The Soviet and the Savage [and Comments and Replies]

• Published in: Current anthropology 1975-12, Vol.16 (4), p.595-617
• Main Authors: Gellner, Ernest, Akhmanova, Olga, Bessac, Frank B., Yu. V. Bromley, Dragadze, Tamara, Dunn, Stephen P., Fischer, J. L., Halpern, Joel, Krader, Lawrence, Lewis, E. Glyn, MacConaill, M. A., Makarius, Raoul, Newcomer, Peter J., Pershitz, A. I., Petrova-Averkieva, J. P., Sadomskaya, Natalia, Semeka-Pankratov, Elena, Yu. I. Semenov, Shimkin, Demitri B.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anthropology; Cultural anthropology; Ethnography; Evolutionism; Functionalism; Marxian economics; Marxism; Marxist anthropology; Social evolution; Soviet archaeology
• ISSN: 0011-3204; 1537-5382
• DOI: 10.1086/201621

Social anthropology, in the West and in Russia, sprang in part from an interest in the evolution of mankind: "primitive" society was relevant as a kind of surrogate time-machine, as evidence about the earlier "stages" in the development of human society. But the British and Russian traditions went in markedly different directions in the 20th century. Under the impact of the Malinowskian revolution, social anthropology in Britain acquired a marked synchronic bias. Even with a later revival of interest in history, the effects of this "functionalist" attitude continue to be felt, notably in the absence of any coherent typology of social forms. By contrast, Russian anthropology (locally called ethnography nowadays) has, through assuming Marxist forms in the U.S.S.R., inherited the Marxist concern with a typology of social formations, and moreover one inevitably inspired by the idea of an overall evolution of humanity. The article explores the benefits and the difficulties of the Fragestellung inspired by such a vision, notably the difficulties which arise from any rigid application of the five-plus typology of social forms found in traditional Marxism, and the manner in which contemporary Soviet scholars cope with these problems.