Classifying Theories 2

Isa pang alternatibong klasipikasyon ng mga teoryang antropolohikal ang binigay ni Barnard (2004, tingnan dito ang nauna) sa itaas. Dalawang malalaking grupo: (1) mga teoryang ang diin ay ang pag-unawa sa ‘lipunan’, (2) mga teoryang ang diin ay ang pag-unawa sa ‘kultura’. Katulad ng naunang proposal, may suplemental na pagsasakasaysayan rin ang klasipikasyong ito: na ‘lipunan’ ang nangingibabaw na pokus noong maagang bahagi ng kasaysayan ng disiplina, at napalitan ito pagtagal ng dominanteng pokus sa pagsasa-teorya ng ‘kultura’.

Pansinin na ang interesante sa klasipikasyong ito ay ang pokus sa ‘bagay na pinag-aaralan’ (object of study): kaya sasabihin ni Barnard na may mga society-oriented anthropologists na iba’t iba ang oryentasyon at lapit (at ‘wika’) kumpara sa tatawagin niyang culture-oriented anthropologists. Ganito ang paliwanag ni Barnard:

Another way to classify the paradigms of anthropology is according to their broad interest in either society (as a social unit) or culture (as a shared set of ideas, skills, and objects). [...] Basically, the earliest anthropological concerns were with the nature of society: how humans came to associate with each other, and how and why societies changed through time. When diachronic interests were overthrown, the concern was with how society is organized or functions. Functionalists, structural-functionalists and structuralists debated with
each other over whether to emphasize relations between individuals, relations between social institutions, or relations between social categories which individuals occupy. Nevertheless, they largely agreed on a fundamental interest in the social over the cultural. The same is true of transactionalists, processualists and Marxists. [...] Society-oriented anthropologists and culture-oriented anthropologists (again, not quite the same thing as ‘social’ and ‘cultural’ anthropologists) seemed to be speaking different languages, or practising entirely different disciplines.