The Past and the Present in the Present Author(s): Maurice Bloch Source: Man, New Series, Vol.

12, No. 2 (Aug., 1977), pp. 278-292 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2800799 Accessed: 11/10/2010 21:07
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. 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.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Man.

http://www.jstor.org

THE

PAST

AND

THE

PRESENT

IN THE

PRESENT*

MAURICE BLOCH

& London School Economics Political of Science for of the by Thislecture starts considering old problem how to account socialchange either theysee thesocialprosomeof themodelsusedbecause, theoretically criticises and cessin terms used by the actorsand so are unableto explainhow it is thatactorscan of in or changethoseterms, theysee the mechanisms changeas occurring terms totally mechanisms be transformed can how these aliento theactors so are unableto explain and notionthat to is action.The sourceof thisproblem traced Durkheim's into meaningful whichare it By is cognition sociallydetermined. contrast is arguedthatthoseconcepts in but of are mouldedto socialstructure nottypical knowledge onlyfound ritual discourse, as by are discourse constrained suchfactors therequireusingnon-ritual whiletheconcepts availableto actors are This meansthatthere terms by ments humanactionon nature. of it are sincenotall terms mouldedby it. Finally is can whichthesocialorder be criticised about folk only to as that suggested suchnotions socialstructure refer ritualized statements whichare withthoseconcepts precisely discourse expressed ritual in statements society, The Durkof relativity cognition. of of givenas demonstrations thetheory the cultural of a is and cognition merely correlation onlycertain between society correlation heimian is in This typeof discourse present difof aspects cognition. statements certain and ethical hierarchy of to amounts according the degree instituted in of ferent types society varying of theories abouttheconceptualisationtime manifest. Anthropological societies thatthese argument. are givenas an example thegeneral of

I in in In thislecture want to followMalinowski two ways. First his styleof I one might wellhangfora as that which, I seeit,is basedon thebelief as argument view ofthe highly realistic sheepas fora lamb,and secondby usingMalinowski's For theories. Malinowother as matter a toolforcriticising subject anthropologist's placeamongthepeople taking skiwhatwas to be studied a longconversation' was join. A long withwhom we live during and field-work in whichwe inevitably but fromtimeto timealso conversation wherenot only words are exchanged language and blows, but where nonetheless animals,people, gestures things, in was part.For him everything to be foundthere, that playsa mostprominent naturally of importance thepastfollowed conversation. view ofthetheoretical His converbe from this.On theone hand,sincethepastcannot seenin thison-going hand,whenit does appearin value,and on theother it sation, hasno explanatory of in matter has to be explained terms thepresent. it discourse a subject as value,is clearly thatthepasthas no explanatory The first these conclusions: of has observes begunlong whichtheanthropologist wrong.The long conversation any before came and indeedit hasbegunlong before of thepeopletheanthrohe
* The Malinowski MemorialLecture, delivered the London School of Economics& at Political Science 7 December on I976.
Man (N.S.)
12, 278-292.

MAURICE

BLOCH

279

and statements theseobserved meets havebeen born.As in all discourse pologist conof and communicative bothsemantically in terms shared actsmustbe related and them so,ifonly that havepreceded suchas words, syntax, to those etc. ventions it. it the apartfrom pastin that answers the cannot understood be forthis, present of is relation past utterances not the onlyrequirement to However a semantic otheranthropologists and in something was right stressing meaning, Malinowski in to that often forget, whatis saidmustalso be adapted thetasks hand.So evenif ask view about thepastwe can nonetheless with Malinowski's we reject general him what explains the appearanceof the past as a subject matterin the present? of theory social however, wantto look once againat Radcliffe-Brown's I First, in has A of part structure. denunciation this becomean essential ofallpubliclectures of but me anthropology whatconcerns hereis thattheveryfrequency thesedetheories itself raisesinteresting Why if Radcliffe-Brown's problems. nunciations more fruitful? to put the matter Or, were so wrong,were theyso evidently a is if aboutwas not,as I think now clear, science specifically,whathe was talking he and whatwas it and whycannot be dealtwithonce and for of society culture, and morefundaleavingtheearlier first, all? I wantto answerthislastquestion later. mental one until are and these Durkheim from inherited keypropositions two Radcliffe-Brown and selfus what concerns here: i) thatsocietyis a homogeneous, organised of and of entity; thatthecategories understanding systems classi2) reproducing comesfrom influence them that constructive on are fication socialin origin, is,that between them, and whichexists suchthings theform socialgroups thelinkage as of this the world.Now, although second and not from constraints from extra-social is of the concerning socialdetermination cognition themoreadvenproposition The by challenged anthropologists. first, it been theoretically turous has hardly static rule-governed on the otherhand,thatsociety an organic, is harmonious, of Actuallymostof the critics the has criticism. system, come in forcontinual pointabout cognition, have acceptedthe Durkheimian organicview of society by is butI wantto showthattheorganic view of society implied thenotionthat of and,thatit is becauseof theacceptance thislatter determines cognition society fail. nature socialstructure of of pointthatthecriticisms thestatic has systems gone of The reasons why thetheory thesocialoriginof cognitive is to are but unchallenged not at all clear, it is in partbecausethistheory linked a have or cultures societies belief adhered by mostanthropologists; different to that used as part of Durkheimhimself systems thought. of fundamentally different by constrained were primarily evidenceagainst view thatcognitive the systems ideas peopleshad different of suchthings datawhichshowedthatdifferent nature, Sincewe had as time, and I9I2). causation so on (Durkheim space,animalspecies, different he of systems thought, argued,but all lived in the same world, the has differences comefrom must American cultural anthropology Similarly society. like Herder: thatevery of via inherited, Boas, the theories Germanromantics fromthe view of theworld(Lowie I937). Equally, own proper peoplehavetheir unthe of system gonelargely has of theory theorigin cognitive left, Durkheimian Marx's own forgetting of This is becausemanyversions Marxism, challenged. also distinction between ideologyand knowledgez, relyon theHegeliannotionof

280

MAURICE

BLOCH

therelativity cognition. Thisis especially ofsomeoftherecently true of influential Althusserian versions. Givensuch broad agreement is not surprising the it that viewthat are determined againbeenrecently cognitive has systems socially poweras fullyput by such variedbut influential writers Levi-Strauss (I962), Douglas to mention (I966; I970; I975), Geertz(I973) and Godelier only anthro(I973), pologists. If theview of thesocialdetermination cognition classificationeveryand is of where,so have forquitea timebeen criticisms thenotionof socialstructure. of on Theseall focus thepointthatalthough is socialstructure claimed be a theory to of society, onlyconcentrates verylimited it on of aspects thenatural phenomena, and thatwithitsemphasis thereproduction thesystem fails account on it of to for changeand conflict. Thus criticisms Radcliffe-Brown's of position have focused two points:the on first that is nottrue it is, that societies thesame,and that stay therefore someroom has to be madein thetheory change, for and thesecond, thatrulesof behaviour, sincetheyare notnecessarily are followed, not 'all thestory'.In mostcasesthese twopoints linked, thesolution are and offered these to in failings Radcliffe-Brown's notionofsocialstructure theconstruction a two-level is of modelofsociety which in incorporates a variety waystheMarxist-inspired of distinction between superand structure infra-structure. clearest thesetheories perhaps The of is Firth's disbetweenthelevel of socialorganisation thelevel of socialstructure tinction and (Firth I964). ForFirth is socialstructuremuchwhatRadcliffe-Brown meant the by whilesocialorganisation thepattern is phrase, or produced peoplefollowing not by the of rulesleads following rulesof socialstructure. disobedience these Systematic to social changeat the level of organisation Firthsuggests and thatsomehow things reachsucha pointthat can changes becomenecessary thesocialstructure. in Such a formulation seemsat first to sight do whatwas intended, is to modify that theoriginal of theory socialstructure that can account change, that so it for is but an illusion. The reasonliesin thefactthatthelevelof organisation, presumed the in source change thesocialstructure,contained of is within level:socialstructure. the The levelof organisation onlybe apprehended terms thesocialtheory can in of of theactors; their of system socialclassification rules, and whichis whatis referred to by the phrase'social structure'. is Organisation a matter following not of or following rules;ruleswhichapplyto rolesrecognised thepeoplestudied. This by meansthatwithin sucha theoretical framework, is although deviance accounted it to for, is not possible understand therulesand thesocialcategories how which givedeviance meaning themselves, changed, can, be since they given thevery are in within whichsocialorganisation discussed. language is Thiskindof difficulty also existsin the many similar theoretical formulas associated with such writers as Gluckman hismanyfollowers. and Thisis theproblem whichLeach'sformulation in Political systems highland of Burma tries overcome, to thoughin theend he too the comes up against sameproblem.In orderthattheruleswill not containthe he rangeof possibleactions, suggests thatwe shouldhave three levelsnot two: a levelofshared meanings commonthroughout areahe studies; a levelof the 2) I) ruleswhichare notnecessarily consistent withanother whichare chosen one and ad hoc theactors terms a third in by of level,a levelofenlightened self-interest very similar Firth's to 'social organisation'. thisway Leach is able to accountfor In

MAURICE BLOCH

28I

aboutwhether obey or to choicesare decisions in changes rules.While,forFirth, withwhichrule to obey. Leach, for disobeyrules, Leach choicesare concerned however,has to facetheproblemthatthe actorsmustbe able to communicate becausethentheir Clearlytheycannotchoose any system among themselves. and one actions would stopbeingmeaningful foranother, so Leachshowsthatall understanding of categories, rulesembody the same meaningful thesevarying conarea.This doesavoidthedifficulty in whichis shared thewholegeographical but us probway cerning communication itbrings backin a different to theearlier Instead actions of by beingbounded themeantheory. lemwhichwe saw in Firth's are by givento them the they boundedbythemeaning by ingsgivento them rules cannotaccountfor theory shared Thus,forthesamereasonthatFirth's concepts. of Leach'stheory cannotaccountforthecreation new thecreation new rules, of concepts. becauseit is difficult see whysome to a problem Thisseemsat first sight strange is socialsystem cannot at say: this of theactors a certain pointin thesocialprocess and look at thesituation buildup a new system. no good at all,let us takea fresh lies the framework discussed, in the within theoretical The reason cannot, whythey of Simplyif all concepts notionof thesocial determination thought. unanalysed since a look is impossible are by and categories determined thesocialsystem fresh all cognition already is mouldedto fitwhatis to be criticised. whatis to in whichseems do precisely the also Strangely problem exists a theory whichcan be used to to neededsinceit offers theactorsa sourceof knowledge This is a theory by the expressed a variedgroupof writers, challenge socialorder. fromMarx (Meillassoux I972: inspiration French, who have drawntheir mainly Leach and Firth would criticise TerrayI969: GodelierI966; I973). This position be conthe in theway outlined proposethat infrastructure above and as a solution in of rulesor concepts, terms the structed a way that totally in is external either to and could thenbe History of of rationale theprocesses production reproduction. neither beingreduced one nature, seenas theinteraction two levelsof different of between them. dialectic couldexist progressive to theother, thata continually so truly achievetheelusivegoal of a dynamic This kindof theory would therefore of whichtakes the of system meanings peoplewithout intoaccount shared system comesfrom the there, however, itsmovement within The problem it. beingcaught Now for that infrastructure as external theconcepts theactors. the is seen of to fact apprehend itto be a source criticism thesocialorder means that peoplemust it of of with it in terms from availableto themand whichare different and incompatible by This meanstermsnot determined it. social theory. thoseof the dominant socialtheory, to however contradictory thedominant Otherwise infrastructure, the is nevertransformed actionandjust carries in itsown sweetway,totally on into of irrelevant theprocesses history. to if One can put theproblemgenerally sayingthat, we believein thesocial by as or mentioned fartacitly explicitly so determination concepts, all thewriters of leavestheactors and their society so change withno language talkabout to do, this are explains whyanthropologists it. can it,sincethey onlytalkwithin Thisproblem who to of similar thoseof thehistorians so pictures society continually producing wellexplained logicofthefeudal the whypeasants' alsoexplained system they that work whyanthropologists' leavesus totally revolts couldnotoccur.It alsoexplains

282

MAURICE BLOCH

in for and whichareoccurring the changes unprepared thedramatic revolutionary veryareastheyhave studied. of is for and apparently testable proposition So whatevidence there thecrucial of Well, thesocial determination knowledgefromrecentstudiesof cognition? contradictof at seemstrangely studies cognitive systems present anthropological Geertz, as ory. On theone handwe have theworkof suchwriters Levi-Strauss, the in of of Douglas, and Willis,whichstress variation systems classification such of as and in ways,linkthese systems things animals, plants, colours, which, various different On handwe also havecompletely to cognition socialstructure. theother associated with studies (I972), Berlin& principally theworkofKay (I975), Berlin et comeup with (I967; I968; I970) which Kay (I969), Berlin al. (I973) andBulmer thatcolour,plant,animaland even human totallydifferent findings. Basically, and subclasses are and criteria produceidentical classifications basedon identical between I classes varying onlyin degreeof elaboration. believethecontradiction and can thesetwo typesof studies be explained, it is to thisthatI now turn. II made the let First uslook atwhatisprobably mostfundamental claim, repeatedly boundtosocialorganisation relativists-that of bycultural concepts timeareclosely Thisis nota topicthat, faras I know, as and therefore from to vary society society. But social has actuallybeen examinedby Berlinand Kay or theirassociates. have Evans-Pritchard3 loved to tellus thatthenotionof time,whichwe feelis in in different can cultures, totally ways,not as self-evident, be experienced other but as or Thisis a really linear perhaps static as cyclic. claimto makeamong popular if all were true, anthropologists,onlyforthereasonthatif it,and all it implied, shouldreally funded onessuchas physics, academicsubjects, especially better the becomesimply sub-trade anthropology. indeed a of This the of was almost position Whorf(i956) butit is also rather carelessly implied manyothers. by In one senseat leastwhatthey is true, is say that iftheclaimabouttherelativity of concepts timeis upheld,it is so fundamental, it inevitably of that the justifies that conclusion all aspects culture relative. of are However,evenbefore look at we this ought makeussuspicious. itsfull to In baroque proposition critically, something formtherelativists' will have us believethatwe can producea whole argument cultures. However,an examination rangeofdifferent concepts timefordifferent of ofthis'range of it 'revealsthat by and largeboilsdown to onlytwo notions time. On theone handwe have concepts rather our own folkeveryday like conceptof lineardurational timeand on theother handa conceptof a static notionof time often referred as cyclic, two wordsreferring thesamesortof evidence. to the to to be the Before proceeding, however, pointmust made.In reducing evidence one of the two typesI am, of course,talkingabout claimsconcerning perception not duration thewaysin whichtimeis divided or metaphorically up, represented. These are,of course, to The legionbut are not relevant our argument. Malagasy usedto, and still of of sometimes now, dividethedayin terms theparts thehouse of orientation their reached theraysofthesun.Thisworksbecauseofthestrict by but us use types from Thisis not us. houses, itonlytells that they different ofclocks

as asvaried Durkheim (I962, I966), and scientists (I9I2), Boas(I966), Le'vi-Strauss

MAURICE BLOCH

283

claim thatdifwhatI am talking about.Let us return the morefundamental to ferent people perceivetimedifferently. of all thereare a prioriarguments First in against type claimwhich this of havebeenformulated varying waysby,amongst others, Gellner (I968) in answer Winch,Max Black (I959) in answer Whorf, to to and in philosophy Ayer(I973) in answer theNew Hegelians. to The mostreby such in famous remark 'iflionscould that current pointis contained Wittgenstein's speakwe couldnot understand them'.4 other In words,thatcommunication with different of is creatures a fundamentally with system ideasandlife notpossible, and surely peoplewitha different conceptof timewould in thisrespect likelions, be since abouttheparticularly fundamental nature this of everyone agrees proposition. to On theother of itself witness thefact that hand, existence anthropology bears the itis possible, withcertain if difficulty,communicate all other to with human beings, however different culture. their Wittgenstein's zoologybrings mindanother to rethat markby a supporter cognitive of relativity showsitsnaivety, is,thecritiand cismmade by Evans-Pritchard anthropologists triedto understand other of who cultures terms in to this whichmadesense them. ridiculed typeofreasoning He by it the describing as 'if I were a horse' arguments; implication beingthatforthe of to the to anthropologist pretend reconstruct thought processes other peopleis as But there ridiculous trying reconstruct thought as to the of processes horse.5 surely, is no reasonto believethatifhorses could speak,we would understand themany better thanlions,while Evans-Pritchard's whole work is a demonstration that, withhelpfrom anthropologists, can indeedunderstand Azandeor the we the the Nuer. This is possibly seemsto have overbecauseof a factthatEvans-Pritchard if In neither norother looked; that he, anthropologists, horses. other study words, other .people reallyhad different conceptsof time we could not do what we patently thatis communicate do, withthem.Evidenceforsucha conclusion also comesfrom completely a different source, that themassof recent and is of studies syntax semantics different and of languages havebeencarried byAmerican that out and in linguists. Disagreements polemics this field many, at leastconsensus are but seems be emerging onepoint, that that fundamental employed to on and is the logic inthesyntax all languages Whorf of is, notwithstanding, same.The implications the of thisfornotionsof timeare clear.The logic of languages impliesa notionof is temporality sequence so ifall syntax basedon thesamelogic,all speakers and and must a fundamental apprehend at timein thesameway,andindeedthis level seems confirmed thetotal tests to the by failure psychological andattempts substantiate of claims Whorf Sapirin this of and respect (Brown & Lenneberg I954; Hoijeri954). of Becauseof this kindof a priori objection burden prooffortheclaimthat the concepts timeareculturally of variable mustsurely withtherelativists. lie Clearly I cannotexamine suchclaimsand so I have chosenone examplebecauseof its all nature. Geertz(I973) in a famousarticle, out to sets eleganceand its influential show how the Balinesehave a different conceptof time.(Actually Balinese the havea 'broad back' and havebeenusedforthissortof thing before whichmakes theircase particularly interesting.) offers He evidencefromthreemain sources. The first thecalendars Balineseuse: a lunarcalendar moreimportantly is the and another calendrical system consisting a numberof cyclesof daysof differing of whichrunindependently eachother theway thatweeksand months length of in runindependently eachother our own calendar. of in The surprising thing hereis

284

MAURICE

BLOCH

the tells that us normally cycles-tenin all-but Geertz thenumber concurring of threeof them.Geertzin any case does not make the Balinese only eniphasise a units that mistake thinking simply havingdifferent of timeimplies different of for that whatis stressed the by More significant himis thefact concept duration. of is as or Balinesefor such things astrology, fixingtempleceremonies, the conThe equivalent us to theconcurrence in for of cycles. junctionof stages different on of cyclesand on reFridays, i3th,and it is thestress coincidence different the that assertion theBalinese have a non-durational currence whichleadsto Geertz's and and of patterns there notionof time.Then he looksat terms address greeting of conhe notes a depersonalisation personhoodlinked to a detemporalising and witha view of of formality together is theritualisation socialrelations their in and festivals whichmakes events irrelevant the to timeas expressed religious state is 'steadystate'. His generalconclusion thatbecauseof the evidencepresented
404).

of ception time (I973:

39I).

Thefinal main of produced Geertz by type evidence

social 'takes life (I973: Balinese placein a motionless present'

of life admits that there someaspects Balinese whichdo notfit, are Now Geertz of is liketheway Sukamoand nationalism viewed,likethegrowth revolutionary like theexistence othersystems address of of which and their ideologies, parties thattheyalso have calendrical and even, in a footnote, and stress individuals and to but he similar ourselves, this, tellsus, is: 'unstressed of notions durational Well is it?It is difficult see how thepolitical to importance'. distinctly secondary for and Sukamo could have been of so little importance the Balinesein parties all sortofpolitics new: after there beenthe was had I958 or indeedto see how this thisit is also clearthata linear view of Quite apartfrom Dutch and theJapanese. at also on level.MarkHobart timeand stress individuals exists thevillagepolitics of and villagecouncils hasdescribed how theformality lackoftemporality Balinese links(Hobart are paralleled highlypersonaland manipulative patron/client by arena. is outside formal the by Equallyimportant thestress Hobart I975) operating thatagriculture not organised the complexmulti-cyclic is article by in another to referred above. calendar
weresummed succinctly thepriest thelocalPuraDalem. The viewsofthevillagers by of up in out he He pointed that, hisofficial discussed (those capacity, usedtheabovetwo calendars to to ritual dateswhereas themajority people,as they of werefarmers, by Geertz) estimate For thecycle seasons seenas themost of was relevant. other there a was matters immediately of basedon a series well remembered and events, including wars,earthquakes chronology and the calendar (Hobartin press). volcanic (Gregorian) eruptions, morerecently, official

the havea non-durational It seemstherefore to notion misleading saythat Balinese and of time.Sometimes in some contexts and contexts theydo, sometimes in other village and national they do not, and thosewhere theydo not (agriculture, cannothonestly calledunimportant. be politics, economics) is of perNow this wherewe can see theusefulness theMalinowskian naturalist the as systems superimposed Instead seeing socialprocess one or several of spective. it on each other, enablesus to see thatin thelong conversation is Balinese that at one of another, we can and society, sometime, notion timeis used,and at others timecomesfromthat for or immediately noticethattheevidence static cyclical of in whichwe can labelritual thebroadsense the specialtypeof communication, formula, formalbehaviourand above all term: greetings, fixedpoliteness and

MAURICE BLOCH

285

in rituals, whether social,religious state. contrast contexts whichnotions the or By of durational timeare used are practical and activities, especially agriculture uninstitutionalised power. This contrast betweennon-ritual and communication universal and concepts, and otherways of thinking, ritualcommunication strange the explains apparent studies whichI noted.When we look contradiction thefindings cognitive in of we that is from whereBerlin Kay gettheir and information it non-ritual from, find such as Douglas, Geertz, On practical communication. the otherhand,writers almostexclusively ritualcomon Turner, Willis, and Levi-Strauss, concentrate in Of there nothing is munication myth. course and but wrongin doingthat itself, there ifit is suggested whatthey that findis thecognitive of is, system thepeople This is especially sinceit has alwaysbeen,and stillis, a recurrent theystudied. so to the professional of of malpractice anthropologists exaggerate exoticcharacter of in on othercultures. Only concentrating thepicture theworldapparent ritual and the communication well be due to thistendency, it obscures factof the may available all cultures. in universal nature a partof thecognitive of system In other the of doesnot support view thatnotions wordstheBalineseevidence it the time vary fromcultureto culture, only shows that,in ritualcontexts, contexts Balineseuse a different notionof timefromthatin moremundane and that these contexts and in mundane categories classification it maybe assumed are, from basedon cognitive universals. Berlinand Kay's findings, wherewe findthesecognitive Furthermore, natureof the contexts the universals an itself of like after suggests explanation their presence. Durkheim, others the was to him,rejected notionthatcognition constrained nature, pointing by by thevariability concepts, of especially concepts time; but if he is wrongin of of his it this, objection cannot hold.Whatis more, since is in contexts wheremanis in mostdirect contact withnature we find that universal concepts, hypothesis the that it is something theworldbeyondsociety in whichconstrains leastsome of our at cognitive categories strengthened, is this though neednotbe nature an independas ententity man,but,as I believeis suggested Berlinand Kay's dataand foreto by shadowed by Marx, natureas the subjectof human activity (see also Rosch
I975).7

III in Now withthis mindletus turn theother to thatevident in cognitive system: ritual communication see,ifthere least, notion and at the that issociety is the it that sourceofcognition be retained. do this, can To it to however, is necessary look at this 'society' which it is claimeddoes the constraining. Well, Durkheimand are Radcliffe-Brown quiteclearaboutit,it is thepattern corporate of groups and roleswhichreproduces itself through not time.It is a system of flesh and bone moment one whichtranscends but peopleat anyparticular of peoplebothin terms their individuality their and temporality. is the'on theground This phenomenon' whichmouldsideas'up in theair'. Now there two things noteaboutthis are to is of The theory society. first somethingthatat first sightappearsa coincidence, is its extraordinary that similarity withwhatGeertz tellsus is theBalineseview of timeand persons. go back to To our earlier quote: he saysoftheBalinese thatthey havea notionof depersonalisa-

286

MAURICE BLOCH
391).

The of of elegantdescription thetheory socialstructure. This could be a highly is secondpoint,one whichhas oftenbeen made by Leach among others, that, as groups an empirical of the the presents pattern rolesandcorporate though theory thisis not so, and, as graduate with the ideas it produces, by reality, contrast easyto see to cost, is notall that it in tradition found their have trained this students whichthe and persons of in or hearanybitsof socialstructure thestream events key It witnesses. is onlywhenwe look againat Radcliffe-Brown's anthropologist we realise in whythisis. worksin Structure society (1952) that andfunctionprimitive to he phenomenon is referring is againnotthewholeofthe The kindof empirical but partsof it,partswhich relatively occasional long conversation, onlycertain, talks in are almostentirely theritualmode. When Radcliffe-Brown of roles,he or de as to turns rolesas manifested during suchevents sacrifices rites immediately or worship totemic he groups, looksat ancestor When he talksof descent passage. that is dealing he we is withrituals find When Radcliffe-Brownnotdealing rituals. as to in with ritualbehaviour the wider sense.He is referring such things inThe onlypartofwhatpeoplesayto eachother jokingor avoidance. stitutionalised as at to encounters be discussed any lengthare such things kinship in ordinary fieldworker and formula. Now, once the bewildered greetings politeness terms, alone, that and hasrealised it is in thistypeofbehaviour, in thistypeofbehaviour and the taskis disappear the thathe needsto look forsocialstructure, problems whenit is rites passage therareoccasions de are madestrangely easy.For example, and even quite and duties, to possibleactually hearpeople givinglistsof rights or as clothing to literally seerolesbeingputon individuals is thecaseofceremonial for worship predescent groupsgathered ancestor Similarly, bodilymutilation. and can be sidedover by eldersactingas priests, actually photographed, whatis it at that sometimein theproceedings will actually probable more,itis extremely be said thatthey'go on forever' and are 'one body'. if This meansthat,not only is it easy to build up social structures one conin but communication, also,thatwe find it,givento us in centrates on ritual only of the theverywordsof thepeople we study, academictheory social structure.8 communithatsocialstructure onlyextracted is from ritual Now once we realise it socialtheory in typeof communication, and that is thefolk expressed this cation by withthe view of the world extracted Geertzfor the Balinese, itssimilarity understandable. becomesimmediately communication, also onlylookingat ritual view of society, like Radcliffe-Brown, Geertz,not using a long conversation when all of UnlikeMalinowski, parts thediscourse. forgot abouttheother simply had his they notstayto watchthecanoe did incanting spells, themagician stopped building. of far turns to be a system classification out beingsociety, Socialstructure, from notion such linkedto other ritual systems, as theritual cognitive of humanbeings moonlyat certain expression of time.Like ritual timeit has phenomenological it and ments thelong conversation, interestinglytoo also seemsto be different of we For of socialsystem other moments discourse. example, of from cognitive the groups, localgroups, cooperative find suchgrouping agricultural as continually that such 1940), socialrelations, suchas Nuervillages cattle and camps(Evans-Pritchard in and landlord share-cropper Hobart, by as as thoseofpatron client described and

of to conception time(1973: linked a detemporalising tionofpersonhood

MAURICE BLOCH

287

in India(MayerI960), have no place in theclassification system expressed ritual; existence mustrequireconcepts and a cognitive system yet obviously, their too of is aboutpeople.In other words, cognition society, thatoftime, double.On like is basedon universal theone handthere a system usedin normalcommunication in and notions timeand cognition, in whichpeople are visualised wayswhich of a whichis usedfortheorganisato seemto differ from little culture culture, system and tionof practical activities, especially productive activities, on theotherhand is referred by Radcliffe-Brown social to as different there another totally system, of and specific system classibasedon a stranger muchmoreculturally structure, fication.9 also n. 6) (see of is one of The presence thepastin thepresent therefore ofthecomponents that of another communication, other system cognition of whichis characteristic ritual that in of communiworldwhichunlike manifested thecognitive system everyday a It link cationdoesnotdirectly up withempirical experiences. is thereforeworld groups(inpeopled by invisible entities. the one hand rolesand corporate On both halosas Nadel (1957) putit) and on theother visible godsandancestors, types of manifestations intoeach otheras is shownso subtly Fortes' by studyof fusing worldwhose therepresentationTallensi of descent groups (Fortes 1949).' 0 Another of of two maincharacteristics, dissolution timeand the depersonalisation inthe of can withthe mechanics the dividuals, be linked,as I have arguedelsewhere, ritual semantic of communication. system formalised, whichorganise two the of Now, recognising presence two cognitive systems, at in kinds communication, of occurring different moments thelongconversation, thosesocialtheories solvesthetheoretical difficulties whichwe raisedconcerning whichmakeuse ofnotions superstructure infrastructure. problem of and The was thateither infrastructure not trulyindependent, sinceit could only be the was in because apprehended theterms thesuperstructure,thatit was irrelevant of or it was formulated a way thatactors If, hand, in couldnotapprehend. on theother we realisethatwhat was meantby social structure not a system, only but was cognitive certainmoments a long conversation, in characterised a specific by and in system, thatinfrastructure to the othermoments the conversation, refers is diswhen a different nature-constrained cognitive system used, the difficulty The infrastructure then own cognitive has its for and appears. system theactors its realisation be, and is, used occasionally challenge can thatotherconsciousness, to of an invisible static The pastin system created ritual:socialstructure. timeless by thepresent thenchallenged thepresent. cannotbe achieved is by This challenge are whichusually side easilybecausethere barriers stoptheputting by sidewithin an argument, ideasand concepts of comingfromthetwo types communication, butthese can barriers in theendbe overcome words, people (Bloch 1975). In other modelsof their maybe extensively mystified thestatic by and organic imaginary in communication; society whichgaina shadowy phenomenological reality ritual buttheyalso have availableto themanother sourceof concepts, use of which the can lead to therealisation exploitation itschallenge. of and IV Now in thislastsentence havejumped aheadof myself to explainwhatI I and

288

MAURICE

BLOCH

whichis inevitably to meantI wantby way of conclusion ask one lastquestion, whenit could be raisedby whatI have said so far.Why two cognitive systems, can to from anassumed thatone would do? An answer thisquestion be glimpsed for data havebeenfelt a longtimeto be muchmoredisturbing thropological which madeagainst than criticisms of of to therepose thetheory socialstructure theovert of seemsto vary that to it.I am referring therealisation theamount socialstructure and from caseto case.On theonehandwe havepeopleliketheBalinese theIndians embarrassment. seemto that who haveso muchsocialstructure itis a positive They roles thanare needed for the and specialist have far more groups,sub-groups seemto be examples, and handthere of working anynatural system, on theother hunters gatherers and suchas theHadza, of people who fromAfrican especially The haveany(Woodburni968a; i968b; 1972; 1976; forthcoming). realisahardly criticism nearlyall acceptedtheories of a tion of this constitutes fundamental or or like it, as everything, as an which eithersee social structure, something or level.If socialstructure analytical equalssociety, an essential ofit,it seems part of nature the to has nonsense say thatone society moreor less.The fundamental reactions disbelief of the challenge brought such data explains extraordinary by in his whenWoodburnfirst presented Hadza data in theearlyI96os in seminars of of and London,some of theheartlands thetheory socialstructure. Cambridge confirmation whichhas now been made impossible theindependent Disbelief by Turnbull the from workof,amongothers, (I966) and Lee (1972). He showedthat no of rolescategorically the Hazda had practically concepts permanent binding attention supernatural to and people or setsof people together gave little beings. I we If,however, use theMalinowskian perspectivehave outlined above,it is not that can communication havea varying in different role so surprising ritual societies. as It is not thatsocieties theHazda have lesssociety, was halffeared, that like but in theyhave less of theirsocial theory expressed the languageof ritual, while is in people liketheBalinesehave more.This differencereflected their respective of ritual communication in a timeconcepts time.While theBalinesein their live that of lesspresent, is in a phenomenological representationtimewherethepresent thatthepresent a meremanifestation thepast,these is and thepastareso fused of hunters gatherers characterised whatwas notedbyWoodburn, and are by Turnbull and Lee, and called by Meillassoux (I967) their 'present orientation', is the that in totalabsence thepastas a subject of matter their discourse. Thereis lackofconcernwiththepastin thepresent, correlated withminimal in ritual communication their longconversation. Theyhaverelatively rituals socialrelations, of few of rites birth passage, ceremonies, funerals, ancestor worship, exceptinterestingly enough forone majorritual whichis primarily concerned withtherelationship menand of last taken women.Now this fact, withthemoregeneral contrast together between, on theone handtheBalineseand theIndians, on theother Hadza, givesa and the pointerto what it is thatwe are dealingwith,when we are considering the amountof social structure. are also helped in thistask by an differential We interesting mistakemade by Meillassoux(I967). He attributed the 'present of orientation' hunters gatherers thetechniques whichthey and to by obtain living a from nature. The trouble withthisexplanation, however, thatthough seems is it supported theAfrican by hunter gatherer itdoesnotfit and data suchother hunters as and gatherers theAustralian aborigines thenative or Americans the North on

MAURICE BLOCH

289

withsuchpeople as theHazda, is fullof ritual by West coast.Theirlife, contrast Thiscontrast explained Woodburn is by of andthepresence thepastin thepresent. is there no fundawherehe pointsout thatthough publication, in a forthcoming foodfrom hunters gatherers and obtaintheir in difference theway African mental is difference obtain there a fundamental theirs, Aborigines theway someAustralian of irrespective women.Woodburnsays:'all overAustralia, in theway theytreat to in themselves be concerned thelong-term promenconsider thelocal ecology, overand bring their in control daughters, up ductive enterprise whichtheyassert who the husband will be' (1976: I7). deciding over theirmarriages negotiating overwomenis not onlyto obtain dealings Now, we knowthatthepointofthese of to the of number wivesbut,through promise daughters others, themaximum complex and establishing maintaining over othermen,thereby to obtaincontrol between Australian the the aborigines words, difference In age basedranking. other This explainswhy the hierarchy. and the Hadza lies in a degreeof instituted of are in of respect techniques production, in this Australian Aborigines, spite their from inevitably insufficient the suggest, similar theBalinese.I would therefore to of type that that here, theamount 'socialstructure' comevidence canbe presented The Hadza have very little varieswith the amount of hierarchy. munication and exceptbetweenmen and women atid mothers-in-law hierarchy instituted of ritualcommunication and exceptin respect these sons-in-law theyhave little The oriented. Their conceptsof time are almostentirely present relationships. communicaevenmore, havea lot ofritual and Australian aborigines, theBalinese discourse. this large tion or socialstructure; occupiesa surprisingly partof their and view of timeis,forthatpartof their societies their hierarchical Theirhighly dominated thepastin thepresent. by discourse, in is forfrom studies greeting of Equallysignificant thisrespect whatemerges in ritualisation theircomof relevant the extreme mulas. These are especially in ritual communicashowwelltheconnexion between they form, that municative haloscalledrolesand corporate of invisible groups.It tionand thecreation these to for has sometimes been arguedthatgreetings essential anycommunication are manyenthis showsthat is notso, that takeplacebetween peoplebuttheevidence at of the are by counters notaccompanied greetings all and that length timein the as Again,itvaries, varies. rolecreating procedures conversation givenoverto these withthe has been shownby E. Goody (1972) and Irvine(I974) forwestAfrica, in concerned. degreeof hierarchy thesociety of of Here too the amountof social structure, the past in the present, ritual and is hierarchy with the amountof institutionalised communication correlated, a Please note,however,thatI am not proposing simple thatis whatit is about. as is manifested connexion withthe degreeof inequality. Some inequality often and unstable, unadorned but, oppression, as Weber pointedout,it is thenhighly itself are whenitsorigins hiddenand whenit transforms into onlybecomesstable worldwhichwe call a in orderof inequality an imaginary hierarchy: legitimate 'nature'and consisting of socialstructure. is doneby thecreation a mystified This of conceptsand categories time and personsdivorcedfrom everydayexof and part of takeson theappearance an inevitable of an perience, whereinequality of in Strathern, herstudy ideasconcerning Marilyn system." example, For ordered showshow womenaresometimes (1972) womenin theNew GuineaHighlands

290

MAURICE

BLOCH

of as times for while other at are, seen, whatthey producers foodandchildren, It that activitiesmen. isnotsurprising in of the creative creatures spoiling polluting systems are two simultaneously cognitive two order maintain suchtheories to as fascinated usualby theexotic, many Unfortunately anthropologists, needed. conthe forgetting other to as haveonly paidattention theworld seenin ritual, is which their informants hold, which denied also and ofthe ceptualisation world as variation areinfact what communication. have They presentedcultural byritual the communication ofthe between ritual view they world the of people differences one. they and Malinowski, and everyday this, unlike practical In doing study our by the with systems the we by haveconfounded systems which knowtheworld we which hideit.
NOTES

for I am grateful help in preparingthislectureto: J. Gumperz,M. Hobart, W. A. Karim,J. Woodburn and membersof the Departmentof Social Anthropologyof Stockholmand Goteborg Universities. I This type of view of the subject matterof social studyis one which has run throughthe in theories.It is present linguistic in work of many writers oppositionto various 'structuralist' recentsocial scientists philosophyand phenomenologyand has throughthischannelinfluenced to including Geertz who is referred below. Malinowski seems to have adopted thispoint of (see Robins I97I). view independently 2 Marx makesit quite clear in Part I of The German that ideology he does not equate ideology especiallyas to the and knowledge or consciousnessbut in thiswork alone he is inconsistent source of non-ideological knowledge in feudal and capitalistsocieties,a type of knowledge a of for essential revolution.In otherplaces he talksof the consciousness theworking-class, conhowever, was ceptnot withoutproblemsas theearlyAlthusser at painsto pointout. This lecture, and to of of to is an attempt make a contribution thetheory theconsciousness theworking-class as thisconsciousness seeing it as based on the real processesof productionbut not attributing society.A discussionof the almostexclusivelyto communist Marx does in The German ideology betweenIdeology and Knowledge in Marx is foundin Lefebre(I966: chap. 3)-I do distinction not however completelyadopt Lefebre'spositionhere. 3 Leach, who has written scintillatingly time does not in the end make his positionon this on between 'ritual', point clear. In his writingon time (I96I) (I976: chap. 7), he distinguishes 'abnormal', 'sacred' timeand othernotionsof timein a way thatseemssimilarto thatproposed the of here. He goes on to stress arbitrariness the division of time and the abnormal notion of non-ritual, sacredtimebut he saysnothingof theothertypeof timehe implies; thenon-sacred, normal. This means thatthough he may not be arguing thatconceptsof time are relativehe leaves us with the impressionthathe does. 4 That remarkwas drawn to my attention S. by Professor Ehrington. 5 Professor Forteshas drawn my attention thefactthatthisaphorismwas oftenused by M. to and was common currency the time. Radcliffe-Brown at 6 I have discussedwhat I mean by ritual communicationin 'Symbol, song and dance: is religion an extremeformof traditional authority?'(Bloch I974). There I argued for a continuum in communicationfromrepetitive (formalised)communicationto generative(everyday) end of thecontinuum. (formalised) communication. Ritual communicationlies at therepetitive I here: 'rituals' in thenarrowsense,greetings, Since thetypeof communication am considering formalised joking and avoidance, politeness,lie quite clearlyfar to the repetitiveend of the continuumthe difficult questionof where to draw theline betweenthetwo typesof communicationdoes not arise.In any case it does not seem to me thatthereare manytypesof communication which fall at the middle of the continuumfor reasons which have to do with the very different natureof the semanticsused at eitherend. Unlike Leach (I954) who sees ritualas an I aspectof all activity, would argue thattheritualmessageis carriedin nearlyall casesby clearly distinct momentsof the conversationas is argued by Malinowski in his famous discussionof magic (Malinowski I922). In the same paper I also explained how it is the very semantic mechanicsused by ritualwhich createa staticor cyclic view of time. 7 I am not making the empiricist thatconceptsas conceptsare given in mistakeof thinking of nature,I am only talkingof the constraints natureon thoughtgiven the human condition.In thisI am followingPiaget (I968). It would be nonsenseto say thatour everydayconceptsare

MAURICE BLOCH

29I

like notions of The notions time of heldbyphysicists notremotely folk are true concepts time. handmyposition totally of who is opposedto that Levi-Strauss argues oftime.On theother in is phenomenon ordered culture whatever only by that nature this in respect an unordered takes it. way thelogicofthought madeby Leach(I954: I4). 8 Thispoint already is is since the of 9 One ofthefewdomains which tries merge twosystems cognition kinship to of and and concerns of theirrigation bothof practical it partakes productive reproductive is unsuccessful it seems me to lie at and to Thismerging inevitably society. authority through has and which Fortes madeinvarious waysbetween places invarious thebackofthedistinction domain(FortesI969). This merging could also domainand thepolitico-jural thedomestic has in whether for inconclusive controversies anthropology kinship a account therecurrent in constraints be evident domestic to baseor not.We wouldexpect natural kinship biological in domain. and negated thepolitico-jural 10 Thispoint particularly is powerfully by I. Kopytoff put (I97I). in fashion M. Bloch(I975). in "I Thisis discussed a moreextended
REFERENCES

& London:Weidenfeld Nicolson. A. question philosophy. of Ayer, J. I973. Thecentral nomenclature. of Language in B. and Berlin, I972. Speculation the growth ethnobotanical of and D. E. Breedlove& P. H. Raven I973. General principles classification nomenclature folk in biology. Am.Anthrop. 2I4-42. 75, Phil.Rev.68,228-38. Lee relativity: viewsofBenjamin Whorf. the Black,M. I959. Linguistic of form traditional an authority? M. songanddanceorisreligion extreme Bloch, I974. Symbol, Eur. Sociol. J. New In and in societies. London, language oratory traditional I975. Introduction. Political York: Academic Press. In Indians P. Holder.Lincoln:Univ.of (ed.) of Boas,F. I966. Introduction. Handbook American Nebraska Press. of and Psychol. 49, R. J. Brown, & E. Lenneberg I954. A study language cognition. abn.social taxonomy among the A of not Bulmer, I967. Whyisa cassowary a bird? problem zoological R. KaramoftheNew Guineahighlands. (N.S.) 2, 5-25. Man 1 6 of Mankind history. mysteries Karamnatural I968. Wormsthatcroakand other or Egghead? In1Echanges the etcommunications (eds) I970. Whichcamefirst, chicken the The Hague: Mouton. J.Pouillon& P. Maranda. and London: of of and an Douglas,M. I966. Purity danger: analysis concepts pollution taboo. Routledge& KeganPaul. incosmology. London:Barrie& Rockliffe. symbols: explorations I970. Natural London:Routledge& KeganPaul. in I975. Implicit meanings: essays anthropology. tot6miqueAustralie. en le E. ele'mentaires viereligieuse: systeme de la Durkheim, I9I2. Lesformes Univ.Press. London:Oxford Evans-Pritchard, I940. TheNuer. E. E. and Firth, I964. Essayson socialorganisation values(Lond. Sch. Econ. Monogr. Social R. London:Athlone Press. Anthrop.). Univ.Press. London:Oxford among Tallensi, the Fortes, I949. ThewebofKinship M. i 969. Kinship the and social London:Routledge & the ofLewis Henry Morgan. order, legacy KeganPaul. in in ofculture. C. timeand conduct Bali. Reprinted Theinterpretation Geertz, I973. Person, New York: BasicBooks. & E. In (eds) in philosophyscience. I. Lakatos A. of Gellner, I968. Thenew idealism. Problems the Amsterdam: NorthHollandPublications. Musgrave Paris: et eneconomie'. Maspero. Godelier, I966. Rationalite'irrationalite' M. Paris: trajets marxistes anthropologie. Maspero. en I973. Horizons, The interpretation of of 'Begging' and thepresentation respect Goody,E. I972. 'Greeting', ritual J.La Fontaine. London:Tavistock. (ed.) village society. of leader Balinese in and two Hobart, I975. Orators patrons: types political M. In Political New York: society M. Bloch.London, (ed.) and in language oratory traditional Academic Press
Paris: Alcan.
62I-39.

Society.I, 5i-86. Univ. of California Press. & P. Kay I969. Basiccolor terms. Berkeley:

454-62.

292

MAURICE

BLOCH

In of M. in Hobart, inpress. Padi,punsandtheattribution responsibility.Natural symbols south east Asia(ed.) G. Milner. in Hoijer,H. (ed.) I954. Language culture, Chicago:Univ.Press. of in In Irvine, I974. Strategies status J. manipulation theWolofgreetings. Explorationsthe in ethnography ofspeaking R. Bauman & J.Sherzer. (eds) Cambridge: Univ.Press. in in Kay, P. I975. Synchronic variability diachronic changein basiccolorterms. Language Society 25I-70. 4, in and I. Kopytoff, I97I. Ancestors elders Africa. Africa I29-42. 41, London:Bell. Burma. Leach,E. R. I954. Political systems highland of of Two essays the concerning symbolic I96I. representationtime.Reprinted Rein thinking anthropology Sch.Econ. Monogr.socialAnthrop. London: Athlone (Lond. 22). Press. and Univ. Press. I976. Culture communication, Cambridge: of In and Lee, R. B. I972. The !KungBushmen Botswana. Hunters gatherers (ed.) M. G. today Bicchieri. New York. de Universitaires France. de Lefebre, I966. Sociologie Marx,Paris:Presses H. Paris:Plon. Levi-Strauss, I962. La pense'e C. sauvage. Paris: Plon. aux cendres. -~ I966. Du miel R. Univ. of California Lowrie, H. I937. History ethnological Berkeley: of theory. Press. London:Routledge& KeganPaul. B. Malinowski, I922. ArgonautstheWestern Pacific. qf London:Laurence& Wishart. Marx,K. & F. Engels.I970. TheGerman ideology. in India. A. London:Routledge& KeganPaul. Mayer, I960. Casteandkinship central d'un niveaude determination la societe dans C. Meillassoux, I967. Recherche cynegetique. et L'Homme la Socie't6 95-I05. 6, to Econ. I972. From production reproduction. Soc. I, 93-I05. structure. London:Cohen & West. Nadel,S. I95I. Thetheory social of de Paris: Universitaires France. Piaget, I968. Le structuralisme. Presses J. in A. and and Radcliffe-Brown, R. I957. Structure function primitive society: essays addresses. London:Cohen & West. New York: Free Press. -~ I957. A natural science society. of In R. Firth the'Context Situation'. Social and of and Robins, H. I97I. Malinowski, anthropology Brit.Commonw., language E. Ardener. (ed.) (Ass.socialAnthrop. Monogr.]0). London: Tavistock. in Rosch,F. I975. Basicobjects natural categories (Working Papersof theLanguage Behaviour Research of Laboratory). Berkeley: University California. M. in roles Mount Strathern, I972. Women between:female ina male world, Hagen, NewGuinea. Press. London, New York: Seminar E. Terray, I969. Le marxisme devant socie'te's les primitives. Maspe'ro. Paris: C. & Tumbull, I966. Wayward servants. London:Eyre Spottiswood. B. and Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Whorf, L. I956. Language thought reality. Boston, Willis,R. I974. Man andbeast. London:Hart-Davis McGibbon. Woodburn, I968a.An introduction Hazda ecology. Man the J. to In hunter R. B. Lee & (eds) I. DeVore. Chicago:Aldine. and in groupings. Man the In hunter (eds) I968b.Stability flexibility Hazda residential R. B. Lee & I. DeVore. Chicago:Aldine. ---I972. Ecology, nomadicmovement thecomposition thelocal groupamong and of hunters gatherers. Man, settlement urbanism P. J. Ucko et al. London: and In and (eds) Duckworth. I976. Hunters andgatherers todayon thereconstructionthepast.Paperprepared of in for advance participation theBurgWartenstein in Symposium 70. No. forthcoming. Minimal politics, political the organisationthe of Hadzaofnorth Tanzania. In Festschrift Professor Schapera. for Isaac