346 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [77,1975]

immediate necessity to secure the means of his survival, free of the poignant pressure of his physiological needs” (p. 171). The author claims t o find his inspiration for this thesis in the early writings of Karl Marx which he quotes at length. No reference is made to Malinowski’s Freedom and Civiliza- tion, or to Bidney’s Theoretical Anthro- pology or The Concept of Freedom in Modern Anthropology, which discuss the interrelation of freedom and culture at length.

The author accepts the traditional humanistic antithesis between the ought and the is of culture and stresses the subordina- tion of the is to the ought in cultural creativity. Far from considering culture as the art of adaptation to the ecological environment, Bauman regards culture as synonymous with the specifically human existence. “Culture constitutes the human experience in the sense that it constantly brings into relief the discord between the ideal and the real, that it makes reality meaningful by exposing its limitations and imperfections” (p. 173). Bauman is in full opposition to the positivistic interpretation of anthropology and sociology which would limit them to the discovery of social facts and social laws based on the observation of such facts. “Culture is unique for man in the sense that only man of all living creatures, is able to challenge his reality and to ask for a deeper meaning, justice, freedom and good- whether individual or collective” (p. 177). The author expects sociology to ascend to the level of the humanities in addition to being a science (p. 177).

Culture as Praxis is a controversial, often exciting, book which is remarkable for its attempt to synthesize contemporary soci- ological, anthropological and philosophical thought. It will repay careful consideration by anyone interested in some basic issues of con tempora ry and sociological thought.

a n t h ro p o 1 o gi cal

Sens et puissance: Les dynamiques sociales. GEORGES A. BALANDIER BibliotGque de sociologie contemporaine, Paris: Presses Uni- versitaires de France, 1971. 334 pp., figures, indexes. Fr34.00 (paper).

Reviewed by IRENE PORTIS WINNER Brown Uniwrsity

Inspired by his long interest in African societies and their reactions to domination, Balandier presents his theoretical program where social dynamics are interpreted in their double appearance, “du dedans et du dehors.” This critique of social reality ap- prehends two social levels (appearances and social realities) and their interrelationships. The disengagement between these levels, although general to all social behavior, is intensified by the colonial situation. Under criticism are both rigid forms of evolution- ism and developmentalism, and inflexible and atemporal forms of structuralism. For in Balandier’s view, society is an approximate and moving order always being modified, although it is subjected to internal and external constraints.

According to the author, this collection of texts relating to his researches is arranged to facilitate the definition and illustration of his new conception of social systems. But only the preface, the opening chapter and the conclusion are new studies. Among the older selections, there is considerable repeti- tion and some pieces appear dated. Of greatest interest is the author’s development of his theories (termed dynamic) contained in the new sections, to which the remainder of my remarks must, all too briefly, be directed.

The following points emerge from the opening essay entitled “Social Dynamics:” (1) The break between social statics and dynamics is rejected since social dynamics are inherent in structures, resulting from both external and internal factors. The vulnerable and problematical arrangement of systems of relations is insisted upon, as is the presence in society of social disorder and incertitude. The total adjustment of societies to diverse environments is an illusion, since social orders are maintained by successive approximations in spite of appearances. (2) There are two primary forms of dynamics: internal, manifest in the constant function- ing of society, and external, bringing about long-term transformations. Traditional con- cepts of continuity have been expanded to the detriment of those stressing event, rupture and crisis; the confrontation con- tinuing to this day. Here the author refers to his Political Anthropology (1969) for fur- ther elucidation. (3) The organizing role of differences within dynamic structures is fundamental not only in modern, but also in traditional societies.

GENERAL AND THEORETICAL 347

The concluding chapter points to the conflicts posed in this work: (1) Anthro- pologists are now coming to the study of significant differences that are disturbed and multiplied by the intervention of external dynamics, creating relations of dominance and dependence. These disturbances, at the international level, are one form of the contest “de la puissance (porteuse de domination uniformisante) et du sens (porteur de valeur et de difference)” (p. 290). (2) The present dimensions of society, and its repressive character, account for a continuing debate between “l’instituant” and “l’instituh” (p. 291) that threatens the principle of continuity. (3) Three general landmarks should orient conceptions of soci- ety’s future. First of all, social behavior affords a space for intervention of human liberty. Yet all slackening of the collective serves to increase entropy. (See Uspenskij et al. 1973:2-3 for a related concept of non- culture.) Second, since society is ap- proximate it is called into action to search for a more complete realization and to struggle against entropy. Third, since society is in constant formation, the power of choice of orientation, and of definition through ideology, is upheld.

Balandier concludes that pluri- dimensional societies must secure the fullest participation of social actors in fashioning the creative society. Fundamental goals are the mutual control of power (puissance) and collective creation of meaning (sens) (p. 299).

The heuristic value and critical stance of this work largely compensate for its various redundancies. Its insights should stimulate further investigations of the theoretical con- flicts posed, and contribute to the sharpen- ing of new approaches to society and cul- ture.

References Cited

Balandier, Georges 1 9 6 9 Anthropologie politique (2nd

edition). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Uspenskij, B. A., et al. 1973 Theses on the Semiotic Study of

Culture (as applied to Slavic Texts). In Structure of Texts and Semiotics of Culture. Jan van der Eng and Mojmir Grygar, Eds. The Hague: Mouton. pp. 1-28.

Theories of Man and Culture. ELVIN HATCH. New York & London: Columbia University Press, 1973. viii + 384 pp., references, index. $12.50 (cloth).

Reviewed by STANLEY ROSEN University of Wisconsin, Madison

A discipline’s paradigm is its model of reality which both defines and limits its research. In anthropology the paradigm has been built on the concept of culture and the definition of human nature. For it is in the interconnections between the two, man and culture, that anthropology has found its unique perspective and through which has been woven the thread of anthropological explanation. As with all paradigms, the manlculture model has not remained static, but has varied from anthropologist to an- thropologist, from theoretical school to theoretical school, and from period to period.

It is on these variations that Dr. Hatch has focused his exposition of the work of ten important anthropologists. The focus is felicitous, for through it we are able to appreciate the theoretical frameworks the anthropologists labored within and the influ- ences and limitations they exerted on their anthropological worldviews. In addition, as a result of the careful selection of the anthro- pologists and their variations in time and theory, we are given an overview of the changes in anthropological theory that occurred between the end of the nineteenth century and the middle of the twentieth.

The chapter on Boas and Tylor and the one on Durkheim form the cornerstones of the book. In the former we see the epitome of the nineteenth century paradigm-rational, utilitarian, orthogeneticset cheek by jowl with the twentieth century paradigm- anti-rationalist, idealistic, anti-evolutionary- that set the stage for the development of American anthropology. And in the latter we are given a view of the sociologie, with its emphasis on the social and moral milieu, that was to be transformed into the model for British social anthropology, with its emphasis on social structure and function.

Durkheim’s sociology and, t o a somewhat lesser extent, Boas’ anthropology had such a powerful influence on the shape of twentieth century social science because of their depth and profundity; they opened not one, but many new roads. It is a strength of