitarian, does not believe in social stratification by lineage, chiefdom, etc. . . Gumsa: A 'compromise between Gumlao (democratic) and Shan (autocratic) ideals' (9) , assimilates Shan ideals more and more until they feel they 'have become Shan' 9, complicated hierarchical relations between clans/lineages, has a chief, etc. Most societies in this book are some kind of Gumsa society. (net)

is, in Burmese culture, the set of two interacting social models, one democratic and egalitarian, and the other autocratic and hierarchical.

the gumlao model (1) egalitarian and democratic (2) gumsa model, in which lineages are classed in a hierarchy. gumlao, gumsa Among the Kachin of Burma, the two social formations, gumlao being egalitarian and gumsa being hierarchical. (Barnard) . . . . . Leach describes the Kachin highlands as politically and socially always in flux, floating between two 'ideal social models', Gumlao and Gumsa. The greater part of this book is consumed in the articulation and analysis of these two social models. For the moment they can be encapsulated as follows:

is social persons who are in relation to one another.

in society as it actually exist individuals are social persons who are 'in relation' to one anotehr -- e.g., as father to son or as employer to employee' (Leach 1970:45).

is empirically untested (and thus not science) efforts at control (and thus not religion).

the core of the magic act is that it rests on empirically untested belief and that it is an effort at control. The first aspect distinguishes it from science, the second from religion' (Leach 2964. A Dictionary of the Social Sciences. p. 398).

is necessarily a model of equilibrium. Real societies can never be in equilibrium.

while conceptual models of society are necessarily models of equilibrium systems, real societies can never be in equilibrium' (Leach 1964:4)

is the expression of unobservable realities in terms of observable phenomena.

the expression of unobservable realities in terms of observable phenomena' (leach)

is a step along the way of thinking. We cannot think our environment until we categorize it and then represent those categories.

we must first categorize our environment and then represent these categories by symbols ('elements of language,' 'words') before we can 'think' about them' (Leach 1970:127)'

is the communicative aspect of all behaviors.

My own view is that while we only run into paradox if we try to apply this term to some distinct class of behaviours, we can very usefully think of 'ritual' as an aspect of all behaviour, namely the communicative aspect. This view, which attributesto certain features of culturally defined behaviour the qualities of a language, is really resented above where I say that events (i.e. items of behaviour) are only seen as structured when they are ordered by means of verbal categories' (Leach 1964:xiv).

is to be contradicted with the direct act of an individual who is, say, digging a hole. This concerns no symbolization but a sign arises in the very moment of observation. This is why animals are 'good to think with'.

When an individual acts as an individual, operating upon the world outside himself-e.g., if he uses a spade to dig a hole in the ground-- he is not concerned with symbolization... but the moment some other individual comes onto the scene every action, however trivial, serves to communicate information about the actor to the observer-- the observed details are interpreted as signs, because observer and actor are in relation. From this point of view the animals in any human environment serve as things with which to think (bonnes a penser)' (Leach 1970:44).

is a set of ideas about the distribution of power in a society. It tolerates contradictions and ambivalence because it's form is a cultural form. It finds expression in the form of ritual expression.

I hold that social structure in practical situations (as contrasted with the sociologist's abstract model) consist of a set of ideas about ' the distribution of power between persons and groups of persons. Individuals can and do hold contradictory and inconsistent ideas about this system. They are able to do this without embarrassment because of the form in which their ideas are expressed. The form is cultural form... the expression is ritual expression' (Leach 1964:4).

is composed of contradictory and inconsistent ideas that individuals hold about that system. Individuals are able to do this without embarrassment because of the form in which their ideas are expressed. The form is cultural form... the expression is ritual expression.

I hold that social structure in practical situations (as contrasted with ! the sociologist's abstract model) consist of a set of ideas about the distribution of power between persons and groups of persons: Individuals can and do hold contradictory and inconsistent ideas about this system. They are able to do this without embarrassment because of the form in which their ideas are expressed. The form is cultural form... the expression is ritual expression' (Leach 1964:4).

is the principles of organization that unite the component parts of the system.

At one level of abstraction we may discuss social structure simply in terms of the principles of organisation that unite the component parts of the system' (Leach political systems of highland burma)

is not a natural reality, but rather a figment of thought, a relation between concepts, not actual things.

I do not consider that social systems are a natural reality. In my view, the facts of ethnography and of history can only appear to be ordered in a systematic way if we impose upon these facts a figment of thought. We first devise for ourselves a set of verbal categories which are nicely arranged to form an ordered system, and we then fit the facts to the verbal categories, and hey presto the facts are 'seen' to be systemically ordered! But in that case the system is a matter of the relations between concepts and not (Leach x... xii)

is a field which discernes systematic order among the confusions of empirical fact.

when the anthropologist insist that his concern is with 'sociology' rather than with 'history', he at once imposes upon the evidence an assumption that systemic order may be discerned among the confusions of empirical fact. Such systemic order cannot be described without introducing notions of equilibrium and to that extent the argument of this book is itself an equilibrium analysis' (Leach 1964:xi).

is models that exist only in the anthropologist's mind.

The structures which the anthropologist describes are models which exist only as logical constructions in his own mind' (Leach 1964:5).

Edmund Leach

Authors(0)

Books (0)

Books (0)

Edmund LeachThinkers

Books (0)

Edmund Leach