2741992

Scale and Social Relations [and Comments and Reply]
Author(s): Gerald D. Berreman, Yehudi A. Cohen, Victor S. Doherty, Marilyn Gates, Ulf Hannerz
, Fuad I. Khuri, Robert F. Murphy, Stuart B. Philpott, K. N. Sharma and Zoltn Tagnyi
Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Jun., 1978), pp. 225-245
Published by: University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2741992
Accessed: 03-10-2015 19:33 UTC
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.
University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 142.150.248.82 on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 19:33:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Vol. 19, No. 2, June 1978

1978 by The Wenner-GrenFoundation for Anthropological Research 0011-3204/78/1902-0004$03.05
Scale and Social Relations'

by Gerald D. Berreman
INTRODUCTION
integration,
cohesion,and changeamongtheAleutsof Alaska's
westernmost
islands (Berreman1955, 1964), later on culture
and social organization(with emphasison caste) in the lower
Scale or size as a variablein social organizationfirstreceived
Himalayas of northernIndia (Berreman 1962c, 1972a), and
my attentionin an explicitway when I was invitedto parmostrecentlyon social and ethnicrelationsin a NorthIndian
symposiumon the subject which
ticipatein the Wenner-Gren
city (Berreman1972b). Each of the studieswas undertaken
resultedin thispaper. With the topic thus thrustbeforeme,
from a theoreticalperspectivewhich is in part structuralI set to thinkingabout what I had read and what my own
researchsuggestedabout it. My thoughtsturnedfirstto the
functionalist
and in part what has been describedas "symbolic interactionist"
or "ethnomethodologist"
but I preferto
Wilsons' (1945, 1971) discussionsof scale, then to a wide
varietyof theorists'societal typologiesand contrastswhich, call simply"interactionist"
(cf. Blumer 1969; Cicourel 1964,
if not explicitlybased on scale, have dependedat least partly
1968, 1973; J. Douglas 1970; Dreitzel 1970; Garfinkel1967;
uponvariationin the sizes of the societiesdiscussed.I thought Goffman1959, 1963, 1967, 1969, 1971, 1974; Schutz 1962;
also of the literatureon urban society,notable amongwhich
Roy Turner1974). (For an account of ethnomethodology
as
are Wirth's (1938) discussion of urbanismand Sjoberg's
a "theoretical
break"fromtraditionalsociology,advocatedand
city.I comparedthesewith
(1960) workon the preindustrial
enactedby a "coherentgroup"of sociologists,see Griffith
and
literature,in an attemptto
what I know of the ethnographic
Mullins 1972.) The interactionist
perspectivebecame increasinglyexplicitfromthe firstto the last of these studies. It
validityand relevanceof the
judge criticallythe cross-cultural
entails an approach which utilizes detailed observationand
they
typologiesand contrastsand to assess the contributions
of the concept"scale" and its apinquiryregardinghow people behave in face-to-faceand inmightmake to clarification
plicationto the comparativeanalysis of social organization. directinteraction,
in orderto discoverhow theychooseamong
Finally,I thoughtabout my own fieldresearch,firston social
alternativebehaviorsin termsof theirown definitions
of the
situationsin whichtheyact, i.e., the meaningstheyattachto
1 This paper was originallypreparedfor Burg WartensteinSymthe persons,actions,circumstances,
tasks,and goals whichare
posium No. 55, entitled"Scale and Social Organization,"organized
thesubstanceand contextof theirdailylives. Cognitiveworlds
by FredrikBarth and held July31-August 8, 1972, under sponsor-the understandings,
definitions,
perceptions,
and systemsof
ship of theWenner-GrenFoundation forAnthropologicalResearch.
relevance-whichunderliebehavioralchoices are the subject
That symposium,includingmy paper, is to be publishedas a book
underBarth's editorship(Barth 1978). The presentversionresulted
of study. Garfinkel(1967:11, 35) calls them "the routine
fromrevisionundertakenwhile I was a Fellow at the Center for
groundsof everydayactivities."
Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences,Stanford,Calif., 1976I had previouslymade threeempiricalcomparisonsin my
77. I wish to thank the Center and the National Science Founresearchreportswhichwere in part comparisonsof scale and
dation, which contributed to my stay there, as well as the
Wenner-GrenFoundation.
were thereforerelevantto this discussion: (1) comparison
betweenthe small-scalesocietyof the AleutsbeforeEuropean
contactand during200 yearsof postcontactincorporation
into
the large-scalenetworksof Russian and Americansocieties
GERALD D. BERREMAN is Professorof Anthropologyat the Universityof California,Berkeley (Berkeley,Calif. 94720, U.S.A.).
(Berreman1955, 1964); (2) comparisonbetweenthe smallBorn in 1930, he was educated at the Universityof Oregon
scale, relativelyisolatedvillagesof the Indian Himalayas and
(B.A., 1952; M.A., 1953) and at Cornell University (Ph.D.,
the larger-scalevillagesocietyof the denselypopulatedIndo1959). He has been a visiting professorat Delhi University
Gangeticplain of NorthIndia (Berreman1960a, 1972a); and
(1968-69) and the Universityof Stockholm (1972); he was a
GuggenheimFellow 1971-72 and a Fellow of the Center for
(3) comparisonbetweensocial relationsin the contemporary
Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences 1976-77. His reNorthIndian cityof Dehra Dun and those in the mountain
search interestsare South Asia, social inequality,social organiand plains villagesof its hinterland(Berreman1971, 1972b).
zation, qualitative research methods, ethics in research, and
I came to the conclusionthat my most useful contribution
social interaction.Among his publications are Hindus of the
Himalayas: Ethnographyand Change (Berkeley: Universityof
would come directlyfrommy own field research,with its
CaliforniaPress, 1972); Caste in the Modern World (Morrisinteractionist
bias and its concernwiththe dynamicsof stratitown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1973); "Social Categories
fication
and
pluralism
and how theyare experienced
by people.
and Social Interactionin Urban India" (AmericanAnthropoloI shall begin with some preliminaryremarkson scale as
gist74:567-86); "Race, Caste, and Other Invidious Distinctions
in Social Stratification"(Race 23:385-414); and "Is Anthroit is reflectedin a varietyof conceptsfromthe literatureof
pology Alive? Social Responsibilityin Social Anthropology"
and relateddisciplines.The purposeof this disanthropology
(CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 9:391-96, 425-27).
and divercussion
be
to drawattentionto the complexity
will
The presentpaper,submittedin finalform22 viii 77, was sent
to analyze that comsityof the conceptwithoutundertaking
for commentto 50 scholars. The responsesare printed below
plexityin any definitiveway. I will then turnto the rather
and are followedby a replyby the author.
Vol. 19 * No. 2 * June1978
225
disparateinferencesI have drawn in my own researchthat

seem germaneto scale and social relations.I say that my
thoughtson scale are disparatebecause I have no "theoryof
scale." In fact,I doubt that so gross a conceptcan be very
usefulin social analysis.At best, I have a few specific,empiricallyderivedintuitionsabout some of the limitsimposed
and the possibilitiesofferedpeople in theirrelationships
with
one anotheras a resultof the scale of the societiesin which
theylive.
ABSTRACT OPPOSITIONS:
THE LIKE
FOLK-URBAN AND
My interactionist
predilectionsimpel me to ask: How does
scale affectthe natureand qualityof social interactionin societies?This questionis relevanthere because social organization is inevitablyexpressedin interaction,
and analystsdiscoverit by observinginteraction
or by listeningto statements
It does not precludeinferences
about strucabout interaction.
ture,for structuretoo is an abstractionderivingfrominteraction.Thus, forexample,social stratification
(the rankingof
access to
categoriesof people so that they have differential
valued thingsand exhibithierarchicalpatternsof interaction
[cf. Berreman1967a; 1968; 1972c:401; 1977; n.d.]) does not
occur in the smallestsocieties.In fact,it is oftendescribed
as a productof the urban revolution,with the occupational
diversification,
specialized manufacture,and external trade
whichaccompanyit, and as based on the agricultural,
foodwithits capabilityfor supporting
producingrevolution,
populationslargerthanare requiredto producetheirfood (Childe
1950, 1965; cf. Braidwood1964; Fried 1967). This does not
mean thatstratification
is inevitablein large societiesor even
in urban or agriculturalones, but only that it is common
amongthemand is not foundamongforaging
peoples (hunters
and gatherers)except where,as on the Pacific Northwest
Coast of NorthAmerica,such pursuitsare uncommonly
productiveand reliableand the societyis commensurately
more
complexand largerin scale. Thereis thusan empiricalassociationamongsize, specialization,
In addition,the
and hierarchy.
characteristic
kindsof interaction
and the characteristic
structural arrangements
of stratifiedsocietiesare inseparableand
mutually reinforcing(cf. Berreman 1967a, 1967b, 1972c,
1973, 1977,n.d.), and bothare evidentlyinfluenced
by scale.
Social scienceand social philosophyhave producedan abundance of concepts,mostlytakingthe formof bipolar idealbetweensmalland large,simtypes,whichdescribedifferences
ple and complex,societies.Here we immediatelyconfronta
inherentin the conceptof scale: Is it a matterof
difficulty
size alone, as Barth seemed to implyin the invitationto the
symposiumfor which this paper was written?(If so, is it
a matterof total populationin a society,and if that is so,
whereand how does one draw boundaries?)Is it a matterof
size and intensityor closenessor pervasivenessof interaction,
as theWilsonssuggest?(If so, how does one weightthe two?)
Is densityof settlement
in a populationa crucialcomponent?
(If so, is this simplya preconditionfor intenseinteraction,
or is it a distinctvariable?) Is it a matterof size and complexity?(If so, how does one weightthe two? If not, how
does one separatethetwo?) Is it a matterof size, density,and
heterogeneity
of population,as Wirth (1938) maintainedin
defining
urbanism?(If so, how are theyto be calculatedand
weighted?)Is it a matterof extensiveness
of networksof communicationor of political,economic,and social organization?
(If so, how does this relate to populationdensityand interactional intensity?)Are time-depthor people's ideas about
theirpast factorsin scale?
Obviouslysize and complexityare analyticallydistinguishable but practicallyinseparable.Thus we all know T6)nnies's
226
contrastbetween Gemeinschaftand Gesellschaft(Tonnies

1940), Maine's statusand contract(Maine 1861), Durkheim's
mechanicaland organicsolidarity(Durkheim 1933). We are
since the classical
of social commentators
familiarwithefforts
of "civicharacteristics
Greeksto identifythe distinguishing
lized" or "complex" societiesas comparedwith "primitive"
cometo mind,
theunilinealevolutionists
ones (in anthropology
as do the names of such relativelyrecentfiguresas Goldenweiser[1922], Childe [1950, 1965], Kroeber [1948], Redfield
[1953], Kluckhohn[1949], Steward[1955], White [1959], and
the historianToynbee [1947]). More recently,some of these
by Wolf (1966), Serissues have been addressedinsightfully
vice (1966, 1975), Fried (1960, 1967), Sahlins (1968), and
Krader (1968), amongothers.Wirth(1938) drewupon Simmel (1950), Weber (1958), and Park (1925), among others,
when he set forthhis classic definitionand descriptionof
to,
urbanismas a way of lifeassociatedwith,but not restricted
cities.His own summary(p. 1, italics mine) bears quotation
will be mentionedshortly):
(some of its shortcomings
the urban
locusof urbanism,
Whilethe cityis the characteristic
purposesa
to cities.For sociological
modeof lifeis not confined
of heterosettlement
large,dense,and permanent
cityis a relatively
Large numbersaccountforindividualvarigeneousindividuals.
personalacquaintanceship,
ability,therelativeabsenceof intimate
of humanrelationswhichare largelyanonythesegmentalization
and associatedcharacteristics.
and transitory,
mous,superficial,
thecoincidence
and specialization,
Densityinvolvesdiversification,
glaringconof closephysicalcontactand distantsocialrelations,
of forthepredominance
a complexpatternof segregation,
trasts,
amongotherphenomfriction,
and accentuated
malsocialcontrol,
and
tendsto breakdownrigidsocialstructures
ena. Heterogeneity
and the
and insecurity,
instability,
to produceincreasedmobility,
and tangenwitha varietyof intersecting
affiliation
ofindividuals
The
turnover.
tial socialgroupswitha highrateof membership
and institunexustendsto displacepersonalrelations,
pecuniary
tionstendto caterto massratherthanto individualrequirements.
Perhaps the best-knownand most widelydebated anthropologicalattemptto deal withscale is Redfield'scharacterization of the folk-urbancontinuum,originallysummarizedby
its authoras follows(1947:293, 307):
with
or folksociety[as contrasted
The ideal typeof primitive
and
"modernurbanizedsociety"]is small,isolated,nonliterate,
The waysof
witha strongsenseof groupsolidarity.
homogeneous,
intothatcoherent
systemwhichwe call
livingare conventionalized
and
uncritical,
spontaneous,
"a culture."Behavioris traditional,
and reflecor habitor experiment
personal;thereis no legislation
and institutions,
ends.Kinship,itsrelationships
tionforintellectual
and thefamilialgroupis the
of experience
are thetypecategories
unitof action.The sacredprevailsoverthesecular;theeconomy
Theseand relatedcharis one of statusratherthanof themarket.
acteristicsmay be restatedin termsof "folk mentality.". . . The
in
of some communities
principalconclusion[of the comparison
commuYucatin] is thatthelessisolatedand moreheterogeneous
nities . . . are the more secular and individualisticand the more
of culture.
characterized
by disorganization
of the continuumhas been revised,refined,

This formulation
and expandedby the additionof the intermediate"peasant"
category(Redfield1953), but the originalstatementis a concise version of the centralfeaturesof the dimensionswith
whichRedfieldwas concerned.Clearly,scale is closelyassociof
he listed,and no consideration
ated withthe characteristics
scale can affordto overlookthem.
One mightgo throughthe literatureand identifya broad
and characterspectrumof descriptiveterms,generalizations,
izationswhichhave been or can be treatedas bipolar oppoculture,or
sitionsdescribingsocial and politicalorganization,
aspectsand attributesthereofwhichapplymoreor less to the
describedby Redfieldand whichtherepoles of the continuum
in scale. I have done so very roughly
fore implydifferences
in tables 1 and 2, simplyto call themto mind.I have hedged
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
on use of a general term by labeling them "Type 1" and

"Type 2" societies,but the firstare obviouslysmall and simple, the latterlargerand morecomplex.Anyonewho looks at
thelistingwill dispute,delete,add to, and refinethe contrasts
presented,and this is as it shouldbe if we are to thinkcritiabout the conceptof scale. I do not
cally and constructively
defendthe inclusionof each and everypair of concepts,but I
It is impordo believethatthe overalllistingis illuminating.
tant to note that many kinds of conceptshave been forced
intothe bipolarschemewhichare not so definedby theirauthorsor advocates.They vary greatlyin scope and degreeof
contrast.Many (e.g., Douglas's "group" and "grid") are not
Most
mutuallyexclusiveor even pointson a singlecontinuum.
reflecttheir creators'assumptions,impressions,and convictions more than they do empiricallyderivedgeneralizations.
Most have been disputed,for criticsdelightin the anthroas Redfield
pologicaland sociologicalgameof citingexceptions,
and Wirthquicklydiscovered(cf. Sjoberg 1960:14-22). Nevertheless,
it is remarkabletheextentto whichthetermsin fact
grouptogetherin theirusage along the lines suggestedin the
extremesof scale.
listing-linesapproximating
I will not hereundertakea criticalevaluationof these contrastingconcepts(there is already a vast literatureon some
of them), but anyone hopingto look into scale definitively
would have to do that. Otherwise,one would be likely to
reproducethe errorsand insightsof othersand to overlook
importantdata and ideas. If one wishedto improveupon the
work of others,one would have to test systematicallyand
each of the criteriapostulatedas varyingdicross-culturally
Berreman:SCALE
AND SOCIAL RELATIONS
rectlyor indirectly
withscale. A modestattemptat such testingis thatby Freemanand Winch(1957), who tried,by Guttman-scaleanalysisof Human RelationsArea File data, to find
out whetherthe phenomenondescribedby Tonnies,Redfield,
and othersand identified
by Freemanand Winchas "complexity" was in factunidimensional.
They came to the conclusion
that it was, based on the scalabilityof six criteria(in order
of increasingcorrelationwith complexity:presence of [1]
money,[2] governmental
punishmentfor crime,[3] full-time
priests,[4] full-timeteachers,[5] full-timebureaucrats,and
[6] writtenlanguage). We mightdebate the adequacy of the
test, but it is suggestiveof the kind of test that mightbe
applied. How the dimensionthey identifiedas "complexity"
relatesto scale woulddepend,of course,upon thedefinition
of
scale-a matterto whichI now belatedlyturn.
SCALE
I have mentionedthat scale has been identified
withsize and
thatit has been seen as a functionof the numberof people
interacting
and the closenessor intensityof interaction.The
problemsin operationalizing
such definitions
are many.If size
alone is the criterion,
thenwe are presumablydealingwiththe
maximalnetworksin whichpeople are involved,and the conceptis so broadand generalas to be of littleanalyticalutility.
As Firth (1951:50) has remindedus, "the isolationof any
TABLE 1
PAIRS OF ANALYTICAL TERMS
IMPLYING DIFFERENCES
IN SCALE
TERMS
TYPE
Redfield(1947)
Wirth(1938)
T6nnies (1940, 1957)
Maine (1861)
Durkheim(1933)
Durkheim(1954)
Durkheim(1951)
Steward (1955)
Service (1971)
Goldenweiser(1922)
Kroeber (1948)
Kluckhohn(1949)
Toynbee (1947)
Braidwood (1964)
Childe (1950, 1965)
Sjoberg (1960)
Sapir (1949)
Marx (1964)
Mannheim(1940)
Henry (1963)
Merton (1968)
Ralph Turner (1956)j
Riesman (1950)
Parsons and Shils (1951)
1 SOCIETIES
(Simple,Small-Scale?)
SOURCE
TYPE 2 SOCIETIES
(Complex,Large-Scale?)
folk
folksociety,rural-folk
Gemeinsckzaft
status
mechanicalsolidarity
sacred
[normativeintegration]
band
band, tribe,chiefdom
contract
organicsolidarity
profane
anomie
complexsociety
primitivestate,industrialstate
primitive,precivilized
civilized,complex
preurban(foodgatherers,Neolithicfood
producers)
preindustrial
genuineculture
realization(humanization)
substantialrationality
personalcommunity
urban (foodproducers,traders,manufacturers,
ultimatelyindustrialists)
industrial
spuriousculture
alienation (dehumanization,self-estrangement)
functionalrationality
[impersonalcommunity]
reference
and membershipgroupsare congruent
and membershipgroupsare disparate

reference
other-directed
instrumental
action
tradition-directed
Jexpressiveaction
pattern
variables:
urban
urbanism,urban-industrial
Gesellschaft
M. Douglas (1970)
Wallace (1961)
Faris (1932)
Barth (1960)
Fried (1960, 1967)
affectivity
collectivity-orientation
particularism
ascription(?)
diffuseness
group
replicationof uniformity
primaryrelationships
involutestatuses
egalitarian,ranked
affectiveneutrality
self-orientation
universalism
achievement(?)
specificity
grid
articulationof diversity
secondaryrelationships
inconsistentstatuses]
[disparate,fragmented,
stratified
Garfinkel(1967)
F
Schutz (1962)
VictorTurner (1969)
indexicalbehavior
biographicalfactorscrucialin interaction
communitas(antistructure)
objectivebehavior
objectivefactorscrucialin interaction
structure
Vol. 19 - No. 2 * June1978
227
community
nowadaysis onlyrelative,and even remoteTikopia
is not completelyself-contained."
How, then,would one calculate the scale of an Indian village, which is incorporated
into networksincludingwell over half a billion
significantly
people and yet is to a large degree self-contained(cf. Opler
1956,Singh1956)? How wouldone comparethe scale of such
a village with,for example,that of Tokyo? How does one
comparein scale two very different
kindsof cities (e.g., Benaresand Cleveland) or a small contemporary
Americantown
and a largepreindustrial
city? If closenessor intensityof interactionis added to size as a criterionof scale, how is independentvariationin the two to be handled? If, as usually
seems to be the case, increasedsize of the interactional
networkis associated with diminishing
intensityof interaction
is this an increasein scale? If so, what is the point of includingintensity
of interaction
in thedefinition?
Are the 1,200
Aleuts of today,in half a dozen isolated villages whichare
looselybut indisputablyincorporated(on the periphery)into
mainland,mainstreamAmericansociety,"larger-scale"than
the 20,000whopopulatedthe shoresof theirislands200 years
ago in relativeisolation?I would thinkso, but again extent
TABLE 2
CHARACTERISTIcs ATTRIBUTED TO TYPE 1 AND TYPE 2 SOCIETIES
TYPE 1 SOCIETIES
small population
sparselysettled
isolated
homogeneous
simple
equalitarian
inequalitysimplyorganized'
(kin and role ranking)
communalistic
stable,slow-changing
self-sufficient
culture
consensus-basedconformity
total society
total visibilityof persons
total social knowledge
total accountability
traditional
personal
close social contacts
primaryrelationships
individualrelations
sacred
little-traditional
"authentic"
familyand kin
nonliterate
role integration
status summation
generalizedroles
uniformdistributionof
social knowledge
powerdiffuse
social integration
personalintegration
cooperation
intensiveinteraction
mutualknowledge
conformity
rigidity
structure
informalcontrolsand
sanctions
228
TYPE 2 SOCIETIES
largepopulation
denselysettled
incorporatedinto vast networks
heterogeneous
complex
stratified
inequalitycomplexlyorganized
(class and ethnicranking)
individualistic
fast-changing
dependentupon otherunits
subcultures,contracultures
(Yinger 1960)
power-basedconformity
part-societies
fragmented
visibilityof persons
specialized,fragmented
social
knowledge
situationalaccountability
modern
impersonalor depersonalized
distantsocial contacts
secondaryrelationships
mass or grouprelations
secular (cf. Barnes and Becker
1938)
great-traditional
"plastic"
status and territory
literate
role segmentation
status fragmentation
specializedroles
unevendistributionof
social knowledge
powerconcentrated
social disorganization
(cf. Bloch 1952)
personaldisorganization
conflict
extensiveinteraction
anonymity
diversity
mobility
ambiguity
formal(bureaucratic)controlsand
sanctions
of interaction,
of thenetworkis correlatedwithdiffuseness
and
scale seems to vary inverselywithintensityof interaction,
as
it does also in the comparisonof preindustrial
and industrial
cities(cf. Sjoberg1960). The questionhereis whethersize and
interactional
intensityare distinctcriteriaand, if so, whether
separatelyor togethertheycomprisea manageable,defensible,
or usefulaxis along whichto measuresocial organization.I
am not herejudgingthe answer,onlyraisingthe question.
The characteristics
listedin table 2 as typifying
Type 1 and
Type 2 societiesmakeit clearthatsize and interactional
intensity are only two of many criteriaof scale that have been
postulatedby social scientists.Yet if we take any characteristicof Type 1 societyat random,we willfindthatit contrasts
not onlywithits designatedpolar opposite,but almostequally
well withany characteristic
of Type 2 societychosenat random. Similarly,any numberor combinationof characteristics
in eithercolumncontrastsequally well with any or all combinationsof those in the othercolumn.That is, withineach
columneach termis roughlydefinablein termsof the others
-is to a significant
extentredundantof the others-and is
contrastiveto those in the opposite column. Therefore,it
wouldappearthatFreemanand Winchwereon the righttrack
in identifying
folk-urban
and Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft
as describinga singledimension,and some such descriptiveterms
as the ones theyinvestigated("folk-urban"or "complexity")
mayproveto be preferable
to themoreambiguousterm"scale."
Withthesereservations
in mind,we can nevertheless
agree,
I think,that(1) thereis some residualconsistency,
legitimacy,
and analyticalutilityin the kind of bipolar,ideal-typecategorizationrepresentedin the table as Type 1 societies contrastedwithType 2 societies; (2) althoughmanyof theputative characteristicsare debatable, stereotypic,and perhaps
wrong,social complexity
is a major dimensionwhichunderlies
them; (3) size is a major correlateand enablingconditionfor
such complexity;and (4) "scale" can be used to referroughly
the natureof social
to the size of a societyas size influences
organization(includingits complexity).If we wish to determinepreciselyhow scale affectssocial structureand social relations,we willfirsthave to agreeupona consistent
and operationalizabledefinitionof scale and then undertakedetailed
comparative,
empiricalethnographic
studyof thekindsof variables indicatedby the termsin table 1, constituting
possible
concomitants
of scale. That,presumably,
is one of theultimate
goals towardwhichthis paper,and the symposiumforwhich
it was prepared,wereearlysteps.
I will now beat a hasty but strategicretreatfromthese
rathercosmicand sketchilypresentedconsiderations
and advance in anotherdirection:toward modest suggestionsand
inferencesabout the effectsof scale on social organization,
based on my own comparativefield research.I use "scale"
to meanthemaximalsize of thesocial,political,economic,and
ideological-communication
networks
whichsignificantly
involve
and affectthemembersof a social entity.That mysuggestions
and inferencesare rathermiscellaneouswill be emphasized
ratherthanconcealedby theformatof mydiscussion,forthere
is little logical progressionto my remarks.They represent
simplya varietyof ideas about scale whichcome out of my
fieldwork.In each instance (Aleuts, Indian villages, Indian
city) I will presentsummarydata, followedby the inferences
I drawfromthem.
CHANGE AND SCALE IN THE ALEUTIANS
I have elsewherereviewedthe historyof the Aleuts with
special attentionto the 200 years since European contact
(Berreman1955). Sufficeit to say here that the Aleuts were
a maritimehuntingpeople of Eskimo stock whose 16,00020,000 members,until the middle of the 18th century,had
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
knownand interactedprimarilywith one another,although

theyhad casual contactswithneighboring
and culturallysimilar SouthwesternAlaskan Eskimos and occasional contacts
withseagoingpartiesof NorthwestCoast Indians.In the mid18th century,theywere firstcontactedand then overrunby
Russian commercialfurseekers,who massacredmanyof them
and introduceddevastatingdiseases which togetherreduced
theirpopulationat once to one-third
of its totalbeforecontact
and within70 years to one-twentieth
of that number.At the
same time,theirskill and labor were exploitedby the entrepreneurs,who took mostof themen far fromtheirhomesfor
all but the wintermonths.The total effectwas devastating,
a factI do not wantto gloss over. By the early 19thcentury,
however,sea-mammaltrappinghad ceased to be profitable,
Russian commercialinterestshad left, the violence,exploitation,and the most deadly of the epidemicswere over,and
Aleut lifewayspersistedto a remarkableextentamong the
meagrepopulationremaining.A few Russians lived among
them,and a famousand respectedpriest(Bishop Ivan Veniaminov) convertedthemto OrthodoxChristianity,
as his less
perceptiveand empatheticpredecessorshad failedto do, but
the Aleuts were not forcedto become Europeanizedin their
social organization,family life, language, socialization,or
economy.The few who had survivedhad managedto do so
as Aleuts,self-sufficient
in theirhomeland.
The UnitedStatestookovertheAleutianswiththepurchase
of Alaska in 1867 but largelyignoredthe regionuntilthe turn
of the century.Then, as furs of the plentifulfoxes became
valuable and livestockraisingseemed promising,the Aleuts
foundthemselvesagain the objects of outsiders'greedyattention. There followeda period of increasinglyrapid "Americanization"of the Aleuts and their homeland: introduction
of wage labor and consumergoods,whichbeforelongreplaced
the traditionalsubsistenceeconomy; introduction
of compulsory educationin English up to the eighthgrade (and the
possibilityof furthereducationin mainlandboardingschools
for the best and most acquiescentpupils); takeoverof virtually all land, includingvillage sites, by outside ranching
interests,
whoseonlyfeedbackto theAleutswas a small number of unreliablejobs at low pay; confiscation
of fishingrights
and depletionof fishingresources,includingthe areas adjacent to Aleutvillages,by outsidecommercialinterests,whose
only inputto the Aleuts,again, was a few jobs; and supervisionof all kindsof village and individualactivitiesand enforcementof alien codes by poorly informedand oftenunsympathetic
U.Si government
agents.There had been a brief
period of relativeprosperityfor Aleuts in the 1920s, when
theywereable profitably
to trapfoxes,but thisendedabruptly when the Depression combinedwith changesin women's
fashionsto destroythe marketfor fox furs.During World
War II the Aleuts were removedby the government,
under
the threatof Japanese invasion,to the alien safety of the
Alaskan mainland,fromwhichmanydid not return(because
of an unprecedentedly
highdeath rate and emigration),while
otherswerereturnedunhappily,afterthe war,to consolidated
villageswhichincludedmany strangersand which for many
were located on unfamiliarislands. Still others found their
villages a shamblesas a resultof off-duty
lootingand vandalism by soldiers.All foundit hard to returnto life in the
Aleutianswiththeirnumbersdepleted,theirlivelihoodlargely
destroyed,theirlives dominatedby outsiders,and theirlifeways forgotten,
despised,or renderedinappropriate
by changed
circumstances.Since that time the islands have been dominatedby the Americanmilitaryand a fewalien ranchers,the
seas by commercialfishermen,
and life for the Aleuts has
been a livingHell of want, frustration,
and social and personal disorganization
(cf. Berreman1964; Jones1969, 1976).
Some have soughtescape throughemigration;thosewho have
not succeededin thishave soughtit throughalcohol.
Berreman:SCALE
Thus, in the initial50 years of contact,Aleutswere killed

and exploited;in the next 100 years,theywere Christianized
but otherwiseleft largelyalone to heal their wounds and
forgea self-sufficient
kind of life analogousto that theyhad
knownbeforecontact.In the mostrecent70 years,theyhave
been shornof theirindependence,
theirlivelihood,and their
way of life, with the resultthat they have eitherleft their
homelandor remainedin misery.
In the contextof this history,a discussionof scale seems
academic at best. However,some observationsand questions
relatingto scale can be derivedfromthetragedyof theAleuts'
experience,and I will attemptto pointthemout.
INCORPORATION INTO ALIEN NETWORKS
Althoughculturalchangecan occurwithouta changein scale,

and thereforethe two must not be confusedor treated as
synonymous,
changein scale seems inevitablyto entail cultural changes.One reasonis simplythat,as contrastedto the
small-scalesituation,interactionamong more and different
the numpeople increasesthe numberof potentialinnovators,
ber of novel situations,and the likelihoodof the "conjunction
of differences"
whichleads to innovation(Barnett 1953:4656). Another,broaderreason is that increasedsize and densityof populationand greaterterritory
over whichinteraction
occursentailadjustmentsand changesin social structures
and
social processes.
It is clear that,withEuropean contactand withincreasing
into the dominantAmericansociety (albeit as
incorporation
peripheraland exploitedmembers),the Aleuts experienced
changeswhichincludeda drasticchangein scale. They entered
a vast economicand politicalnetworkwhereintheywereacutely vulnerableto remotebut fatefuleventsin Europe and the
United States. It is also clear that different
aspects of Aleut
life were affecteddifferently
by the various componentsof
the changein scale. Aleuts' incorporation
into the epidemiological networkof the foreigners
was physicallydevastating
(as was the fact that theywere subjectedto the aliens' violence and greed). The impositionof OrthodoxChristianity
seems to have been quite thoroughbut remarkablybenign
in its effect,partlybecause of the humanityand wisdomof
the priestwho introducedit and his skill in adaptingit to
Aleutconditions.
The imposition,
after1900,of a moneyeconomy,schooling,and governmental
controlby the UnitedStates
-in each case utilizingalien values and offering
rewardsderivableonly fromoutsiders-did more than the previous150
yearsof outsidecontactto changetheAleuts'ways of lifeand
theiraspirations.
VULNERABILITY AND DEPENDENCE
One consequenceof incorporationinto networksof vastly

increasedscale is likelyto be the acquisitionof material,political,and/orpsychicdependenceupon,and vulnerability
to,
institutions
and resourcesoutside of the small-scalecommunityand beyondits controlor understanding.
People become
of themselvesheld by remoteothers
subjectto the definitions
and to the needs, aspirations,and values of people they do
not know or understand.Their new dependenceand vulnerwithouteffective
abilityare oftenwithoutreciprocalinfluence,
recourse,withoutchoice,withoutknowledgeof the fact,naand withture,or extentof theirdependencyor vulnerability,
out awarenessof the motivesor moralityof thosewho deeply
influencetheirlives. Traditionalmethodsof ensuringpredictabilityor copingwith unpredictability
are renderedinoperative; social control,togetherwiththe traditionalvalues it enforcesand the traditionalrewardsthosevalues offer,is likely
Vol. 19 - No. 2 - June1978
229
to be undermined.This is the experiencenot only of the

Aleuts,but of ruralpeople confronted
by city life anywhere.
Social disintegration,
and emigration
personaldisorganization,
have been the commonresults,for rarelyare the rewardsof
the large-scalesocietyavailable in the isolated,rural smallscale milieu. Often these conditionscarryover to the city,
where,as in the case of mostAleuts,the racismand ethnicor
class prejudiceof the dominant-group
urbanitescombinewith
lack of employment
opportunities
in the cityand lack of economicsufficiency,
education,job training,
and social skillson
the part of the immigrants
to precludeintegrationinto the
urbanmilieuor the reapingof the rewardsthoughtto inhere
in urbanlife.
DEPRIVATION, RELATIVE AND OTHERWISE
A related aspect of changein scale exhibitedby the Aleuts

is the acquisitionof new aspirationsand new standardsof
value compounding
theirnew dependencies.In part this takes
the formof acquisitionof alien referencegroups (Berreman
1964; cf. Merton 1968,Ralph Turner1956). "In the process
of judgingthemselves
by Whitemen'sstandards,
Aleutsare led
to adopt many of the White men's values, perspectivesand
behaviors" (Berreman 1964:233). They are led as well to
aspireto the rewardsthosevalues,perspectives,
and behaviors
appear to bring to Whites. They are prevented,however,
from reaping the rewards,because they are ineligiblefor
membershipin their referencegroup-it proves to be an
ascribedgroup whichexcludesthem.This disparitybetween
valued referencegroup and membershipgroup is frustrating
and disheartening.
It resultsin both the feelingand the actuality of deprivation.In some cases, this is relative deprivation,since the standardby whichit is judged is based on
the example of outsiders,while traditionalrewardsare presumablystill available even thoughundesired.Since traditionalrewardsand values are commonlyrelinquishedand the
meansto achievethemremovedor discardedat the same time
that new ones are embraced,the deprivationis likely (as
in the case of the Aleuts) soon to become absolute. The
process is a familiarone: incorporationinto a larger,and
especiallyan alien,networkof interdependence
bringswithit
knowledgeof different
ways of doing things-ways which
becomepreferredbecause theyseem to bringnew and highly
valued rewards.This is especiallycommonwhenthe increase
in scale entailsan educationalsystemcontrolledfromoutside
and when mass media tout the values and rewardsof the
large-scalesocietyat the expense of traditionalones. If the
rewardsare notavailablein the small-scalecontext,emigration
(especiallyof the young) is the commonresult,as the experience of tribal peoples, peasants, villagers,and small-town
people in many societiesconfirms.
If people are thwartedin
such mobility,theyare likelyto seek solace or escape in behaviorwhichis disruptiveof the life-style
theyseek to escape
and yet whichis not rewardingin itself.Thus it must not
be overlookedthat the human costs of these changes have
been enormous.The Aleutsare alienatedboth fromtheirtraditionalcultureand fromthe imposed cultureas they have
experiencedit. They are personallyfrustratedand disorganized as well as sociallydisorganizedand anomic (Berreman
1964; Jones1969, 1976; cf. Horton1964, Bloch 1952,Blume?
1937,Bodley 1975).
EXPLOITATION, INDEPENDENCE, AND ALIEN CONTROL
That the first150 years of contactwiththe alien large-scale

societiesdid not have these co3nsequences
for the Aleuts is
a resultof the fact that duringthat time theyremainedrelativelyindependent;the outsidersdid not controlor interfere
withAleut socialization,social organization,
politicalorganiza230
tion,or subsistenceeconomyin such a way as to renderthese

traditionalways inappropriateor unproductiveor to render
traditionalrewardsirrelevant.
They exploitedthe people,they
killedmanyof them,but theydid not destroytheirindependent way of life. After1900, it was preciselyin this regard
that the situationchanged.Aleuts were placed in a position
wherecontrolwas in alien hands: the rewardsofferedwere
alien ones,theirattainment
was contingent
uponbehavioralien
to Aleut traditions,and they ultimatelyproved unavailable
in any case. The sacrificehad been fornothing;the old ways
had been forsakenfor new ways which did not work; the
Aleutshad been betrayed.
This, again,was in part a resultof changein scale-more
accurately,of a partialand thwartedchangein scale. It was
to a moreimportant
extenta resultof the greedyexploitativeness and callousnessof those who engineeredthat changein
scale. It would have been equally possibleto make available
to the Aleuts the rewardswhichtheythoughtwould accompany the changeswhichovertookthem.If thishad been done,
the recenthistory,presentcondition,and futureprospectsof
the Aleutswouldhave been verydifferent,
as the case of their
demonstrates
fellowsunderRussian and Soviet administration
(cf. Antropova1964).
VARIATIONS IN SCALE IN INDIA
In India I have conductedresearchin a small and isolated
mountainvillage and its region(Berreman1972a) and have
contrastedit withlarger,less isolatedplains villages (Berreman 1960a). I have also workedin a good-sizedcity,contrasting social relationsthere with those of villages (Berreman
1972b). Inferencesdrawn fromthese experiencesabout the
influenceof scale on social organizationcomprisethe remainder of thispaper.
SMALL VERSUS SMALLER
mountain(Pahari) withplains (Desi) villages

In contrasting
of north central India, I have elsewherepointed out that
mountainvillagesare small, scattered,and mutuallyisolated
(Berreman 1960a). The topographylargely dictates these
As a result,intenseand frequentinteraction
characteristics.
occurs primarilywithinthe village. Intercasteinteractionis
relativelyfrequentwithinthe village (some castes have very
fewrepresentatives
in a givenvillage,so if thesepeople are to
interactat all it must be, perforce,with membersof other
castes). A single water source, a single shop, the need for
cooperationon heavy and urgenttasksall facilitateor require
such interaction.Intervillageinteractionis relativelyinfrequent because of the barriersof distanceand terrain.
On the plains, by comparison,villages are close to one
anotherand the flatterrainand presenceof roads make even
distantones accessible. Population densityis much greater,
caste compositionwithina villageor localityis morediverse,
caste boundariesare more closelyguarded,and social separation is more rigorouslyenforcedthan in the mountains.Intense and frequentinteractionon the plains occurspredominatelywithinthe caste, and it easily crossesvillage lines to
incorporatecaste-fellowsof othervillages,includingthose at
considerabledistance.
Communicationand homogeneity.Intensive interaction
leads to commoncultureand, in turn,is facilitatedby it.
Accordingly,in the isolated, small-scale mountainsociety,
commoncultureis localized and to a lesser degreestratified;
in the larger-scaleplains society,commoncultureis stratified
and to a lesserdegreelocalized.
In the hillsthereis littleopportunity
forculturaldifferences
to
ariseor to be maintained
amongcastessimplybecausethereis little
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
intercasteisolationin any one locality.On the plains the situation

is reversed;caste isolation is the rule and intercasteculturaldifferences, especiallyacross the pollution barrier,result.Common culture,like commonlanguage,depends upon the interactionof those
who share it [cf. Gumperz 1958]. As Bloomfield (1933:46) has
noted,"the most importantdifferences
of speech withina community are due to differences
in densityof communication."[Berreman 1960a:785]
Obviously,then,the kind and intensityof interactionis important.
It is in this respect perhaps even more than in frequency,that
Pahari intercasterelationsdifferfromthose on the plains. Characteristically,such contacts on the plains are formal,"contractual,"
restrictedin scope and content,and are accompanied by a good
deal of inhibitionon both sides. In contrast,in the Pahari area
theyare more ofteninformal,intensiveand extensive.Plains castes
excludeone anotherfromknowledgeof, and participationin, their
problemsand ways of life; Paharis exclude outsidersbut are little
concernedwith concealingtheiraffairsfromlocal membersof other
castes. Pahari castes are thus not "closed subgroups" to the extent
that plains castes tend to be....
Interactionin plains culture tends to be horizontal (i.e., within
the caste and across local boundaries), while Pahari interaction
tends to be vertical (i.e., within the local area and across caste
boundaries). [p. 786]
foundamong the castes,areas,
Thus, the degreeof culturaldifference
and perhapseven the sexes,. . . varies directlywith theirdegreeof
isolationfromone another,definedin termsof rate and quality of
interactionand determinedby social and physical accessibility.
[p. 787]
Scale, expressedas size of network,is centralin the above

discussion,as is intensityof interaction.The small scale of
Pahari society-the isolationof its local units-throwspeople
in a fashionnot
upon one another,despitesocial differences,
foundin the plains. There, largerscale makes possible (but
does not require) social separation-mutualsocial isolationof the constituentgroupswithinlocal communities,
with resultantmaintenanceof social differentiation.
Densityof communicationis both a productof, and a means to, cultural
homogeneity.If everyone communicatesuninhibitedlyand
witheveryoneelse on a full range of topics and
effectively
is assured.
in a full range of contexts,culturalhomogeneity
This is a characteristic
of small-scalesocieties.It mightalso
resultfromwidespreadand effectiveuse of mass media and
public education in large-scale ones, as governmentshave
oftenhoped, but so far this has not occurredto any very
conspicuousextent.Social barriers,both self-imposed(e.g.,
as a manifestationof ethnicpride) and externallyimposed
(e.g., as a manifestation
of ethnicdiscrimination),
as well as
cultural,linguistic,and physical barriersoften preventthe
kindof communication
whichwouldlead to culturaland social
homogeneity.
Distributionof social knowledge.In small-scalesocieties,
thedistribution
of social knowledgeis relativelyhomogeneous.
Pahari villagers,for example,know a great deal about one
anotherand about the internalaffairsand internalorganization of one another'scastes. There are few secrets in the
intimacyof small-scalelife. This is less true in larger,more
diverse,less culturallyhomogeneousplains villages, where
servicecastes of low rank know those they serve but those
servedhave a rathercasual knowledgeof theirservants.The
contrastis more evidentand betterdocumentedin the contrastbetweenvillagersand urbanites.In urbansociety,people
often know very little about most social groups to which
theydo not themselvesbelong.Those who do knoware those
who have to: the poor, the vulnerable,and the marginal,
whose welfare,livelihood,and even survival are dependent
upon othersmore powerfulthan themselves.They learn the
habits and capabilitiesof the powerfulin orderto deal with
themas effectively
as possible.Those who are powerfulneed
knowonlytheirown social groupand theirownpower,its use
and its effect,
and thisis generallyall theydo know.My urban
Berreman:
SCALE
researchled me to the conclusionthat "people know well

those who dominatethem,but know little about those they
dominate"(Berreman1972b:573).
Caste and scale. It has been suggestedthat "thereis necessarilya close-setlimit upon the size and complexityof a
society organizedthrougha caste (jati) system" (Bailey
1963:113). Caste, in otherwords,cannot functionor is impairedin a large-scalesociety,wherethereis no obviousracial
because of the mobility,diversity,
basis forsocial distinctions,
and ease of disand consequentlikelihoodof misidentification
simulationthat obtain in such a society.I have noted elsewherethat (1962c:395-96)
and mobility
of contemIt is probablytruethatin theanonymity
is increasingporaryurbanlife,rigidethnic[or caste]stratification
are learned,
of identity
to maintain
whentheindicators
ly difficult
suppressed,
or learned
forlearnedcharacteristics
can be unlearned,
To manipulatethese
by thoseto whomtheyare inappropriate.
of the [physically
is oftendifficult,
as the persistence
indicators
of Japan makesclear,becausethe
Burakumin
indistinguishable]
gescharacteristics
maybe learnedveryearly(language,
identifying
fromwithoutas wellas fromwithin
ture),and maybe enforced
occupation),but it is possible,as instancesof
(dress,deference,
1966:245-248;Isaacs,
passingmakeclear(DeVos and Wagatsuma,
of traet passim).The morepersonalrelationships
1965:143-149,
withtheirformaland insocieties,together
ditional,small-scale
interformalbarriers
and sanctions
againstcasualor promiscuous
of inappropriate
actionmilitateagainstthelearningor expression
are wellknown,familyties
Thereindividuals
statuscharacteristics.
is a virtualimpossibility
and
are not concealable,dissimulation
as social
(to a newsetting)is almostas unlikely
physicalmobility
indicators
of statusare
Biologicalor otherconspicuous
mobility.
indiand conspicuous
thuslargely
Reliable,immutable
unnecessary.
to systemsof birthcatorsof identityare thusmoreimportant
in the anonymity
and mobilityof the city
ascribedstratification
of ethnicpridecompressures
thanin thevillage,but theinternal
of ethnicdiscrimination
and the
binedwiththeexternal
pressures
whichsustainit makesuchsystems
vestedinterests
possiblein even
themostunlikely-seeming
circumstances.
I wouldheresuggestthatcaste,as it is definedand organized
withina certainrangeof scale,
in India, worksmostefficiently
limitedat both ends. EvidentlyPahari villagesare too small
and isolated for it to workeasily. They are not only unable
to supportthe fullrangeof castes expectablein NorthIndian
villages(and desiredby manyPaharisthemselves),but unable
to sustainor enforcethe kindof rigidhierarchicalsocial sepsocial behaviorexpectedby people of
arationand differential
the nearbyplains. Paharis are thereforeaccused of beingunorthodoxin their caste organization;they are ridiculedfor
being uncivilized(jangli) and lax in their caste behavior.
theyare regardedas beinginferiorin purity,and
Accordingly,
castes.
hencein rankand status,to plainsmenof corresponding
They explain these deficienciesin very pragmatic terms,
namely,thattheyhave not therangeof castes,thepopulation,
thewealth,thefacilitiesand amenities,or theleisureto observe
the nicetiesof a complex,rigid,orthodoxcaste system.
citiesseem to be too large
On the otherhand,contemporary
and complexfor India's caste systemto workeasily or well.
City folkare unableto recognizeand deal in an orthodoxway
withthe wide rangeof strangerswho cross theirpaths or to
even to the manypeople whosecastestheydo
attendcorrectly
know,recognize,or suspect.There are simplytoo many,their
is
contactsare too briefor limited,the necessaryinformation
theoccasionsare too publicand uncontrollable,
too incomplete,
the opportunities
fordissimulationare too great,and the opportunityto protect oneself from pollutingcontact is too
oftenmissing.As a result,like Paharis, urbanitesare often
polluted,and leadersof
regardedand treatedas compromised,
even whenthey
a loose life by theirorthodoxruralbrethren,
castes.
are of corresponding
Vol. 19 * No. 2 * June1978
231
Thus, in the one case, the scale is too small to support the
caste system in all its complexity; in the other, the scale is too
large and the population is too heterogeneous to permit the intricate and controlled interaction which the system ideally requires. It is in the intermediate scale of the densely populated
rural regions of most of India, composed of many small, nearby, mutually accessible multicaste villages, that the system
reaches its full oppressive flower.
SMALL VERSUS LARGE
Having looked rather closely at the small end of the continuum

of scale in India, I turn now to a more general characterization
of large-scale urban social relations in India, based on my research in Dehra Dun, a city of nearly 200,000. I will utilize the
rural villages of mountains and plains discussed above as contrastive cases and will again resort to the expedient of providing background data by quoting from a recent paper of my
own. More sophisticated statements might have been derived
from the literature or constructed, but the followinghave the
advantages of being first-handand of having been prepared
in another context in which scale was not at issue, so that they
are unlikely to be influencedby biases regarding-scale that may
have been generated in the preparation of this paper.
The village comprisespeople whose statuses are largelya function
of their membershipin corporate groups (families,sibs, castes).
They tend to remainin their"home territory"-thefamiliarsetting
of the village and its local region. . . . Villagersinteractin terms
of theirtotal identitieson a personal basis with otherswho know
them well. Status summationis the rule: well-to-do people are
powerfulpeople of high ritual and social status; poor people are
relativelypowerlessand of low status (with the exceptionof some
religiousroles where povertyis definedas consistentwith or even
necessaryto high ritualstatus). As a consequence of these facts,
thereis relativelyrarelya novel interactionalsituationto be figured
out; rarelystatus incongruityto be coped with; rarelyimportant
interactionwith strangers.In the city,on the other hand, ethnic
diversityis great.A large proportionof one's interactionis outside
the "home territory"of one's neighborhood,and is with strangers
or casual acquaintances.Even those who are not strangersoften
know littleabout one anotherand see one anotherin limited,stereotyped situations.Therefore,a large proportion of interaction
occurs in contextswhere only specificstatuses-parts of the social
identity-are relevant or even known, and the elementsof individual status (ethnic, ritual,economic,occupational,political statuses) are not as highlycorrelatedas in the village.People therefore
have to figureout how to interacton the basis of minimalinformation in highly specific,impersonal situations rather than responding on the basis of thoroughknowledge,consistentstatuses
and generalizedrelevance.
City people usually know very littleabout the corporategroups
to which their fellow city-dwellersbelong and about the internal
structureof those groups. This does not mean that the city is
socially unstructuredor even less structuredthan the village, but
ratherthat its structureis less conspicuous.The structurelies largely in the regularityof behavioral responses to subtle cues about
social identityand its situationalrelevancewhichcome out of faceto-face interactionwhich is impersonaland often fleeting.This is
betweenthe social knowledge
reflectedin the stereotypicdifferences
and skills of the countrybumpkin and the city slicker,each of
whom is a laughingstock in the other'smilieuwhere his hard-won
social knowledgeand skills are as inappropriateand irrelevantas
they are effectiveand appropriateon his home ground. Both survive socially by reactingto the social identitiesof others,but the
expression,definitionand recognitionof those identitiesand the
The villageris well-versed
appropriateresponsesare quite different.
on corporategroups, the individualswho comprisethem,the historyand characteristicsof the groups and theirmembers,and the
among
traditionalsocial, economic,politicaland ritualinterrelations
them. He depends on ramifiedknowledgerather than superficial
impressions.The urbaniteis well-versedin the identificationof a
of both corporateand
wide varietyof strangersas representatives
noncorporatesocial categories.He knows the superficialsigns of
theiridentity,theirstereotypicallydefinedattributes,the varieties
232
of situationsand the social informationnecessaryfor interaction

with them,and methods of definingand delimitinginteractionin
the impersonal,instrumentalworld of urban interaction.He knows
and how
also when situationsare not impersonaland instrumental,
to act accordinglyand appropriately.Urban residentialneighborhoods are oftenrelativelyhomogeneousethnically,and stable over
time, so that interactionapproximatesthat in the village. Indian
citieshave for thesereasonsoftenbeen describedas agglomerations
of villages.What I have noted above about urban interactionapplies, therefore,to the work-a-day world of the city-the bazaar
and other public places. It is less applicable to interactionwithin
residentialneighborhoods,and relatively"private" settings.
In the urban situation,wherestatus summationis less and is less
relevantthan in the village,and where livelihoodis not dependent
on high-castelandowners,power and privilegeare not tied so closely or necessarilyto traditionalritual status. People of low ritual
status who have essentialservicesto offermay be able to organize
themselves,for theyare in a positionto exercisepolitical and economic influenceand to acquire or demand social amenities.Thus,
the Sweepers of Dehra Dun, one of the most despised groups in
the society,have been able to organizeand surpass otherlow-status
groupsin securityof employment,standard of living,and morale,
because theyare the exclusivepractitionersof an essentialservice:
providingthe city's sewage and streetcleaningsystems.They are
people. This is
also a significantpolitical bloc and a self-confident
a distinctcontrast to the situation of their caste-fellowsin surroundingvillageswhere theiruntouchabilityand dependenceupon
farmingcastes of high status insure deprivation,discrimination
and all of theirconsequences.[Berreman1972b:580-82,italicsmine]
in the use of [social] terminology[in the
Situational differences
city] are . . . complex. . . . A man of merchantcaste who is
fastidiousabout mattersof ritual purityand pollutionwill discuss
an impendingwedding with detailed referenceto the caste, subof the participants,the caste and
caste, sib and familyaffiliations
religionof those who will be hired to provide services,the region
and social class of guests.A wide range of statuses will be important to him. In his drygoodsshop, however,he will categorizecustomers only in ways relevant to the customer role, relying on
propensityto barstereotypesabout the honesty,tight-fistedness,
of various social categorieshe encoungain,and buyingpreferences
ters. . . . A teashop proprietor,on the other hand, will look at
potentialcustomersin termsof religionand major caste categories
because he has to attend to his customers'notions of ritualpurity
and the jeopardy in which inter-diningputs them. A barber will
attend to certaincategoriesof class, religion and region in order
to assure that he can please his customersin the hair styles they
preferand expect. Customersbehave in complementaryfashion.
It is clear that these relationsare not definedby the "whole persons" involved-by the sum of the statuses of those interactingbut by thosesegmentsof the social selves which are relevantin the
situation.The relationsoutside of one's own ethnic group are impersonal and fractionated;they are what sociologistshave often
termed"secondaryrelationships."They contrastwith the personal,
holistic,"primary"relationshipsin the family,the villageand other
traditionalsettingswhere all of one's statuses are known,relevant
and likelyto be respondedto (cf. Faris, 1932)-relationships found
in the city only withinthe ethnicgroup or neighborhood,if at all.
[pp. 573-74]
Farther on (pp. 582-84) I note that, in the city, where status
summation or status consistency is far from perfect,
People expend considerableefforttryingto assure that the statuses
they regard as advantageous and appropriate for themselvesare
conveyedin particularcontexts,and they expend considerableenergy in tryingto discernand respond to the relevant (if possible
the most significant)and appropriateidentitiesof others. This is
where knowledge of the meaning attached to attributesand behaviors in various social and situationalcontextsis crucial to successfulinteraction,and wherethe manipulationof thesemeaningsis
crucial to identitymaintenance.This is the crux of urban social
organization.
The insight and understandingupon which successful social
behavior depends, therefore,includes not only knowing the characteristicsof groups and their members,but also understanding
the relationshipof group membershipto privileges,to the power
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
which confersthose privileges,and to the sanctionswhich enforce

them.On the individuallevel this means knowingthe social capabilitiesas well as the social identitiesof those one meets: what they
expectand what they can be expectedto do; what resourcesthey
have at theircommand; how theycan be expectedto act and react
in particularcircumstancesand with what effect.To the extent
that inter-grouprelationsare characterizedby stability,it is primarily a consequence of balance of power, not consensus on the
desirabilityof, or the rationalefor,the system.No stigmatized,oppressedor even relativelydeprivedethnic group or social category
that I encounteredin Dehra Dun or in its rural hinterlandaccepted
its status as legitimate.But many-perhaps most-individuals in
such statusesaccepted that status as fact and accommodatedto it
while cherishinga hope or nursinga plan or pursuing action to
alter it.
Berreman:SCALE
that,unless theyare closelysupervised,people will take adwhichpopulationsize and density,

vantageof theopportunities
offerto seek the rewardsnormally
and anonymity
complexity,
reserve'dfor a few and to escape the onerousobligationsan
impersonalsocietyimposesuponits members.Socializationand
informalcontrolsare regardedas inadequate to ensure or
enforcethe conformity
those in power hope to maintain.In
smaller-scalesocieties,less formalmeans of surveillanceand
social controlaccomplishthe same ends.
Mobility,deviation,and accountability.The changes and
manipulationsof status whichlarge scale facilitatesare not
necessarily
illegitimate
or evendeceptive.The large-scalemilieu
is likelyto be one in whichthe veryimpersonality
and fragIncreased availability of education, mass media, and political
mentationof relationships
reducesthe relianceupon ascribed
participation,togetherwith conspicuous consumption of luxury
characteristics
and "involute" statuses (those consistingof
goods by the well-to-do,and callous disregardfor the needs and
moreor less rigidlydefinedclustersof compatibleand mutually
desiresof the poor by many of the well-to-do contributeto and
reinforcing
elements[cf. Barth 1960:142, 144]) to defineinacceleratethe likelihoodof change throughenhancingawareness of
teraction.A personmay findthe cityto be a place wherehe
alternatives,providingan understandingof the means to change
can entermilieuxin whichhis ascribedstatusesare irrelevant
and increasingthe accessibilityof those means. Urban India is the
or secondary;wherehe can acquire identitiesand play roles
arena in which this is happening most rapidly. There the social
to whichhe aspiresthatwouldbe deniedhim in a small-scale
structureis loose enough to allow experimentationwith various
alliancesand social structureswhich have been elsewhereinhibited
In short,mobilitymaytherebe legitimate-even
environment.
by the rigidityof traditional,rural social organizationand the uniexpected.The individualmay be able to acquire or emphasize
tary relationshipbetween the social organizationand the distribustatusesor aspects of statuswhichhe values or findsrewardtion of power. Effectivemechanismsfor change may result,actuingand concealor hold in abeyanceotherswhichbringpainful
ated by newly mobilizedinterestgroupsgrowingout of significant
consequences.In the city, achieved statuses may override
urban social categories.
traditionalascribed ones (in some situationsand for some
purposes,at least); claimedstatusesmay be difficult
to chalThese characterizations
of urban social relations(and cf.
lengeeffectively.
Berreman1976) bringthe discussionto the implicationsof
In small-scalesocieties-villages,tribes,and bands-strangscale whichmostinterestme: thoserelatingto ethnicstratificationand its consequencesin the lives of thosewho experience ers are few and are regardedwarily.The individualcannot
escape his status.He is knownin his totalityto his
it. Basically, the difference
between a large-scalestratified legitimately
societyand a smaller-scaleone, fromthe viewpointof those
fellows,is held accountableto them,and is respondedto acwithinit, is, I think,that the formeris more permeableand
cordingly.His interactionswith others are continuousand
total; his statusesare well known,involute,inseparablefrom
flexible,offeringroom to maneuverin the ambiguityand
one another,and inseparablefromhis personalbiography.He
anonymity
its size and complexity
provide.The effectsof these
qualitiesare notlimitedto stratification,
separation,and oppres- may escape some of their implicationsby experiencinga
sion-I emphasizethese featuresbecause of my own interest drastic,public change in his social role, but this is quite
in them.
different
fromtheprivate,publiclyunremarked,
and sometimes
clandestinechangeswhich occur in urban settings.Thus, I
Complexity,
anonymity,
escape,and passing.It is possibleto
knew a young untouchablein the Pahari village of my redisappear,to escape,to getlost,intentionally
or not,in a largesearch who became a spectacularsuccess as the vehicle for
scale societyin ways and to an extentthat are difficult
or
a powerfulregionaldeity and therebyavoided many of the
impossiblein small-scaleones. That is, the anonymity,imconsequencesof his untouchability(Berreman 1971; 1972a:
personality,fragmentation,
diversity,complexity,and sheer
magnitudeof urban societymake it possible for a personto
379-96). I knew anotherwho was regardedas havinggone
crazy (Berreman 1971; 1972a:396-97). Both were allowed
go unrecognized
and unidentified
and therebyescape some of
the consequencesof his identityor status. Social mobility, freedomof actiondeniedtheircaste-fellows.
An observermight
identitymanipulation,and passing are possible even when
believe,as I do, thattheindividualsaffected
had a handin the
divine or fatefulevents which excused them fromthe full
ascriptionis the rule. One can attemptto dissimulatehis
identitypermanently(e.g., by movingto a strangecity or
implicationsof theirinbornstatuses.But the ideologyis (and
neighborhood
and alteringhis speech,name,dress,occupation, mustbe, in an ascriptivelystratified
society) thatsuch escape
life-style,
etc.), or situationally(e.g., by similarlyconcealing is involuntaryand is, in addition,rare. Therefore,the first
fromhis colleagues at work his familybackground,ethnic individualwas said to have been divinely"chosen,"the second
to have been unfortunately
identity,or place of residence),or temporarily(e.g., by put"stricken."One may also be extingon Westernclothingin orderto spenda nighton thetown
pelled from a valued status in a small-scale society,e.g.,
incognito).The fleeting,fragmented
interactionswhichcharrelegatedto the social isolation of pariah status in village
acterizelarge-scale,urbanlife facilitatesuch avoidanceof the
India or drivenout of the villageto become a lonely,feared,
implications
of ascribedstatus.
and despised"outsideman" in the Aleutians.These, too, are
rare, imposed,and publicly recognizedstatus changes,not
Bureaucraticresponses.As societiesgetlarger,thosein power
oftenintensify
voluntaryor clandestineefforts
at mobilityor escape such as
theirefforts
to counteractthesephenomenain
occur in the anonymity
apparentawarenessof, and anxietyabout, theirpossible conof the city.
In ruralIndia, an individualcan rise in ascribedstatusonly
sequences,namely,a threatto the powerand privilegewhich
if his caste does so, and a caste can rise in status only by
rigidity
assuresthemand an undermining
of the controlswhich
make possible that rigidity.Formal, bureaucraticmeans of
receivingpublic acknowledgment
that a mistake has been
keepingtabs on people (e.g., identification
cards, computer made theretofore
in identification
of its rank.This acknowledgbanks of personalinformation,
etc.) and clandestinesurveil- ment is accomplishedthroughpersistentstatus emulation
lance techniquesare oftenemployed.Evidentlythe belief is
("Sanskritization") by the caste's membersto justify the
Vol. 19 * No. 2 * June1978
233
status claim (cf. Srinivas 1966), combinedwith the acquisition and applicationof powerto enforcethat claim (cf. Berreman 1967b, 1972c, 1973). The caste does not "rise"; instead it becomes redefined(correctlydefined,in the view of
those concernedboth in and out of the caste). No individual
or
social mobilityoccurs,and no deception,misinformation,
fromthe urban
ambiguityis involved.This is quite different
phenomenonof individualmobility.
is thatin a smallsociety,one is under
The crucialdifference
close and constantsurveillanceby others,includingauthority
figures.In largeones,one maybe unnoticedand unaccountable
-or noticedand accountablein such disparatesituationsand
or cares about one as a person.
roles thatno one comprehends
In smallsocieties,mistakesand deviationsare quicklyseenand
reactedto. In largeones, theymay go unseen,unnoticed,and
unremarked,
tied to others
forthe individualis less intimately
and less conspicuousto them,and his actions are definedas
less relevantto theirlives and fortunes.In smallsocieties,the
deviantindividual'saspiration,success,or eccentricity
may be
regardedas a challengeto the moralorder; in a large one, it
is more likely,if noticedat all, to be regardedas an inconvenient,laughable,or perhapsenviablepersonaldeviation.In
a sea of variation,no one deviationis so conspicuousor seems
so importantas is the case in a pond of conformity.
Totality,status fragmentation,
and role segregation.Small
societiessharewithGoffman's
"totalinstitutions"
the factthat
people live mostof theirlives in one another'spresence,open
to one another'sscrutiny,subject to one another'sevaluative
responses(cf. Goffman
1961:3-124). They interactin primary
relationships-as total persons with known statuses,known
personalities,
knownbiographies,all of whichare inseparable
and all of whichare relevantto the interaction.
Thus, in the
village,Ram Lal is Ram Lal theuntouchableBlacksmith,
who,
is poor and regardedas lazy
like most of his caste-fellows,
and witty,like
and dissolute,but is also unusuallyintelligent
his father,not addicted to hashish,unlike his brother,and
uniquelycapable in divination.All of his relationships
are conditionedby thisknowledge,
whicheveryoneshares.A man for
whomhe worksis Shiv Singh,the arrogant,cantankerous,
and
dishonestbut high-statusRajput farmer,who cheated his
brotherout of an inheritanceand lost his firstwife to a
more considerateman. All of his interactionsare approached
by othersin termsof thiscrucialfundof knowledgeabout him.
In the large-scaleurban context,these two men would be
respondedto in veryspecificways on the basis of the limited
knowledgewhichcomesfromcasual,role-specific
contact,with
its limitedrelevanceforthose involved.In fact,whereasvillage interaction
takesaccountof bothpersonand status,urban
interactionis often role-specific,
takinginto account neither
person nor status. Statuses are fragmented,
roles are segregated,stratification
is complex,its criteriaare ofteninconsistent,social identitiesare many. Ram Lal is in the city
likelyto be perceivedas Ram Lal thebumpkinclothcustomer,
Ram Lal thepoor man askinga slightlyknownshopkeeperfor
credit,Ram Lal the illiteratewishingto have a personalletter
writtenon his behalf,Ram Lal the laborerlookingforwork,
Ram Lal the untouchableseekinga place to eat or worship.
Shiv Singhwill be regardedas Shiv Singhthe mountainvillager seeking a ration of cement, Shiv Singh the asthma
suffereras Hakim's patient, Shiv Singh the niggardlytaxi
customer,Shiv Singhthelandowning
taxpayer(or tax-evader),
Shiv Singhthe Rajput temple-goer.
Ram Lal and Shiv Singh
as temporary
or permanenturbanitesare likelyto be unknown
to those around themexcept in these specificroles,in these
situations,pursuingtheseparticularends. Not surprisingly,
in
large-scalesocieties,institutions
dependentupon detailedpersonalknowledgeand face-to-face
interaction
are less prevalent,
or at least less pervasiverelativeto the total social network,
234
is simplynot
mutualinformataion
thanin smallones.Sufficient
available forit to be otherwise.
Indexicaland objectivebehavior.In the small-scalesociety,
people relate to one anotheron the basis of extherefore,
tensiveand intensivemutual knowledge.In the large-scale
are based upon superficial
society,manyof theirrelationships
mutualassessments.As Wirthnoted (1938:12), "the contacts
but theyare nevertheof the citymay indeedbe face-to-face,
and segmented."The
less impersonal,superficial,transitory,
behavioris describableas
firstof thesekindsof interactional
"indexical,"whereasthelatterkindcan be termed"objective."
These termsare derivedfromHusserl (cf. Farber 1943:237sociological
one of Husserl'scontemporary
38) and Garfinkel,
advocates.Accordingto Garfinkel(1967:4),
whosesense
expressions
Husserlspokeof [indexical
asi]expressions
or
knowing
cannotbe decidedbyan auditorwithouthisnecessarily
and thepurposesof the
aboutthebiography
something
assuming
theprevioftheutterance,
thecircumstances
useroftheexpression,
of
or the particularrelationship
ous courseof the conversation,
and
thatexistsbetweentheexpressor
interaction
actualor potential
theauditor.
I am assertingthat such thorough,contextualknowledgeis
utilizedin small-scalesocial interaction.In
characteristically
large-scalesocial interactionthe available data are fewerand
impersonal,
less necessary-thebehavioris more stereotyped,
of
characteristics
and conditionedby obvious and significant
person and circumstance."Typically our [urban] physical
contactsare close but our social contactsare distant.The
We see the
urbanworldputs a premiumon visual recognition.
and are
uniformwhichdenotesthe role of the functionaries
thatare hiddenbehind
obliviousto the personaleccentricities
of degree
thatuniform"(Wirth1938:14). This is a difference
ratherthan kind betweenurban and rural interaction.
COMMUNITIES,
PERSONAL AND IMPERSONAL
Henry (1963:147) has notedthat"in manyprimitivecultures

and in the greatculturesof Asia, a personis bornintoa pera group of intimatesto whichhe is linked
sonal community,
forlifeby tradition;but in Americaeveryonemustcreatehis
I would add that the situationin
own personalcommunity."
Americais essentiallythatof any large-scale,impersonal,comto small-scalesocieties.
societyas contrasted
plexpostindustrial
Justas "every[American]childmustbe a social engineer,"so
urbanite,for"no traditionalarrangemusteverypostindustrial
mentsguaranteean individualpersonal community."Henry
continues(p. 148), "Elsewhereit is unusualfora childto be
surroundedby friendsone day and desertedthe next,yet this
is a constantpossibilityin America"; and so it is in the largescale industrialsociety.This, Henryinsists,is stress-producing
forAmericans.I thinkthatit is universallyso.
people seem
As a consequenceof thestressof impersonality,
to constructpersonalcommunitieseven in the unlikeliestof
circumstances.The city is a distinctivelyimpersonalcomof
fragments
munity,yet it teemswithpersonalcommunities,
and people seekingto constructperpersonal communities,
sonal communities
(cf. Rowe 1964).
mustbe made betweensmallHere an importantdistinction
withinthe city,for while
scale and large-scaleenvironments
small in
the tribalsettlementand ruralvillage are uniformly
scale, the cityhas elementsof both smalland largescale. One
of urban life set
of the characterization
of the shortcomings
forthby Wirthand othersis the failureto make thisdistincin the
urban,large-scaleinteraction
tion.The characteristically
anonymous)takesplace in the marfragmented,
city(fleeting,
ketplace,in bureaucracies,in manyoccupationalsettings-in
short,in theimpersonalmilieuxof "publicplaces," as Goffman
(1963) calls them. At the same time there exist in cities
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
personal milieux,"privateplaces" (Goffman1963:9)-famand social clubs. The formerare

ilies,homes,neighborhoods,
the large-scale,impersonal,exclusivelyurban environments
of whichI have writtenabove and in whichmyurbanresearch
was carriedout. Those environments
are the sourceof Wirth's
characterization
of urbansociety.Privateplaces wereexcluded
frommy urban researchbecause I wanted to discoverhow
ethnicrelationsoccurin theimpersonalsettingof urbanplaces
in India (Berreman 1972b:568). But privateplaces are importantto citypeople,as theyare to people everywhere.
In Dehra Dun, every occupationalgroup, small business
interest,and regionaland linguisticcategoryhas its formal
association,every neighborhoodits small-scalerelationships.
Even giganticBombayhas been describedas a cityof villages
or, perhapsmore accurately,a city of villagers.City people
spend much of theirtime in the impersonality
of secondary
relationships,
statusfragmentation,
role segregation,
casual or
stereotyped
interaction,
and part-personhood.
Yet theyreturn
at nightor mealtime,at times of illness,trouble,crisis,or
celebration,to more intimateenvironments
reproducingthe
small societiesfromwhichtheycame and to whichtheyoften
look back with more nostalgiathan realism,overlookingthe
pressuresand attractionswhichtook themaway in the first
place. Similarcircumstances
frequently
bringurban migrants
back to the peasant villages fromwhichthey,^
came, and for
similarreasons.In family,neighborhood,
club, ethnicassociation,union,teashop,pub, and street-corner
gang, small-scale
societyand its concomitantsare sought,generated,and preserved. The very terminologywhich epitomizessmall-scale
relationships-theterminology
of kinship-is oftenadapted to
suchgroups,furthering
the illusionand the effect.(See Vatuk
[1969] foran excellentanalysisof fictivekinshipin an urban
neighborhoodof an Indian city and Vatuk [1972] for the
analysisin its fullcontext.Wirthhas commented:"In view of
the ineffectiveness
of actual kinshipties we create fictional
kinshipgroups.In the face of the disappearanceof the territorialunit as a basis of social solidaritywe create interest
units" [Wirth1938:23].)
In smallsocieties,thepersonalcommunity
is congruent
with
thetotalcommunity.
In largesocieties,thepersonalcommunity
is a small and oftenfragilepart of the social worldof those
withinit; its functionsare circumscribed;it may be fractionatedin that individualsmay participatein several rolespecificpersonalcommunities.
Its existenceis thereforeprecarious.But it is invariablyimportantto thosewho comprise
it. This is anothermanifestation
of the factthatin small-scale
relationships,
virtuallyall constituentsof social organization
coalesce: roles,statuses,and personalities;formaland informal
relations; expressiveand instrumentalactivities; collectiveand self-orientation;
ascriptionand achievement;economics,
politics,social relations,and religion,etc. In large-scalesocieties,these all tend to divergefromone anotheras social
relationsbecome situationallyand temporallyfragmented.
In a small-scalesociety,people know too much about one
anotherto separatethepersonfromhis status; in a large-scale
society,theyknowtoo littleabout one anotherto attendconsistently
to either,muchless to both.Eitherof thesesituations
can be psychicallycostly,fortotalvisibilityand accountability
can be experiencedas total vulnerability,
just as total anonymitycan be experiencedas lonelinessor even nothingness.
Thereis a ratherpoignantmottoengravedin lettersof heroic
size across the facade of the Universityof California'svenerable HilgardHall at Berkeley:"TO RESCUE FOR HUMAN
SOCIETY THE NATIVE VALUES OF RURAL LIFE." It
reflectsaccuratelythe nostalgiafor small-scalelife in largescale societiesand the yearningfor the presumedstability,
security,and "authenticity"
of small-scalesocial organization
underliesthe recurrenceof such organizationswithin
wvhich
Berreman:SCALE
large-scale environments (cf. Slater 1970). The same yearning

is expressed in Western utopian communitiesof many sorts and
in the proliferation of rural and urban "communes" which is
part of the contemporary American youth culture (cf. Davis
1971)-a counter-culture (Yinger 1960) whose advocates are
alienated from,and reject, many of the manifestationsof largescale society.
Davis (1971:12) has suggested, in his discussion of "youth
subcultures," that
The proliferationin the modernworld of mass bureaucraticorganizations,of closely calculated schemes of productionand control
withtheirminutelyspecifiedproceduresand regulations,has greatly
contributedto the felt divorcementof activityfrom product and
of role frombeing,namely,the classic Marxian definitionof alienation. As Mannheim [1940] argued, whereas these organizational
schemes possess considerable "functional rationality," i.e., they
manage to get the work done efficiently,
they neverthelesslack too
frequently"substantialrationality,"i.e., they fail to address themselves to the body of human sentimentsand meaningswith which
particularacts are invested.
The consequences of large-scale social relations seem to be
humanly costly (p. 12):
Whereasit is possible to exaggerate,as many social scientistshave,
the anonymityof lifein the metropolis,the fragilityof the modern
kin-isolatednuclear family,the psychic dislocation resultingfrom
geographicand social mobility,and so forth,it nonethelesscannot
be gainsaid that big cities, massive organizations,and an intense
circulationof personsand ideas do make for more than marginal
differences
in how people relate to each other,in how they conceive of themselvesand their fellows.Compared to what anthropologistshave noted for village and tribal societies,modern urban
existencedoes give rise to impersonality,expedientialrelationships,
social distance, opportunism,and personal isolation. Despite the
greaterintellectualand artisticcreativityfosteredin cities,despite
the enhanced personal freedomand opportunitiesfor social advancementthat urban-basedmoderntechnologyhas made possible
[Simmel 1950], it is also true-or so the weightof sociologicalevidence seems to indicate-that modern man does feel more lonely,
more anomic, more unsure of who he "really" is and what he
should aspire to than did his preindustrialforebears.
The very ambiguity,flexibility,permeability,anonymity,and
tolerancewhichcharacterizelarge-scalesocietyand whichat-
tract many people to it in an attempt to escape the total

accountability of small-scale life are in the end anxiety-provoking for many people, who seem often to yearn again for
what they or their ancestors once sought to escape (Davis
1971:20-21):
Hippies wish somehow to declare-or perhaps merelyto believethat life can be whole again, that identitiescan be made secure and
relationshipsmeaningfulthrougha returnto the littlecommunity,
throughdirectengagementwith the land and its products,through
communalcollectiveenterprisethat abjures conventionalstatus distinctions,and throughallegiance to some more altruistic(if humbler) scheme wherein,true to the great Christianand communist
philosophers,the quintessentialrule of life is to be-from each accordingto his abilities,to each accordingto his needs.
To suggest,however . . . that these "new forms"[the communes
of various kinds] are but a simple recreationof the small peasant
communityof preindustrialtimes,a naive rediscovery,as it were,
of the "underlying"organic bases of social life, is to misread the
true characterof hippie communalismas much as if one were to
deny it all significancewhatsoever. Questions of sheer economic
viabilityaside, much of the charismaticmillennialspirit that animates the hippie commune is positivelyanathema to village life
withits provincialmentality,mundaneroutines,and taciturnforms
of social relations.
Davis quotes a 1922 observation of Schmalenbach (1961:
338) that communityand communion are not the same thing,
Vol. 19 * No. 2 * June1978
235
In closing,I will simplylist in summaryformsome of the

specificways I have suggestedin whichscale influences
social
relations:
1. "Scale" as a conceptto be used in the analysisof social
is mosteasilydefinableas the size of themaximal
organization
network(s)in whichpeoplein thesocial entityunderstudyare
significantly
involved.This definition
is so broad as to be of
questionableanalyticalutility.Complexityof social organizationis closelyassociatedwithsize and, like intensityof interaction,is generallyimpliedin the term"scale." If "scale" is
to be used in social analysis,its referentsmust be clearly
spelledout,and themannerin whichits constituent
dimensions
are to be operationalizedand weightedmust be specified.
2. There have been many generalizationsmade by social
commentators
whichrelatemoreor less to scale as a variable
in social organization.
Some of thesehave been citedhere and
groupedaroundtwo polar typesdesignated"Type 1 societies"
and "Type 2 societies,"corresponding
roughlyto Redfield's
by-now-venerable
folk and urban types respectively.Further
considerationof the legitimacyand accuracy of these descriptivetypologiesis recommended.
3. For presentpurposesI regardType 1 societiesas smallscale, Type 2 societiesas large-scale.
4. Increase in scale makes people vulnerableto forcesbeyond theircontrol,experience,and even comprehension
and
oftenmakesthemdependentuponsimilarlyremoteinstitutions
and resources.
5. Increase in scale oftenleads people to value and seek
rewardsthat are not attainablewithintheirsociety (i.e., to
acquire referencegroupsin whichtheyare barredfrommembership).At the same time,theyare likely to abandon irrevocablypreexisting
rewardswhichmay stillhave been attainable. The barriersto attainment
of the new rewardsare often
imposedby othersratherthanbeinginherent.
SUMMARY
6. The resultsof (4) and (5) includeboth the feelingand
The discussionabove demonstrates
the actualityof deprivation,
mybeliefthatsize alone is
which,whenunresolved,leads to
difficult
to apply as an analyticalconcept,bothbecause it is a
personaland social disorganization.
relativematterand because it occurs in so many cultural,
7. Change is likelyto be more pervasive,more rapid,and
ecological,and historicalcontexts.On thewholeand in general, morereadilytoleratedin large-thanin small-scalesocieties.
size is no doubtan importantvariablein limitingand permitmorediversethan
8. Large-scalesocietiesare occupationally
tingsome varietiesand characteristics
of social organizationsmall-scaleones; theycontainmorestatuses,roles,and situabut in specificinstancesits influenceis difficult
to gauge betions,morebeliefsystems,a widerrangeand greaternumberof
cause a wide varietyof othervariablesis simultaneously
beopand more barriersto communication
social interactions,
erative,maskingits effect.Size is at best a broadlylimiting tweengroups,and consequently
theyare sociallymoreheterofactorof relativelylittleuse in comparativestudies.It seems
geneous.Therefore,theyexhibitsocial strata,ethnicpluralism,
culturaldiversity,
etc.
to me more useful to make "controlled"comparisons(cf.
of social knowledgeis likelyto be more
9. The distribution
Eggan 1954), takingintoaccounta varietyof factors-dependingupon thecomparisonbeingmade-such as size, complexity, uniformin small-thanin large-scalesocieties.
sourcesand modesof communication,
agenciesof socialization,
10. Large-scalesocietiesare likelyto be ideologicallymore
typesof interdependence,
formsof social organization,
value
diversethan small-scaleones, with less value consensusand
systems,culturaltraditions,history,etc. This is somethingI
to
moredependenceuponpowerand bureaucraticenforcement
have attemptedto do cross-culturally
are more
or cross-temporally
in
maintainvalues. Perhapsas a result,counter-cultures
several papers cited herein (cf. Berreman 1955, 1960a, b,
characteristic
of the formerthanof the latter.
1962a, b, 1964, 1966, 1967b, 1969, 1971, 1972c, 1973, 1977,
in the absocial stratification-especially
11. Birth-ascribed
n.d.).
sence of physicaldistinguishability
among the strata-funcin a societythatis intermediate
in scale
tionsmostefficiently
Acceptingforthetimebeing,however,thegeneralnotionof
scale as somethingwhichcan be roughlyoperationalizedand
(i.e., wherescale is neithertoo smallnortoo large,wheresocial
whichdoes have social consequences,I would say thatin genrelationsare neitheroverwhelmingly
personalnoranonymous).
eral large-scalesocietiesdifferfromsmall-scaleones in ways
12. Statuses in small-scalesocieties tend to be involute;
identifiable
with complexity,
diversity,and the resultantdifthosein large-scalesocietiestendto be disparate,fragmented,
ferentialsin individualvisibilityand accountability,
in social
and situationallyvariable.
internallyinconsistent,
flexibility
and permeability-inshort,in ways suggestedby
13. The quality of small-scale and large-scalesocial inthe centraltendencyof those contrastsI have listed,between
teractionand the kinds of social knowledgeand skills each
Type 1 societiesand Type 2 societies,in table 1. I believethat
The firstis involute,total, and
requiresdiffersignificantly.
scale has a tendencyto varydirectlywiththeimpersonality
of
takes into account both the individuals (their biographies
social interaction,
theimpersonality
of social control,the comand personalities)and theirstatuses;the secondis impersonal,
plexityof social and culturaldifferentiation,
the possibilityof
fragmented,
and takes into account specificroles in specific
social mobilityand individualredefinition
of identity,and the
situations.
anonymity
of personallife-little morethanthat.
14. As a consequenceof (13), interpersonalbehavior in
that "much of the present-dayyearningfor communalcoherence... is directedless towarda specificcommunity
than
towardcoherenceas such."
Since T6nniespublishedon Gemeinschaft
and Gesellschaft
in 1887 (T6nnies 1940, 1957), considerablesociologicalattention has been directedto the importanceof communityin
complexsocieties,and especiallyto the role of community,
communalsentiments,
and primary-group
experiencein social
actionand morale (cf. Berremann.d.). Thus, in recenttimes,
Shils (1957) has emphasizedthe crucialimportanceof "priand of theprimarygroupin the context
mordialattachments"
of Gemeinschaft,
and, togetherwithJanowitz(Shils and Janowitz 1948), has analyzed the workingsof such ties in the
Wehrmachtin WorldWar II. Later, Geertz(1963) described
in theinternalpoliticsof the
the role of primordialsentiments
"new nations"; Isaacs (1975) discussed such ties and commitmentsin a varietyof social and politicalsettings;Whyte
(1973) directedattentionto the role of small groupsin the
People's Republicof China; Sharma (1969) analyzedthe relevance to public and personal responsibility
in India of kin
and other primaryattachments;and Berger and Neuhaus
(1977) advocated the use of primarygroupsin formulating
and enactingpublicpolicyin Americansociety.These authors
and othersimplyagreementwith Homans's commentin the
finalchapterof The Human Group: "At thelevel of the tribe
or group,societyhas always founditselfable to cohere.We
infer,therefore,
thata civilization,
if it is in turnto maintain
itself,mustpreserveat least a fewof the characteristics
of the
group...." (Homans 1950:456). And again,"Brotherhood,
of
the kind theyget in a small and successfulgroup,men must
have" (Homans 1950:459).
236
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
small-scalesocietiesis conditionedby deep knowledgeof the

individualsinvolvedand broadknowledgeof the context.That
in thecityis conditioned
by stereotypic
responsesto superficial
cues about categoriesof persons and types of interaction
situations.
15. Large-scale societies offertheir members more anonymity
and mobility
thando small-scaleones,and theyaremore
permeable,flexible,
and manipulable.Hence,peoplecan change,
escape, or dissembletheiridentitiesin ways, and to extents,
impossiblein small societies.People can disappearin largescale societies; theycannotin small-scaleones.
16. Small-scalesocietiesoffertheirmembersmore predictability,solidarity,
and social supportthando large-scaleones,
at the cost of total visibilityand total accountability,
with
resultantsocial inflexibility.
17. As a consequenceof (16), the mechanismsby which
people may escape the consequencesof stigmatizedidentity
differin large-and small-scalesocieties.The formerinclude
voluntaryand oftenclandestineefforts
at mobilityor passing;
the lattermay be restrictedto publiclyvisibleand putatively
involuntary
statuschanges.
18. More personaldiversityand eccentricity
are foundand
toleratedin large-scalesocietiesthanin small-scaleones.
19. In large-scalesocieties,formalproceduresfor keeping
tabson peopleand forensuringconformity
replacetheinformal
ones of small-scalesocietiesand counterthe tendenciesdescribedin (15) and (18).
20. The personal communityin the small-scalesocietyis
moreor less congruent
withthe society;thatin thelarge-scale
societyis a small segmentof the total societyand is often
relevantonly to limitedspheresof activity.Hence, in largescale societytheremaybe multiplebut shallowor fragmentary
personalcommunities.
However,peopleshowremarkable
tenacity in creatingsatisfyingpersonal communitieseven in unlikelycircumstances.
21. People in small-scalesocietiesare likelyto envythosein
large-scalesocietiestheirpersonalflexibility,
freeanonymity,
dom frominformalcontrols,diversityof experience,and diversityof opportunity.
22. People in large-scalesocieties tend to envy those in
small-scaleonestheirpresumedintimacy,
security,
and freedom
fromformalcontrols.
23. People in small-scalesocietiestend to idealize, and to
emigrateto, large-scalemilieux.
24. People in large-scalesocietiestend to idealize, and to
construct,
small-scalemilieux.
25. Otherthingsbeingequal, theabove statements
aboutthe
relationship
betweenscale and social organizationare true.
26. Otherthingsare neverequal.
Berreman:SCALE
The conceptof scale offersa valuable framewithinwhich

to view otherproblems.One examplewhichcomes to mindis
the questionof why groupsare able to do less and less for
themselveswhen confronting
criticalproblemsas theirscales
of social organizationbecome larger.The conceptthus provides an importantdimensionin studyinga nation'sterritorially and socially based groups.It raises importantquestions
about the nature of culture-bearing
units at different
stages
of culturaldevelopmentand suggestslines along whichthese
questions may be explored. It contains importantimplications for the questionof every social unit's extemal relationships.And, by directingour attentionto the fact that
every communityand ideologicallybased group is being-if
it has not alreadybeen-drawn into a vortexof global scale,
Berreman'spaper drivesanotherneeded nail in the coffinof
anthropology's
preoccupationwithmanifestations
of localism.
There are, of course,instanceswhere the postulatedrelationshipbetweenscale and social relationsdoes not workvery
well (see Berreman'sRule 26). As I am sure Berremanwill
be the firstto concur,there are few (if any) problemsto
which only one conceptual frame of referencewill apply.
There is thus no point in my playing the one-upmanship
game of I-can-think-of-more-exceptions-than-Berreman.
This
paper will becomea centerpiecein my academicreadinglists;
as a matterof fact,I have alreadytakenthe libertyof using
my prepublicationcopy of the paper to great advantagein
one of my courses.
by VICTOR S. DOHERTY
InternationalCrops Research Institutefor the Semi-Arid
Tropics,Hyderabad500016,India. 14 xii 77
Most importantly,
Berremanhas presentedus in this article
with some of the importantrealitiesof social ecology.Consistentlyone of Berreman'smajor professionalconcernshas
been to show us the ways in which groupsof different
size
and with different
power impingeupon each other and the
practicalhuman and culturaleffectsof such interaction(in
his words). Beyond this main contribution,
he has reviewed
a major part of the literatureon social scale, and has done
this in a cross-disciplinary
way whichwill be usefulto other
writers,despitehis necessarilysummaryhandlingof the differentauthors'ideas. These are the importantcontributions
in an articlewhichis essentiallysociological,and I agreewith
Berremanin all of the main conclusionshe draws fromhis
examples.I would add a commenton his treatment
of strictly
culturalitems,however-a commentoccasionedpartlyby his
choice, in much of his presentation,of an approach which
focuseson people as "theychooseamongalternatebehaviors"
guided by "cognitive worlds . . . which underlie behavioral
Comments
by YEHUDI A. COHEN
Departmentof Anthropology,
LivingstonCollege,Rutgers
New Brunswick,N.J. 08903, U.S.A. 5 xii 77
University,
Bravo, Berreman! "Scale and Social Relations" providesan
extremelyimportantframeof referencefor the analysisof a
varietyof problems,especiallyin historicaland comparative
research. For instance, many students and I have found
Wright's(1971) concept of "the strangermentality"useful
in studyinga varietyof questionsin Americanurbansettings.
A puzzle thathas oftenstymiedus is the presenceof pockets
of "personalworlds"in urbancenterswherethestrangermentality(or what Wrightalso calls "urban groundrules") prevails. Though there are several explanationsfor this, the
frameof referenceprovidedby Berremanadds an indispensable dimension.
choicesand are the subject of study."There does not seem to

be a clear analyticalseparationof situationsin which the
microcosmand the macrocosmare on different
culturalcontinua,as in the Aleut example,and thosein whichmicro-and
macrocosmare on thesame culturalcontinuum,
as in theexamples fromIndia. Sociologicallythereis much similarityin all
these cases, but culture-areamembershipis still analytically
This importance
is underscored
important.
by Berremanhimself
in his citationabove of Eggan's (1954) articleon "Social Anthropologyand the Method of ControlledComparison."One
in
cannotminimizetheimportanceof theenormousdifferences
social situationand culturalcontentassailinga mountainvillageron a visitto Dehra Dun; nevertheless,
thevillagerand the
Dehra Dun nativeare bothparticipants
in local and situational
variantsof a broad NorthIndian culture.The ultimately(althoughnotalwaysproximately)
unifying
effects
ofsucha shared
Vol. 19 * No. 2 * June1978
237
backgroundmustbe rigorously
opposed to the acculturational
and hideouslydemoralizing
situationfacedby an Aleut forced
to operatewithinthe large-scalenetworkof the 20th-century
United States. Many authorshave shown us how dissimilar
cultural content can reflectultimatelyidentical rules at a
deeper level. Where such a deeperset of rules is shared,the
effectsof social scale must be different;Berreman'sIndian
examplesare well-suitedto demonstrating
this,and although
reasons of space and emphasisundoubtedlypreventeda full
expositionalong theselines,a moreexplicitrecognition
of the
possibilitieswouldhave been welcome.
by MARILYN GATES
Departmentof Sociologyand Anthropology,
Simon Fraser
University,
Burnaby,B.C., Canada V5A 1S6. 12 xii 77
Berreman'spaper has some utilityas a follow-upto Eggan's
highlysignificant
workon the methodology
of controlledcomparison (Eggan 1954) and as a heuristicdevice for sifting
throughthe morass of literatureon both urban societyand
I strongly
scale as applied to variationsin social organization.
endorseBerreman'sadvocationof the need for multivariate
controlledanalysisof theinteractions
betweenscale and social
relationsboth cross-culturally
and cross-temporally.
I must, however,express my concern about Berreman's
methodological
approachto clarifying
thescale conceptand its
applicationto the comparativeanalysisof social organization.
The "few specific,empiricallyderivedintuitionsabout some
of the limitsimposedand the possibilitiesofferedpeople in
theirrelationships
with one anotheras a resultof the scale
of the societiesin whichtheylive" do not constituteoperationalizationof the conceptof scale, in that theyare impossible to validate even at a "rough"level. While I am a firm
supporterof comparingapples and giraffes,
it is essentialin
such undertakingsto structureone's analysis to the fullest
extentpossiblein orderto permitassessmentof replicability
and reliability.
This was clearlynot Berreman'sintent,yet the
potentialforsuch analysisis evidentin thispreliminary
work.
For example,varioustechniquesof networkanalysisare available as a powerfulmeasureof degreesof interconnectedness
and relative isolation between societies of different
scales.
Graph-theoretic
and qualitativeproduct-setanalyses of possibilitycombinationswould also seem to be "natural" techniques for strengthening
the operationalizationof relative
conceptssuch as scale withoutventuring
into the quantitative
quagmire.
Techniquessuch as these,togetherwith the basics derived
fromcentral-placeand otherlocationtheories,have long been
employedby geographersin theirexhaustiveworkson scale.
The absence of any referenceby Berremanto this literature
suggeststhat he mightbe attempting
to rediscoverthe wheel
in thisfield.Harvey's (1969) Explanationin Geographyprovides a basic review of both the theoreticaland the methodologicalconcernsof geographers
relativeto scale and other
geographicfundamentals.Harvey cautions against careless
comparisonsbetweendifferent
scale levels (p. 352):
In such a "nested"hierarchical
situationit shouldbe observed
that comparisons
can only be made betweensimilarindividuals
at thesamelevelin thehierarchy)
(i.e. individuals
and thatinferencesaboutrelationships
on one levelcannotbe extended,
without
to any otherlevel.This is not to say
makingstrongassumptions,
thatconditions
at onelevelare irrelevant
to conditions
at another.
It does indicatethat the natureof analysisis contingent
upon
whetherthe individuals
beingcomparedare at the same or differentlevels.
I thinkBerremanis well aware of this scale problem,but
he needs eithera theoryof scale or an explicitmethodology.
Since he already has derived a rough a priori explanatory
238
model and since the topic and data invite it, he would do
designto verifyhis
well to proceedvia a tightexperimental
"empiricallyderived intuitions" and confirmhis implicit
hypotheses.
by ULF HANNERZ
Universityof StockDepartmentof Social Anthropology,

hoim,S-106 91 Stockholm,Sweden. 22 xi 77
The ideas whichBerremandeals within this paper obviously
remain central to sociological and anthropologicalthought.
Time and time again, they may seem to have been laid to
Againand again,
rest,havingbeen subjectedto sharpcriticism.
they are broughtback to life, in somewhatvaryingshapes,
but also
not only because earlierdebateshave been forgotten
because the criticismsthemselvesturnout to have been shallow or otherwiseunsatisfactory.
In thissituation,it would seem usefulto have a morecomplete intellectualhistoryof what we may now referto as
notionsof "scale." This would place us in a betterposition
to evaluate the extentto which writingsin this area, over
the last centuryor so, have been theoreticallycumulative,
and to what
whetherworthwhileleads have been forgotten,
issues in ways whichmay already
extentwe keep formulating
have been foundfaulty.
rightfully
Berremancould hardlyundertakesuch a task in the exploratorypaper now beforeus, althoughhe refersto a significantpart of the relevantliterature.It would have been
desirableto be able to considerhis paperin the contextof the
symposiumof which it was originallya part. In a slightly
earlier publication,Barth (1972), the symposiumorganizer,
has outlined one approach to the comparativeanalysis of
social organizationwhichgoes beyondthe roughpolaritiesof
the classic statementson scale and whichis obviouslyrelated
to Berreman'sinteractionist
perpective.They share, for one
thing,a concernwith the variable managementand flowof
personal informationunder differentsocial arrangements.
While I am sympatheticto this interest,I thinkit may be
pointedout thatit stilldoes not seem fullyto have integrated
a systematicproblematizationof the dimensionof power.
Perhaps a conceptof scale does not have to involve such a
dimension,yet Berremandwells on it in the presentationof
both his Indian and his Aleut materials.In the formercase,
the argumentseems quite convincingthat the caste system,
condias a systemof power,worksbest under"intermediate"
flow.The Aleut case, on the otherhand,
tions of information
appears to offerless of a yield to the continueddiscussion.
in
Might a more generalpropositionor two on asymmetry
have been useful?
relationships
Amongsources of thinkingabout scale not mentionedby
Berreman,I would want to make note of the "Manchester
School," probablymore directlyinfluencedby the Wilsons'
Gluckthanmost otheranthropologists.
(1945) interpretation
of multiplex
man's (1955, 1962) writingson the significance
relationshipsin relationto Barotse judicial process and to
rites of passage point to specificways in which small-scale
societiesmay differfromlarge-scalesocietiesin theirhandling
of social relations.Networkanalysis (e.g., Mitchell 1969)
offersa vocabulary(althoughnot a theory) for the conceptualizationof the orderingof social relations,whichBerreman
hardlytouchesupon but whichmay help give a sharpersense
scale.
of social structuresof different
of the characteristics
In general,it seems to me thatthinking
along lines such as
those suggestedby Berremanshows promisefor furtherinUrban anthrosightfulcomparativeresearchin anthropology.
ratherunderdeveloped,
maywellelaborate
pology,theoretically
on them and therebyalso become furtherintegratedinto
general anthropologicalthought.One particulartopic which
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
of larger-scalesocietiesis sugmay enrichthe anthropology

gested by Berreman'sfinal points 21-24, with the common
themethat "the grass is always greeneron the otherside of
the fence." If under certaincircumstancesthereis a strain
what means
towardintimacyin larger-scalesocial structures,
may people use to create an illusion of smallness?I have
touched on the question elsewhere,in a study of political
style (Hannerz 1974); I thinkit could be a
communicative
focus of interestto a symbolicanthropologyof scale with
manyvaried applications.
by FUAD I. KHURI
AmericanUniDepartmentof Sociologyand Anthropology,
versityof Beirut,Beirut,Lebanon. 5 xi 77
Berremansurprisesme whenhe writesin the summaryof his
articlethat "size is no doubtan importantvariablein limiting
of social orsome varietiesand characteristics
and permitting
to
is difficult
ganization-butin specificinstancesits influence
gauge because a wide varietyof other variables is simultaneouslyoperative,maskingits effect."In readingthe body of
the text, I thoughthe was arguingfor the opposite view.
that he is
While he cautionsthe reader in the introduction
not seekinga general"theoryof scale" and in the summary
that "size is at best a broadly limitingfactorof relatively
littleuse in comparativestudies,"he discussesat some length
in the body of the text some two dozen social characteristics
that vary withsize and scale or, to use his typology,smallscale and large-scalesocieties.
In this syntheticaccount of scale, size, or level of complexity,Berremantries to combinetwo traditions:(1) Simmel's conceptionof size and interactionand (2) the tendency
to classify "whole" societies or communitiesaccording to
bipolar ideal types. While he seems at times to oppose the
divisionof social realitiesinto idealizedtypes,he dialectically
followsthe same mode of analysis,i.e., the formulationof
social characteristics
typologiesthatsum up the distinguishing
thatvarywithsmall-scaleand large-scalesocieties.Personally,
I doubtthe value of such a scholarlyexercisefortwo reasons.
First,it subsumesan evolutionarymodel of analysisreminiscent of the 19th-century
unilinearevolutionists'approach,
whichhelps us neitherto discovernor to explainsocial realities,behaviors,and actions.Second,as foci of anthropological
and color sociologicalinquiries,social behaviors,relationships,
"whole"
lectiveactionscannotbe accountedforby classifying
societies or communitiesinto opposingidealized types. The
social characteristics
associated with a particularideal type
can themselvesbe consideredtypes and the ideal type an
associated characteristic.For example, predictability,soliwhichare associatedwithsmall-scale
darity,and homogeneity,
society,can themselvesbe consideredideal types possessing
the characteristicfeatureof smallness.The same argument
can be made about large-scalesocietyand the characteristics
associated with it-diversity, heterogeneity,
complexity,etc.
of
In the finalanalysis,thisis an exercisein the lexicography
social characteristics.
To test the value of size or scale and assess its use in comparative studies,it is necessaryto examinea given fieldof
interaction(leadership,ritual,employment,
etc.) in two setscale. The analysismust focus not on the
tingsof different
social characteristicsof smallness or largeness,but on the
culturalstrategiesin difabilityof the actor to use different
ferentsettings,thus combiningopposingidealized typesin a
singlesystemof action. In social action and behavior,especiallyin urbanstudies,"small-scale"and "large-scale"groupings, primaryand secondaryrelationships,closed and open
aggregates,etc., coexistside by side withina single fieldof
interaction.
Berreman:
SCALE
by ROBERT F. MURPHY
Columbia University,New
York,N.Y. 10027, U.S.A. 17 xi 77
theoriesof
For a good part of the historyof anthropology,
social evolutionhave been the subjectsof ideologicalwarfare.
in Britainand
There was firstthe revoltof the functionalists
Boas's studentsin the UnitedStatesagainstthearid formalism
in the pubof 19th-century
evolutionarythought,culminating
lication in 1920 of Robert Lowie's PrimitiveSociety. This
workappearedat a timewhen the evolutionists
were already
witheringunderthe attack of theirjuniors,theirranks further serriedby age and death. But the idea of evolutionism
was hardlydead, and by the 1930sthe workof JulianSteward
and Leslie White was acquiringa readershipthat soon grew
into "schools." Old argumentswere rekindled,and new ones
werebroughtto bear on whatagain becametheliveliestdebate
in anthropology.Discussion was animated and intense,the
sides neatly drawn,and the intellectualcommitments
total.
Yet, today few anthropologists
talk muchabout culturalevolutionism;thesubjecthas beena moribundissue fortenyears.
Whateverhappenedto our favoritequarrel?Anthropologists
have not becomemorepeaceable,fortheyarguenow overthe
relative merits of structuralism,
ethnoscience,cultural materialism,and other assorted creeds. Nor did the fightend
because one side triumphed-mostof the problemsare still
withus. Rather,evolutionismfaded fromthe anthropological
consciousnessbecause its issues had becomeirrelevantto most
of our presentconcerns-likemostarguments,
it had not been
resolved,but dissolved.The disciplinehas steppedback from
its macroinstitutional
preoccupationsand is findingnew universes to explorewithinthe micro-domainof everydaylife.
Somewherealong the way, most anthropologists
decided that
the dictionarydefinition
of evolutionas growthin scope and
complexityof organismssaid most of what had to be said on
the subject. This relieved us of the old debate about the
priorityof matriliny,allowingus to agree that the Iroquois
were more evolved than the Shoshonior that the Inca were
at a higherlevel than the Tupinamba.Those still dedicated
to thecontroversy
could continueto pursetheirfavoriteforms
of determinism
or pet typologies,
but therestof us could turn
insteadto studyingthe processesof social life.
Berreman'spaper mustbe seen againstthisbackground,
for
he has broughthis own "interactionist"
studiesto bear upon
what is essentiallyan evolutionaryproblem.Instead of inquiringinto what kinds of institutionsemerge at different
levels of development,
or what are the "causes" of evolution,
however,he asks how the quality,flow,and tone of social
interaction
The unique
changewithchangingsocial complexity.
value of Berreman'sessay, then, is that it is a pioneering
attemptto approachthe evolutionaryquestionof differences
of scale of societiesfroman interactionist
perspective.
Many of Berreman'sconclusionshave been long established
in our literature,and he notes the historicantecedentsof his
work. The notion of densityof interactionwas raised by
Durkheimin The Division of Labor, and the processof growof roleswas a keyelementin Weber's
ing functional
specificity
theory of bureaucratization.Many of his conclusionsalso
stem from the Chicago school of urban sociology,led by
Robert Park and carriedinto anthropology
by Robert Redfield. Berremansummarizesthe scattered writingson the
influenceof scale upon social relations,adding some of his
ownfindings,
but he takesthemout of themetaphorof organization, or structure,and rewritesthem in the language of
process.
Some readers will be disappointedat Berreman'sinattention to many of the classic questionsposed in evolutionary
239
Vol. 19 * No. 2 * June1978

literature
theory.There is, forexample,a smallbut interesting
on the relationbetweensocial complexityand differences
of
populationsize and densityof whichhe has takenlittlenote.
Missingalso are the emergenceof clanshipand the developmentof thestate,bothof whichmattersare macroinstitutional
and structural.Berremanwiselysticksto his framework,
and
if thereis one criticismthat can be made it is perhapsthat
his treatmenthas not been restrictiveenough.What he has
done has been to make a major step towardsa synthesisof
evolutionaryand interactionist
theories,rescuingthe former
fromits typologicalburdenand placingthe latterin a developmentalperspective.Alongthe way, the paper is a jeremiad
on modern, industrial society-its alienation, shallowness,
anonymity,depersonalization,fractionation,and loneliness.
Berremanis aware of the lack of freedomand privacy of
the small-scalesociety,but his heart is with those simple
social worlds in which everybodyis famous. In the final
analysis,Berremanis a romantic,which,afterall, is still the
firstqualificationof the anthropologist.
that the "small-scale"societyis part of a "large-scale"social

entityand of the pressureswithinit?
Is it reallycorrectthatan increasein scale, of itself,makes
people vulnerableto forcesbeyondtheircontroland experience? This seems to be undeniablyso for the Aleuts who
in some mannerintoAmericansocial,politiwereincorporated
cal, and economic networks,but was it also true for the
Americanswhosescale was presumablyincreasedby the addition of the Aleuts?
by K. N. SHARMA
Departmentof Humanitiesand Social Sciences,Indian Institute of Technology,Kanpur, 11T Post Office,Kanpur
208016, U.P., India. 8 XII 77
I propose to commentprimarilyon Berreman'sobservations
on Indian villages (mountainand plains types) and cities.In
the comparisonbetweenthe two typesof villages,it appears
thathe adds anotherdimensionto scale, i.e., physicalterrain,
whichaffectsthe size of networks,which in its turnguides
intercasteor intracasteinteractions.He is consciousof the
by STUART B. PHILPOTT
but I would like to explain
limitationsof his generalisations,
Universityof Toronto,Totheselimitationsin the lightof my data froma plains Indian
ronto,Ont.,Canada MSS lAl. 17 xii 77
villagewhichI studiedbetween1954 and 1971.
Scale is a conceptwhichmost anthropologists
use in a fuzzy
Elsewhere(Sharma 1975:114) I have pointedout that "in
and unanalysedmanner.We speak of "small-scale"and "large- the absence of caste panchayatsand effectivecaste leaders,
scale" societies as if they were clearly identifiableentities the divisionof castes intoseverallineagesand the pressureof
withself-evident
characteristics.
Berremanhas made a worth- conflicts,
arisingin joint families,have made castes muchless
while and suitablyskepticalattemptto clarifyjust what the
cohesive groups than one would presume.The introduction
notionof scale is all about; the expositionis certainlyuseful of the village panchayat and the cooperativesociety have
in this respect but leaves me feelingthat the concept has
necessitatedthe forgingof ties across caste boundaries."In
virtuallyno analyticalvalue in its own rightand mightbest
analysingthe formationof groups in the contextof formal
be discardedforany serioussocial-scientific
I have held that "the impact of caste on the
purpose.
organizations,
Berremanhimselfis quite ambivalentabout the idea, alformationof these groupsis overshadowedby the considerthoughhe finallyurgesthat scale be acceptedas "something ations of self-interest
of individuals"(p. 136).
which can be roughlyoperationalizedand which does have
In any analysisof thedirectionof flowof interaction(intrasocial consequences."Possibly so, but his argumentfails to
caste or intercaste),one has to keep in mind not only the
convince.He rightlygrappleswithdefinition.
Is scale simply physicalconditionsof the terrainand demographicconsidersize? Or size plus some othercharacteristic
such as the nature ations of size and compositionof population,but also the
of social interaction?He opts for "the maximalsize of the
as well as the contextof interactions.
structuralcharacteristics
social, political,economic,and ideological-communication
netEach jati is influencedby both centripetaland centrifugal
workswhichsignificantly
involveand affectthe membersof a
workingin
social anthropologists
tendencies.Unfortunately,
social entity"(my emphasis). This is a promisingdirection, India have not paid much attentionto the latter. Besides,
even thoughtheproblemof identifying
the significant
involve- thereare many structuralpressureswhichbringpersonsbementupon whichthe definition
turnsis not discussed.
longing to differingjatis into intimateinteraction.TradiEarlier in the paper Berremannotes that no community
is
tionally,the jajmani systemsupportedintercastefunctional
like the viltotallyisolated nowadaysand asks how one would calculate interdependence.
Modern democraticinstitutions
the scale of an Indian village "whichis incorporatedsignifi- lage panchayatand the cooperativesocietyin a multicaste
cantlyinto networksincludingwell over half a billionpeople
of intercasteties. In
village contributeto the establishment
and yet is to a large degreeself-contained"(my emphasis).
addition,other factors,such as classmateship,adjacency of
He furtherasks how one would comparethe scale of such a
eitherhouse or land, etc., may also bind people belongingto
villagewiththatof a citysuch as Tokyo.This is an intriguing differing
jatis in intimatefriendship,and I have noted a
question which might have been illuminatedby tryingto
acrosscastebounnumberof such cases of intimatefriendship
identifythe typesof social networksmentionedin his defini- daries in the village (1975:119). It may not be out of place
tion of scale. What are the diacriticaldifferences
betweenthe
to mentionthat I have also found a numberof cases of
social networksof people in villagesand those in citieseven
amoroussex relationship,
undoubtedlycases of mostintimate
whenultimatelytheymay embraceroughlyequal numbersof
interaction,across caste lines. In one case such ties led to
people? Berreman,unfortunately,
abandons this approach livingtogetherby a Brahmanwoman and a Kshatriyaman
when analysinghis own ethnography
and falls back on such
withoutformalmarriage.In anothercase a Brahman man
notions as the folk-urbandichotomyand the face-to-face eloped witha widowedteli (oil-presser)woman.
ruralisolate.While muchof his discussionand explanationis
of social
I generallyagree withBerreman'scharacterization
I believe it rendersthe concept of scale
quite enlightening,
interactionin an urban milieu in India. In this case also,
superfluous.
however,the "other things"are not the same everywhere.
Again,manyof thegeneralizations
put forthin thesummary Cities vary in size and functions,and both may affectthe
are provocativeand worthyof furtherresearch; yet often natureof social interaction.Chandra (1977), studyingsocial
theyare not at all clearlyrelatedto the questionof scale. Is
in Kanpur, examined
participationin urban neighbourhoods
it really the case, for example,that people in "small-scale" an upper-class and a working-classneighbourhoodand a
societies tend to idealize "large-scale"milieuxand emigrate formervillage whichhad been assimilatedinto the city.He
to themon thisbasis? Or is theiremigrationreallyindicative dividedhis subjects into threecategories:upper-classsettled
240
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
and natives.He founda persistence

residents,quasi-migrants,
of caste,kin,etc., in social interactionin all threecategories,
but to a lesser degreeamong the upper-classurbanitesthan
amongthe others.It is evidentfromthis and similarstudies
thatthe urbanmilieudoes not alterthe Indian culturalmilieu,
with its compulsiontowardintracastemarriage,etc., fundamentally.Therefore,one has to appreciatethe limitsof the
change which may be expected to be broughtabout by a
changein scale.
Finally, I would like to provide supportiveevidence for
Berreman'sideas on "passing"and social interactionin urban
areas. The urban environment
providesthe most advantages
in "passing"to the scheduledcastes (Nandu Ram 1976:241).
Besides, the government'spolicy of "protectivediscrimination" has helped them to acquire education and to secure
middle-classor upper-classjobs in governmentdepartments.
Such scheduled-castepersons do not find their interactiont
inhibitedby theirascribed status.
On the basis of the above observations,I fullyagree with
Berremanthat "it is difficult
to apply [scale] as an analytical
conc'ept. . . Size is at best a broadlylimitingfactorof relativelylittleuse in comparativestudies."
by ZOLTAN TAGANYI
1022 Bogar u. 5, BudapestII, Hungary.10 xi 77
Berremanuses one of the mostimportantinventionsof sociological thought,dichotomicthinking,togetherwith field research,in an attemptto applythefolk-urban
in the
continuum
formof the notionof scale. The rankingof societiesaccording
to scale, a contributionof Redfield (1953), permitsus to
consider,in additionto folksocieties,tribalsocietiesas well,
as the authormakesclear,but the effort
to use the folk-urban
continuumleads us to the fieldof community
studies.
In one of the most comprehensive
summariesof thisfield,
Bell and Newby (1971) beginby asking,"Who reads Ferdinand T6nnies today?" It is well known that dichotomic
whichbecame widespreadin the Englishliterature,
thinking,
appeared in the form of Gemeinschaft,with face-to-face,
personalcontacts,commonfeeling,and ascribedstatus,on the
one hand,and Gesellschaft,withanomie,impersonality,
fragmentation,and achieved status, on the other. Even if we
consideronly the introduction
to Tonnies's (1935) work,we
discoverat once that for him Gemeinschaft
was a biological,
organicphenomenon
and Gesellschafta resultof thegeneralizing characterof the humanmind.The preferenceforGemeinschaft because of the negative featuresof Gesellschaftappeared only in the sixth edition of his book. Accordingto
Tonnies,the Gesellschaftis a societyof whichthe most importantfeatureis the social contractand in whichbarterand
sale arise,the developmentof a divisionof labor begins,and
everyonebecomes a merchant.Anomie, impersonality,
and
disintegration
are only the resultsof these featuresand not
foremostin Tonnies'smind.Bell and Newbyprobablydid not
read Tonnies in the original.They argue that Redfieldwas
the firstto providethe empiricalgroundingof the folk-urban
continuumin Folk Cultureof Yucatan (1941), and they go
on to mentionthatPahl (1966) rejectedthe dichotomy,
finding it reminiscentof the sentimentsurrounding
Rousseau's
"noble savage." Redfieldchose four points of investigation,
withtribalsocietiesand endingwithurbansettings,
beginning
and concludedthat the phenomenonof disorganization
may
be observedin tribal and folk societies as well as in urban
ones. This order of ideas may lead to a recognitionthat
Rousseau not only idealized the savage, but also spoke of
human nature's being the same everywhere,thus providing
the backgroundfor evolutionism(Dahrendorf 1969). Developingthisthought,I would point out thatthe fieldworkers
Berreman:
SCALE
who use the idea of the folk-urbancontinuumand, even

more,the researcherswho attemptto analyze the idea have
often not read the classic works.As can be seen fromthe
analysisof T6nnies's thought,the orderof ideas the author
tries to use is a result of a secondarydevelopment.The
problemhas anotheraspect as well. The Englishtranslations
"community"
and "society"are not quite right,because "community"today includes both village communitiesand those
in urbansettings,thoughthe latterbelongto the seconditem
of the dichotomy.The recent German literaturetends to
avoid the term Gemeinschaftfor "community"because it
involvesa value judgmentabout the characterof the society;
instead,it uses the notionof Gemeinde(Konig 1958).
All the same, despitethe doubts just mentioned,the folkurban continuummay be fruitfulfor empiricalresearch,and
the statementof the authormay be developedfurther.
About
the Indian village communityhe writes,quotingBloomfield,
that "the most importantdifferences
of speech withina communityare due to differences
in densityof communication."
In this connection,Frankenberg(1966) adopts fromthe field
of communication
sciencethe ideas of social networkand the
"redundance"of communication
in the case of village communities.The authorunderlinesthe importanceof interaction
forvillagecommunities:"A singlewatersource,a singleshop,
the need forcooperationon heavy and urgenttasks all facilitate or requiresuch interaction."Such interactionmay,however, be observed in tribal societies as well, because the
organizationof large-scalehuntingor fishingrequiressimilar
formsof interaction.
Reply
by GERALD D. BERREMAN
Berkeley,Calif. U.S.A. 23 I 78
I entitledthis paper "Scale and Social Relations" to indicate
thatit deals primarily
withscale and humaninteraction-with
and
process-rather than with social structure,institutions,
The titlediffers
organization.
fromthat of the symposiumfor
whichit was originallywritten,"Scale and Social Organization," in precisely this respect. Murphy's commentsare
thereforemuch appreciated,demonstrating
his characteristic
abilityto see to the heart of matterssocial, events human,
and arguments
issuestheoretical,
aca,demic(cf. Murphy1971).
His briefremarksserve as a succinctand cogentconclusion
to mypaper.He identifies
partof theproblemothersevidently
encounteredin the paper,namelythat the "treatmenthas not
been restrictiveenough." Perhaps I strayedtoo far beyond
social relationsand therebyraised ghostswhich some commentatorsthenundertookto exorciseon the assumptionthat
theywere the body of my argument.
The aim of the paper was to assess ratherthanto advocate
the utilityof the concept "scale." I addressedthe question,
Given the term "scale," and the fact that it has achieved
some currencyin anthropological
literature,how and to what
ends has it beeniused, and how if at all mightit be used to
better advantage in analyzingsocial relations?In the first
part (that which precedes "Empirical Generalizations"),I
undertooka briefanalysisof the componentmeaningsof what
in the
mightbe called the "socio-terms"or "anthro-terms"
domain "scale." Perhaps this is what Khuri means by "an
exercisein the lexicographyof social characteristics";if so,
the firstsection of my paper is exactlythat. I agree with
Khuri'smisgivings
about "scale" and have attemptedto make
of those misgivingsthe centralthemeof the article.I have
Vol. 19 * No. 2 * June1978
241
chronicledrather than advocated the bipolar ideal-typical

treatmentof the concept,and, as Murphyhas recognized,I
have looked at what is essentiallyan evolutionaryproblem
(in part), withoutsubsumingan evolutionarymodel. I have
not, however,rejectedevolutionaryanalyseswhentheyhave
provedusefulin explainingsocial realities,as indeedtheyhave
(cf. the citationsof Fried 1967; Sahlins 1968; Service 1966,
1975; Wolf 1966). If we are to learn more about the utility
otherswill
and implicationsof "scale" and its constituents,
have to be more theoreticallyopen-mindedand analytically
eclectic,I think,than is Khuri in his commentson evolutionaryanalysesand the role of analysisof "social behaviors,
relationships,
and collectiveactions." If these are excluded,
thereis not muchleft exceptsocial structuralanalysis,which
recordin this regard.
has not had a verydistinguished
In this paper my assessmentof the utilityof "scale" is
frankly,explicitly,and, Philpottaffirms,
"suitably"skeptical,
as I hope will be clear to readerseven thoughit was not to
all of the commentators.
As Cohen has suggested,scale is at
variable
best only one, and perhapsnot the most important,
social relations.It may make up in heuristicvalue
affecting
whatit lacks in analyticvalue.
Confusionon these points resultedat least in part from
the factthatthe contextforthepaperwas sketchilyconveyed,
as Hannerz has pointed out. The paper was writtenfor a
symposiuminquiringinto the implicationsof scale in society.
The concept"scale" was therefore
givenas the topic,and my
discussionfollowedfromthat. Happily, most of the papers
in the symposiumare now to be publishedin a book edited
by Barth (1978). Included are essays by F. G. Bailey, John
Barnes, FredrikBarth, Gerald Berreman,Elizabeth Colson,
Ernest Gellner,Reidar Gronhaug,David Jacobson,Theodore
Schwartz,and Surajit Sinha. There the subject is explored
and elaboratedfroma varietyof perspectives,and some of
the issues raised by commentatorson this paper are more
fullytreatedthantheyhave been here.I hope thatthe discusin that
sion here will inspireattentionto the contributions
book,as well as to otherliteratureon the subject such as the
forthcoming
paper by Belshaw (n.d.). In this spirit,I welcome the additionalcitationsof relevantworksprovidedby
each of the commentators.
Dohertyand Philpottcall forattentionto, and specification
of, the natureof social organizationand the circumstances
of
change in the comparativeanalysis of scale. Doherty embetween culturalcontinuityand culphasizes the difference
tural discontinuity
when there is change in scale (i.e., the
difference
betweensharedand disparateculture,social organization,history,and vested interestsin the social situationsto
be compared). This, of course,is a problemcrucialto comparingchangesin scale broughtabout by externalimposition
(e.g., conquest, colonization) with those broughtabout by
internalprocesses(e-.g.,growth,development).Philpottdirects
attentionto the differences
betweenkindsof social organization (e.g., village and city) when size is not a variable.
Anotherfactorthat must not be overlookedis the matterof
social/culturalcontinuitiesand disparitieswithin a single
societyand tradition.The homogeneity
of Aleut societyand
the social fractionation
and hierarchicalinteractionof Indian
society are cases in point: surely social processes in these
instancesdiffer
accordingto thiscontrastas well as according
to size. Hannerz's remarkson the importanceof considering
asymmetricalpower relationshipsand Sharma's informative
discussionof cross-casterelationsand urban complexityin
India shed helpfultheoreticaland substantivelighton these
matters.It is in view of such issues that I have insistedthat
scale must encompasssocial comrplexity
as well as size.
The call forattentionto social, cultural,and historicalcontextin analyzingscale is analogousto the stricturesraised30
242
years ago regardingacculturationstudies, criticizingtheir

the relevanceof
authorsfor overlookingor underestimating
of contactwhenanalyzingits consequences.
the circumstances
Those well-deservedstricturescontributeddirectlyto the
demise of acculturationas a major analytic concept,or at
of its utility.A similar
least to a fundamentalredefinition
fate for scale may prove to be equally fitting.
While on the subject of earlier theoreticaltraditions,I
hastento admit that I have not read Tonnies in the original,
as Tagainyisurmises.He suggests(and evidentlydeplores),
and Murhpynotes (apparentlywith approval), that I tend
to value small-scale social relations over large-scaleones.
forthe simple
Despite what may well be a romanticaffinity
life,I do not advocate the Rousseauean notionof the noble
savage. I am gratifiedthat both Cohen and Philpotthave
of the fact that all societiestodayparnotedmy recognition
ticipate to some extentin worldwidenetworks.This makes
returnto the primitiveconditionan irrelevantidea, but does
not precludelearningfromthe contrastbetweensmall- and
large-scale social relations,social organization,and social
processesand actingupon what we learn (cf. Bodley 1975).
to followeventsin CamIn this regard,it will be interesting
bodia. The ambassadorsto China and Cambodia of Sweden,
Finland,and Denmark recentlytouredthat countryfor two
weeksand reportedtheirobservationsto the press.They were
told that the presentpopulationof the capital city,Phnom
Penh, is 20,000,but said that "it appeared to be muchless."
The report continues,"Side streets and pavements were
blocked offand vegetableswere growingon them. The imin
pressionwas that Phnom Penh was at least self-sufficient
were told the whole countryhad been
food. . . . The officials
dividedinto cooperatives,each averaging500 to 600 families"
(Reuters 1978). Here is clearlya plannedeffortat reduction
in scale.
of scale,
Gates calls foroperationalization
In her comments,
approach,and adexpressesconcernabout my methodological
vocates some techniquesof analysis.I am remindedby her
remarksof the adage invented,or perhapsrepeated,by Berger
(1963 :13) that "in science as in love a concentrationon
techniqueis quite likelyto lead to impotence."Nevertheless,
I am bound to agree that more and betterresearchwould
clarifythe issues I have raised in my paper. I would be
and qualitativeproduct-set
interestedto see "graph-theoretic
and in fact any other
analyses of possibilitycombinations,"
of empiricalphenomenaassociatedwithscale, and
treatments
theymightmake to replicawouldwelcomeany contributions
bility,reliability,and especiallyvalidityin studies of scale
and social relationsor social organization.
My paperwill have
succeeded beyond my fondesthopes if it inspiressuch remethodGates suggests,I can
search.As to the experimental
only say that the "natural experiment"is the most anthropologistscan expect or ethicallyundertakein studyingscale.
It was in the traditionof such experimentsand "controlled
comparisons"that I cited the experienceof the Aleutsbefore
and after colonization,Indian peasants in contrastinggeographical and ecological circumstances,and contemporary
Indiansocietyin generalin bothruraland urbansocialsettings.
In sum, "scale" is a conceptthat is widelyused in anthroand is thereforeworth
pology,both explicitlyand implicitly,
lookinginto,if only to call it into questionor lay it to rest.
Most likelyit will be salvaged or abandonedas a resultof
of its constituentelemore precise definition-specification
ments,the precise conditionsin whichtheyappear, the processes by whichtheyoccur,and theirconsequencesin social
behaviorand experience.I hope that in the effortto compresocial organizahendthe relationships
amongsize, complexity,
tion,and social relationsin societiesaroundthe worldwe will
be concernedfor the people who live in them; that is, that
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
we will not sacrificehuman insight,humane relevance,and

in the quest for scientificreplicability
social responsibility
that in
or an illusoryscientisticobjectivity.I hope, therefore,
assessingthe utilityof the concept"scale," we will exercise
the "sociologicalimagination"as Mills definedit ratherthan
eitherrarefied"grand theory"or trivialized"abstractedempiricism"(Mills 1961). We can do so by attendingto biographyas well as history,and the relationsbetweenthe two,
to individualexperienceas well as social organization,to
and by so doingmayhope to learn
processas wellas structure,
"to understandthe larger historicalscene in terms of its
meaningforthe innerlife and the externalcareerof a variety
of individuals"in a varietyof societies(Mills 1961:5).
My paper, with its attentionto processesof social interin thisdirection.It is not definitive-afact
action,is an effort
I intendedto emphasizeby headingits finalsectionwiththe
pun, "Inconclusion"(and would have done so had not wiser
editorialheads prevailedin a decisionthat "Summary"is a
clearer,less ambiguousheading). I am glad to see, however,
thatthe paper has provento be provocative.I am gratefulto
and I hope that the paper and comall of the commentators,
ments will stimulatefurtherthoughtand research on the
consequencesof size and complexityin human society and
experience.
References
Cited
ANTROPOVA,V. V. 1964. "The Aleuts," in The peoples of Siberia.
Edited by M. G. Levin and L. P. Potapov, pp. 884-88. Chicago:

Universityof Chicago Press.
BAILEY, F. G. 1963. Closed social stratification
in India. European
Journalof Sociology 4:107-24.
BARNES, HARRY ELMER, and HOWARD BECKER. 1938. Social thought
fromlore to science.Vol. 1. New York: Heath.
BARNETT, HOMER G. 1953. Innovation: The basis of cultural
change. New York: McGraw-Hill.
BARTH, FREDRIK. 1960. "The systemof social stratification
in Swat,
North Pakistan," in Aspects of caste in South India, Ceylon and
North-westPakistan. Edited by E. Leach, pp. 113-48. London:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
. 1972. Analytical dimensionsin the comparison of social
organization.AmericanAnthropologist74:207-20.
[UH]
. Editor. 1978. Scale and social organization.Oslo: UniverIn press.
sitetsforlaget.
BELL, COLIN, and HOWARD NEWBY. 1971. Communitystudies: An
introductionto the sociology of the local community.London:
Allen and Unwin.
[ZT]
BELSHAW, CYRIL. nr.d.On scale, organization,and performance.
MS.
(To appear in Paideuma.)
BERGER, PETER. 1963. Invitation to sociology: A humanisticperspective.Garden City: Doubleday.
BERGER,PETER L., and RICHARD JOHN NEUHAUS. 1977. To empower
people: The role of mediatingstructuresin public policy.Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
Research.
BERREMAN, GERALD D. 1955. Inquiry into communityintegration
in an Aleutian village. AmericanAnthropologist57:49-59.
. 1960a. Cultural variability and drift in the Himalayan
hills. AmericanAnthropologist62:774-94.
. 1960b. Caste in India and the United States. American
Journalof Sociology 66:120-27.
. 1962a. Pahari polyandry:A comparison.AmericanAnthropologist 64: 60-75.
. 1962b. Caste and economy in the Himalayas. Economic
Development and Cultural Change 10:386-94.
. 1962c. Behind many masks: Ethnographyand impression
managementin a Himalayan village. Society forApplied Anthropology Monograph 4. (Also Bobbs-MerrillReprint A-393; Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.)
. 1964. Aleut referencegroup alienation,mobility,and acculturation.AmericanAnthropologist66:231-51.
. 1966. "Caste in cross-culturalperspective," in Japan's
invisiblerace. Edited by G. DeVos and H. Wagatsuma,pp. 275324. Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress.
. 1967a. "Stratification,pluralism and interaction: A com-
Vol. 19 * No. 2
Berreman:SCALE
parative analysis of caste," in Caste and race: Comparative

approaches. Edited by A. de Reuck and J. Knight, pp. 45-73.
London: J. and A. Churchill.
. 1967b. Caste as social process. SouthwesternJournal of
Anthropology23:351-70.
. 1968. "Caste: The concept." in InternationalEncyclopedia
of the Social Sciences. Edited by David Sills, vol. 2, pp. 333-39.
New York: Macmillan and Free Press.
. 1969. "Women's roles and politics: India and the United
States," in Readings in general sociology (4th edition). Edited
by R. O'Brien, C. Shrag, and W. Martin, pp. 68-71. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
. 1971. "Self, situation and escape from stigmatizedethnic
identity,"in 1971 Yearbook of the EthnographicMuseum, Universityof Oslo, pp. 11-25. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
. 1972a. 2d edition.Hindus of the Himalayas: Ethnography
and change. Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress.
. 1972b. Social categories and social interactionin urban
India. AmericanAnthropologist74:567-86.
. 1972c. Race, caste and otherinvidiousdistinctionsin social
stratification.
Race 13:386-414.
. 1973. Caste in the modern world. New York: General
Learning Press.
. 1976. "Social mobilityand change in India's caste society,"
in Responses to change: Society,culture,and personality.Edited
by George DeVos, pp. 294-322. New York: Van Nostrand.
. 1977. Social barriers:Caste, class,and race in cross-cultural
perspective. Universityof Oklahoma Papers in Anthropology
18:217-42.
. n.d. Social inequality: A cross-culturalparadigm. MS.
BLOCH, HERBERTA. 1952. Disorganization: Personal and social.
New York: Knopf.
BLOOMFIELD, LEONARD. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.
BLUMER, HERBERT. 1937. Social disorganizationand individual disorganization.AmericanJournal of Sociology 42:871-77.
. 1969. Symbolic interactionism.
Englewood Cliffs:PrenticeHall.
BODLEY, JOHN H. 1975. Victims of progress.Menlo Park, Calif.:
Cummings.
BRAIDWOOD, ROBERT J. 1964. 7th edition.Prehistoricmen. Glenview,
Ill.: Scott, Foresman.
CHANDRA, SUBHAS.1977. Social participationin urban neighbourhoods. New Delhi: National Publication House.
[KNS]
CHILDE, V. GORDON. 1950. The urban revolution.Town Planning
Review 21:3-17.
. 1965. 4th edition.Man makes himself.London: Watts.
CICOUREL,AARONV. 1964. Method and measurementin sociology.
New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
. 1968. "Preliminaryissues of theoryand method,"in The
social organization of juvenile justice, pp. 1-21. New York:
Wiley.
. 1973. Cognitivesociology: Language and meaningin social
interaction.Harmondsworth:Penguin Education.
DAHRENDORF, R. 1969. "On the origin of inequality among men,"
in Social inequality.Edited by Andr6 B6teille.Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
[ZT]
DAVIS,FRED. 1971. On youth subcultures: The hippie variant.New
York: GeneralLearningPress.
DEVOS, GEORGE,
and HIROSHI WAGATSUMA.
1966. Japan's invisible
race. Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress.
JACK D. Editor. 1970. Understandingeveryday life.
DOUGLAS,
Chicago: Aldine.
DOUGLAS,MARY. 1970. Natural symbols. New York: Random
House.
DREITZEL,H. P. Editor. 1970. Patternsof communicativebehavior.
New York: Macmillan.
DURKHEIM,EMILE. 1933. The division of labor in society.Translated by G. Simpson. New York: Macmillan.
1954. (1912) The elementaryforms of the religiouslife.
-.
London: Allen and Unwin.
-. 1951. (1897) Suicide: A study in sociology.Glencoe: Free
Press.
EGGAN,FRED. 1954. Social anthropologyand the method of controlledcomparison.AmericanAnthropologist56:743-63.
FARBER,MARVIN.1943. The foundation of phenomenology.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.
FARIS, ELLSWORTH. 1932. The primarygroup,essenceand accident.
AmericanJournal of Sociology 38:41-50.
FIRTH, RAYMOND. 1951. Elements of social organization.London:
Watts.
June1978
243
FRANKENBERG,RONALD. 1966. Communitiesin Britain: Social life
in town and country.Harmondsworth:Penguin.

[ZT]
FREEMAN, LINTON C., and ROBERT F. WINCH. 1957. Societal complexity: An empiricaltest of a typologyof societies.American
Journal of Sociology 62:461-66.
FRIED,MORTON.1960. "On the evolutionof social stratification
and
the state,"in Culturein history:Essays in honor of Paul Radin.
Edited by Stanley Diamond, pp. 713-31. New York: Columbia
UniversityPress.
. 1967. The evolution of political society.New York: Random House.
GARFINKEL, HAROLD. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology.Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall.
GEERTZ,CLIFFORD.1963. "The integrativerevolution: Primordial
sentiments and civil politics in the new states," in Old societies
and new states.Edited by CliffordGeertz,pp. 105-57. New York:

Free Press of Glencoe.
GLUCKMAN,MAX. 1955. The judicial process among the Barotse
of NorthernRhodesia. Manchester: ManchesterUniversityPress.
[UH]
. 1962. "Les rites de passage," in Essays on the ritual of
social relations. Edited by Max Gluckman. Manchester: Man-
chester University Press.

[UH]
GOFFMAN, ERVING. 1959. The presentationof self in everydaylife.
Garden City: Doubleday (Anchor Book).

1961. Asylums.Garden City: Doubleday.
1963. Behavior in public places. Glencoe: Free Press.
1967. Interactionritual: Essays on face-to-facebehavior.
Garden City: Doubleday (Anchor Book).
. 1969. Strategic interaction.Philadelphia: University of
PennsylvaniaPress.
1971. Relations in public. New York: Basic Books.
1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of
experience. New York: Harper and Row.

GOLDENWEISER, A. A. 1922. Early civilization.New York: Knopf.
GRIFFITH, B. C., and N. C. MULLINS. 1972. Coherentsocial groups
in scientificchange. Science 177:959-64.
GUMPERZ, JOHNJ.1958. Dialect differences

and social stratification
in a North Indian village. American Anthropologist 60:668-82.
HANNERZ,
ULF. 1974. Caymanian politics: Structureand stylein a
changing island society. Stockholm Studies in Social Anthropology 1.
[UH]
HARVEY, DAVID. 1969. Explanation in geography.London: Arnold.
[MG]
HENRY, JULES. 1963. Culture against man. New York: Random
House.
HOMANS, GEORGE
C. 1950. The humangroup.New York: Harcourt,
Brace.
HORTON, JOHN. 1964. The dehumanizationof anomie and alien-
ation. BritishJournal of Sociology 15:283-300.

ISAACS,HAROLD. 1965. India's ex-untouchables.New York: John
Day.
. 1975. Idols of the tribe.New York: Harper and Row.
JONES, DOROTHYM. 1969. A studyof social and economicproblems
in Unalaska, an Aleut village.UnpublishedDoctor of Social Welfare thesis,School of Social Welfare,Universityof California,
Berkeley,Calif.
. 1976. Aleuts in transition:A comparisonof two villages.
Seattle: University of Washington Press.

KLUCKHOHN, CLYDE. 1949. Mirror for man. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
KONIG, RENE. 1958. Grundformen

der Gesellschaft:Die Gemeinde.
(Rohwolts Deutsche Enzyklopedie.) Miunchen.
[ZT]
KRADER, LAWRENCE.1968. Formation of the state. Englewood
Cliffs:Prentice-Hall.
KROEBER, A. L. 1948. Revised edition. Anthropology.New York:
Harcourt, Brace.
MAINE,HENRY. 1861. Ancientlaw. London: J. Murray.
MANNHEIM,KARL. 1940. Man and societyin an age of reconstruction. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
MARX,KARL. 1964. Economic and philosophicmanuscriptsof 1844.

New York:
International Publishers.
MERTON,ROBERT K. 1968. "Contributionsto the theoryof reference

group behavior" and "Continuitiesin the theory of reference
groups and social structure,"in Social theoryand social structure,pp. 279-440. New York: Free Press.
MILLS, C. WRIGHT.1961. The sociologicalimagination.New York:
Grove Press.
MITCHELL,J. CLYDE. 1969. Editor. Social networksin Vrbansituations. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
[UHI]
MURPHY,ROBERTF. 1971. The dialecticsof social life.New York:
Basic Books.
244
E. 1956. The extensionsof an Indian village. Journal of Asian Studies 16:5-10.

PAHL, RAY. 1966. The rural-urbancontinuum.Sociologia Ruralis 4.
[ZT]
PARK, ROBERT E. 1925. "The city: Suggestionsfor the investigation
of human behavior in the urban environment,"in The city.
Edited by R. E. Park, E. W. Burgess,et al., pp. 1-46. Chicago:
PARSONS, TALCOTT, and EDWARD A. SHILS. Editors. 1951. Toward
a general theory of action. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
RAM, NANDU. 1976. Social mobilityand status identification
amnong
the Scheduled Castes. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Indian
Instituteof Technology,Kanpur, India.
REDFIELD,
ROBERT. 1941. The folk culture of Yucatan. Chicago:
. 1947. The folk society. American Journal of Sociology
52:293-308.
. 1953. The primitiveworld and its transformations.
Ithaca:
Cornell UniversityPress.
REUTERS.
(news service) 1978. Cambodia's capital now a "ghost
city." San Francisco Chronicle,Jan. 23, pp. 1 and 20.
RIESMAN, DAVID.1950. The lonely crowd. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.
ROWE, WILLIAM L. 1964. Caste, kinship,and association in urban
India. Paper preparedfor Burg WartensteinSymposiumNo. 26,
"Cross-CulturalSimilaritiesin the UrbanizationProcess,"August
27-September8.
SAHLINS, MARSHALL P. 1968. Tribesmen.Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall.
SAPIR, EDWARD. 1949. "Culture, genuineand spurious,"in Selected
writingsof Edward Sapir. Edited by D. Mandelbaum. Berkeley:
Universityof CaliforniaPress.
SCHMALENBACH, HERMAN. 1961. "The sociologicalcategoryof communion," in Theories of society,vol. 1. Edited by T. Parsons,
et al. Glencoe: Free Press.
SCHUTZ, ALFRED. 1962. Collected papers. 1. The problem of social
reality.Edited by M. Natanson. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
SERVICE, ELMAN R. 1966. The hunters.Englewood Cliffs:PrenticeHall.
. 1971. Primitivesocial organization.New York: Random
House.
. 1975. Originsof the state and civilization.New York: W.
W. Norton.
SHARMA, K. N. 1969. Resource networksand resourcegroups in
the social structure.Eastern Anthropologist22:13-17.
. 1975. Institutions,networks and social change. Simla:
Indian Instituteof Advanced Study.
[KNS]
SHILS, EDWARD. 1957. Primordial,personal, sacred and civil ties.
BritishJournal of Sociology 8:130-45.
SHILS, EDWARD A., and MORRIS JANOWITZ. 1948. Cohesion and
in theWehrmachtin World War II. Public Opinion
disintegration
Quarterly12:280-315.
SIMMEL,
GEORG. 1950 (1903). "The metropolisand mental life,"
in The sociology of Georg Simmel. Translatedand edited by K.
Wolff.Glencoe: Free Press.
SINGH, RUDRA DATT. 1956. The unityof an Indian village. Journal
of Asian Studies 16:10-19.
SJOBERG, GIDEON. 1960. The preindustrial
city. Glencoe: Free Press.
SLATER, PHILIP.
1970. The pursuit of loneliness: Americanculture
at the breakingpoint. Boston: Beacon Press.
SRINIVAS, M. N. 1966. Social change in modern India. Berkeley:
Universityof CaliforniaPress.
STEWARD, JULIAN. 1955. Theory of culture change. Urbana: Universityof Illinois Press.
und GesellTONNIES, FERDINAND. 1935. 8th edition. Gemeinschaft
der reinenSoziologie. Leipzig: Hans Buske.
schaft: Grundbegriffe
[ZT]
. 1940. Fundamental concepts in soczety. Translated and
edited by C. Loomis. New York: American Book.
. 1957 (1887). Community and society. Translated and
edited by C. Loomis. East Lansing: Michigan State University
Press.
TOYNBEE, ARNOLD J. 1947. A study of history.Abridgedby D. C.
Somervell.New York: OxfordUniversityPress.
TURNER, RALPH. 1956. Role-taking,role standpoint,and referencegroup behavior. AmericanJournal of Sociology 61:316-28.
TURNER, Roy. Editor. 1974. Ethnomethodology:Selected readings.
Harmondsworth:Penguin Education.
TURNER, VICTOR W. 1969. The ritual process: Structureand antistructure.Chicago: Aldine.
VATUK, SYLVIA. 1969. Reference,address, and fictivekinship in
urban North India. Ethnology 8:255-72.
OPLER, MORRIS
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
. 1972. Kinship and urbanization: White-collarmigrantsin

North India. Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress.
F. C. 1961. Culture and personality.New
WALLACE, ANTHONY
York: Random House.
WEBER, MAX. 1958 (1921). The city. Translated and edited by D.
Martindale and G. Neuwirth.Glencoe: Free Press.
WHITE, LESLIE.
1959. The evolution of culture.New York: McGraw-Hill.
WHYTE, MARTIN KIND. 1973. Bureaucracy and modernizationin
China: The Maoist critique. American Sociological Review
38:149-63.
WILSON, GODFREY, and MONICA WILSON.
1945. The analysis of
social change. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.
Berreman:SCALE
MONICA. 1971. Religion and the transformation

of society.
Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.
WIRTH, LouIs. 1938. Urbanismas a way of life.AmericanJournal
of Sociology 44:1-24.
WOLF, ERIC R. 1966. Peasants. Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall.
WRIGHT, ROLLAND. 1971. "The strangermentalityand the culture
of poverty,"in The culture of poverty: A critique. Edited by
Eleanor Leacock, pp. 315-37. New York: Simon and Schuster.
[YAC]
YINGER, J. MILTON. 1960. Contracultureand subculture.American
Sociological Review 25:625-35.
WILSON,
backed|
I"Aconcisestudy
Booklist
byDon E. Dumond
The Eskimosand theircousinstheAleutsmakeup one of

the mostwidelydispersedaboriginalpopulationsin the
groups
world.Whendid thesedescendentsof immigrant
Whydidtheyremainto
fromAsiaarriveinNorthAmerica?
colonize the inhospitableArcticregions?Whatare the
technologyand
rootsof modernEskimo-Aleut
historical
ProfessorDumond uses archaeological,anartistry?
ical, and philologicalevidenceto presentthe
thropolog
ofournorthern
$12.95
119ilLustrations.
neighbors.
history
and Hudson Inc.

gThames
500 Fifth
Avenue,New York,New York10036
Vol. 19
DistributedbyW.W. Norton& Company
245
No. 2 * June1978

2741992

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2741992

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Scale and Social Relations [and Comments and Reply]

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Vol. 19, No. 2, June 1978

Scale and Social Relations'

disparateinferencesI have drawn in my own researchthat

contrastbetween Gemeinschaftand Gesellschaft(Tonnies

acteristicsmay be restatedin termsof "folk mentality.". . . The

of the continuumhas been revised,refined,

on use of a general term by labeling them "Type 1" and

AND SOCIAL RELATIONS

and membershipgroupsare disparate

Vol. 19 - No. 2 * June1978

knownand interactedprimarilywith one another,although

AND SOCIAL RELATIONS

Thus, in the initial50 years of contact,Aleutswere killed

Althoughculturalchangecan occurwithouta changein scale,

One consequenceof incorporationinto networksof vastly

Vol. 19 - No. 2 - June1978

to be undermined.This is the experiencenot only of the

A related aspect of changein scale exhibitedby the Aleuts

That the first150 years of contactwiththe alien large-scale

tion,or subsistenceeconomyin such a way as to renderthese

mountain(Pahari) withplains (Desi) villages

intercasteisolationin any one locality.On the plains the situation

Scale, expressedas size of network,is centralin the above

AND SOCIAL RELATIONS

researchled me to the conclusionthat "people know well

Vol. 19 * No. 2 * June1978

Having looked rather closely at the small end of the continuum

of situationsand the social informationnecessaryfor interaction

which confersthose privileges,and to the sanctionswhich enforce

AND SOCIAL RELATIONS

that,unless theyare closelysupervised,people will take adwhichpopulationsize and density,

PERSONAL AND IMPERSONAL

Henry (1963:147) has notedthat"in manyprimitivecultures

personal milieux,"privateplaces" (Goffman1963:9)-famand social clubs. The formerare

AND SOCIAL RELATIONS

large-scale environments (cf. Slater 1970). The same yearning

tract many people to it in an attempt to escape the total

Vol. 19 * No. 2 * June1978

In closing,I will simplylist in summaryformsome of the

small-scalesocietiesis conditionedby deep knowledgeof the

AND SOCIAL RELATIONS

The conceptof scale offersa valuable framewithinwhich

guided by "cognitive worlds . . . which underlie behavioral

choicesand are the subject of study."There does not seem to

Vol. 19 * No. 2 * June1978

Universityof StockDepartmentof Social Anthropology,

of larger-scalesocietiesis sugmay enrichthe anthropology

AND SOCIAL RELATIONS

Vol. 19 * No. 2 * June1978

that the "small-scale"societyis part of a "large-scale"social

and natives.He founda persistence

AND SOCIAL RELATIONS

who use the idea of the folk-urbancontinuumand, even

Vol. 19 * No. 2 * June1978

chronicledrather than advocated the bipolar ideal-typical

years ago regardingacculturationstudies, criticizingtheir

we will not sacrificehuman insight,humane relevance,and

Edited by M. G. Levin and L. P. Potapov, pp. 884-88. Chicago:

AND SOCIAL RELATIONS

parative analysis of caste," in Caste and race: Comparative

FRANKENBERG,RONALD. 1966. Communitiesin Britain: Social life

in town and country.Harmondsworth:Penguin.

and new states.Edited by CliffordGeertz,pp. 105-57. New York: